Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY FOR
REPORT C1461- Rev00
DECEMBER 2013
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Royal Haskoning DHV SMEC South Africa
P.O. Box 434 P.O. Box 10633
GEORGE GEORGE
6530 6530
TEL: (044) 802 0600 TEL: (044) 873 5029
TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY Proposed Development on ERF 325,
Pacaltsdorp, George.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. The Proposed Development ........................................................................................................ 1
3. Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................................ 1
4. Geometrical Aspects ..................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Access Points and Existing Road Network ................................................................................. 2
4.2 Road Classification ....................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Sight Distance ............................................................................................................................... 3
4.4 Intersection Spacing ..................................................................................................................... 4
4.5 Turning Lanes ................................................................................................................................ 5
4.5.1 Right Turning Lanes ...................................................................................................... 5
4.5.2 Left Turning Lanes ......................................................................................................... 6
5. Trip Generation and Trip Distribution .......................................................................................... 7
5.1 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 7
5.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 7
6. Operational Analysis ................................................................................................................... 10
6.1 2013 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development ............................................................................. 10
6.2 2018 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development ............................................................................. 11
6.2.1 Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road Signalised Intersection ... 11
6.2.2 Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 Signalised Intersection......................................... 14
6.2.3 Eden Park Road / Access 2 Junction ......................................................................... 16
6.2.4 Eden Park Road / Access 3 Junction ......................................................................... 18
6.2.5 Eden Park Road / Access 4 Junction ........................................................................ 20
7. Secondary issues ........................................................................................................................ 21
7.1 Pedestrians and Street Lightning ............................................................................................... 21
7.2 Public Transportation Routes and Embayment’s ..................................................................... 22
8. Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 23
9. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 25
ANNEXURE A ..................................................................................................................................... 26
FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 26
ANNEXURE B ..................................................................................................................................... 27
TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................................................... 27
ANNEXURE C .................................................................................................................................... 28
SIDRA RESULTS – 2013 .................................................................................................................. 28
SIDRA RESULTS – 2018 .................................................................................................................. 29
1
1. Introduction
SMEC South Africa has been appointed by Royal Haskoning DHV to conduct a Traffic Impact
Assessment (TIA) for the proposed development on Erf 325, Pacaltsdorp, George. The locality and site
plan of the proposed development on Erf 325 is shown in Figure 1, ANNEXURE A. The study will look
at the effect of the traffic generated by the development on the road network and where necessary
introduce mitigation measures. Secondary issues such as public transport and pedestrian facilities will
also be addressed. The study will be in accordance with the guideline document of the Department of
Transport titled, “Manual for Traffic Impact Studies”1.
2. The Proposed Development
The new development proposes 1973 erven which will consist out of 1952 low income residential
erven, 2 Transport Zones, 11 Public Open Spaces, 3 Mixed Used erven, 4 Crèche’s and 1 Church.
Figure 2, ANNEXURE A shows the layout of the proposed development as done by DELplan Urban
and Regional Planners.
3. Traffic Counts
Traffic counts were done for a 12-hour week day period on 20 September 2013 at Beach Road
(MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road signalised intersection. The traffic counts were analysed to
extract the current 2013 traffic volumes for the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. The peak
hour volumes obtained from the counts are shown in Tables 3.1 below.
The 2013 AM and 2013 PM traffic counts are represented graphically in Figure 3 and Figure 4,
ANNEXURE A and the recorded traffic volumes can be seen in ANNEXURE B. These peak hours will
be used as the background traffic on which the generated traffic will be superimposed for further
analysis.
1 Manual for Traffic Impact Studies
2 Table 3.1: Current 2013 AM & PM peak hour volumes for Beach/Panther/ Eden Park signalised intersection
BEACH / PANTHER / EDEN PARK PEAK HOUR VOLUME
AM PM
Beach Road (MR349) the South 918 441
Eden Park Road from the East 104 69
Beach Road (MR349) from the North 453 934
Panther Street from the West 444 61
4. Geometrical Aspects
4.1 Access Points and Existing Road Network
There are 4 proposed access points to the development. Access 1 is a T-junction entrance/exit onto
Beach Road (MR349) to the west of the development. Access 2, 3 and 4 are junctions onto Eden Park
Road serving the northern and eastern portion of the development. Eden Park Road in turn feeds into
Beach Road (MR349) via an existing signalised 4-legged junction.
