TransportBingara Gorge Assessment Transport

Assessment Bingara Gorge

BingaraNA82013034 Gorge - Land and

Environment Court – Appeal 10554 of 2015

NA82013034

Prepared for Lend Lease

November 2015

Transport Assessment

Document Information Prepared for Lend Lease Project Name Bingara Gorge File Reference NA82013043.TransportAssessment.151125.Final.doc Job Reference NA82013034 Date November 2015

Contact Information Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd ABN 57 051 074 992

Level 11 Green Square North Tower 515 St Paul’s Terrace Locked Bag 4006 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006

Telephone: 07 3369 9822 Facsimile: 07 3369 9722 International: +61 7 3369 9822 [email protected] www.cardno.com.au

Document Control

Author Date Description of Revision Reviewed Signature Signature

Version Author Initials Reviewer Initials

Draft 23 November, 2015 Draft Report KS Not signed

Final 25 November, 2015 Final Report KS SH

Approved Reason for Issue / Stage of Deliverable Approved Release Date Signature

Version Approver Initials

Draft Issue to Client for Review KS Not signed 23 November, 2015

Final Issue for Submission KS 25 November, 2015

© Cardno 2015. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno. This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease ii Transport Assessment

Executive Summary

Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a Transport Assessment for the Bingara Gorge Residential Development. This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised in the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A. The subject of this Transport Assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved 1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara Gorge development. At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering. In response to the Wollondilly Shire Council SOFC and the conclave discussions, Cardno has reassessed a selection of the primary analysis assumptions and developed a new SATURN mesoscopic model that is representative of the Bingara Gorge development and the adjacent road network at the 2036 time horizon. The model has been used to quantify and assess the internal and external traffic demands and operations for the already approved 1,165 dwelling scenario in addition to the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario. The SATURN traffic demand estimations include two-way link demands for each of the internal development road sections as well as intersection turning movements. The turning movements have been used as inputs to the supplementary SIDRA assessment of the key internal and external traffic intersections to confirm traffic operations and upgrading requirements. The SIDRA analysis confirms that engineering solutions are possible at the external Picton Road intersections of Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. The analysis confirms that both intersections will ultimately require signalisation irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield scenario. The internal development intersections have also been assessed as operating well within typically adopted performance thresholds for both yield scenarios. Ongoing discussions are recommended relating to the timing and funding of the external intersection solutions. As would be expected, the SATURN assessment confirms that the proposed yield expansion will result in an increase in traffic demands on many of the major internal road connections. The daily traffic demands output from the model indicate key development connections including Pembroke Parade, Oxenbridge Avenue, Greenbridge Drive, and Fairway Drive will cater for traffic demands that are at the upper range of the broader planning thresholds typically published by a selection of Australian planning and approvals authorities. Cardno suggests that the demands may be considered reasonable based on consideration of: > The traffic assumptions adopted as part of the SATURN modelling exercise are conservative, especially at the 2036 time horizon where the car mode share is projected to be lower given improved public transport and nearby external employment and retail development > The majority (86-87%) of the proposed 1,800 residential dwellings do not have any frontage to internal development roads which have been modelled as carrying more than 1,500 vpd. This figure is comparable or higher than that referenced in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Section 7.3) > Each of the critical internal road sections include separate provision for kerbside or indented car parking, thereby ensuring the full-time provision for two general traffic lanes > The density of direct residential frontage access on the critical road sections is relatively low > Road reserves are relatively wide and include pathway provisions for pedestrians and cyclists > The already constructed residential dwellings on critical internal sections have been located such that they are set-back 12-25m from the edge of the kerb. These larger than typical set- back characteristics will likely reduce any acoustic or amenity impact resulting from the modelled increase in traffic demand.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease iii Transport Assessment

Table of Contents

Executive Summary iii 1 Introduction 1 1.2 Expert Witness Code of Conduct Statement 2 2 Background 3 2.1 Bingara Gorge Development Background 3 2.2 Appeal Background 3 3 Transport Assessment Scope 4 4 Existing Situation 5 4.1 Hume Motorway (Federal Motorway) 5 4.2 Picton Road (State and Regional Road) 5 4.3 Pembroke Parade (Local Road) 5 4.4 Almond Street (Local Road) 6 4.5 Oxenbridge Avenue 6 4.6 Fairway Drive 7 4.7 Greenbridge Drive 9 4.8 Wollondilly Street (Wilton Oval Road) 11 4.9 Key Intersections 11 5 Proposed Development 12 5.1 Proposed (Revised) Yield 12 5.2 Proposed (Revised) Internal Road Layout 12 6 Transport Assessment Methodology 14 6.1 Traffic Generation 14 6.2 School Traffic Generation 17 6.3 Retail Traffic Generation 17 6.4 Leisure and Golf Course Generation 18 6.5 SATURN Traffic Model Development 18 6.6 External Traffic Assignment and Distribution 21 6.7 External Traffic Growth on Picton Road 21 6.8 SIDRA Model Development 22 7 Intersection Operations 23 7.1 External Intersections 23 7.2 Internal Intersections 30 7.3 Other Internal Intersection Operations 33 8 Internal Traffic Demand and Amenity Assessment 34 8.1 Specific Road Section Amenity Comment 39 8.2 General Road Amenity Comment 40 9 Response to Statement of Facts and Contentions 41 10 Summary and Conclusions 45

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease iv Transport Assessment

Tables

Table 6-1 Primary Cardno External Traffic Distribution Assumptions 21 Table 6-2 Wollondilly Shire Council Requested External Traffic Distribution Assumptions 21 Table 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 24 Table 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 25 Table 7-3 Picton Road / Almond Street (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 27 Table 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 28 Table 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – Failure Year Sensitivity Test 28 Table 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 29 Table 7-7 Existing Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 31 Table 7-8 Existing Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 33 Table 8-1 Summary of Published Residential Traffic Amenity Thresholds 34 Table 8-2 Summary of Daily Traffic Demands on Internal Bingara Gorge Road Sections 35

Figures

Figure 1-1 Indicative Boundary and Immediate Site Location of Bingara Gorge Development 1 Figure 4-1 Pembroke Parade Existing Formation 5 Figure 4-2 Pembroke Parade – Road Sections and Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings 6 Figure 4-3 Oxenbridge Avenue Existing Formation 7 Figure 4-4 Oxenbridge Avenue –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings 7 Figure 4-5 Fairway Drive – Existing Cross-Section With Indented Car Parking 8 Figure 4-6 Fairway Drive Bridge – Existing Cross Section 8 Figure 4-7 Fairway Drive –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings – Section 3 9 Figure 4-8 Greenbridge Drive – Section 1 Existing Cross Section 10 Figure 4-9 Greenbridge Drive – Section 2 Existing Cross Section 10 Figure 4-10 Greenbridge Drive – Section 3 Existing Cross Section 10 Figure 4-11 Wollondilly Shire Council – Category C Road Cross-Section 11 Figure 5-1 Bingara Gorge Key Internal and External Road Arrangements 13 Figure 6-1 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Area 15 Figure 6-2 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Results 16 Figure 6-3 SATURN Road and Development Network 20 Figure 6-4 2013 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 21 Figure 6-5 2024 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 22 Figure 6-6 2036 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 22 Figure 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – Existing Unsignalised Form (Seagull T-Junction) 23 Figure 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 24 Figure 7-3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation 25 Figure 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street – Existing Unsignalised Form (T-Junction) 26 Figure 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 26 Figure 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded (Seagull) Formation 27

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease v Transport Assessment

Figure 7-7 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation 29 Figure 7-8 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – Existing Roundabout Form 30 Figure 7-9 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 31 Figure 7-10 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – Existing Roundabout Form 32 Figure 7-11 Pembroke Parade / Fairway / Greenbridge Drive– SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 32 Figure 8-1 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,165 Residential Dwellings 36 Figure 8-2 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,800 Residential Dwellings 37 Figure 8-3 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – Difference Plot between 1,800 and 1,165 Residential Dwellings 38

Appendices

Appendix A Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions Appendix B Section 34 Conclave Traffic Scope and Agreement Appendix C SATURN Modelling Outputs Appendix D SIDRA Modelling Outputs Appendix E Report Author Curriculum Vitaes

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease vi Transport Assessment

1 Introduction

Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a transport assessment for the Bingara Gorge Residential Development. This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised in the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A. The subject of this transport assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved 1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara Gorge development. Cardno understand that the non-residential uses and yields including golf course, ancillary leisure (i.e. private gym and pools), and the neighbourhood retail centre will remain consistent with the existing approval. The Bingara Gorge development comprises 450 hectares of land that is approximately 80 kilometres south of the Sydney CBD. The site is located in the Wollondilly Shire local government area. The site is generally bounded by Picton Road to the south, the Hume Highway to the west and north, open space/natural environment to the north and east, and an existing residential catchment in the south-east. Vehicular access to the site is achieved via Picton Road and primarily via its intersections with Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. The indicative location of the proposed Bingara Gorge development is shaded in Figure 1-1 below.

Figure 1-1 Indicative Boundary and Immediate Site Location of Bingara Gorge Development

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 1 Transport Assessment

1.2 Expert Witness Code of Conduct Statement The technical advice and opinion documented herein is based on transport modelling and investigations undertaken by Cardno. The transport modelling includes many traffic engineering assumptions, the source of which are summarised throughout the report. A physical inspection of the current Bingara Gorge site arrangements was completed prior to the preparation of this advice. The authors of this report acknowledge the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and we confirm that as far as is practicable or that we are aware, the facts and statements documented in this report are true and correct and that the professional opinions made herein are genuinely held. Furthermore, it is our opinion that there are no matters of significance relating to the issues addressed in this report which we regard as relevant, which may have been withheld from the Court.

1.2.1 Shane Healey Experience Shane Healey Shane has a Bachelor of Engineering degree and is a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ no. 8343) specializing in traffic engineering and transport planning. Shane is a Principal Transport Engineer with Cardno and is currently the Market Sector Leader – Traffic & Transport for the groups’ operations in both Queensland and Western Australia. Shane has over 18 years’ experience in the delivery of traffic engineering and transport planning projects across Australia, having held senior positions within Cardno in both Queensland and Western Australia. Shane is regularly called upon to provide expert evidence in Queensland’s Planning and Environment Court as he is considered an expert in the traffic engineering field. In recognition of his expertise Shane was seconded to the Department of Transport and Main Roads during 2002 during which time he authored their guidelines for impact assessments, now known as the Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Development (GARID). A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided at Appendix E.

1.2.2 Kris Stone Experience Kris is a Senior Traffic Engineer with a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Kris is also a Department of Transport and Main Roads accredited Senior Road Safety Auditor with eleven years’ experience in the fields of traffic engineering, transport planning and road safety. Kris has significant experience in delivering traffic planning and operational input as part of the design for residential communities, commercial, and super-regional shopping centres. Kris has recently finalised a 12 month role with the City of Gold Coast where he acted as the Senior Road Safety Officer. During this time, he was responsible for the development of the City’s first Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan in partnership with Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police, RACQ and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided at Appendix E.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 2 Transport Assessment

2 Background

2.1 Bingara Gorge Development Background This Transport Assessment builds upon previous investigations and reporting prepared by Cardno in relation to the proposed residential yield expansion. It is intended that the results and outcomes reported herein supersede previous traffic findings where there is conflict. In the undertaking of this assessment, Cardno has been provided access to a selection of background traffic and transport studies which may relate to the current Bingara Gorge development. The following is a brief summary of these documents: > Bingara Gorge Residential Development – Traffic Impact Assessment (Cardno, April 2015). This analysis and reporting was submitted in support of the proposed residential yield expansion. It is understood that the items raised in the SOFC document reference this particular report > Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014). This analysis and reporting was prepared by PB for the broader Wilton Junction development which proposes 11-13,000 residential dwellings inclusive of the Bingara Gorge development > Traffic Report for Proposed Rezoning for Employment Land, Wilton (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, August, 2005). This is understood to be the original traffic reporting submitted in support of the (now approved) 1,165 residential dwellings > Wilton Parklands (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, March, 2006). This advice built upon the information provided by CBH&K in their February advice. Cardno understand that the combined information supplied by CBH&K in the 2005/2006 studies formed the basis for the original approval of the 1,165 residential dwellings > Wilton Parklands – Review of External Traffic Effects (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, February 2006). This summary report was prepared by CBH&K in response to RTA and Council queries raised in relation to the original Development Application traffic reporting. 2.2 Appeal Background This Transport Assessment has been undertaken in relation to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. Cardno has been engaged to provide traffic and transport advice on behalf of Lend Lease. While acting in this role, Cardno has been party to the following appeal matters: > Response to the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document > Attendance at Section 34 conclave meeting with opposing traffic expert. 2.2.1.1 Statement of Facts and Contentions Cardno was involved in preparing a preliminary formal response to the traffic and transport items raised in the SOFC document. The Cardno technical positions and views has been refined during supplementary data collection and analysis and this reporting includes updated responses to the SOFC items. 2.2.1.2 Section 34 Conclave meeting with opposing traffic expert At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering. A copy of the most recent Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions is attached at Appendix B. The Transport Assessment summarised herein has been undertaken generally in accordance with this October 23rd scope of works.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 3 Transport Assessment

3 Transport Assessment Scope

The Bingara Gorge development already has an existing planning approval for 1,165 residential dwellings. The subject of the Development Application is the proposed expansion of this existing approved yield by 635 residential dwellings to 1,800 dwellings. The scope of this Transport Assessment has been developed such that it assesses both the proposed (1,800 dwellings) and the approved (1,165 dwellings) scenario. The simultaneous analysis of both yield scenarios with the same technical methodology (i.e. assumptions, background data, and modelling tool/package) means that the Transport Assessment can quantify both the ultimate 1,800 dwelling traffic situation as well as the incremental impacts or effects compared to the already approved situation. The comprehensive Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions document is included at Appendix B. The key elements as they relate to the Transport Assessment scope are summarised below: > The revised analysis will assess and compare the subject residential yield increase (1,165 dwellings to the proposed 1,800 dwellings) > The Cardno technical approach will utilise a combined SATURN and SIDRA assessment methodology given the PB AIMSUN model originally requested to be used by RMS in the SOFC could not be provided in a timely manner > The revised analysis will assesses the morning and evening peak hour periods, and the daily traffic demand scenario. The assessment should consider: - Internal road link demands and possible traffic amenity issues - External Picton Road intersection operations and upgrade requirements > The revised assessment should not consider any possible future development identified as part of the broader Wilton Junction plan as this has already been assessed as part of the Wilton Junction TMAP. Based on the items included in the SOFC and the conclave discussions, this Transport Assessment focuses on the following key traffic and transport aspects: > External traffic operations at Picton Road intersections > Internal intersection operations within the Bingara Gorge development > Internal two-way traffic demands on individual road sections within the Bingara Gorge development.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 4 Transport Assessment

4 Existing Situation

4.1 Hume Motorway (Federal Motorway) The Hume Motorway links Sydney and Melbourne, running approximately 807km in the southwest- northeast direction. In the vicinity of the subject site, the Hume Motorway consists of two-lane roads in either direction within an approximate 13.0m carriageway, with a speed limit of 110 km/h. 4.2 Picton Road (State and Regional Road) Picton Road runs approximately 37.0km in a west-east direction and links Wollongong and Picton. Picton Road is a two-lane road for most of its length, with a 14.0 metre carriageway within a 40.0 metre road reservation. Five million dollars of works are anticipated to begin on Picton Road in mid-2015 to upgrade the intersection of Hume Motorway and Picton Road. The upgrade to the intersection from priority control to signals is to improve capacity and safety in response to recent crash history with 45 crashes occurring at the intersection within the last five years. In the vicinity of the Bingara Gorge development Picton Road has a speed limit of 90km/hr, with 80km/hr for westbound traffic west of the intersection of Pembroke Parade. Picton Road provides access to the Bingara Gorge Residential Development via the intersections with Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. Picton Road also serves as a major freight corridor and is subject to increased freight movement with the anticipated expansion at Port Kembla and growth in associated industries. 4.3 Pembroke Parade (Local Road) Pembroke Parade is a local road that serves as the majority access route to the site to/from Picton Road. At present, Pembroke Parade has been constructed with a two-lane, median divided form within an approximate 31-32m road reserve. Both directions of trafficable pavement are approximately 6m wide and consist of a 3.5 general traffic lane and a 2.5m kerbside parking lane. Active travel facilities for pedestrians and casual cyclists are provided via shared 2.5m footpaths constructed in each verge for the entirety of its length. The already constructed residential dwellings fronting Pembroke Parade are set-back from the kerb by approximately 15-25m.

Figure 4-1 Pembroke Parade Existing Formation

The form of Pembroke Parade is consistent along its entire length; however, it can be evaluated in two separate sections: > Section 1 – No direct residential access between Picton Road and Oxenbridge Avenue > Section 2 – Direct residential access between Oxenbridge Avenue and Fairway / Greenbridge Drives.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 5 Transport Assessment

Figure 4-2 Pembroke Parade – Road Sections and Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings

Section 1 Section 2 Direct Frontage Access Dwellings - Entry Route - Exit Route

There are no residential dwellings that achieve direct site access in Section 1 of Pembroke Parade. The dwellings that are located adjacent to the section achieve access via minor intersecting roadways and associated laneways. There are only 17 residential dwellings that achieve vehicular access directly from Section 2 of Pembroke Parade. Of the 17 total dwellings, there are six on the northern (entry route) and 11 on the southern (exit route). Vehicles entering these dwellings may decelerate in the kerbside parking lane and should not pose a significant hazard or delay to other following vehicles continuing straight north or south. 4.4 Almond Street (Local Road) Almond Street is a local road which extends approximately 1km in a north-south direction and provides indirect access between Picton Road and Bingara Gorge. Almond Street is constructed with a 7.0 metre carriageway within a 20.0 metre road reservation. There is limited pedestrian provision with no footpaths, and no on-street parking available throughout the majority of its length. Almond Street has a speed limit of 50km/h and provides access to the Wilton Recreation Reserve, the existing township of Wilton, and a selection of existing Bingara Gorge residential dwellings. 4.5 Oxenbridge Avenue Oxenbridge Avenue has been constructed with a 6.5m trafficable pavement and additional provision for indented car parking (2.25-2.5m) on both sides of the street within a 19m reserve. The indented car parking has been constructed for a significant proportion of the length of the street with the exception of some shorter sections to achieve landscaping and separation between turning movements opposite intersections.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 6 Transport Assessment

Figure 4-3 Oxenbridge Avenue Existing Formation

In the 480m section between Pembroke Parade and Hornby Street, there are currently 14 residential dwellings that achieve direct frontage access to Oxenbridge Avenue. The majority of dwellings are set- back from the edge of the traffic lane by 12-15m.

Figure 4-4 Oxenbridge Avenue –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings

4.6 Fairway Drive Fairway Drive has been constructed with a 6.5-7m trafficable pavement and additional provision for indented car parking (2.25-2.5m wide) on both sides of the street within an approximate 22m reserve. The indented car parking has been constructed for a significant proportion of the length of the street with the exception of some shorter sections to achieve landscaping and separation between turning movements opposite intersections.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 7 Transport Assessment

Figure 4-5 Fairway Drive – Existing Cross-Section With Indented Car Parking

The form of Fairway Drive is generally consistent along its entire length; however, it can be evaluated in three separate sections: > Section 1 – No direct residential access between Pembroke Parade and Kangaloon Close > Section 2 – Limited access between Kangaloon Close and Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase > Section 3 – Moderate residential access proposed north of Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase. An exception to the typical form described above occurs in Section 1 at the bridge crossing approximately 110-150m west of Pembroke Parade. In this short bridge section, the following approximate dimensions have been constructed: > 2.5m southern footpath > 4.3m northbound traffic lane > 1.2m raised central median > 3.9m southbound traffic lane > 2.5m northern footpath.

Figure 4-6 Fairway Drive Bridge – Existing Cross Section

No properties front Section 1 of and there are no proposals to ever achieve site access from this section of Fairway Drive. Section 2 can only ever accommodate five dwellings that would have the potential to achieve direct access to the 210m length of Fairway Drive. The four (of five) dwellings that have already been constructed are set-back from the edge of the traffic lane by 12-15m.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 8 Transport Assessment

The proposed plans of development (1,800 dwellings) indicate that there may be a further 22 dwellings developed north of Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase which would achieve direct access to/from Fairway Drive in the 560m section measured to the far right (north) of Figure 4-7. The remainder of dwellings that front Fairway Drive will achieve access via the minor intersecting roads.

Figure 4-7 Fairway Drive –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings – Section 3

The following is a summary of the number of direct residential access driveways that will ultimately be located on reviewed section of Fairway Drive: > Section 1 – 0 dwellings > Section 2 – 5 dwellings > Section 3 – 22 dwellings > Combined - 27 dwellings. 4.7 Greenbridge Drive Greenbridge Drive has been constructed with a variety of configurations and can be described in three sections: > Section 1 – Two lane (divided and undivided) with angle car parking adjacent the neighbourhood retail between Pembroke Parade and Chisolm Street > Section 2 – 8.5m trafficable pavement with additional indented or kerbside car parking or coach set-down facilities on both sides of the street creating a 12.75-13m kerb-to-kerb cross-section opposite the school between Chisolm Street and Beatty Street / Woodward Road > Section 3 – 7m trafficable pavement with additional indented car parking (2.25-2.5m) on both sides of the street between Beatty Street / Woodward Road and the (current) terminus near Maloney Chase.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 9 Transport Assessment

Figure 4-8 Greenbridge Drive – Section 1 Existing Cross Section

Figure 4-9 Greenbridge Drive – Section 2 Existing Cross Section

Figure 4-10 Greenbridge Drive – Section 3 Existing Cross Section

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 10 Transport Assessment

4.8 Wollondilly Street (Wilton Oval Road) Cardno understand that there is a planning agreement obligation for Lend Lease to construct Wollondilly Street to a Category C type road cross-section, illustrated on Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-11 Wollondilly Shire Council – Category C Road Cross-Section

The 8m road pavement does not include any indented car parking. The Bingara Gorge development does not include any frontage to the street section. 4.9 Key Intersections

4.9.1 External Intersections The following existing key external intersections are located within close proximity to the Bingara Gorge Residential Development: > Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (priority control – seagull intersection) > Picton Road / Almond Street (priority control) > Hume Highway / Picton Road – (RMS signalisation upgrade).

4.9.2 Internal Intersections The following internal Bingara Gorge development intersections have been identified as being key: > Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge – roundabout intersection > Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge – roundabout intersection. The assessment of other lower order internal intersections has been undertaken exclusively in SATURN, not SIDRA.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 11 Transport Assessment

5 Proposed Development

The already approved Bingara Gorge development is comprised predominately of detached residential dwellings lots. The approved development also incorporates the following land uses and yields: > Primary school with 460 enrolments > 1,252sq.m neighbourhood retail centre > 18 hole golf course > Ancillary (private for Bingara occupants) recreation facilities. Cardno has been advised that it is likely that the already approved 1,165 dwellings would be fully occupied by 2024-2026. 5.1 Proposed (Revised) Yield The proposed development includes an expansion of the approved residential yield to include an additional 635 dwellings for a total of 1,800 dwellings. Cardno understand that the proposed development does not include any notable revisions to the already approved land uses and yields. 5.2 Proposed (Revised) Internal Road Layout The proposed developable ‘foot print’ remains unchanged from that already approved as part of the 1,165 dwellings scenario. The internal road arrangements therefore remain generally unchanged and could be considered an evolution of the already approved network. The internal network will continue to be structured with two separate ‘central spine’ connections providing access to the northern residential precincts. These routes will also continue to be connected by two east- west roads; one being the (current) partially constructed Greenbridge Drive / Maloney Chase route passing through the school and retail centre area, and the other being the existing Hornby Street which connects to Pembroke Parade via Oxenbridge Avenue. Only minor modifications are proposed to the secondary and tertiary level street connections as a result of the proposal to achieve the additional residential yield. No significant modifications are proposed to the primary Major Collector routes. The higher order road network that has been included in the traffic assessment is indicated in Figure 5-1.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 12 Transport Assessment

Figure 5-1 Bingara Gorge Key Internal and External Road Arrangements

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 13 Transport Assessment

6 Transport Assessment Methodology

Consistent with the scope identified in Section 3 of this report, the objective of this Transport Assessment is to determine the following: > Investigate and confirm traffic assumptions previously adopted in earlier analysis submitted as part of the Development Application > Assess external traffic operations and upgrading requirements at Picton Road intersections > Assess internal intersection operations within the Bingara Gorge development > Evaluate internal two-way traffic demands on individual road sections within the Bingara Gorge development. In order to deliver outcome for these key elements, the following is addressed: > Quantify the development traffic generation > Determine the external development trip distribution > Evaluate the projected background traffic growth on the adjacent road network (i.e. Picton Road) > Develop a network traffic model and assign development traffic to the local road network for the following scenarios: - 2013 ‘No Development’ AM, PM, and Daily traffic scenario; - 2036 ‘With Development’ AM, PM, and Daily traffic scenario. 6.1 Traffic Generation Cardno has reinvestigated the traffic generation assumptions that were previously adopted in the April 2015 Development Application reporting. The following section outlines the revised generation technical position and also summarises a selection of the preceding assumptions.

6.1.1 Previous Residential Traffic Generation Assumptions The following is a summary of the residential traffic generation assumptions made in previous traffic reporting prepared by Cardno and other engineering consultants. This information is reproduced herein to provide clarity regarding the previous planning for the development. 6.1.1.1 Traffic Report for Proposed Rezoning for Employment Land, Wilton (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, August, 2005). Traffic generation rates for the residential component are not documented. 6.1.1.1.1 Wilton Parklands – Review of External Traffic Effects (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, February 2006) This 2006 advice prepared by CBH&K referenced the following traffic generation assumptions: > 0.64 trips per dwelling which was determined from the 0.85 vph per dwelling referenced in the then current RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development guideline with an additional 25% containment factor > 0.57 trips per dwelling which references the 0.64 vph rate with an additional 10% reduction to consider travel plans, public transport, and internal employment > 0.48 trips per dwelling based on a previous assessment undertaken by Kilsby. 6.1.1.1.2 Wilton Parklands (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, March, 2006) This 2006 advice prepared by CBH&K referenced the following traffic generation assumptions: > Survey of Wilton township (250 dwellings) where the findings were: - 0.7 trips per dwelling in the AM peak including internal trips adopted for assessment - Directional Split 65% out and 35% in - Analysis considered an additional 25% reduction to account for internal development trips.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 14 Transport Assessment

6.1.1.1.3 Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014) > 0.7 trips per dwellings referenced from the CBH&K surveys, however, assuming that this figure did not include internal trips > 0.08 and 0.14 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively) increase to account for internal trips > 0.78 and 0.84 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively) adopted for assessment. 6.1.1.1.4 Bingara Gorge Residential Development – Traffic Impact Assessment (Cardno, April 2015) In the 2015 Development Application reporting, Cardno adopted the residential generation rates used by PB in their study to ensure consistency when comparing results. > 0.78 and 0.84 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively).

6.1.2 Proposed Residential Traffic Generation Assumptions This Transport Assessment adopts the following trip generation rates for the residential component: > 0.8 vph per dwelling in the AM and PM peak hours > 8.1 vpd per dwelling throughout the day > 75%/25% in/out (out/in) peak hour directional split. These rates were determined from pneumatic tube count surveys undertaken for the adjacent Wilton residential catchment. The surveys were conducted by sub-consultant Austraffic between Saturday September 5th and Friday September 11th, 2015. The survey area encompassed 167 residential dwellings located in Wilton, NSW as shown on Figure 6-1 below.

Figure 6-1 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Area

The surveyed catchment includes detached residential dwellings of a similar general nature to those that have been and are proposed to be constructed as part of the Bingara Gorge development. The survey area did include a sports club, however, the use is minor and the surveying of any of its related traffic movements would produce a conservative (higher) generation result.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 15 Transport Assessment

The survey results are summarised at Figure 6-2. The results indicate that the AM peak hour was lower than the PM. The PM result was adopted for both peak hour periods so as to provide a conservative estimate of the potential traffic generation during the critical AM (egress) peak hour.

Figure 6-2 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Results

Cardno suggests that the 0.8 vph per dwelling result is appropriate for use as part of this Transport Assessment given the similar nature of the residential dwellings and the similar site location. The survey boundaries will included trips that could be described as being ‘internal’. The Wollondilly Shire SOFC text (items i and ii) suggests that generation rates equalling 0.94 and 0.9 vph per dwelling may be more appropriate for the respective AM and PM peak hours. Cardno understands that these generation rates were determined by Wollondilly Shire Council based on comparisons to the Journey to Work (JTW) which documents a vehicle driver proportion of 86%. JTW data reported by Bureau of Statistics for the Local Government Areas surveyed as part of the RMS TDT 2013/04a advice are very similar to Wollondilly: > Wollondilly – 85% as driver / 5% as passenger > Coffs Harbour – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger > Orange – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger > Wagga Wagga – 81% as driver / 8% as passenger > Wollongong – 76% as driver / 6% as passenger. The SOFC reference to the Journey to Work dataset is reasonable, however, it does not consider trips made for other non-employment purposes. Based on the most recent 2012/13 Household Travel Survey (HTS), only 26% of Wollondilly trips are made for commuting or work related business. Furthermore, the 2012/13 HTS reports that 58% of total dwelling trips are made as a car driver and an additional 23% as a passenger. These proportions are similar to the RMS surveyed Wollongong LGA (53% and 23%). Based on the JTW and HTS results, Cardno suggests that the Wollondilly travel behaviours are similar to those surveyed at the five regional RMS sites referenced in TDT 2013/04a, summarised as: > AM average – 0.71 vph per dwelling > PM average – 0.78 vph per dwelling > Daily average – 7.4 vpd per dwelling. The rates adopted as part of the Transport Assessment are therefore considered reasonable and appropriate given they have been determined from actual data and are higher than the rates summarised in the most recent RMS TDT2013/04a advice.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 16 Transport Assessment

6.2 School Traffic Generation The already approved primary school has been designed to accommodate an enrolment of 460 students. Cardno has assumed that this enrolment figure was determined based on the already approved 1,165 residential dwellings and that the majority of students will live locally within the development. The school traffic generation has been determined via a first principles approach using the following assumptions: > 90% - proportion of enrolled students living within Bingara Gorge > Vehicle mode share - 60% of internal enrolments travel via car - 100% of external enrolments travel via car > 1.33 students per vehicle – average occupancy of all car trips > Trip assignment - 20% of internal enrolment school trips are wholly internal to the site (i.e. they are generated at the dwelling and return to the dwelling after the trip) - 80% of internal enrolment school trips occur as a segment of a longer multi-leg trip (i.e. drop- in trip) and continue to external destinations after visiting the school to drop off children > Peak hour proportions - 100% of the morning peak school trips are made during the AM road peak hour - 60% of the afternoon peak school trips are made during the PM road peak hour > 5% - proportion of peak hour trips that enter, but do not exit during the AM peak hour (i.e. staff and/or parents arriving at the end of the peak hour). The inverse (5% more) exit without entering during the PM peak hour > Daily traffic factor - The daily traffic generation for the school has been estimated via the application of a factor of five to the combined AM and PM peak hour demands. This approach is the same as that employed for the residential trips where the peak to daily factor equals 10. This approximation is conservative. The resulting school traffic generation is 430 trips (entering and exiting) during the AM peak hour. This figure is higher than the previously assessed 359 trips which referenced surveys of other primary schools (0.78 trips per enrolment). These school trip end parameters are fixed for the 1,165 dwelling scenario. The level of internalisation relating to the 1,800 dwelling scenario is therefore lower given no additional residential peak hour trips are made to/from the school. Any additional education related trips generated by the incremental 635 dwellings therefore travel external to the site to complete their trip purpose. 6.3 Retail Traffic Generation The already approved neighbourhood retail centre (1,252sq.m GFA) will be of a scale that limits tenants to those that only serve a convenience or ‘local’ retail focus. The retail is therefore projected to primarily be frequented by Bingara Gorge residents and is not projected to generate significant external traffic demands. The following general traffic assumptions have been adopted for the retail component: > Traffic generation rates - 5.4 vph per 100sq.m in the AM peak hour - 12.3 vph per 100sq.m in the PM peak hour - 121 vpd per 100sq.m throughout the daily assessment period > Trip origin/destination - 95% - proportion of retail trips with an internal residential trip end - 5% - proportion of retail trips generated from external origins > Internalisation and drop-in trips - 90% - proportion of the internal trips referenced above that are drop-in trips that are made as part of an existing multi-leg trip to/from an external origin/destination - 10% - proportion of the internal trips that originate from an internal dwelling and return to the same dwelling after visiting the retail use.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 17 Transport Assessment

Importantly, all of these assumptions still result in a vehicle trip being made on the internal Bingara Gorge road network. The following is a summary of the trip end traffic generation at the retail node: > 68 vehicles – AM peak hour > 154 vehicles – PM peak hour > 1515 vehicles – Daily period. The majority of these trip ends are trips that are already made on the internal road network as part of the residential dwelling generation. The small scale convenience nature of the retail use will mean that many of the trips occur as part of an existing employment, education, or leisure trip. An example of this trip expected frequently would include a resident stopping for milk or bread on the way to/from work. 6.4 Leisure and Golf Course Generation Previous iterations of the Bingara Gorge traffic analysis submitted by Cardno and other consultants have not included the approved golf course land use. This Transport Assessment has adopted the following traffic generation assumptions: > 60 vehicle trips – AM and PM peak hour generation based on surveys of other locations > 600 vehicle trips – Daily generation > 50% - proportion of peak hour trips that have an internal residential origin or destination. The already approved Bingara Gorge development includes a variety of recreational facilities (i.e. pools, gyms etc.) available only to community residents. The provision of these facilities will mean that some of the residential trips made for recreational purposes will no longer travel external to the site. The following assumptions were adopted to account for these internal recreational trip ends: > 2% - proportion of AM, PM, and daily residential trips with internal recreational destinations. These trips do not travel external to the site but importantly are still made on the internal road network. Importantly, these trips are still made on the internal road network and are considered as part of the two- way demand assessment. 6.5 SATURN Traffic Model Development A SATURN mesoscopic model was developed for the internal Bingara Gorge development network consistent with the discussion between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering subsequent to the Section 34 Conclave meeting. SATURN is a mesoscopic modelling package that is capable of both intersection and conventional road segment capacity analysis and assignment. Link based assignments assume that all the delay in traversing a network is in the mid-block passage and the intersections add zero delay to the travel time. Delays due to congestion are modelled by modifying the speed along each link as a function of the volume on the link. The SATURN ‘simulation’ network assumes that the delay at the ends of each link due to increased link volume is the major factor in delay and usually only models the on link delay as the time taken to traverse at free flow speed. The SATURN model was developed in accordance with best practice principles including reference to industry guidelines. The following is a summary of the SATURN model development process: > Create a node and link representation of the existing and proposed development and road network including: > Development locations (i.e. traffic generators) > Road cross-sections > Posted speed limits > Intersections arrangements > Develop a trip end matrix including estimations for each centroid consisting of: > Peak hour traffic generation (entry and exit) > Trip origin/destination (internal and external).