Beach Road (MR349) is situated within the George municipal area, but falls under the authority of the
Western Cape Provincial Government. Therefore the “Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” 2 will
be the guideline document used to assess access points onto Beach Road (MR349). Eden Park Road
is a municipal road and will be evaluated according to “Draft UTG 5 - Geometric Design of Urban
Collector Roads” 3.
2 Road Access Guidelines of PAWC 2002
3 Draft UTG 5
3
Photo 4.1: Proposed Access point 1 from Erf 325 Development onto Beach Road (MR349)
4.2 Road Classification
The latest classification of roads by George Municipality classifies Beach Road (MR349) as a Class 2
primary arterial moving traffic between George CBD and Pacaltsdorp CBD and the surrounding
residential areas. Figure 5, ANNEXURE A shows the perceived road classification of the study area.
The current access spacing to the South, the speed limit and the current and proposed environment
suggest that Beach Road should rather be a Class 3 district distributor. Eden Park Road is seen as a
Class 4 local collector.
4.3 Sight Distance
The safety of a priority/stop controlled junction is dependent on the Shoulder Sight Distance (SSD) from
the side road onto the approaches of the main road. The “Draft UTG1, 1986, Geometric Design of
Urban Collector Roads”4 recommends a SSD of 130m for a passenger vehicle and 175m for a single
unit vehicle entering a 15m road width for a 60km/h design speed on the major road. Access 1 onto
Beach Drive has adequate shoulder sight distance in both directions. It is however foreseen that as the
area develops, that Access 1 will be upgraded to a signalised junction.
The “Draft UTG 5, 1986”, recommends a SSD of 100m for a passenger vehicle and 150m for a single
unit vehicle entering a 7.5m road width for a 60km/h design speed on the minor road. Accesses 2, 3
and 4 onto Eden Park Road all have adequate shoulder sight distance.
4 Draft UTG 1
Access 1
4 4.4 Intersection Spacing
“Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” evaluate access spacing in terms of the development
environment and the type of road. The development environment can be seen as suburban and the
type of road as a district distributor.
The guideline dictates that “all equivalent district distributor driveway locations should be based on the
traffic signalised intersection spacing.” The proposed Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road
(MR349) measures ± 365m from the Beach Road/Panther Street/Eden Park Road signalised
intersection. The recommended distance as per the guideline between signalised intersections should
be at least 540m. Due to a watercourse and wetland area to the South, this is however not possible.
The recommended position is at 385m which could in the future become a 4 – legged intersection.
Photo 4.2: Intersection spacing of Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road (MR349)
According to “Draft UTG 5, 1986”, the recommended minimum distance between 4-legged intersections
on collector roads is 80m and for intersection spacing of a t-type intersections it is 50m for staggers
without right turning lanes from the major road. Access 2 is approximately 220m from the signalised
intersection Beach Road (MR349), Panther Street and Eden Park Road. Access 3 will form a 4-legged
junction with Genesis Road and is approximately 450m from Access point 2 and 130m from the other
T-junction with Eden Park Road. Access 4 is approximately 220m from the T-junction Genesis Road
and Eden Park Road. All these junctions spacing are acceptable according to the guidelines.
385m 680m
Access 1
5
Photo 4.3: Intersection Spacing of Access 2-4 from the development onto Eden Park Road
4.5 Turning Lanes
4.5.1 Right Turning Lanes
“Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” was used as the guideline document to see if a right turn
lane is warranted for the Beach Road (MR349)/Access1 junction on a 60km/h road. The figure below
illustrates the guidelines for implementing right turn lanes for the week AM and PM peak hours. The red
dashed line indicates the future 2018 expected AM and PM peak hour volumes on the main road and
the right turning volumes as obtained from ANNEXURE A, Figure 5 and Figure 6. In the PM peak
hour, the right turning vehicles is 133 and through traffic 856. These figures plot off the graph.
220m 450m
AM Peak
Access 2
Access 3
Access 4
Genesis St
Genesis St
Note: PM Peak hour traffic volumes
plot off the graph.