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 18 Transport Assessment

The modelled road network was traced from aerials and development plans in MapInfo which allowed for the modelling of accurate distances between intersections. Each intersection was coded in SATURN as a simulation node with the saturation flows for each type of movement referenced from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads SATURN Modelling - Guidelines and Criteria for Queensland SATURN Model Development (Draft, February 2013). Development zone were chosen to allow for matching with the planned development subdivisions and to not have much more than three intersections in any one zone. The one exception to this process occurs at the northern extremity of the site where dwellings have no alternate route choice for entering/exiting the development except to travel via either of the major ‘spine roads’. Figure 6-3 is a reproduction of the Bingara Gorge SATURN model and includes the following: > Road links > Intersection nodes > Development centroids. A trip matrix was developed based on the assumptions reported earlier herein. The SATURN matrix assigns the development trips to the internal and external road network via an analytical process which seeks to find the optimal travel time for all trips. The analytical SATURN process is suggested as being more logical and accurate compared to the EXCEL desktop modelling approach previously adopted by Cardno in the April 2015 analysis. The approach is similar in nature to that employed in 2006 by CBH&K (PARAMICS) and also the AIMSUN micro-simulation model prepared by PB which was originally requested to be used for this process by RMS. Peak hourly demands output for the AM and PM peak hour were multiplied by a factor of 5 (i.e. (AM+PM)*5) in order to estimate the daily traffic demand. This approach is typical of mesoscopic models where daily demands are produced from peak hour demands. Traffic demand plots and intersection turning movement estimates were output from the SATURN model for reference in the following sections of this report.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 19 Transport Assessment

Figure 6-3 SATURN Road and Development Network

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 20 Transport Assessment

6.6 External Traffic Assignment and Distribution The April 2015 traffic analysis and reporting prepared by Cardno assessed two different sets of external traffic distribution assumptions. Table 6-1 summarises the primary distributions developed and recommended by Cardno based on a review of the available background data and evidence provided by Lend Lease. Table 6-2 summarises an alternate set of distribution assumptions requested to be used by Wollondilly Shire Council.

Table 6-1 Primary Cardno External Traffic Distribution Assumptions Road Destination / Origin Development Traffic Assignment Hume Motorway (N) Sydney, Campbelltown, Liverpool, 55% Parramatta, Penrith Hume Motorway (S) Canberra 5% Picton Road (E) Wollongong 30% Picton Road (W) Picton 10%

Table 6-2 Wollondilly Shire Council Requested External Traffic Distribution Assumptions Road Destination / Origin Development Traffic Assignment Hume Motorway (N) Sydney, Campbelltown, Liverpool, 60% Parramatta, Penrith Hume Motorway (S) Canberra 5% Picton Road (E) Wollongong 20% Picton Road (W) Picton 10%

The Wollondilly Shire Council requested sensitivity scenario assumptions have been adopted as part of this revised Transport Assessment. 6.7 External Traffic Growth on Picton Road The rate of Picton Road traffic growth has been determined from the PB AIMSUN modelling outputs referenced in the Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014) report. The following Figures 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5 were specifically referenced and are reproduced herein. The PB modelled demands refer to PCU units which are similar to demand, however, heavy vehicles have a weighting factor of 2.

Figure 6-4 2013 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 21 Transport Assessment

Figure 6-5 2024 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)

Figure 6-6 2036 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)

6.8 SIDRA Model Development The April 2015 Cardno analysis of the external traffic intersection operations and upgrading requirements was undertaken using an earlier version of the SIDRA program. This Transport Assessment utilises the updated SIDRA Version 6.0. The previous assessment of the existing unsignalised intersections with Picton Road adopted modified gap acceptance parameters which were consistent with those summarised in the Austroads Guide to Road Design: Part 4A – Guide to Unsignalised and Unsignalised Intersections. This Transport Assessment no longer proposes the use of these revised gap acceptance parameters. The latest version of SIDRA now includes a new method to provide a more systematic approach to the estimation of gap acceptance parameters (critical gap and follow-up headway) for two-way stop and give- way / yield sign controlled intersections as a function of intersection geometry, control and flow conditions. SIDRA documentation recommends that the setting should be engaged which Cardno has in the low setting. All other SIDRA capacity parameters have been maintained in the default setting. The intersection operational analysis and results are documented in the Section 7 of this report.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 22 Transport Assessment

7 Intersection Operations

This Transport Assessment has analysed the future year traffic operations at the 2036 planning time horizon for the following scenarios: > Existing approved 1,165 dwelling scenario (i.e. No Development) > Proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario (i.e. With Development). Consistent with the discussion in Section 3, the Transport Assessment does not consider the Wilton Junction plan. Consideration of the possible broader Wilton Junction consistent with the PB analysis is not possible without having access to the AIMSUN model which was not provided. Detailed SIDRA output results are included at Appendix D and electronic copies will also be provided for review. 7.1 External Intersections The following existing key intersections are located within close proximity to the Bingara Gorge Residential Development: > Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (priority control – seagull intersection) > Picton Road / Almond Street (priority control).

7.1.1 Picton Road and Pembroke Parade Intersection The intersection of Picton Road and Pembroke Parade has been constructed with an unsignalised seagull T-Junction formation. Figure 7-1 illustrates the existing layout from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-2 summarises the existing form assessed in SIDRA. The right turn egress from Pembroke Parade has been assessed as only being opposed by the eastbound through movement from Picton Road (west) and the right turn entry movement from Picton Road (east). The left turn auxiliary lane on Picton Road (west) has been constructed in such a way that these vehicles do not represent a potential conflict to vehicles exiting Pembroke Parade, hence, the exit flow effect has been set to 0%.

Figure 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – Existing Unsignalised Form (Seagull T-Junction)

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 23 Transport Assessment

Figure 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation

Table 7-1 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.634 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.547 1.4 N/A 5.8 North – Pembroke Pde 2.501 2357.3 F 3424.7 0.729 27.4 B 23.8 West – Picton Rd 0.632 1.2 A 3.7 0.561 3.0 A 17.3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Unsignalised 2.501 547.8 N/A 3424.7 0.729 4.2 N/A 13.8 Seagull) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.637 0.6 N/A 2.1 0.548 2.0 N/A 8.6 North – Pembroke Pde 3.599 3780.4 F 5855.1 1.167 296.9 F 396.8 West – Picton Rd 0.633 1.7 A 6.0 0.614 3.9 A 36.3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Unsignalised 3.599 1172.2 N/A 5855.1 1.167 56.2 N/A 396.8 Seagull)

The Table 7-1 results confirm that the existing unsignalised T-Junction (Seagull) arrangement will require upgrading at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. Consistent with the April 2015 traffic analysis, signalisation of the intersection is necessary to cater for future year traffic demands. Figure 7-3 overleaf summarises the upgraded signalised formation that has been assessed as part of this assessment. This formation is consistent with the arrangements assessed as part of the April 2015 analysis for the ‘No Wilton Junction’ scenario.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 24 Transport Assessment

Figure 7-3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation

Table 7-2 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the upgraded signalised intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.746 20.2 B 138.6 0.547 13.2 A 78.5 North – Pembroke Pde 0.752 31.5 C 78.7 0.499 30.2 C 19.8 West – Picton Rd 0.757 18.5 B 144.2 0.561 10.4 A 81.2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded 0.757 22.1 B 144.2 0.561 12.9 A 81.2 Signals) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.833 30.6 C 186.9 0.603 14.7 B 79.3 North – Pembroke Pde 0.895 39.6 C 170.1 0.681 29.5 C 28.3 West – Picton Rd 0.878 30.2 C 219.8 0.685 11.3 A 83.0 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded 0.878 33.2 C 219.8 0.685 14.1 A 83.0 Signals)

The Table 7-2 results indicate that the assessed signalised intersection upgrade will operate within typically accepted performance thresholds irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. The 156m queue reported on Pembroke Parade in the AM peak hour is anticipated to reach the Oxenbridge Avenue roundabout intersection. The queueing will be transitory as the 95th percentile queue only just exceeds the available 145m intersection separation.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 25 Transport Assessment

7.1.2 Picton Road and Almond Street Intersection The intersection of Picton Road and Almond Street has been constructed with an unsignalised T-Junction formation. Figure 7-4 illustrates the existing layout from recent aerial imagery while Figure 7-5 summarises the form assessed in SIDRA. The left turn auxiliary lane on Picton Road (west) has been constructed in such a way that these vehicles do not represent a potential conflict to vehicles exiting Almond Street, hence, the exit flow effect has been set to 0%.

Figure 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street – Existing Unsignalised Form (T-Junction)

Figure 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 26 Transport Assessment

Table 7-3 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing unsignalised intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-3 Picton Road / Almond Street (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.558 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.540 0.8 N/A 2.6 North – Almond St 5.913 7023.9 F 1204.7 3.405 3001.2 F 944.5 West – Picton Rd 0.595 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.504 0.9 N/A 0.0 Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T- 5.913 569.3 F 1204.7 3.405 278.4 N/A 944.5 Junction) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.555 0.6 N/A 2.2 0.551 1.4 N/A 5.7 North – Almond St 7.453 8269.8 F 1458.8 4.458 4238.5 F 1136.6 West – Picton Rd 0.606 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.509 1.0 N/A 0.0 Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T- 7.453 835.8 N/A 1458.8 4.458 411.2 N/A 1136.6 Junction)

Table 7-3 confirms that the existing unsignalised T-Junction arrangement will require upgrading before the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. Cardno understand that Lend Lease that there is a planning agreement obligation for to Lend Lease to provide a monetary contribution towards the upgrading of this intersection to deliver an upgraded seagull arrangement as part of the already approved 1,165 dwelling yield. Figure 7-6 illustrates the potential form assessed in SIDRA.

Figure 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded (Seagull) Formation

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 27 Transport Assessment

Table 7-4 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the conditioned upgraded unsignalised seagull intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.558 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.540 0.8 N/A 2.6 North – Almond St 0.841 50.13 D 31.2 0.538 24.5 B 15.2 West – Picton Rd 0.595 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.504 0.9 N/A 0.0 Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T- 0.841 4.9 N/A 31.2 0.538 3.0 N/A 15.2 Seagull Junction) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario East – Picton Rd 0.555 0.6 N/A 2.2 0.551 1.4 N/A 5.7 North – Almond St 1.045 140.1 F 129.1 0.652 28.6 C 19.9 West – Picton Rd 0.606 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.509 1.0 N/A 0.0 Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T- 1.045 15.0 N/A 129.1 0.652 3.9 N/A 19.9 Seagull Junction)

Table 7-4 confirms that the conditioned seagull arrangement will operate beyond typically accepted performance thresholds during the morning peak hour irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield scenario. Table 7-5 summarises the results of a supplementary sensitivity review to investigate the likely ‘failure year’ for each yield scenario. A negative growth rate was applied to the Picton Road arterial movements to backwards estimate the point at which the seagull intersection arrangement capacity was exceeded.

Table 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – Failure Year Sensitivity Test

Scenario Failure Year (i.e. DoS < 0.80)

1,165 dwellings – AM peak hour 2035 (Worst Case DoS = 0.79) 1,800 dwellings – PM peak hour 2030 (Worst Case DoS = 0.79)

The Table 7-5 results indicate that the proposed residential expansion to 1,800 dwellings will bring forward the failure year of the intersection by approximately four-five years. Signalisation of the intersection will therefore be required at around 2030 if the proposed expanded development was to proceed. Ongoing discussions are recommended between Lend Lease and approval authorities regarding the timing and possible contribution to the future signalisation of the intersection over and above the already conditioned monetary contributions to deliver the seagull arrangement. Cardno suggests that a partial bring forward amount may be appropriate based on the assessed two year period identified in Table 7-5. Consistent with the April 2015 traffic analysis, signalisation of the intersection is ultimately necessary to cater for the 2036 traffic demands. Figure 7-7 summarises the upgraded signalised formation that has been assessed as part of this Transport Assessment. This formation is consistent with that assessed as part of the April 2015 analysis.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 28 Transport Assessment

Figure 7-7 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation

Table 7-6 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the upgraded signalised intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario (1) East – Picton Rd 0.592 13.4 A 86.2 0.612 14.1 A 79.2 North – Almond St 0.608 27.7 B 31.9 0.599 23.5 B 27.8 West – Picton Rd 0.631 12.5 A 94.7 0.571 12.3 A 72.2 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded 0.631 15.5 A 94.7 0.612 14.2 A 79.2 Signals) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario (2) East – Picton Rd 0.611 14.4 A 88.4 0.681 15.9 B 81.5 North – Almond St 0.626 25.4 B 36.7 0.693 22.9 B 28.9 West – Picton Rd 0.667 13.4 A 100.6 0.630 12.7 A 71.5 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded 0.667 15.0 B 100.6 0.693 15.2 B 81.5 Signals)

The Table 7-6 results indicate that the assessed signalised intersection upgrade will operate within typically accepted performance thresholds irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. It should be noted that SIDRA has been permitted to optimise the cycle length and phase timing for each scenario. This characteristic is responsible for the DoS improvement seen between the Table 7-6 results for the 1,165 and 1,800 dwelling scenarios.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 29 Transport Assessment

7.2 Internal Intersections The following existing internal Bingara Gorge development intersections have been identified as being key: > Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge – roundabout intersection > Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge – roundabout intersection.

7.2.1 Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Intersection The existing internal intersection of Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge has been constructed as a single circulating lane roundabout with an internal island radius approximating 22m. The roundabout intersection is located approximately 140m north of Picton Road and 570m south of the next Pembroke Parade intersection. The existing roundabout formation is illustrated in Figure 7-8 from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-9 assessed in SIDRA.

Figure 7-8 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – Existing Roundabout Form

Table 7-7 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing roundabout formation for both residential yield scenarios.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 30 Transport Assessment

Figure 7-9 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation

Table 7-7 Existing Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario South – Pembroke Pde 0.138 5.6 A 6.1 0.443 5.5 A 25.4 East – Oxenbridge Ave 0.250 7.3 A 10.7 0.076 5.8 A 2.8 North – Pembroke Pde 0.369 4.3 A 17.3 0.144 4.9 A 5.4 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue 0.369 5.3 A 17.3 0.443 5.4 A 25.4 (Existing Roundabout) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario South – Pembroke Pde 0.207 5.7 A 10.4 0.639 5.7 B 52.4 East – Oxenbridge Ave 0.457 10.5 A 25.3 0.123 6.0 A 4.9 North – Pembroke Pde 0.536 4.8 A 31.1 0.222 5.7 A 9.1 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue 0.536 6.4 A 31.1 0.639 5.8 B 52.4 (Existing Roundabout)

The Table 7-7 results indicate that the existing roundabout formation will operate within typically acceptance performance thresholds at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. Importantly, the peak hour queues on the northbound Pembroke Parade approach do not come close to reaching Picton Road.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 31 Transport Assessment

7.2.2 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive Intersection The existing internal intersection of Pembroke Parade, Fairway Drive, and Greenbridge Drive has been constructed as a single circulating lane roundabout with an internal island radius approximating 18m. The roundabout intersection is located approximately 570m north of the next Pembroke Parade intersection. The existing roundabout formation is illustrated in Figure 7-10 from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-11 assessed in SIDRA.

Figure 7-10 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – Existing Roundabout Form

Figure 7-11 Pembroke Parade / Fairway / Greenbridge Drive– SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 32 Transport Assessment

Table 7-8 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing roundabout formation for both residential yield scenarios.

Table 7-8 Existing Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Scenario Delay 95th %ile Delay 95th %ile DoS LoS DoS LoS (s) Queue (m) (s) Queue (m)

1,165 Dwelling Scenario South – Pembroke Pde 0.126 5.3 A 5.0 0.401 5.8 A 19.8 East – Greenbridge Dr 0.175 6.6 A 6.8 0.058 5.6 A 2.1 North – Spearing St 0.119 6.8 A 4.5 0.075 8.3 A 2.7 West – Fairway Dr 0.287 7.8 A 12.3 0.135 9.2 A 5.1 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / 0.287 6.9 A 12.3 0.401 6.7 A 19.8 Greenbridge Drive (Existing Roundabout) 1,800 Dwelling Scenario South – Pembroke Pde 0.170 5.1 A 7.3 0.547 5.8 A 33.0 East – Greenbridge Dr 0.236 8.2 A 9.9 0.069 5.9 A 2.5 North – Spearing St 0.157 8.2 A 6.4 0.087 8.7 A 3.2 West – Fairway Dr 0.413 8.2 A 20.8 0.195 9.6 A 7.9 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / 0.413 7.5 A 20.8 0.547 6.8 A 33.0 Greenbridge Drive (Existing Roundabout)

The Table 7-8 results indicate that the existing roundabout formation will operate within typically acceptance performance thresholds at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. 7.3 Other Internal Intersection Operations The remainder of the internal development traffic intersections have not been assessed in SIDRA based on the SATURN intersection results which indicate that the turning demands are low enough that there is adequate capacity.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 33 Transport Assessment

8 Internal Traffic Demand and Amenity Assessment

Many Local and State government agencies publish their own daily traffic thresholds for different types and hierarchies of road and streets and there can be substantial variance between these sources. The NSW RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments itself raises this issue with the text “there is no precise level at which the traffic environment can be said to be acceptable or unacceptable”. The RMS Guide references the Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD) which is referenced in Table 8-1 below which also summarises a selection of other relevant source documents describing typical daily traffic thresholds for different hierarchical levels of roads and streets.

Table 8-1 Summary of Published Residential Traffic Amenity Thresholds Road Hierarchy Daily Traffic Road Hierarchy Description Level Threshold (vpd) LANDCOM – Street Design Guidelines Collector Street Collector streets link neighbourhood streets together 3,000 – 6,000 vpd Local Streets Local streets are the predominate street type within a neighbourhood > 3,000 vpd AMCORD Urban (1997) Generally short and connects collector streets with the road corridor Major Collector network. Fronting development should still be encouraged, but with <6,000 vpd siting conditions which ensure acceptable amenity and safety Minor Collector Collects traffic from access streets and carries higher volumes of traffic <3,000 vpd Access streets are generally streets where the residential environment is Local Street <2,000 vpd dominant, traffic is subservient Access Place The lowest order or street 300 vpd Queensland Urban Land Development Authority – Street and Movement Network (2012) Trunk Collector Distributes traffic from the arterial network to the connector network <10,000 vpd Neighbourhood Connects neighbourhood destinations including shops and parks. <7,500 vpd Connector Street Provides access to the surrounding road network… Neighbourhood Provides direct residential property access 2,500 – 5,000 vpd Access Street Western Australian Planning Commission – Liveable Neighbourhoods (2009) Two lane roads that will have at least one clear travel lane in each 7,000 – 15,000 Integrator B direction, and a parking and/or manoeuvring lane vpd Neighbourhood A two lane divided street used for higher neighbourhood connector 7,000 vpd Connector A volumes, or for character Neighbourhood Connector B (no A two lane undivided street for lower volume neighbourhood connectors 3,000 vpd median) Access Street 3,000 vpd Queensland Streets – Design Guidelines for Subdivisional Networks (1993) Trunk Collector A two lane road with an 8m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 10,000 vpd Collector Street A two lane road with a 7.5m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 3,000 vpd Access Place / Street A two lane road with a 5.5m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 750 vpd City of Port Phillip Local Street Provide access to properties within the local area 500 – 3,000 vpd Distributes traffic within the main residential area to link traffic from local Collector Road 3,000 – 8,000 vpd roads to the arterial network Major Road Major traffic movement through the network in an efficient manner > 8,000 vpd

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 34 Transport Assessment

The SATURN modelling process described earlier in Section 6 generated estimates for the two-way traffic demand on every internal Bingara Gorge road section. Outputs of this demand assessment are included in this section and higher quality A3 versions are also attached at Appendix C for reference. The following scenarios have been assessed: > 1,165 dwelling scenario - AM peak hour traffic demand - PM peak hour traffic demand - Daily traffic demand > 1,800 dwelling scenario - AM peak hour traffic demand - PM peak hour traffic demand - Daily traffic demand. Table 8-2 summarises the results of the two-way traffic demand for both residential yield scenarios with the corresponding daily traffic demand SATURN plots included at Figures 8-1 and 8-2. Figure 8-3 is a difference plot for comparisons between the two yield scenarios.

Table 8-2 Summary of Daily Traffic Demands on Internal Bingara Gorge Road Sections Daily Traffic Demand Road Name Road Section 1,165 Dwelling Scenario 1,800 Dwelling Scenario Between Picton Road and 9630 vpd 14610 vpd Oxenbridge Avenue Pembroke Parade Between Oxenbridge Avenue and Greenbridge / 6960 vpd 9630 vpd Fairway Drive Between Pembroke Parade 5500 vpd 7890 vpd and Sutton Crescent Between Sutton Crescent Fairway Drive and Stirling Drive / 5470 vpd 7850 vpd Kirkwood Chase North of Stirling Drive / 3350 vpd 4550 vpd Kirkwood Chase Between Pembroke Parade Greenbridge Drive 2510 vpd 2840 vpd and Maloney Chase Oxenbridge Avenue / Between Pembroke Parade 3020 vpd 3900 vpd Hornby Street and Wollondilly Street Between Greenbridge Wollondilly Street 2320 vpd 3610 vpd Drive and Hornby Street Eastern Spine Road North of Greenbridge Drive 2790 vpd 4040 vpd

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 35 Transport Assessment

Figure 8-1 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,165 Residential Dwellings

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 36 Transport Assessment

Figure 8-2 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,800 Residential Dwellings

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 37 Transport Assessment

Figure 8-3 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – Difference Plot between 1,800 and 1,165 Residential Dwellings

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 38 Transport Assessment

8.1 Specific Road Section Amenity Comment The following conclusions are made following an evaluation of the SATURN two-way traffic results summarised in Table 8-2 and Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3.

8.1.1 Pembroke Parade Summary 8.1.1.1 Section 1 > The 14,610vpd demand modelled in Section 1 is at the upper range of the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane urban road. This section will ultimately be constructed with a partial three lane cross-section (one entry and two exit lanes) for more than half of its length > No residential dwellings will achieve direct access from this road section > Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the kerb, thereby reducing any amenity or acoustic impacts. 8.1.1.2 Section 2 > The 9,630vpd demand modelled for Section 2 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Trunk Collector with limited access given consideration of the following: - The road is median divided and includes a kerbside parking and/or deceleration lane - Fewer than 20 residential dwellings achieve direct access along the 750m length of road which equates to an average site driveway separation of 90m (median controls movement to/from one direction) - Relatively wide verges that are approximately 6-7.0m wide - Provision on both sides of the road for shared 2.5m pathways > The residential dwellings that front this road section are set-back 15-25m from the kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact.

8.1.2 Fairway Drive Summary 8.1.2.1 Section 1 > The 7,890vpd demand modelled for Section 1 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Trunk Collector given it primarily services a traffic carrying function and does not facilitate any direct residential frontage or site access. 8.1.2.2 Section 2 > The 7,850vpd demand modelled for Section 2 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as either a lower order Trunk Collector or a higher order Major Collector based on the following attributes: - Only five residential dwellings achieve direct access along the 210m length of road which equates to an average site driveway separation of 85m (measured along each individual kerb) - The current built form provides four effective lanes of travel (i.e. two travel lanes and two parking lanes) - Relatively wide verges that are approximately 7-7.5m wide - Provision on both sides of the road for 2.0m pathways > Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact 8.1.2.3 Section 3 > The 4,550vpd demand modelled for Section 3 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Major Collector based on the following attributes:

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 39 Transport Assessment

- 22 dwellings are likely to be developed and achieve direct access along the 560m length of road which equates to an average site driveway separation of 50m (measured along each individual kerb) - The current built form provides four effective lanes of travel (i.e. two travel lanes and two parking lanes) - Relatively wide verges that are approximately 7-7.5m wide - Provision on both sides of the road for 2.0m pathways > Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact.

8.1.3 Greenbridge Drive Summary > The 2,840 vpd demand modelled for Greenbridge Drive is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route > Projected traffic demands and adjoining land uses and residential character and site access is consistent with many of the amenity and road design thresholds.

8.1.4 Oxenbridge Avenue Summary > The 3,900 vpd demand modelled for the westernmost section of Oxenbridge Avenue is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route given it also connects to Hornby Street > There are 14 dwellings that achieve direct access from the 480m section of Oxenbridge Avenue which equates to an average site driveway separation of 65m (measured along each individual kerb) > Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 12-15m from the kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact.

8.1.5 Wollondilly Street Summary > The 3,610 vpd demand modelled for Wollondilly Street is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road > This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route given the connection function it provides to the broader development > The 8m cross-section conditioned by Wollondilly Shire Council would be appropriate to accommodate the project traffic demands while also providing for informal kerbside car parking for some fronting land use. 8.2 General Road Amenity Comment Cardno has assessed that approximately 230-250 or 13-14% of the residential dwellings proposed as part of the expanded 1,800 dwelling scenario would front a section of internal road where the daily traffic demand has been modelled as exceeding 1,500vpd. This figure can be compared to the following RMS reference made in Section 7.3 of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments: “Despite the difficulty of arriving at accurate figures, consideration should be given to the level of comfort that may be appropriate for residents. In most cases it is reasonable to require that the flow of traffic passing 85% of households should not exceed 1500 vpd, as a design objective.” The majority (approximately 86-87%) of residential dwellings will be located on streets where traffic demands are relatively low.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 40 Transport Assessment

9 Response to Statement of Facts and Contentions

Table 9-1 summarises updated responses to the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFC) document. The responses and references to sections of this Transport Assessment supersede the preliminary responses made by Cardno in August.

Item Original SOFC Text Summary of Cardno Response ID 4 Road Capacity, Traffic and Infrastructure The residential traffic generation adopted for the Cardno has undertaken traffic surveys to confirm an Bingara Gorge proposal relies upon the findings of appropriate residential traffic generation rate. the Wilton Junction TMAP (Parsons Brinckerhoff Traffic generation surveys were completed in the 2014), however neither assessment identifies the adjacent Wilton residential township/precinct accessed number of dwellings surveyed or assessment of from Almond Street and Hornby Street. construction vehicles which may skew survey i results. The residential traffic generation is The survey results confirm an existing residential inconsistent with the RMS Guide to Traffic generation rate of 0.8vph (peak) and 8.1vpd (daily) per Generating Developments 2002, RMS Technical dwelling. Refer to Section 6.1.2. Direction TDT 2013/04a, Colston Budd Hunt & The survey results are generally consistent with broader Kafes 2005 and 2006 assessment or 2011 Journey industry evidence including that reported by RMS in the to Work data for Wilton which indicates a car driver TDT 2013/04a advice for regional centres. percentage of 86%. JTW data reported by Bureau of Statistics for the Local Government Areas surveyed as part of the RMS TDT 2013/04 advice are very similar to Wollondilly: . Wollondilly – 85% as driver / 5% as passenger . Coffs Harbour – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger The RMS Technical Direction is the most up to date . Orange – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger RMS publication for recommended traffic . Wagga Wagga – 81% as driver / 8% as passenger generation, with prescribed regional rates of 0.74 & . Wollongong – 76% as driver / 6% as passenger. 0.71 trips / dwelling in the AM and PM respectively. The reference to the Journey to the Work dataset is The survey sites utilised was based on a car driver reasonable, but it does not consider trips made for other ii percentage of 65.6% to 70.2%, with an average of non-employment purposes. Based on the most recent 67.6%. Linearly increasing the Technical Direction 2012/13 Household Travel Survey (HTS), only 26% of suggested trip generation rates based on the Wilton Wollondilly trips are made for commuting or work related car driver percentage of 86% results in 0.94 and business. 0.90 trips / dwelling during the AM & PM respectively. The Cardno traffic generation survey results are considered to be conservative at the 2036 assessment horizon where it is likely that public transport will be significantly improved and possibly some components of Wilton Junction employment and retail improve internalisation. Cardno has revised the external traffic assignment assumptions such that they are now consistent with an earlier sensitivity scenarios requested received by Wollondilly Shire Council. Refer to Section 6.6. Traffic assignment detailed within the Applicant’s The revised assignment proportions are as follows: traffic report relies upon information provided by . North via Hume Hwy – 60% iii Lend Lease to determine travel patterns. This . South via Hume Hwy – 5% information is not presented in any form within the traffic report and needs to be presented. . East via Picton Rd – 20% . West via Picton Rd – 10% The revised assessment no longer adopts or references information previously supplied by Lend Lease which informed the primary traffic assignment assumptions.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 41 Transport Assessment

The Applicant’s traffic report focuses on the Picton Road intersections with Pembroke Parade and Almond Street whilst neglecting to analyse internal subdivision roads and traffic flows. The Applicant’s traffic assessment does not include the two-way The revised Cardno transport assessment now traffic flows for the approved condition (1,165 Lots), considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands the proposed increase associated with the proposal including link and intersection capacities. Refer to (1,800 Lots) or the impact of the Wilton Junction Section 8. TMAP which needs to be separated into the individual scenarios for the following road The analysis has been undertaken for both the segments: approved 1,165 and proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenarios. . Pembroke Parade The revised transport assessment does not consider the . Greenbridge Drive iv impact or any change relating to the Wilton Junction . Malony Chase TMAP. This approach has been agreed with Council’s . Hornby Street traffic engineering expert. Any consideration of the ‘With Wilton Junction’ development should be made . Almond Street using the AIMSUN modelling already developed by PB. . Oxenbridge Avenue The Cardno assessment confirms that the internal . Fairway Drive Bingara Gorge intersections have sufficient capacity to . Wollondilly Street cater for the 2036 traffic demands estimated to be . Spine Road (1 & 2) generated by the proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenario. . Bridge over Hume Highway connecting to the western side from Spine Road 1 . Kirkwood Chase . Sarazen Crescent The revised Cardno transport assessment now considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands including the two-way link demands. Refer to Section 8. Consideration is given to the RMS and other State and The Applicant’s traffic report does not assess two- National guidelines published in relation to residential way traffic flows with consideration to RMS v amenity criteria. residential amenity criteria or pedestrian / cyclist safety at sensitive locations The Cardno assessment does indicate that the proposed 1,800 dwellings scenario will generate two- way traffic movements on some sections of road that are at the higher end of normally accepted demand thresholds. The critical gap and headway gap parameters within the SIDRA modelling have been adjusted. The The revised Cardno transport assessment no longer vi Applicant is to provide SIDRA modelling for review adopts the previously used SIDRA gap acceptance as well as referenced AUSTROADS Guidelines for parameters. Refer to Section 7. justification of reduced gap parameters. The intersection performance of Pembroke Parade / Picton Road is reported as LoS D & C during the AM and PM peak period respectively under The revised Cardno transport assessment include new Council’s sensitivity testing for the year 2036. The Level of Service results which supersede the previous Wilton Junction TMAP reports a LoS B for the AM April 2015 results. Refer to Section 7. and PM peak period for the year 2036. It can only It is important to note that direct comparisons between be concluded that the additional development LoS results obtained from the two different studies are vii associated with the proposed 1,800 Lots reduces not accurate given the differences in assumptions, the intersection performance from B to D in the AM modelling software, and LoS calculation (thresholds). and B to C in the PM. The Applicant’s traffic report Importantly, the Section 7 results indicate that upgraded should assess further treatments to retain LoS B for Picton Road intersection formations will operate with the intersection of Pembroke Parade & Picton Road good level of performance at the 2036 horizon. for the year 2036. The underpinning traffic assignment may be relevant.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 42 Transport Assessment

The revised Cardno transport assessment has updated The Applicant’s traffic report identifies the the analysis of this intersection to remove consideration intersection of Picton Road / Almond Street being of a left in/left out formation. Refer to Section 7. modified for left in / left out only for the year 2036 A signalised intersection formation has been assessed viii however the Wilton Junction TMAP details this which is understood to be generally consistent with the intersection to be signalised in the year 2036. The Wilton Junction TMAP reporting. Applicant is requested to clarify the intersection treatment for Picton Road / Almond Road. An interim Seagull unsignalised formation is possible to delay the construction of the traffic signals. The Applicant’s traffic report focuses on the Picton Rd intersections with Pembroke Pde and Almond St The revised Cardno transport assessment now whilst neglecting to analyse internal subdivision considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands intersections. The following internal subdivision including intersection capacities. Refer to Section 7.2. intersection should be assessed: The analysis has been undertaken for both the . Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Av roundabout approved 1,165 and proposed 1,800 residential dwelling taking into account the queue lengths ix scenarios. associated with the Pembroke Pde / Picton Rd intersection The Cardno assessment confirms that the internal Bingara Gorge intersections have sufficient capacity to . Pembroke Pde / Greenbridge Dr roundabout cater for the 2036 traffic demands estimated to be . Fairway Drive / Kirkwood Chase generated by the proposed 1,800 residential dwelling . Hornby Street / Wollondilly Street scenario. . Greenbridge Drive / Wollondilly Street The Applicant’s traffic report does not assess the The revised Cardno transport assessment has been proposal’s impact on the road network in the year updated to evaluate the traffic operations at the 2036 x 2036 without Wilton Junction beyond Bingara time horizon for the ‘Without Wilton Junction’ scenario. Gorge. Refer to Section 7. The Applicant’s traffic report recommends that the majority of residents are to be within an 800m Cardno submits that the public transport route coverage walking catchment of a bus stop. Current design achieved to the 1,800 dwellings will not vary significantly criteria requires majority of dwellings to be within compared to the already approved 1,165 dwellings. 400m walking distance of a bus stop. This criteria is The site ‘developable area’ remains unchanged, as will xi acknowledged within the Wilton Junction TMAP and the already approved bus routes. Only the density of the Draft Wilton Junction Masterplan (2012). As a the residential development will change. consequence road widths / road design may need Any deficiency in public transport route coverage will a to be altered to cater for bus movements and bus direct result/outcome of the already approved layout. stop provision. Proposed bus routes will not change compared to existing provisions already made as part of the existing The applicant should provide further details of the 1,165 dwelling approval. xii intended bus routes and frequency of service for the The broader Wilton Junction TMAP considers future 1,800 Lot yield. possible bus routes, although ultimately, the provision of these routes is dependent on local and state government agencies. The revised Cardno assessment has been updated to The Applicant’s traffic report does not consider consider the incremental demand increase at the Hume future road works associated with the Hume Hwy interchange, although an analysis of any potential Highway / Picton Road interchange and should traffic operations has not been undertaken at this time. xiii contain an assessment of the potential impacts on Cardno understand that RMS have immediate/short the interchange performance related to the term plans to install traffic signals at each of the proposal. interchange intersections which will improve traffic operations compared to the existing situation. The Applicant’s traffic report does not clearly identify the traffic assignment associated with the The revised Cardno transport assessment utilises a approved 1,165 Lots, the proposed additional 635 SATURN analysis procedure to assign traffic to the Lots and the impact of the Wilton Junction TMAP internal road connections. Section 8 of the upgraded xiv particularly along internal roads as well as at the Transport Assessment provides information regarding Picton Road intersections. The volume of traffic for the estimated internal traffic demands, as well as the the 1,165 Lots and 1,800 Lot condition should be difference between the approved 1,165 dwelling based on the Figure 4.1 of the Applicant’s traffic scenario and the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario. report.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 43 Transport Assessment

The traffic impact assessment has not given any The revised Cardno transport assessment now xv consideration to the capacity of the bridge located considers the link traffic capacity of the section of between Sutton Crescent and Pembroke Parade. Fairway Drive at the bridge location. Refer to Section 8. The revised Cardno transport assessment determines The bridge over Stringy Bark Creek does not have the future peak hour and daily traffic demands over the xvi sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased Stingy Bark Creek bridge. Refer to Section 8. The traffic generation. results indicate that a two lane cross-section is adequate. The construction of Wollondilly Street has been delayed due to flora and fauna impacts within the road reserve (the review of the REF has raised a number of issues which are yet to be resolved – The Cardno analysis indicates that the Wollondilly letter sent to the applicant May 2014 is yet to be Street connection would have to be delivered before any xvii responded to). While a requirement of the Voluntary approval of additional dwellings over and above the Planning Agreement, there is no timeframe as to already approved 1,165 dwellings. when this road will be constructed and this will inevitably only increase the impact along Oxenbridge and Hornby Streets. The revised Cardno transport assessment utilises a SATURN analysis procedure to assign traffic to the internal road connections. Information to be provided in Baseline traffic volumes require modelling the support of the report will confirm the internal traffic junctions onto Picton Road. The Roads and demands, as well as the difference between the Maritime Services consider that network modelling approved 1,165 dwelling scenario and the proposed xviii is required to determine the likely distributions onto 1,800 dwelling scenario. the network with considerations to the additional Refer to Section 6.5. 635 lots on the interchange given. As stated previously, the ‘network modelling’ does not include the AIMSUN modelling requested by RMS, but instead adopts a partial network model produced in SATURN.