6 It can be concluded that the future 2018 scenario does warrant a right turning lane for the Beach Road
(MR349) / Access1 junction. The right turning lane is warranted for safety reasons to accommodate
stagnant vehicles waiting to turn from Beach Road (MR349) into the new development at Access 1.
A minimum length of 50m right turning lane is proposed.
It is recommended that a short 30m right turning lane be constructed at Eden Park Road / Access 2
T-junction for safety reasons to accommodate stagnant vehicles waiting to turn from Eden Park Road
into the new development at Access 2.
4.5.2 Left Turning Lanes
The figure below illustrates whether the future 2018 expected AM and PM peak hour traffic warrants left
turning lanes for the proposed Access 1 from Beach Road into the new development.
In the AM peak hour, the left turning vehicles are 104 and approach vehicles are 1064. In the PM peak
hour, the left turning vehicles are 398 and the approach vehicles 511. The AM and PM volumes are too
high to plot on the graph, therefor it can be concluded that for future 2018 scenario a left turning lane is
warranted for the AM and PM Peak hour traffic. For safety reasons and to accommodate slowing down
of left turning vehicles, a left turning short lane of 60m is proposed.
PM
PE
AK
Note: AM and PM Peak hour
traffic volumes plot off the graph
AM PEAK
7
5. Trip Generation and Trip Distribution
5.1 Trip Generation
The document “South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition,”5 was used as the guideline document
to obtain the peak hour trips generated by the proposed Erf 325 Development. Trip generation values
for subsidy housing of 0.2 trips per dwelling were used. This value was derived from analysing peak
hour traffic counts from similar areas in George. Trip generation values of 0.5 trip per dwelling for low
income urban areas were used for the finance-linked individual subsidy programme (FLISP) housing
and people who typically earn between R3 500 and R15 000 per month (GAP) housing.
For the mixed use erven, the trip generation was determined as shown in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. It
can be assumed that the patrons of this development will stem mostly from Pacaltsdorp, which can be
classified as a low to medium income community. Car ownership is limited and the generation as taken
from the “South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition”5 can be seen as an over estimation of the
trips calculated to be generated by the centre. The scheduled bus service planned for the George area
will also impact on the private car trips to visit the development. The trips generated for the mixed
use - retail will therefore adjust downwards by 20% to take account of the social-economics of
the area.
Trip generation for Crèche’s will not be taken into consideration due to the fact that it will only generate
trips within the development. Churches will also not be taken into consideration because it generates
trips outside the week AM and PM peak hours.
5.2 Trip Distribution
The distribution rates at the junctions are based on the expected movements of traffic. The trip
distribution envisaged to and from the proposed development during the AM & PM peak hour will be:
5 South African Trip Generation Rates
8 Trip distribution at Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road (MR349) during the AM
and PM peak hours
• 75%% of trips will move towards the North onto Beach Road (MR349),
• 25% of trips will move towards the South onto Beach Road (MR349).
Trip distribution at Access 2 to 4 from the development onto Eden Park Road during the AM and
PM peak hours
• 100% of trips will move towards the West onto Eden Park Road,
• 0% of trips will move towards the East onto Eden Park Road.
Table 5.1 to 5.4 reflects the trip generation of the various land uses as well as the distribution to the
access positions.
Table 5.1: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Beach Road (MR349) – Access 1
PROPOSED
LAND-USE UNITS / AREA
TRIP
GENERATION
PER DWELLING
SPLIT
IN / OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
WEEK DAY AM WEEK DAY PM
IN OUT IN OUT
Subsidy Housing 565 0.2* AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
40 73 73 40
FLISP Housing 178 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
31 58 58 31
GAP Housing 148 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
26 48 48 26
Mixed Used (75%) Total area 32 000m² x 50% covered area = 16 000m² / 3 types of use = 5333m² X 75% = 4000 m²
- Retail (discount -20% )
224,5 x GLA-0,34
(13.4 / 100m
2)
4000m² GLA AM°
PM (50/50) - - 214 214
- Office 4000m² 2.3/100m² AM (15/85) PM (85/15)
14 78 78 14
- Wholesale 4000m² 1.5/100m² AM (40/60) PM (60/40)
24 36 36 24
- Flats 12 000m²x 50%= 6000m²†
Assume 100m² = 60 units 1.1
AM (25/75) PM (75/25)
17 50 50 17
Crèche’s 2 Will only generate trips within
Church 1 Outside week peak hour
Total 152 343 557 366
NOTES: * Derived from physical counts in similar areas.
°Retail will operate outside of the AM peak hour & GLA calculated to be 70% of erf area. †Assume on only half of the covered areas flats will be built on top of shops.
9 Table 5.2: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 2
PROPOSED
LAND-USE UNITS / AREA
TRIP
GENERATION
PER DWELLING
SPLIT
IN / OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
WEEK DAY AM WEEK DAY PM
IN OUT IN OUT
FLISP Housing 93 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
16 31 31 16
GAP Housing 106 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
19 34 34 19
Mixed Used (25%) Total area 32 000m² x 50% covered area = 16 000m² / 3 types of use = 5333m² X 25% = 1333 m²
- Retail (discount -20% )
224,5 x GLA-0,34
(19.4 / 100m
2)
1333m² GLA AM°
PM (50/50) - - 104 104
- Office 1333m² 2.3/100m² AM (15/85) PM (85/15)
5 26 26 5
- Wholesale 1333m² 1.5/100m² AM (40/60) PM (60/40)
8 12 12 8
- Flats 4000m²x 50%= 2000m²†
Assume 100m² = 20 units 1.1
AM (25/75) PM (75/25)
5 17 17 5
Total 53 120 224 157
NOTES: * Derived from physical counts in similar areas.
Table 5.3: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 3
PROPOSED
LAND-USE
UNITS / AREA
TRIP
GENERATION
PER DWELLING
SPLIT
IN / OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
WEEK DAY AM WEEK DAY PM
IN OUT IN OUT
Subsidy Housing 334 0.2* AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
23 44 44 23
NOTES: * Derived from physical counts in similar areas.
Table 5.4: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 4
PROPOSED
LAND-USE
UNITS / AREA
TRIP
GENERATION
PER DWELLING
SPLIT
IN / OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
WEEK DAY AM
WEEK DAY PM
IN OUT IN OUT
Subsidy Housing 529 0.2* AM (35/65) PM (65/35)
37 69 69 37
NOTES: * Derived from physical counts in similar areas.
10 These trips generated will be superimposed on the existing 2013 AM and PM peak hour background
traffic volume and simulated to obtain the effect of the development traffic on the existing road network.
The generated trips with the current 2013 back ground traffic are graphically shown In Figure 3 and
Figure 4, ANNEXURE A.
The 2013 peak hour traffic will be growthed at 3% per annum to take account of growth elsewhere in
Pacaltsdorp and surrounding areas, to obtain the 2018 AM & PM peak hour volumes. The generated
trips with the future 2018 back ground traffic are graphically shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7,
ANNEXURE A.
6. Operational Analysis
The operational analysis is done with the “SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1”6 computer software that is
suited for traffic engineering capacity analysis. When elements of a road network such as intersections
are analysed, their operating conditions are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The six
letters from A to F are used to indicate different LOS. LOS A indicates very low traffic flows with
correspondingly low delays. LOS E reflects capacity conditions, with high delays and unstable flow.
LOS F reflects conditions where traffic demand exceeds capacity and traffic experiences congestion
and delays. Generally LOS A to D is considered acceptable in accordance with international standards.
LOS E and F on the other hand are considered to be unacceptable.
The Average Delay is the delay in seconds that a motorist is likely to experience on an approach to the
junction, while waiting for the junction to clear or other vehicles to manoeuvre. A further measure of the
operating conditions prevailing at any point in a road network is the volume to capacity ratio (v/c). As
the name implies it is the traffic demand volume divided by the available capacity of the road element.
Generally ratios of up to approximately 0.9 are internationally considered acceptable. Values exceeding
1.0 implies saturation of the facility. The results of the SIDRA analysis are shown in ANNEXURE C.
6.1 2013 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development
The 2013 AM and PM peak hour traffic have been analysed with SIDRA and the results can be seen in
ANNEXURE C. From the results it is evident that the all the intersection will operate at an acceptable
level for the AM & PM peak hours in the current 2013 scenario.