No information has been provided to demonstrate This aspect has not been fully addressed at this time as that pedestrians will be able to cross Fairways Drive part of the revised Transport Assessment. The SATURN and/or Greenbridge Drive from the existing modelling outputs indicate that traffic demands will not residential area in the Highlands and Pembroke xix preclude typical pedestrian movement. Refer to Section releases to the school, shopping centre and child 8. care having regard to the additional traffic placed on Fairways Drive and Greenbridge Drive by this Cardno suggests that safe and efficient pedestrian development. movements can be provided within the development. The NSW Roads and Maritime Services have Electronic copies of all SIDRA and SATURN files will be requested SIDRA or any other traffic modelling that xx provided to RMS as part of the revised Cardno transport has been prepared for this application prior to any assessment. further assessment of the development proposal.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 44 Transport Assessment

10 Summary and Conclusions

Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a Transport Assessment for the Bingara Gorge Residential Development. This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised in the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A. The subject of this Transport Assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved 1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara Gorge development. At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering. In response to the Wollondilly Shire Council SOFC and the conclave discussions, Cardno has reassessed a selection of the primary analysis assumptions and developed a new SATURN mesoscopic model that is representative of the Bingara Gorge development and the adjacent road network at the 2036 time horizon. The model has been used to quantify and assess the internal and external traffic demands and operations for the already approved 1,165 dwelling scenario in addition to the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario. The SATURN traffic demand estimations include two-way link demands for each of the internal development road sections as well as intersection turning movements. The turning movements have been used as inputs to the supplementary SIDRA assessment of the key internal and external traffic intersections to confirm traffic operations and upgrading requirements. The SIDRA analysis confirms that engineering solutions are possible at the external Picton Road intersections of Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. The analysis confirms that both intersections will ultimately require signalisation irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield scenario. The following upgrades have been identified: > Picton Road and Pembroke Parade – Upgrade to a signalised intersection. Lend Lease has already delivered the unsignalised seagull upgrade conditioned as part of the 1,165 dwelling scenario > Picton Road and Almond Street – Ultimately, a signalised intersection will be required by 2029 or 2031 depending on the Bingara Gorge residential yield. The already conditioned Lend Lease contribution to delivering an unsignalised seagull arrangement may be modified to deliver the ultimate signals sooner if this results in cost savings and is agreeable to all parties. Ongoing discussions are recommended between Lend Lease and approval authorities regarding the timing and possible contribution to deliver the external intersection solutions. The internal development intersections have also been assessed as operating well within typically adopted performance thresholds for both yield scenarios. The internal operations can be summarised as follows: > Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Avenue – the existing roundabout will operate within acceptance performance thresholds and no upgrading is required to accommodate the proposed expanded yield. Importantly, queuing will not extend to or interfere with the Picton Road intersection > Pembroke Parade, Fairway Drive, and Greenbridge Drive - the existing roundabout will operate within acceptance performance thresholds and no upgrading is required for the proposed expanded yield > All other internal development intersections have been assessed in SATURN as performing well within acceptable performance thresholds.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 45 Transport Assessment

The SATURN assessment confirms that the proposed yield expansion will result in an increase in traffic demands on many of the major internal road connections. The daily traffic demands output from the model indicate key development connections including Pembroke Parade, Oxenbridge Avenue, Greenbridge Drive, and Fairway Drive will cater for traffic demands that are at the upper range of the broader planning thresholds typically published by a selection of Australian planning and approvals authorities. Cardno suggests that the demands could be considered reasonable based on consideration of: > The traffic assumptions adopted as part of the SATURN modelling exercise are conservative, especially at the 2036 time horizon where the car mode share is projected to be lower given improved public transport and nearby external employment and retail development > The majority (86-87%) of the proposed 1,800 residential dwellings do not have any frontage to internal development roads which have been modelled as carrying more than 1,500 vpd. This figure is comparable or higher than that referenced in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Section 7.3) > Each of the critical road sections include separate provision for kerbside or indented car parking, thereby ensuring the full-time provision for two general traffic lanes > The density of direct residential frontage access on the critical road sections is relatively low and could be considered comparable to that achieved by medium density residential development with consolidated access > Road reserves are relatively wide and include pathway provisions for pedestrians and cyclists > The demands modelled by Cardno in SATURN are in some locations lower than those estimated by PB as part of the Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014) The already constructed residential dwellings on critical sections have been located such that they are set- back 12-25m from the edge of the kerb. These larger than typical set-back characteristics will likely reduce any acoustic or amenity impact resulting from the modelled increase in traffic demand. The analysis and findings summarised herein indicate that the proposed yield expansion to include 1,800 residential dwellings would be possible with some modifications and upgrades to the existing intersections and road network.

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 46 Transport Assessment

Bingara Gorge

APPENDIX A WOLLONDILLY SHIRE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONTENTIONS

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 47

Transport Assessment

Bingara Gorge

APPENDIX B SECTION 34 CONCLAVE TRAFFIC SCOPE AND AGREEMENT

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 48

Technical Memorandum Title Bingara Gorge Land and Environment Court Appeal Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions Client Lend Lease Communities Project No NA82013043 Date November 4, 2015 Status Draft Author Kris Stone Discipline Traffic and Transport Reviewer Shane Healey Office Brisbane

This Technical Memorandum has been prepared in relation to the proposed Bingara residential development and specifically, traffic engineering items relating to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 OF 2015.

This advice summarises the 20th October Section 34 conclave discussions between traffic experts, being:

> Cardno, represented by Shane Healey and Kris Stone who act on behalf of Lend Lease Communities; and > McLaren Traffic Engineering, represented by Craig McLaren acting on behalf of Wollondilly Shire Council.

Summary of Conclave Discussion 1. Shane Healey (SH) and Craig McLaren (CM) discussed and agreed that a revised transport assessment would be required to evaluate the proposed increase in the approved yield from 1,165 dwellings to 1,800 dwellings 2. SH identified that the AIMSUN model requested to be used by the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) as part of the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFC) has not been made available to Cardno. CM has requested whether the model can be provided via Council 3. SH and CM agreed that an alternate assessment procedure (i.e. non AIMSUN) would be acceptable to assess the proposed Bingara Gorge development traffic situation (assuming it can be agreed that it has been properly calibrated etc). SH and CM agreed that the assessment (and modelling tool) should address the following: a. Internal road link demands and possible traffic amenity issues b. External Picton Road intersection operations and upgrade requirements, including its junction with the Hume Highway on/off ramp, Pembroke Parade, and Almond Street It was also agreed that the assessment would consider the following scenarios: i. Morning peak (7-9am), evening peak (3-4pm school and 4-6pm), and daily traffic demand scenarios ii. Approved 1,165 dwelling yield iii. Proposed 1,800 dwelling yield 4. SH and CM agreed that the modelling procedure should be developed exclusive of the broader Wilton Junction proposed development, although forecast flows over the bridge connecting Bingara Gorge and Wilton Junction to be extracted from the AIMSUN model 5. SH and CM agreed that the Parsons Brinkerhoff AIMSUN modelling outputs and reporting prepared to consider the broader Wilton Junction development and related traffic

NA82013043.Section34ConclaveSummary.151104.docx Page 1 Bingara Gorge Land and Environment Court Appeal Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions

implications within the Bingara Gorge site would be appropriate for consideration of broader impacts 6. CM requested that the assessment identify timing thresholds and yield sensitivities, including: a. Timing and need for construction of Stringybark Creek and Wollondilly Street connections b. Yield thresholds beyond which internal link demands and intersection operations would exceed environment amenity or operational thresholds. This assessment would assume no additional bridge structure over the freeway that may be delivered as part of the broader Wilton Junction development c. Upgrade of Picton Road/Hume Highway northbound on ramp and southbound off ramp including assessment of imminent traffic signals provided by RMS next year on road safety grounds 7. CM identified that the assessment should also address and compare variations between the approved and proposed yields for the following aspects, including detailed road width, indented parking, bus stops locations, and pedestrian/cyclist paths: a. On-street car parking b. Public transport route accessibility and dwelling ‘coverage’ c. Pedestrian provisions d. Cycle paths e. Internal site traffic generation ‘containment’ (i.e. internalisation of development trips) 8. CM identified that emergency access routes would ideally be investigated and variances identified as they relate to the approved residential yield 9. CM also requested details of current ‘catchment’ of trips

Suggested Next Steps Cardno submits the following analysis procedure for discussion and agreement between the two traffic engineering expert groups.

10. Undertake traffic generation surveys to confirm the existing residential traffic generation potential of the local residential dwelling catchment as well as current containment 11. Prepare a detailed SATURN transport model for the Bingara Gorge development site which will be used to evaluate and compare the following outcomes for both the approved and proposed yield scenarios a. Morning peak, evening peak, and daily traffic demand scenarios b. Route assignment and choice c. Traffic demands on individual road segments d. Intersection turning movements 12. Prepare a series of SIDRA analyses to assess the SATURN output turning movements at critical intersection locations including: a. Picton Road and Pembroke Parade b. Picton Road and Almond Street c. Picton Road and Hume Highway on/off ramps d. Pembroke Parade, Greenbridge Drive, and Fairways Drive e. Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Avenue f. Greenbridge Drive, Beaty Street, and Woodward Road The SIDRA analysis will confirm the need and timing for intersection upgrade requirements resulting from the proposed residential yield increase to 1,800 dwellings. 13. The SATURN and SIDRA findings will be referenced to assess the items raised in Point 7. The modelling will confirm either the appropriateness of the proposal or alternatively identify a yield and/or timing threshold beyond which other works or the broader Wilton Junction would need to be considered 14. All input data (including) link capacities of all road segments, traffic flows, and delays) and output data to be provided in word format.

NA82013043 Cardno November 4, 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease Communities Page 2 Transport Assessment

Bingara Gorge

APPENDIX C SATURN MODELLING OUTPUTS

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 49 SATURN

Atkins Ltd / DVV / ITS

06AMv12.UFS bingaragorge

Scale 11779

23-11-15 CARDNO T&T

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - Road Network-11-15 23 SATURN

0 8 4 Atkins Ltd / 180 1790 DVV / ITS 1790 0 0 1 8 8 8 4 1 0 1 0 9 9 06PMv12.UFS 0 7 1 bingaragorge 370

2 gorge06AMv14 1 90 6 0 0 1 0 8 00 0 2 0 4 1

2 3 Scale 11779 0 21

0 17 Link Annot: 5 0 0 0 2 8 0 9 0 2 2 51 7 0 0 0 1 8 3 3 40 9 0 0 4 5 3 90 2 0 6 50 30 0 31 80 2 5 1 20 6 0 940 2 0 0 2 Daily 6 3 5 0 3 6 1 0 00

0 3 50 2 0 0 Net. 1 Only 3 0 0 9 9 5 7 6 9 0 60 8 0 80 0 3 Bandwidths = 1

630 0 730 11 1 860 0 9 0 40 5 290 0 9 3 4 1000./mm 2 0 1 3 2 0 7 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 10 2 7 9 6 1 1 60 1 1 0 4 90 8 0 120 Summed data 6 13 6 60 0 1 0 1 18 0 50 0 0 0 200 80 1 2 1 0 20 1 1 36 5 60 5 9 0 0 0 0 9 60 7 2 5 5 4 1 0 5 0 7 0 1 5 3 2 70 1 14 60 0 9 8 0 5 0 0 0 7 6 5 1 20 0 380 0 1 12 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 50 5 9 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 5 9 4 3 8 6 1 0 0 6 0 9 0 0 3 2 0 4 87 7 9 3 60 0 0 1 1 72 1 25 0 0 80 2 0 1 1 9 43 1 6 1 0 0 6 2510 63 8 90 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 104 4 0 10 0 5 6 6 90 0

1 110 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 3 1 60 0 0 1 5 11 10 5 0 5 8 5 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 2 3 0 6 0 7 6 0 7 4 0 6 10 9 0 1 1 120 0 0 5 0 2 8 1 1 11 3 0 0 5 60 0 5 70 0 0 1 2 8 70 90 2 0 7 4 0 9 0 1 2 8

190 8 6 5 4 1 60 9 6 8 0 0 3 4 2 0 6 6 6 0 6 60 1 0 01 2 20 91 1 849470 0 0 32 0 9 0 81 1 3 0 1 6 90 0

0 0 4

0 6 7 3

9 0 0 6 1 8 0 9 9 0 8 0 6 0 9 3 0 9 0 3 0 7 6 9 8 0 1

7 70 0 0 0 17 2 0 28 1 9 69 3 0 0 3 2 2 3030 7 6 30 60 0 20 26 7 10 1 0 2 4 0

2 9 0 5 6 0 2 2 70 4 5 120 0 5 4 5 9 90 0 80

0 4

3 2 0 5 47 90 0 3 3 0

0 1510 2 1210 0 80 7 50 50 1 0 0 8 0

7 2

0 200 1

0 2 6 5 0 79 0 1 60 0 90 5

0 0

1 8 3 0 2 340 4 8 3 32 8 50 00 23-11-15 0 3150 141 0 70 0 0 3150 CARDNO T&T 6

3

0 9 1 2

2 4 2 8 2 0 4 2 8 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 LotsDaily 2036 Total Tra 23-11-15 SATURN

0 9 6 Atkins Ltd /

260 2720 DVV / ITS 2720 2 6 0 0 9 6 0 6 2 2 8 0 06AMv13.UFS 0 1 7 2 bingaragorge 540 3 2 gorge06PMv11 5 0 80 0

0 2 0 9

0 5 6

3 0 4 Scale 11779 31

6 02 30 Link Annot: 0 8 0 0 3 0 1 8 4 90 0 0 6 4 460 9 4 10 0 50 0 7 45 9 0 1 0 2 Daily 5 1 40 0 6 7 70 6 0 00 Net. 1 Only 0 0 3 2 7 1 9 0 0 4 0 1 1 80 110

0

3 Bandwidths =

6

940 0 15 1 1000./mm 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 4 3 5 0 3 0 6 3 6 2 1 6 1 90 0 0 1 1 20 70 1 190 1 Summed data 7 260 8 8 0 5 280 1 0 0 60 6 0 6 490 7 1 70 80 80 4 0 0 7 1 9 3 1 0 7 0 4 5 0 00 20 80 0 6 1390 7 6 90 4 1 6 180 8 5 0 0 0 2 1 5 6 9 2 1 60 4 0 6 0 0 0 9 6 0 1 450 9 6 0 7 0 4 3 0 9 4 30 6 8 0 0 0 6 8 9 1 473 2 20 0 2 76 1 0 02 3 2 0 4 840 8 1 7 6 3 8 1 2 4 0 9 7 2400 1 0 0 1 0 1270 1 0 0 9 8 0 7 60 7 160 3 0 0 7 0 150 0 1 7 60 8 5 7 6 0 6 0 1 1 1 8 8 0 0 8 1 9 150 7 170 0

1 6 7 1 1 3 210 4 0 80 0 100 0 6 1 9 0 5 90 2 0 2 7 0 40 1 40 0 0 2 40 80 1 0 1 0 0 7 8 4 180 6 90 0 01 5 1 24 0 29 590 1 1 2 0 0 4 1 0 2 5 1 6 120

0

0 0 0

7 2 1

0 4 1 0 0 11 1 0 5 0 7 0 1 5 0 4 0 5 6 1

3 0 6 3 2 6 6 1 7 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 1 26 0 0

1 3

6 6 39 3 45309 00

3 0

8 5 0 6 6 5 4 1 3 0 0 70 0 90 1

1 6 12 11 4 0 0 302 50 1 0 1 376 1 0 0 8 120 9

4 0 2180 0 7 175 3 0 0 1

5 0 6 1 0 110 80 1 80 120 0

8

0 1 2 24 64 80

50 0

0 8

4

6

0

1

6 90 140

2 3740 0 4 2 9 34 1 1 8 70 23-11-15 0 0 3400 15 110 70 0 3400 CARDNO T&T 8

2

4

2 5 0 2 2 0 5 0 2 0

NA82103043 - Bingara Corge Appeal - 1800 LotsDaily 2036 Total Tra 23-11-15 SATURN

0 1 2 Atkins Ltd /

90 930 DVV / ITS 930 2 0 1 0 8 1 2 9 0 2

0 0 9 3 06PMv12.UFS 0 9 170 bingaragorge 1 1 gorge06AMv14 0 90 0 0

0 0 1 gorge06PMv11 0 2 00 4 1 1 1 0 420 gorge06AMv13 10

60 Scale 11779 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 Link Annot: 0 2 1 3 10 1 3 13 90 0 0 40 12 5 13 0 6 1 1

0 3 2 0 + Daily 1 4

4 - Daily

0 42 0 0 3 5 310 460 130 5 0 80 9 Net. 1 Only 0 1 0 0 1 7 5 9 2 4 3 0 91 0 0 Bandwidths = 5 60 5 110 0 80 0 2 8 0 3 80 4 0 1 5 8 1000./mm 7 0 8 4 130 5 0 0 0 0 60 2 8 4 0 0 2 8 4 6 60 8 60 0 5 1 7 1 0 4 0 6 1 Summed data 0 0 37 4 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 332053 03 0 7 4 1 23 6 7 1 90 1 200 4 0 18050 0 8 6 0 1 4 0 5 5 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 2 3 1 0 2 8 6

6 4 16 2 0

1 1 0 1 0 2 2 4 60 250 1 8 3 7 1 4 0 0 0 120

0 2 1

0

3

0 1 0

2 0 4 1 0 0 0

6 7 0 1 1 2 5 0

0 1 2 8 1 39 1 4 0 0 0 8 9 0 1 1 3 2 14906 10 2 1 1 0 290 0 0 0 2 1 1 9 2 149 3 1 390 0 2 0 1 0 6 29 15 1 0 50 5 0 7

7 130 0 2 0 6

1 0 670 9 540

4

8

0

0

6

6 90

0

0 7

7

5

40 0 0 1 270 1 250 23-11-15

0 1 CARDNO T&T 6 0 5 0 250 8 3 5 0 6 3 8 0 0 5 2 5 7 4 0

7 4 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 vsts 1165 23-11-15 Lo 0 SATURN 1 0 4

40 Atkins Ltd /

3 5 40 DVV / ITS 0 40 0 1 140 0 0 0 4 3 140 4 3 0 06AMv14.UFS 0 4 1 30 bingaragorge 30 1 6 0 5 0 Scale 11779 0 0 4 20 2 70

20 Link Annot: 20 0 7 101

0

0 6 0 0 0 22 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 23 10 1 100 0 10 5 5 0 Demand flow 0 10 0 4 0 10 1 10 0 2 2 1 0 5 0 1

1

0 0 Bandwidths = 0 1 0 9 0 100./mm 2 0

8 20

0 70 0 3 50

9 10 7600 8 0 20 0

9 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 20 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 320 0 20 0 0 0 5 4 20 1 9 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 30 0 4 6 4 0 4 0 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 7 02 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 6 1 1 13 1 4 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 4 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 2 5 2 2 3 5 0 0 110 9 60 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 1 8 4 0 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 0 5 30 24 0 1 7 8 3 50 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 1 17 30 0 20 1700 1 1 0 7 80 0 8 0 80 2 6 0 0 90 3 2 9 1 8 0 1 0 0 40 71 3 8 7 5 0

9 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 8 2 6 3 1

4 0 10 0 0 90 0 2 2 14 0 8 10 20 2 0 2 2 510 0 0 3 2 7 1 0 52 3 0 0 5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 6 5 1 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 0 3 4 7 0 5 7 0 0 6 0 0 3 7 1 70 7 70 0 7 13 60 1 20 0 1 1 10 9 1 0 9 90 230 0 0 2 2 00 6 1 220 0

0 0 2 2 4 10 2 90 7 0 0 2 20 0 0 60 4

7 0 70 3 19 90 70

6 14 90 0 20 5

0

18 10 0

0 70 0 3

6 13 80

0

6 200 200 200 2 23-11-15 140 00 1 0 1 2 705 9 130 0 1 1 CARDNO T&T 0 30 1 7 130

3 1 8 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 7 2 1 9 0 1 2 7 0

0

2 1 2 9 0 1 2 7 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots AM total2036 traff 23-11-15 0 SATURN 2 0 5 Atkins Ltd / 60 60 DVV / ITS 0 2 10 210 0 0 0 5 4 6 210 4 1 0 06AMv13.UFS 00 1 40 2 bingaragorge 40 2 5 gorge06PMv11 10 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 1 20 4 Scale 11779 20 0 2 Link Annot: 20

0

0 9 2 0 0 0 25 20 2 130 0 0 13 4 0 1 0 1 Demand flow

2

0 1 0 0 4 1

0 Net. 1 Only 4 0

1

1

0

0

4 70 3 Bandwidths = 20 10 1 100./mm 0 0 3 1 1 0 8 1 0

6 0

0 5 7 8 20 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 10 6 30 20 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 30 6 6 6 0 1 800 30 20 1 5 5 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 3 10 4 6 1 62 0 0 10 5 0 2 0 0 4 0 7 0 2 11 0 4 7 30 01 20 90 2 2 0 60 0 0 1 60 0 2 2 4 1 4 2 2 0 3 25 0 6 0 5 21 0 10 03 0 10 3 30 5 0 0 1 20 30 0 30 20 0 2 1 1 8 0 10 0 0 100 110 2 10 10 2 0 1 1 2 0

7 4 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 3 4 1 0 5 1 0 0 100 9 9 4 0 10 0 10 1 0 10 17 0 6 20 0 2 0 31 2 530 0 5 7 16 10 0 2

0 9 0 4 2

0

0 1

0 2 5 7 0 1 20 0 2 0 1 2 120 6 1 100 2 40 20 0 0 2 320 1 0 0 2 1 3 9 2 2 0 80 0 1

0

5

1

0 1 10 3 0 110 5 0

1 0 1 1 110 4 2 1 290 10

1

1

0 14 60

5

0

0

0

0 2 5

0

1 14 10 10 220 220 220 2 23-11-15 170 20 1 0 182 08 1 140 0 2 1 CARDNO T&T 0 30

1 2 130 4 1 2 0 1 3 5 0 1 2 9 0

1 3 5 0 1 2 9 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 Lots AM total2036 traff 23-11-15 5 SATURN

6 1 Atkins Ltd / 23 23 DVV / ITS 5

72 6 3 3 72 1 1 2 1 2 06AMv14.UFS 3 7 13 bingaragorge 13

8 gorge06AMv13 5

2 6 8 7 0 1 1 Scale 11779 8 8 Link Annot:

6

2 5 6 8 8 1 33 34 + Demand flo

8 - Demand flo 4 3

1

1 2

3 Differ: 2-1

3

8

8 1 24

3 Bandwidths = 8

5 4 100./mm

1 8

2 2 8 1 6 2 8 1 6 0 8

1 6

2

2 1 4 6 6 5 8 7 5 182 4 1

2 5 6 5 5 2 10 2 1 6 8 2 11 2 5 2 6 5 2 0 1 5 2 3 0 8 43 4 33 2 5 21 19

4 56

2 2 7 7 5 7 0 6 4 31 2 7 54 17 27 94 187

8 1

6

99

6 8

1 5

5 2 45 1 9 2 6 45 4 9 39 6 202 92 9 81 7 4 6

9

0

4 2 0 96 1 9 46 0

4 2 43 1 41

4

1 5

34 -7

3 3 3 5 1 9 1

3

18 17 18 18 23-11-15 7 27

1 2 8 95 6 CARDNO T&T 5

5 3 6 5

5 5

1 8

5 5

1 8

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots AM total2036 traff 23-11-15 0 SATURN 4 0 1 Atkins Ltd / 140 140 DVV / ITS 20 0 4 30 40 0

1 0 40 1

3 4 3 0 1 0 0 06PMv12.UFS 4 bingaragorge

0 5 3 0 1 0 0 7 1 Scale 11779 2 0 20 2 0 20 10 20 Link Annot:

0 105 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 30 0 3 5 2 2 0 4 2 0 2 0 Demand flow 30 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 9 9 0 7 0 1 4

5

0 0 0 Bandwidths = 3 1 2 2 0 100./mm 8 0 70 2

0

0

9 2 3 0 20 50 20 20

0 0 30 1 3 60 70 0 7 4 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 980 2 0 0 10 10 0 6 0 1 6 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 4 6 0 0 8 5 9 0 80 1 0 6 2 0 3 0 30 0 3 2 1 2 30 0 0 2 1 30 5 5 50 0 1 0 8 0 4 150 8 0 3 6 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 20 5 1 5 2 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 8 0 40 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 4 4 8 1 2 0 5 6 0 1 1 70 5 4 0 1 7 400 0 7 0 0 60 60 7 6 0 70 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 4 20 2 6 0 2 100 0 5 5

1 9 3 7 3 1 0 3 5 9 0

7 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 2 8 0 2 10 9 3 5 04 1 3 0 0 9 0 0 1 7 7 0 1 380

0 0 5 1 1 5 7 0 0 7 7 0 2

1 0 0 0 3 8 2 0 5 1 9 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 7 5 0 1 3 220 0 10 0 0 5 1 1 7 9 1 9 220 0 6 0 1 1 190 29 0 0 6 114 3 3 0 0 0 0 90 2 80 1 1 90 8 0 0 0

2 8 2 0 7 8 2 0 0 80 9 0 170 2 0 2 129 3 0 0

60 1 40

8 0 3

0 1 0 1 8 7 1 0 0 20 80

70

0

0 9

3 11 90

0

3 140 130 120 19 120 23-11-15 0 0

1 9 0 0 19 11 1 0 6 06 19 CARDNO T&T 0 0 0 0

7 190 1 9 1 1 9 0 0 0 8 7 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 6 0

1 1 3 0 1 1 6 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots PM total2036 traff 23-11-15 0 SATURN 5 0 2 Atkins Ltd / 210 210 DVV / ITS 0 5 40 70 0 0 70 2 1 0 1 1 4 0 06AMv13.UFS 0 2 0 7 10 bingaragorge 10

8 gorge06PMv11 40 0 2 0 5 0 3 0 2 20 0 1 20 Scale 11779 20 Link Annot: 10 0 2 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 2 32 7 0 0 33 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 Demand flow

7

0 0 3 3

0 Net. 2 Only 1 0

1 3 10

0

0

2 20 4 Bandwidths =

70 1

100./mm

0 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 8 10 0 20 20 0 4 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 0 1 10 0 0

0

7 0 8 1 0 20 8 6 0 0 3 2 8 0 1 0 2 0 00 0 1 3 0 6 0 3 4 2 1 2 1 0 8 0 40 8 4 0 3 1 0 32 0 0 160 0 30 9 0 5 0 7 4 1 0 6 2 2 0 0 8 0 20 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 2 1 5 9 2 4 0 8 6 0 1 00 5 3 1 0 10 10 1 1 7 10 1 0 0 8 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 80 07 0 8 6 0 0 7 0 30 30

7 1 0 1 10 3 7

2 0 4 1 1

5 0 6 6 4 0 0 10 0 1 9 0 0 10 3 3 0 2 9 0 30 10 0 0 0 10 7 0 1390 0 20 6 6 5 0 0

3

0 3 0 9 4 0

1 0 0 2 6 5 0 330 3 0 20

0 7 330 6 9 280 2 13 91 90 0 0

2 0 140 7 3 1 1 20 0

0

3

3 0 2 26 0 0 1 3 0

3 0 1 4 3 1 90 90 0 2 50

4

0 12 0 10 1 2 2 30

0

0

0 4

4 1 10 12 30

150 140 0 1 130 1 23-11-15 210 30 1 0 1 0 307 4 210 0 2 2 CARDNO T&T 0 10

1 9 210 2 3 1 0 1 1 5 0 1 2 2 0

1 1 5 0 1 2 2 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 LotsPM Total2036 Traff 23-11-15 7 SATURN 1

Atkins Ltd / 72 72 DVV / ITS 7 1 13 18 2 18 7 1 8 06PMv06.UFS 3 1 bingaragorge

2 gorge06AMv07 21 4 9 1 gorge06AMv08 3 1 gorge06PMv07

Scale 11779

7 1 7 113 Link Annot: 1 5 11

1

7 6 1 1

6 + PM_Diff 3 - PM_Diff

0

0

4

1 17

Net. 1 Only

1 5

5 Bandwidths = 7 5 5 100./mm 4 4 0 8

5

7

6

4 1 0 9 4 1 4 1 2 14 8 8 12 8 4 5 13 6 0 5 15 1 5 5 189 121 2 6 0

2

9 1

1 6 2 1 54 9 5 2 9 0 1 9 2 60

25 65

2

1 0 27 2 9 5 1

1 100 7 1 2 101 5 0 2 0

2 80 1 245 38 3 4 7 3 2

8

7 8 0 5 7 2 1

8 2

1 11

5

4 50

6 6 4 3 7

1

17 11 11-11-15 8 21 7 361 20 4 2 CARDNO T&T 5 0

1 20 6 3

2 5

1 0 0

2 5

1 0 0

NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal Diff between 7 1165 1800 Lots PM Transport Assessment

Bingara Gorge

APPENDIX D SIDRA MODELLING OUTPUTS

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 50 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ

Giveway / Yield (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: Picton Road 5 T1 1124 17.0 0.634 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 6 R2 22 1.0 0.063 16.8 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.83 0.94 47.5 Approach 1146 16.7 0.634 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 101 1.0 0.470 25.7 LOS B 1.6 11.5 0.91 1.04 41.5 9 R2 638 1.0 2.501 2726.5 LOS F 485.1 3424.7 1.00 20.01 1.3 Approach 739 1.0 2.501 2357.3 LOS F 485.1 3424.7 0.99 17.41 1.5 West: Picton Road 10 L2 194 1.0 0.121 7.4 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.08 0.58 54.9 11 T1 1105 19.4 0.632 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1299 16.7 0.632 1.2 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.01 0.09 74.5 All Vehicles 3184 13.0 2.501 547.8 NA 485.1 3424.7 0.24 4.08 6.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ

Giveway / Yield (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: Picton Road 5 T1 1010 10.4 0.547 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 85 1.0 0.223 17.0 LOS B 0.8 5.8 0.83 0.95 47.3 Approach 1095 9.7 0.547 1.4 NA 0.8 5.8 0.06 0.07 75.6 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 35 1.0 0.145 18.1 LOS B 0.4 3.0 0.84 0.92 45.3 9 R2 186 1.0 0.729 29.2 LOS C 3.4 23.8 0.94 1.22 39.5 Approach 221 1.0 0.729 27.4 LOS B 3.4 23.8 0.92 1.17 40.3 West: Picton Road 10 L2 629 1.0 0.415 7.7 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.58 54.3 11 T1 1040 9.7 0.561 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 Approach 1669 6.4 0.561 3.0 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.09 0.22 67.7 All Vehicles 2985 7.2 0.729 4.2 NA 3.4 23.8 0.14 0.24 66.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Giveway / Yield (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: Picton Road 5 T1 1130 17.0 0.637 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 6 R2 32 1.0 0.093 17.0 LOS B 0.3 2.1 0.84 0.94 47.4 Approach 1162 16.6 0.637 0.6 NA 0.3 2.1 0.02 0.03 78.0 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 239 1.0 1.120 274.8 LOS F 39.0 275.4 1.00 4.42 10.9 9 R2 910 1.0 3.599 4701.1 LOS F 829.3 5855.1 1.00 23.64 0.8 Approach 1149 1.0 3.599 3780.4 LOS F 829.3 5855.1 1.00 19.64 1.0 West: Picton Road 10 L2 290 1.0 0.183 7.4 LOS A 0.8 6.0 0.11 0.58 54.8 11 T1 1107 19.4 0.633 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1397 15.6 0.633 1.7 LOS A 0.8 6.0 0.02 0.12 72.6 All Vehicles 3708 11.4 3.599 1172.3 NA 829.3 5855.1 0.33 6.14 3.0