6 SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1
11 6.2 2018 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development
Table 6.1 to Table 6.10 show a summary of the operational performance analysis for the intersection
at Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road, Access 1 onto Beach Road (MR349) and
Access 2 - 4 onto Eden Park Road for the AM and PM peak hours. The 2018 AM and PM background
traffic with the trips generated by Erf 325 Development were used in the analysis.
6.2.1 Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road Signalised Intersection
The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current intersection geometry:
12 Table 6.1: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road
signalised intersection for the AM Peak Hour:
APPROACH MOVEMENT
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Beach Road (MR349)
(From South)
Left C 21.8 0.672
Through B 13.6 0.672
Right C 20.1 0.171
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left C 27.2 0.181
Through B 19.0 0.181
Right C 30.4 0.584
Beach Road (MR349)
(From North)
Left - 7.6 0.082
Through B 10.1 0.231
Right D 40.1 0.727
Panther Street
(From West)
Left - 7.6 0.282
Through B 18.2 0.065
Right C 26.3 0.065
13 Table 6.2: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Panther Street / Eden Park Road
signalised intersection for the PM Peak Hour:
APPROACH MOVEMENT
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Beach Road
(MR349)
(From South)
Left B 19.3 0.384
Through B 11.1 0.384
Right D 40.2 0.934
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left C 27.9 0.285
Through B 19.8 0.285
Right C 28.0 0.313
Beach Road
(MR349)
(From North)
Left - 7.6 0.166
Through B 12.9 0.597
Right D 35.7 0.786
Panther Street
(From West)
Left - 7.6 0.036
Through C 20.6 0.038
Right C 28.6 0.038
From the results it is evident that the signalised intersection will operate at an acceptable level for the
AM & PM peak hours in the future 2018 scenario.
14 6.2.2 Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 Signalised Intersection
The figure below shows a schematic layout of the new intersection geometry:
Table 6.3: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 junction for the AM
Peak Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Beach Road (MR349)
(From South)
Through B 10.4 0.515
Right B 17.5 0.088
Access 1
(From East)
Left C 30.6 0.331
Right C 33.6 0.331
Beach Road (MR349)
(From North)
Left B 16.0 0.176
Through A 8.2 0.179
15 Table 6.4: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 junction for the PM
Peak Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Beach Road (MR349)
(From South)
Through A 8.5 0.248
Right C 27.2 0.604
Access 1
(From East)
Left C 30.9 0.368
Right C 30.9 0.368
Beach Road (MR349)
(From North)
Left B 18.2 0.679
Through A 9.6 0.415
From the results it is evident that the new signalised intersection will operate at an acceptable level for
the AM & PM peak hours in the current 2018 scenario.
16 6.2.3 Eden Park Road / Access 2 Junction
. The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry:
Table 6.5: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 2 junction for the AM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 2
(From South)
Left B 11.3 0.122
Right B 11.1 0.122
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.066
Through A 0.0 0.066
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.0 0.047
Right A 8.9 0.054
17 Table 6.6: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 2 junction for the PM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 2
(From South)
Left B 11.1 0.152
Right B 10.9 0.152
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.044
Through A 0.0 0.044
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.0 0.058
Right A 8.8 0.226
From the results it is evident that the junction will operate at an acceptable level for the AM & PM peak
hours in the future 2018 scenario.
18 6.2.4 Eden Park Road / Access 3 Junction
The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry.
Table 6.7: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 3 junction for the AM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 3
(From South)
Left B 11.3 0.046
Right B 11.1 0.046
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.066
Through A 0.0 0.066
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.5 0.066
Right A 8.9 0.066
19 Table 6.8: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 3 junction for the PM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 3
(From South)
Left B 11.1 0.024
Right B 10.9 0.024
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.044
Through A 0 0.044
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.3 0.093
Right A 8.8 0.093
From the results it is evident that the junction will operate at an acceptable level for the AM & PM peak
hours in the future 2018 scenario.