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Giveway / Yield (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: Picton Road 5 T1 1011 10.4 0.548 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 116 1.0 0.313 18.5 LOS B 1.2 8.6 0.85 0.98 46.5 Approach 1127 9.4 0.548 2.0 NA 1.2 8.6 0.09 0.10 74.2 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 48 1.0 0.205 19.5 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.85 0.94 44.6 9 R2 277 1.0 1.167 344.9 LOS F 56.2 396.8 1.00 5.64 8.9 Approach 325 1.0 1.167 296.9 LOS F 56.2 396.8 0.98 4.95 10.2 West: Picton Road 10 L2 906 1.0 0.614 8.2 LOS A 5.1 36.3 0.39 0.59 53.8 11 T1 1050 9.7 0.567 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 Approach 1956 5.7 0.614 3.9 LOS A 5.1 36.3 0.18 0.27 65.1 All Vehicles 3408 6.5 1.167 31.2 NA 56.2 396.8 0.23 0.66 44.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 70 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 1124 17.0 0.746 19.8 LOS B 17.3 138.6 0.90 0.83 55.8 6 R2 22 1.0 0.138 41.1 LOS C 0.7 5.2 0.96 0.70 36.4 Approach 1146 16.7 0.746 20.2 LOS B 17.3 138.6 0.90 0.82 55.3 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 101 1.0 0.122 10.2 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.50 0.65 50.1 9 R2 638 1.0 0.752 34.8 LOS C 11.2 78.7 0.99 0.91 37.4 Approach 739 1.0 0.752 31.5 LOS C 11.2 78.7 0.92 0.87 38.7 West: Picton Road 10 L2 194 1.0 0.135 8.0 LOS A 0.7 4.6 0.20 0.66 54.5 11 T1 1105 19.4 0.757 20.3 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.90 0.84 55.4 Approach 1299 16.7 0.757 18.5 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.79 0.81 55.3 All Vehicles 3184 13.0 0.757 22.1 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.86 0.83 50.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 1010 10.4 0.547 11.3 LOS A 10.3 78.5 0.74 0.65 64.2 6 R2 85 1.0 0.456 36.9 LOS C 2.5 18.0 0.98 0.76 38.0 Approach 1095 9.7 0.547 13.2 LOS A 10.3 78.5 0.76 0.66 61.0 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 35 1.0 0.048 7.6 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.41 0.60 52.0 9 R2 186 1.0 0.499 34.4 LOS C 2.8 19.8 0.99 0.77 37.5 Approach 221 1.0 0.499 30.2 LOS C 2.8 19.8 0.90 0.74 39.3 West: Picton Road 10 L2 629 1.0 0.454 8.8 LOS A 4.1 28.9 0.39 0.72 53.8 11 T1 1040 9.7 0.561 11.4 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.74 0.66 64.1 Approach 1669 6.4 0.561 10.4 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.61 0.68 59.8 All Vehicles 2985 7.2 0.561 12.9 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.69 0.68 57.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 80 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 1130 17.0 0.833 30.2 LOS C 23.3 186.9 0.96 0.95 48.2 6 R2 32 1.0 0.229 47.2 LOS D 1.3 8.9 0.97 0.72 34.3 Approach 1162 16.6 0.833 30.6 LOS C 23.3 186.9 0.96 0.95 47.7 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 239 1.0 0.265 12.9 LOS A 4.5 32.0 0.58 0.70 48.3 9 R2 910 1.0 0.895 46.6 LOS D 24.1 170.1 0.97 1.05 33.4 Approach 1149 1.0 0.895 39.6 LOS C 24.1 170.1 0.89 0.98 35.7 West: Picton Road 10 L2 290 1.0 0.201 8.0 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.21 0.66 54.5 11 T1 1107 19.4 0.878 36.0 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.97 1.02 44.8 Approach 1397 15.6 0.878 30.2 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.81 0.95 46.5 All Vehicles 3708 11.4 0.895 33.2 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.88 0.96 42.8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 55 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 1011 10.4 0.603 12.4 LOS A 10.4 79.3 0.80 0.70 63.0 6 R2 116 1.0 0.571 34.7 LOS C 3.2 22.9 0.99 0.80 38.9 Approach 1127 9.4 0.603 14.7 LOS B 10.4 79.3 0.82 0.71 59.2 North: Pembroke Parade 7 L2 48 1.0 0.064 7.9 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.45 0.62 51.7 9 R2 277 1.0 0.681 33.2 LOS C 4.0 28.3 1.00 0.87 38.0 Approach 325 1.0 0.681 29.5 LOS C 4.0 28.3 0.92 0.83 39.6 West: Picton Road 10 L2 906 1.0 0.685 9.8 LOS A 8.7 61.8 0.59 0.78 53.0 11 T1 1050 9.7 0.623 12.5 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.81 0.72 62.8 Approach 1956 5.7 0.685 11.3 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.71 0.74 57.9 All Vehicles 3408 6.5 0.685 14.1 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.77 0.74 55.8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 980 17.0 0.558 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 22 1.0 0.064 17.0 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.82 0.93 47.5 Approach 1002 16.7 0.558 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4 North: Almond Street 7 L2 43 1.0 0.282 32.8 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.90 1.03 38.9 9 R2 151 1.0 5.913 9014.8 LOS F 170.6 1204.7 1.00 4.14 0.4 Approach 194 1.0 5.913 7023.9 LOS F 170.6 1204.7 0.98 3.45 0.5 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 1030 19.4 0.595 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1201 16.8 0.595 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 77.2 All Vehicles 2397 15.5 5.913 569.3 NA 170.6 1204.7 0.09 0.33 5.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 988 10.0 0.540 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 51 1.0 0.101 13.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.74 0.90 49.7 Approach 1039 9.6 0.540 0.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.04 0.04 77.4 North: Almond Street 7 L2 69 1.0 0.278 22.6 LOS B 0.9 6.6 0.84 1.04 43.5 9 R2 142 1.0 3.405 4448.6 LOS F 133.8 944.5 1.00 5.24 0.8 Approach 211 1.0 3.405 3001.2 LOS F 133.8 944.5 0.95 3.87 1.2 West: Picton Road 10 L2 111 1.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 920 10.5 0.504 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7 Approach 1031 9.4 0.504 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 77.9 All Vehicles 2281 8.7 3.405 278.4 NA 133.8 944.5 0.10 0.41 11.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 975 17.0 0.555 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 30 1.0 0.092 17.8 LOS B 0.3 2.2 0.83 0.94 47.0 Approach 1005 16.5 0.555 0.6 NA 0.3 2.2 0.02 0.03 78.0 North: Almond Street 7 L2 75 1.0 0.530 42.4 LOS C 1.8 12.9 0.94 1.09 35.3 9 R2 175 1.0 7.453 11795.8 LOS F 206.6 1458.8 1.00 4.02 0.3 Approach 250 1.0 7.453 8269.8 LOS F 206.6 1458.8 0.98 3.14 0.4 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 1050 19.4 0.606 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1221 16.8 0.606 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.2 All Vehicles 2476 15.1 7.453 835.8 NA 206.6 1458.8 0.11 0.37 4.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 1008 10.0 0.551 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 104 1.0 0.212 14.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.77 0.92 49.2 Approach 1112 9.2 0.551 1.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.07 0.09 75.3 North: Almond Street 7 L2 78 1.0 0.323 23.8 LOS B 1.1 7.9 0.85 1.05 42.9 9 R2 155 1.0 4.458 6359.5 LOS F 161.0 1136.6 1.00 4.92 0.6 Approach 233 1.0 4.458 4238.5 LOS F 161.0 1136.6 0.95 3.63 0.9 West: Picton Road 10 L2 133 1.0 0.072 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 930 10.5 0.509 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7 Approach 1063 9.3 0.509 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.6 All Vehicles 2408 8.4 4.458 411.2 NA 161.0 1136.6 0.13 0.42 8.0

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 980 17.0 0.558 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 22 1.0 0.064 17.0 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.82 0.93 47.5 Approach 1002 16.7 0.558 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4 North: Almond Street 7 L2 43 1.0 0.282 32.8 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.90 1.03 38.9 9 R2 151 1.0 0.841 55.0 LOS D 4.4 31.2 0.97 1.40 31.5 Approach 194 1.0 0.841 50.1 LOS D 4.4 31.2 0.96 1.31 32.9 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 1030 19.4 0.595 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1201 16.8 0.595 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 77.2 All Vehicles 2397 15.5 0.841 4.9 NA 4.4 31.2 0.08 0.16 70.0

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 988 10.0 0.540 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 51 1.0 0.101 13.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.74 0.90 49.7 Approach 1039 9.6 0.540 0.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.04 0.04 77.4 North: Almond Street 7 L2 69 1.0 0.278 22.6 LOS B 0.9 6.6 0.84 1.04 43.5 9 R2 142 1.0 0.538 25.4 LOS B 2.1 15.2 0.88 1.13 42.2 Approach 211 1.0 0.538 24.5 LOS B 2.1 15.2 0.87 1.10 42.6 West: Picton Road 10 L2 111 1.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 920 10.5 0.504 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7 Approach 1031 9.4 0.504 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 77.9 All Vehicles 2281 8.7 0.540 3.0 NA 2.1 15.2 0.10 0.15 72.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 975 17.0 0.555 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 30 1.0 0.092 17.8 LOS B 0.3 2.2 0.83 0.94 47.0 Approach 1005 16.5 0.555 0.6 NA 0.3 2.2 0.02 0.03 78.0 North: Almond Street 7 L2 75 1.0 0.530 42.4 LOS C 1.8 12.9 0.94 1.09 35.3 9 R2 175 1.0 1.045 181.9 LOS F 18.3 129.1 1.00 2.79 15.0 Approach 250 1.0 1.045 140.1 LOS F 18.3 129.1 0.98 2.28 18.2 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 1050 19.4 0.606 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5 Approach 1221 16.8 0.606 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.2 All Vehicles 2476 15.1 1.045 15.0 NA 18.3 129.1 0.11 0.28 58.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ 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: Picton Road 5 T1 1008 10.0 0.551 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6 6 R2 104 1.0 0.212 14.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.77 0.92 49.2 Approach 1112 9.2 0.551 1.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.07 0.09 75.3 North: Almond Street 7 L2 78 1.0 0.323 23.8 LOS B 1.1 7.9 0.85 1.05 42.9 9 R2 155 1.0 0.652 30.9 LOS C 2.8 19.9 0.92 1.19 39.7 Approach 233 1.0 0.652 28.6 LOS C 2.8 19.9 0.90 1.14 40.7 West: Picton Road 10 L2 133 1.0 0.072 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9 11 T1 930 10.5 0.509 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7 Approach 1063 9.3 0.509 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.6 All Vehicles 2408 8.4 0.652 3.9 NA 2.8 19.9 0.12 0.18 70.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 980 17.0 0.592 12.9 LOS A 10.8 86.2 0.79 0.69 62.4 6 R2 22 1.0 0.118 35.2 LOS C 0.6 4.4 0.94 0.70 38.5 Approach 1002 16.7 0.592 13.4 LOS A 10.8 86.2 0.79 0.69 61.5 North: Almond Parade 7 L2 43 1.0 0.057 8.3 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.45 0.62 51.5 9 R2 151 1.0 0.608 33.2 LOS C 4.5 31.9 0.99 0.83 38.0 Approach 194 1.0 0.608 27.7 LOS B 4.5 31.9 0.87 0.78 40.4 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.120 8.0 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.23 0.66 54.4 11 T1 1030 19.4 0.631 13.3 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.81 0.71 62.0 Approach 1201 16.8 0.631 12.5 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.73 0.71 60.8 All Vehicles 2397 15.5 0.631 14.1 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.77 0.71 58.7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 55 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 988 10.0 0.612 13.1 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.82 0.72 62.1 6 R2 51 1.0 0.251 33.0 LOS C 1.3 9.5 0.95 0.74 39.4 Approach 1039 9.6 0.612 14.1 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.83 0.72 60.4 North: Almond Parade 7 L2 69 1.0 0.085 7.6 LOS A 0.6 4.1 0.44 0.62 51.9 9 R2 142 1.0 0.599 31.3 LOS C 3.9 27.8 0.99 0.82 38.8 Approach 211 1.0 0.599 23.5 LOS B 3.9 27.8 0.81 0.76 42.3 West: Picton Road 10 L2 111 1.0 0.081 8.2 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.26 0.66 54.3 11 T1 920 10.5 0.571 12.8 LOS A 9.5 72.2 0.80 0.70 62.5 Approach 1031 9.4 0.571 12.3 LOS A 9.5 72.2 0.74 0.69 61.5 All Vehicles 2281 8.7 0.612 14.2 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.79 0.71 58.5

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 975 17.0 0.611 13.7 LOS A 11.0 88.4 0.81 0.71 61.5 6 R2 30 1.0 0.161 35.4 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.95 0.71 38.4 Approach 1005 16.5 0.611 14.4 LOS A 11.0 88.4 0.82 0.71 60.4 North: Almond Parade 7 L2 75 1.0 0.097 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.48 0.64 51.1 9 R2 175 1.0 0.626 32.4 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.99 0.84 38.3 Approach 250 1.0 0.626 25.4 LOS B 5.2 36.7 0.83 0.78 41.4 West: Picton Road 10 L2 171 1.0 0.121 8.0 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.23 0.66 54.4 11 T1 1050 19.4 0.667 14.2 LOS A 12.3 100.6 0.84 0.74 61.0 Approach 1221 16.8 0.667 13.4 LOS A 12.3 100.6 0.76 0.73 59.9 All Vehicles 2476 15.1 0.667 15.0 LOS B 12.3 100.6 0.79 0.73 57.5

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ

Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 50 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

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: Picton Road 5 T1 1008 10.0 0.681 14.3 LOS A 10.7 81.5 0.88 0.79 60.9 6 R2 104 1.0 0.465 31.0 LOS C 2.6 18.1 0.97 0.77 40.3 Approach 1112 9.2 0.681 15.9 LOS B 10.7 81.5 0.89 0.79 58.1 North: Almond Parade 7 L2 78 1.0 0.097 8.0 LOS A 0.7 4.7 0.49 0.64 51.7 9 R2 155 1.0 0.693 30.5 LOS C 4.1 28.9 1.00 0.88 39.1 Approach 233 1.0 0.693 22.9 LOS B 4.1 28.9 0.83 0.80 42.6 West: Picton Road 10 L2 133 1.0 0.103 8.5 LOS A 0.6 4.1 0.32 0.67 54.1 11 T1 930 10.5 0.630 13.3 LOS A 9.4 71.5 0.86 0.74 61.9 Approach 1063 9.3 0.630 12.7 LOS A 9.4 71.5 0.79 0.73 60.8 All Vehicles 2408 8.4 0.693 15.2 LOS B 10.7 81.5 0.84 0.76 57.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - AM - 1165 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - AM - 1165 dwellings 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: Pembroke Sth 2 T1 144 2.0 0.138 4.0 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 54.0 3 R2 69 2.0 0.138 8.9 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 53.5 Approach 213 2.0 0.138 5.6 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 53.8 East: Oxenbridge 4 L2 208 2.0 0.250 6.9 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 49.9 6 R2 18 2.0 0.250 12.0 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 54.6 Approach 226 2.0 0.250 7.3 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 50.4 North: Pembroke (Nth) 7 L2 2 2.0 0.369 4.2 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.8 8 T1 531 2.0 0.369 4.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.5 Approach 533 2.0 0.369 4.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.5 All Vehicles 972 2.0 0.369 5.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.31 0.49 53.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - PM - 1165 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - PM - 1165 dwellings 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: Pembroke (Sth) 2 T1 508 2.0 0.443 4.0 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.6 3 R2 205 2.0 0.443 9.0 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.0 Approach 713 2.0 0.443 5.5 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.4 East: Oxenbridge 4 L2 68 2.0 0.076 4.5 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 50.5 6 R2 23 2.0 0.076 9.5 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 55.4 Approach 91 2.0 0.076 5.8 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 52.2 North: Pembroke (Nth) 7 L2 13 2.0 0.144 4.8 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 54.3 8 T1 156 2.0 0.144 4.9 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 53.5 Approach 169 2.0 0.144 4.9 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 53.6 All Vehicles 973 2.0 0.443 5.4 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.21 0.47 53.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - AM - 1800 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - AM - 1800 dwellings 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: Pembroke (Sth) 2 T1 207 2.0 0.207 4.0 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 53.4 3 R2 115 2.0 0.207 8.9 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 52.8 Approach 322 2.0 0.207 5.7 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 53.2 East: Oxenbridge 4 L2 312 2.0 0.457 10.2 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 46.2 6 R2 20 2.0 0.457 15.2 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 52.4 Approach 332 2.0 0.457 10.5 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 46.8 North: Pembroke (Nth) 7 L2 2 2.0 0.536 4.6 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 54.1 8 T1 736 2.0 0.536 4.8 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 53.2 Approach 738 2.0 0.536 4.8 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 53.2 All Vehicles 1392 2.0 0.536 6.4 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.45 0.57 51.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - PM - 1800 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - PM - 1800 dwellings 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: Pembroke (Sth) 2 T1 698 2.0 0.639 4.2 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.9 3 R2 322 2.0 0.639 9.1 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.2 Approach 1020 2.0 0.639 5.7 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.7 East: Oxenbridge 4 L2 107 2.0 0.123 4.8 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 50.3 6 R2 32 2.0 0.123 9.9 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 55.2 Approach 139 2.0 0.123 6.0 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 51.8 North: Pembroke (Nth) 7 L2 13 2.0 0.222 5.5 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 53.7 8 T1 223 2.0 0.222 5.7 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 52.6 Approach 236 2.0 0.222 5.7 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 52.7 All Vehicles 1395 2.0 0.639 5.8 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.33 0.49 52.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - AM - 1165 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - AM - 1165 Dwellings 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: Pembroke Pde (Sth) 1 L2 122 2.0 0.126 4.2 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.3 2 T1 12 2.0 0.126 4.4 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 53.2 3 R2 39 2.0 0.126 8.8 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.2 3u U 3 2.0 0.126 10.8 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 56.4 Approach 176 2.0 0.126 5.3 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.2 East: Greenbridge Drive 4 L2 139 2.0 0.175 6.3 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 52.4 5 T1 19 2.0 0.175 6.5 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 53.3 6 R2 10 2.0 0.175 10.9 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 34.9 6u U 1 2.0 0.175 12.9 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 52.5 Approach 169 2.0 0.175 6.6 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 51.7 North: Spearing Street 7 L2 1 2.0 0.119 6.3 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 45.6 8 T1 104 2.0 0.119 6.5 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 51.4 9 R2 7 2.0 0.119 10.9 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 50.4 9u U 1 2.0 0.119 12.9 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 33.0 Approach 113 2.0 0.119 6.8 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 51.2 West: Fairways Dr 10 L2 15 2.0 0.287 4.3 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 48.2 11 T1 91 2.0 0.287 4.6 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 52.0 12 R2 294 2.0 0.287 8.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.4 12u U 1 2.0 0.287 10.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.9 Approach 401 2.0 0.287 7.8 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.0 All Vehicles 859 2.0 0.287 6.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.32 0.58 52.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - PM - 1165 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - PM - 1165 Dwellings 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: Pembroke Pde (Sth) 1 L2 314 2.0 0.401 4.6 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.7 2 T1 86 2.0 0.401 4.8 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 52.3 3 R2 134 2.0 0.401 9.2 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.5 3u U 4 2.0 0.401 11.2 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 55.8 Approach 538 2.0 0.401 5.8 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.5 East: Greenbridge Drive 4 L2 18 2.0 0.058 5.0 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.7 5 T1 41 2.0 0.058 5.2 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 53.6 6 R2 5 2.0 0.058 9.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 35.5 6u U 1 2.0 0.058 11.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.9 Approach 65 2.0 0.058 5.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.2 North: Spearing Street 7 L2 1 2.0 0.075 5.4 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 44.3 8 T1 29 2.0 0.075 5.6 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 50.2 9 R2 49 2.0 0.075 10.0 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 49.2 9u U 1 2.0 0.075 12.0 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 32.1 Approach 80 2.0 0.075 8.3 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 49.4 West: Fairways Dr 10 L2 4 2.0 0.135 5.2 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 47.0 11 T1 17 2.0 0.135 5.4 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 50.9 12 R2 126 2.0 0.135 9.8 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.5 12u U 1 2.0 0.135 11.8 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.9 Approach 148 2.0 0.135 9.2 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.3 All Vehicles 831 2.0 0.401 6.7 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.36 0.56 52.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - AM - 1800 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - AM - 1800 Dwellings 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: Pembroke Pde (Sth) 1 L2 179 2.0 0.170 4.2 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3 2 T1 14 2.0 0.170 4.4 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 53.3 3 R2 39 2.0 0.170 8.8 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3 3u U 5 2.0 0.170 10.8 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 56.5 Approach 237 2.0 0.170 5.1 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3 East: Greenbridge Drive 4 L2 159 2.0 0.236 7.8 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 51.2 5 T1 22 2.0 0.236 8.0 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 52.0 6 R2 11 2.0 0.236 12.4 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 33.9 6u U 3 2.0 0.236 14.4 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 50.8 Approach 195 2.0 0.236 8.2 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 50.5 North: Spearing Street 7 L2 1 2.0 0.157 7.7 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 44.7 8 T1 117 2.0 0.157 7.9 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 50.6 9 R2 8 2.0 0.157 12.3 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 49.5 9u U 1 2.0 0.157 14.3 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 32.1 Approach 127 2.0 0.157 8.2 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 50.4 West: Fairways Dr 10 L2 15 2.0 0.413 4.4 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 47.7 11 T1 101 2.0 0.413 4.7 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 51.5 12 R2 466 2.0 0.413 9.1 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 53.1 12u U 1 2.0 0.413 11.1 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 53.5 Approach 583 2.0 0.413 8.2 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 52.8 All Vehicles 1142 2.0 0.413 7.5 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.37 0.61 52.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - PM - 1800 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - PM - 1800 Dwellings 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: Pembroke Pde (Sth) 1 L2 485 2.0 0.547 4.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.6 2 T1 95 2.0 0.547 5.0 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 52.2 3 R2 153 2.0 0.547 9.4 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.4 3u U 6 2.0 0.547 11.4 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 55.7 Approach 739 2.0 0.547 5.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.4 East: Greenbridge Drive 4 L2 22 2.0 0.069 5.3 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.5 5 T1 45 2.0 0.069 5.5 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 53.4 6 R2 5 2.0 0.069 9.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 35.3 6u U 1 2.0 0.069 11.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.6 Approach 73 2.0 0.069 5.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.1 North: Spearing Street 7 L2 1 2.0 0.087 5.8 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 44.0 8 T1 33 2.0 0.087 6.0 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 49.9 9 R2 51 2.0 0.087 10.4 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 48.9 9u U 1 2.0 0.087 12.4 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 31.8 Approach 86 2.0 0.087 8.7 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 49.1 West: Fairways Dr 10 L2 4 2.0 0.195 5.4 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 46.7 11 T1 19 2.0 0.195 5.7 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 50.6 12 R2 184 2.0 0.195 10.0 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.3 12u U 1 2.0 0.195 12.0 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.7 Approach 208 2.0 0.195 9.6 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.1 All Vehicles 1106 2.0 0.547 6.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.43 0.57 52.8

Transport Assessment

Bingara Gorge

APPENDIX E REPORT AUTHOR CURRICULUM VITAES

NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 51

Shane Healey

Current Position Summary of Experience Senior Principal Shane is a Senior Transport Engineer and Principal with Cardno and functions as the Business Unit Manger - Business Unit Manager for the Traffic and Transport activities of Cardno in the northern Traffic & Transport division of Asia Pacific. Shane has 22 years' experience in the delivery of traffic engineering and transport planning projects across Australia, having held senior positions Profession in both Queensland and Western Australia. His business management experience Traffic & Transport includes being the Brisbane Office Manager, Perth Office Manager until 2010 and the Engineer founder of the firm’s Gold Coast traffic and transport team operations in 2003.

Years' Experience Shane has significant experience in the transport masterplanning of large scale projects 22 Years drawn from senior level involvement in strategic and detailed transport assessment and design studies for retail, residential, commercial and industrial development proposals Joined Cardno throughout Australia and overseas. Shane’s experience in the transport planning discipline includes corridor studies, master planning, parking assessments, transport October 1993 infrastructure concept design management of road safety related projects, and infrastructure charges/contributions plans. Education BEng (Civil) Key projects in which Shane has been heavily involved include detailed parking and transportation studies for key metropolitan centres at Helensvale, Mt Gravatt, Carindale, Professional Chermside, Innaloo, Carousel and Whitfords, strategic and detailed road network master Registrations planning for the Varsity Lakes, Emerald Lakes, North Shore and Rocky Springs mixed use RPEQ (8343) residential developments and direction of major transportation studies for resource projects in the Bowen and Surat Basins. Significant transport corridor studies in which Affiliations Shane has been involved include strategic road network planning for the Cairns and Member - Engineers Ballina Council regions. He has regularly been called upon to provide expert evidence in Australia (EA) Queensland Planning and Environment Court appeal matters. Shane also has a thorough understanding of road safety audit and traffic management plan practices and guidelines. Committee Secretary, EA Transport Panel Significant Projects > Carousel Regional Centre Planning, Perth Member - Australian > Sterling City Centre, Perth Institute of Traffic Planning and > Bremer Industrial/Business Park, Ipswich Management (AITPM) > Garden City Key Regional Centre, Brisbane > North Shore Residential Development, Townsville Member - Queensland Environmental Law > Townsville Shopping Centre Expansion, Townsville Association (QELA) > Ballina Western Arterial Corridor Assessment, Ballina > Rocky Springs Residential Development, Townsville > Ballina Road Network Study, Ballina > Goonyella Mine Expansion EIS > Bowen Basin Arrow Gas LNG Field EIS > Whole of Gold Coast Parking Strategy, Gold Coast

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 1 of 6

Professional History

May 2010 - Current Senior Principal & Business Manager, Traffic & Transport, Cardno (Brisbane)

Apr 2008 - May 2010 Principal & Manager, Traffic and Transport , Cardno (Perth)

Jul 2007 - Mar 2008 Senior Principal, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Brisbane)

Jan 2005 – Jun 2007 Principal, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Gold Coast) Traffic and Transport Surveys As a cadet engineer, Shane worked as a field supervisor/data analyst for Abacus Surveys Pty Ltd, a subsidiary company (at the time) of Eppell Olsen & Partners. Abacus Surveys specialised in the conduct of traffic and transport surveys and Shane was responsible for the installation of automatic speed and count equipment (pneumatic and magnetic), completion of travel time surveys, traffic generation, bus patronage surveys and parking studies. Shane managed the operations of Abacus Surveys and had extensive involvement in the design and management of numerous survey projects.

Retail Centre Traffic &Transport Planning Shane has project managed the traffic and transport design for numerous retail developments ranging in scale from convenience facilities to regional centres. This work requires extensive assessment of traffic demands, parking requirements, infrastructure provision and public transport, pedestrian and cycle components. Technical analysis for these types of projects has included a combination of EMME/2 and SATURN area modelling combined with SIDRA, Paramics, Transyt detailed operational analysis. Major projects include Helensvale Town Centre (Gold Coast), Carindale Shopping Centre (Brisbane), Springfield Town Centre (Ipswich), Stirling City Centre (Perth) and Carousel Retail Centre (Perth).

Transportation Master Planning & Assessment Significant residential growth in Queensland has led to Shane having significant involvement in the traffic/transport planning elements for a number of large Greenfield residential communities. This work has generally involved early identification of external road network connection constraints and development of appropriate road network plans which balance the needs of accessibility, connectivity and amenity. Elements of this work include consideration of road hierarchy principles, sub-divisional design, public transport, pedestrian and cycle planning.

Shane has also been required to investigate the detailed impacts of proposed residential developments on the operation of road and street networks throughout Australia for local and state authorities. These assessments have required the use of various analysis techniques for the identification of potential impacts (strategic and detailed modelling tools), calculation of infrastructure contributions and resolution of mitigation measures.

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 2 of 6

Shane has provided traffic and transport direction to the master planning for integrated mixed use development precincts which generally include high density residential components, commercial office land uses and retail precincts.

Examples of projects include:

> Queens Wharf Integrated Resort, Brisbane: Greenland/Crown > Varsity Lakes, Gold Coast: Lend Lease > SALT Community, Kingscliff: Ray Group > Sanctuary Cove, Gold Coast: Mulpha Sanctuary Cove > CityPort, Cairns: Cairns Port Authority > Emerald Lakes, Gold Coast: Nifsan Mixed Use and Transit Orientated Development Shane has directed input into numerous mixed use precincts particularly those focused around major transit corridors. These projects rely upon advanced understanding of demographic/land use and transport relationships combined with innovative solutions to travel demand, car parking, servicing, and sustainable transport modes.

Examples of projects include:

> Commonwealth Games Village, Gold Coast > Varsity Lakes Transit Oriented Development, Gold Coast > Southport Central Mixed Use Precinct, Gold Coast Community Facilities and Event Traffic Planning Shane has provided traffic and transport input to the development of a range of community facilities and major events. This work involved consideration of likely traffic and parking demands, identification of appropriate mitigation/management strategies, preparation of public transport event schedules and community consultation exercises to inform affected stakeholders.

Examples of relevant projects include:

> Cairns Esplanade & Foreshore Redevelopment: Cairns City Council > Cairns Convention Centre: Project Services > Kings Beach Redevelopment: Caloundra City Council > SALT Central Park, Kingscliff Traffic Plan: Ray Group > Woodford Folk Festival: Festival Organisers

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 3 of 6

Development Traffic Impact Assessment A principle component of Shane’s work during the past twenty years has been preparation of development impact assessments for private developer clients, local government authorities and the Department of Main Roads. Developments which Shane has assessed vary in form and scale but have included major shopping centres, fast food outlets, service stations, offices, residential subdivisions, high rise apartment buildings and commercial developments located throughout Australia and in USA.

The assessments generally incorporate estimation of traffic generation and traffic growth (for all transport modes including commercial vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians), identification of associated traffic impacts and any necessary road infrastructure upgrading works. Shane has extensive knowledge of the relevant planning legislation, relevant Austroads guidelines and Australian Standard policies.

Parking Assessment/Policy Shane has significant experience with parking assessment and policy projects. Parking within centres can be an important travel demand management tool and is a significant consideration for the planning of major development proposals. Important aspects in which Shane has provided expert direction include quantification and forecasting of demand, cross utilization and temporal variations within mixed use precincts, enforcement procedures, parking efficiency measurement and policy advice regarding appropriate planning scheme requirements. Projects Shane has undertaken in this discipline include consideration of on-street and off-street parking.

Other aspects of which Shane has significant experience include the review and design of car park facilities with regard to appropriate access location and parking requirements relevant to Australian Standards and local authority guidelines. These elements are regularly reviewed for private developer clients and architects.

Project examples include:

> Whole of Gold Coast Parking Study: Gold Coast City Council > Cairns CBD Parking Study: Cairns City Council > Ballina CBD Parking Study: Ballina Shire Council > Cairns Accommodation Parking Requirements: Cairns City Council Local Area Transport Planning and Traffic Management During the past twenty years, Shane has undertaken a number of local area studies which have incorporated identification of community issues, resolution of traffic deficiencies and preparation of local area traffic management strategies. These techniques have been applied to residential neighbourhoods, main street environments and school precincts.

Projects of this nature have also required community consultation and Shane has been responsible for the preparation and presentation of material at community meetings and workshops. Projects for which Shane has been responsible include:

> Ballina River Street Traffic Management; Ballina Shire Council > Stanthorpe Schools Safety Review: Stanthorpe Shire Council > Charters Towers Town Centre Plan: Charters Towers Council > Cairns Parramatta Park/Manoora Area LATM: Cairns City Council Expert Advice & Court Appeal Evidence Shane has provided in house support to local and state authorities for review of development proposals and has provided technical input to a number of Planning and Environment Appeal matters. He is familiar with the legislative framework existing in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales and has been commissioned to provide expert traffic evidence in both the Planning & Environment and Criminal Courts.

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 4 of 6

Transport Policy/Education Due to his extensive experience in development assessment procedures, Shane was involved in the preparation of policy documentation for the Department of Main Roads to formalise traffic operations and pavement impact assessment procedures. This policy was stimulated by the State Government’s change in approach to infrastructure charging and a subsequent change in Planning and Environment legislation.

Shane has also provided input to strategic planning instruments, road hierarchy planning and documentation of professional resource material for AUSTROADS and the Department of Main Roads. Shane has contributed to the development of the profession by presenting lectures to third and fourth year civil engineering students at the Queensland University of Technology and University of Queensland.

Road Corridor Planning Shane has directed corridor planning activities in both New South Wales and Queensland. Projects in which Shane has had involvement include detailed strategic modelling, detailed micro-simulation modelling, assessment of public transport corridors and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane strategies for major arterials. Studies have incorporated identification of existing and forecast occupancy/demand levels, consideration of possible geometric layouts, through traffic/local access separation options and demands for future interchanges and intersections. Studies include:

> Cairns Redlynch Deviation: Department of Main Roads > Cairns HOV Assessment: Queensland Transport > Western Freeway-Toowong Roundabout: Department of Main Roads > Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrading: Department of Main Roads > Ballina Western Arterial Route Alignment Assessment, Ballina Shire Council > Ballina Road Network Study, Ballina Shire Council > Skennars Head Road Network Planning, Ballina Shire Council

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 5 of 6

Jan 2004 - Jan 2005 Senior Associate, Manager Gold Coast Office, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Formerly Eppell Olsen & Partners)

Jan 2001 - Jan 2004 Associate, Eppell Olsen & Partners (Gold Coast)

Jan 1998 - Jan 2004 Associate, Eppell Olsen & Partners

Jan 1994 - Jan 1998 Traffic Engineer, Eppell Olsen & Partners

Cadet Engineer, Eppell Consulting (Jan 93-94)

www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 6 of 6

Kris Stone

Current Position Summary of Experience Senior Traffic & Kris has developed extensive traffic engineering, transport planning, and road safety Transport Engineer experience during his 11 years' working in private consulting and Local and State Government traffic roles. He has recently developed a specialisation in the field of road Profession safety engineering and policy development. Traffic & Transport Engineer Kris has been responsible for delivering successful outcomes across a variety of projects including environmental impact assessments, traffic and construction management Years' Experience planning, traffic analysis and modelling, parking studies, road safety auditing and policy 11 Years development, and heavy vehicle route planning.

Joined Cardno Kris has acted in traffic engineering and road safety roles at Brisbane City Council (2011), Toowoomba Regional Council (2013), City of Gold Coast (2014), and the July 2004 Department of Transport and Main Roads where he is currently assisting the Safer Roads team. Education BEng (Civil) In 2014, Kris finalised a 12 month role with the City of Gold Coast where he acted as the Senior Road Safety Officer. During this time, he was responsible for the development of the City’s first Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan in partnership with Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police, RACQ and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q).

At Council, Kris also undertook road safety engineering reviews and an analysis of network safety. He also assisted the road network team in developing and programming engineering interventions and championed the incorporation of safety costs in the prioritisation of capacity upgrades in the Road Network Plan. Kris was also responsible for preparing the 2014-2015 Black Spot funding submissions for the City, all of which were successful and delivered an additional three million dollars in road safety funding for the region.

Kris is currently assisting the Department of Transport and Main Roads' Safer Roads team in understanding network safety issues and developing safer infrastructure solutions.

Significant Projects Gold Coast Rapid Transit Broadbeach Early Works Traffic Manager, Gold Coast Gold Coast Road Safety Plan, Gold Coast 2014-15 and 15-16 Gold Coast Black Spot analysis and procurement, Gold Coast Surfers Paradise Hilton Hotel, Gold Coast Horizon Shores Marina, Gold Coast Road Safety Audits (ten plus of) Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charing Policy 2011 update, Brisbane Stirling City Centre (Innaloo) Centre expansion, Perth Chermside Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane Garden City Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane Pacific Fair Shopping Centre expansion, Gold Coast Carindale Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane

Gladstone Shopping Centre expansion, Gladstone. . www.cardno.com Road Safety Auditing, Various.