20 6.2.5 Eden Park Road / Access 4 Junction
The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry:
Table 6.9: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 4 junction for the AM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 4
(From South)
Left B 11.3 0.071
Right B 11.1 0.071
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.066
Through A 0.0 0.066
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.5 0.078
Right A 9.0 0.078
21 Table 6.10: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 4 junction for the PM Peak
Hour
APPROACH MOVEMENT
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
(LOS)
AVERAGE
DELAY
(seconds)
VOLUME/
CAPACITY
RATIO
Access 4
(From South)
Left B 11.1 0.037
Right B 10.9 0.037
Eden Park Road
(From East)
Left A 8.2 0.044
Through A 0.0 0.044
Eden Park Road
(From West)
Through A 0.3 0.133
Right A 8.8 0.133
From the results it is evident that the junction will operate at an acceptable level for the AM & PM peak
hours in the future 2018 scenario.
7. Secondary issues
7.1 Pedestrians and Street Lightning
The impact assessment requires evaluation of pedestrian walkways and street lighting along Beach
Road (MR349) and Eden Park Road. The Erf 325 Development can be seen as a low income
community and it can be argued that the residents of the neighbourhood will be more prone to walk or
use public transport than motor vehicles.
Beach Road (MR349) has pedestrian walkways as well as street lighting. A 1.8m wide pedestrian
walkway is recommended to the northern side of Eden Park Road for the new pedestrians that will be
generated by the proposed development. The current street lighting on this road is sufficient.
22 7.2 Public Transportation Routes and Embayment’s
Currently the George Integrated Public Transport Network is being implemented in the George
Municipal area. It is required that the planning of the future bus routes and embayment’s be shown for
planned developments in George.
The public transport routes and embayment’s can be seen in Figure 8, ANNEXURE A, with the
following recommendations:
• Where Class 5 routes are being used as bus routes, the minimum road reserve width is 13m
with the minimum road width to be 6.4m.
• The bus routes must be surfaced prior to the building of dwelling units as to allow early
occupants and construction workers to make use of the bus service.
• All bus routes should have a walkway of at least 1,5m on one side of the road.
23
8. Summary and Recommendations
• The development proposes 1973 erven.
• 4 Accesses are proposed from the Erf 325 Development.
• During the AM and PM peak hour traffic, 841 and 1477 trips respectively will be generated by
the new Erf 325 Development.
• The operational analysis for the 2018 scenario shows that all accesses to the proposed Erf 325
development will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed upgrades.
Taking into account the traffic counts, the development proposal, the traffic analysis results and
assumptions made, the following are recommended:
• that Access 1 move to 385m to the South of the existing signalised intersection;
• that the new Beach Road (MR349)/Access 1 intersection will be constructed with a 50m right
turning lane and a 60m left turning lane;
• that the new Beach Road (MR349)/Access 1 intersection will be signalised once delays on the
side streets becomes problematic;
• that a pedestrian walkway is constructed alongside Eden Park Road on the Northen side of
1.8m wide;
• that Access 2 junctions will be constructed with a 30m right turning lane in Eden Park Road
towards the new development;
• that Access 2, 3 and 4 will be provided with R1 Stop signs and RTM1 stop road markings;
24
• that the following is recommended for the public transport routes and embayment:
- Where Class 5 routes are being used as bus routes, the minimum road reserve width is
13m with the minimum road width to be 6.4m;
- The bus routes must be surfaced prior to the building of dwelling units as to allow early
occupants and construction workers to make use of the bus service;
- All bus routes should have a walkway of at least 1,5m on one side of the road.
The recommended upgrading and changes can be seen in Figure 9, ANNEXURE A.
The above infrastructure should be designed by reputable consulting engineers and design plans
submitted to the relevant road authorities for approval prior to construction.
______________________
Author: R. Stander (B Tech Eng.)
Reviewer: H. Maart (Pr Tech Eng, MEng , BSc Hons)
SMEC South Africa
25
9. Bibliography
1. Department of Transport, Manual for Traffic Impact Studies, Pretoria, 1995.
2. Provincial Administration Western Cape, Road Access Guidelines, Second Edition and
Second Print, Cape Town, September 2002.
3. Urban Transport Guidelines. Draft UTG 5 – Guidelines for the Geometric Design of Urban
Collector Roads, Pretoria, 1988.
4. Urban Transport Guidelines. Draft UTG 1 – Guidelines for the Geometric Design of Urban
Arterial Roads. Pretoria, 1986.
5. Department of Transport, South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition, Pretoria,
1995.
6. Akcelik & Associates, SIDRA 5.1, Australia, 1990.
26
ANNEXURE A
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCALITY PLAN AND SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2: LAYOUT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 3: ROAD CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 4: CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH
GENERATED TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 5: CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH
GENERATED TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 6: FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH
GENERATED TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 7: FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH
GENERATED TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR
FIGURE 8: PROPOSED BUS ROUTES
FIGURE 9: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
ERF 325 -- LOCALITY PLAN
N
N
TO MOSSEL BAY
TO KNYSNA
ERF 325 -- LAYOUT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
N
LEGEND :
A.M. PEAK HOURSCURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC
N
LEGEND :
P.M. PEAK HOURSCURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
N
A.M. PEAK HOURS
LEGEND :
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC
N
P.M. PEAK HOURS
LEGEND :
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC
ERF 325 -- PROPOSED BUS ROUTES
N
N
TO MOSSEL BAY
TO KNYSNA
LEGEND :
N
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED NEW PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PROPOSED SIGNALISED INTERSECTION
R1 STOP SIGN
R1 STOP SIGN
R1 STOP SIGN
27
ANNEXURE B
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
• BEACH ROAD/ PANTHER STREET / EDEN PARK ROAD,
12 HOUR WEEKDAY COUNT
VERKEERSTELLING TE: BEACH_PANTHER_EDENPARK AANTAL VOERTUIE: 12411 LEÊR NO. C1461
STASIE : 1
DATUM : 20 September 2013 TIPE VERKEER : Ligte
KWARTIER VOLUMES
KWARTIER Beachweg Edenpark Beachweg Panther Rylaan BEW.
EINDIG NOORD OOS SUID WES TOTAAL UUR
Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs VOLUME
06h15 6 29 4 5 1 14 1 32 6 6 1 0 105
06h30 6 23 6 12 0 9 3 87 5 14 2 0 167
06h45 8 49 6 1 4 32 2 217 15 27 2 0 363
07h00 11 42 9 4 7 25 1 342 3 155 4 0 603 1238
07h15 10 76 11 9 0 15 2 198 6 120 2 0 449 1582
07h30 23 74 39 1 1 20 0 165 4 86 3 0 416 1831
07h45 14 105 39 3 3 16 3 191 3 68 2 4 451 1919
08h00 7 67 23 2 0 18 1 107 0 42 1 1 269 1585
08h15 13 71 12 5 0 7 1 86 1 23 0 3 222 1358
08h30 5 71 9 0 0 8 0 75 3 16 0 0 187 1129
08h45 7 51 9 2 2 11 0 110 7 20 0 0 219 897
09h00 1 11 4 1 1 5 0 57 3 9 0 1 93 721
09h15 8 62 15 0 0 3 1 75 1 10 0 0 175 674
09h30 3 29 4 3 1 3 0 64 2 9 0 0 118 605
09h45 -1 41 11 3 6 7 1 73 1 7 0 1 150 536
10h00 11 50 10 0 0 9 2 109 0 23 0 1 215 658
10h15 4 101 21 5 1 2 0 99 4 28 4 0 269 752
10h30 4 32 11 2 1 6 3 65 6 18 1 0 149 783
10h45 7 81 19 4 2 10 1 94 4 26 0 1 249 882
11h00 3 56 19 1 1 0 4 68 3 48 2 1 206 873
11h15 12 91 37 2 1 9 0 84 7 17 1 2 263 867
11h30 4 48 30 0 0 0 1 72 1 15 1 0 172 890
11h45 9 98 17 2 4 4 0 114 4 20 2 1 275 916
12h00 1 43 20 1 0 0 0 97 0 6 0 0 168 878
12h15 7 66 14 6 1 4 2 88 9 21 0 1 219 834
12h30 10 106 17 7 1 7 2 101 3 23 0 1 278 940
12h45 5 41 17 0 3 9 2 50 1 7 0 3 138 803
13h00 14 135 28 9 3 19 2 98 2 13 2 1 326 961
13h15 3 54 14 3 0 10 6 50 7 16 0 1 164 906
13h30 5 77 17 1 0 2 1 66 2 14 0 1 186 814
13h45 8 45 29 1 1 4 4 79 1 10 0 0 182 858
14h00 12 97 19 2 1 5 2 83 2 23 0 1 247 779
14h15 18 168 30 6 3 15 3 118 4 31 2 0 398 1013
14h30 11 68 9 2 1 9 3 63 2 25 4 3 200 1027
14h45 11 97 21 5 0 1 3 92 1 16 0 1 248 1093
15h00 9 83 13 2 0 2 0 78 2 12 0 0 201 1047
15h15 17 101 20 7 0 7 0 50 4 13 2 0 221 870
15h30 14 85 12 3 0 6 2 58 4 8 0 0 192 862
15h45 15 166 12 7 2 5 10 123 7 17 1 1 366 980
16h00 12 61 14 3 1 6 0 62 3 8 1 0 171 950
16h15 14 150 34 6 0 14 2 100 4 29 1 1 355 1084
16h30 19 173 36 6 5 8 1 81 9 22 2 2 364 1256
16h45 11 86 25 0 4 0 0 91 3 10 1 6 237 1127
17h00 16 224 54 7 1 6 4 134 10 11 0 2 469 1425
17h15 17 192 46 6 2 9 3 101 11 23 0 2 412 1482
17h30 16 133 45 4 6 8 5 74 8 5 0 1 305 1423
17h45 12 158 21 7 1 12 7 81 3 15 0 2 319 1505
18h00 16 146 12 2 4 2 1 59 5 8 3 2 260 1296
TOTAAL 468 4113 944 170 76 403 92 4661 196 1193 47 48 12411
MIDDAGSPITS: VANAF 13h45 TOT 14h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013
Beachweg
46 % 1042 54 % <- RIGTINGSVERDELING
481 561
/\ 79 430 52
| ( 14.08 %)( 76.6488 %)( 11.479 %)
| | |
53 % <-- v --> 57 %
95 ( 90 %) ----^
106 6 ( 5.7 %) ----> -----> 67
5 ( 4.7 %) ----v
Panther Rylaan Edenpark
117
/\----- ( 60 %) 30
95 <----- <----- ( 10 %) 5 50
v----- ( 30 %) 15
<-- /\ -->
47 % | | | | 43 %
( 2.92553191 %)( 94.6809 %)( 2.393617021 %) v
11 356 9
376 450
826
46 % Beachweg 54 %
NAMIDDAGSPITS: VANAF 16h45 TOT 17h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013
Beachweg
34 % 1413 66 % <- RIGTINGSVERDELING
479 934
/\ 166 707 61
| ( 17.77 %)( 75.6959 %)( 6.53105 %)
| | |
24 % <-- v --> 57 %
54 ( 89 %) ----^
61 0 ( 0 %) ----> -----> 93
7 ( 11 %) ----v
Panther Rylaan Edenpark
162
/\----- ( 51 %) 35
195 <----- <----- ( 14 %) 10 69
v----- ( 35 %) 24
<-- /\ -->
76 % | | | | 43 %
( 4.30839002 %)( 88.4354 %)( 7.256235828 %) v
19 390 32
441 738
1179
37 % Beachweg 63 %
VERKEERSTELLINGS TE: BEACH_PANTHER_EDENPARK AANTAL VOERTUIE :
STASIE : 1
DATUM : 20 September 2013
TOTAAL GETEL ( 12 URE )
TIPE VOERTUIE : Ligte Beachweg
11782
6257 5525
^ 944 4113 468
/\ ( 17.09 %)( 74.4434 %)( 8.47059 %)
! | | |
<-- v -->
1193 ( 93 %) ----^
1288 47 ( 3.6 %) ----> -----> 711
48 ( 3.7 %) ----v
Panther Rylaan Edenpark
1360
/\----- ( 62 %) 403
1112 <----- <----- ( 12 %) 76 649
v----- ( 26 %) 170
<---- /\ -->
| | | |
( 1.85896141 %)( 94.1806 %)( 3.96039604 %) v
92 4661 196
4949 4331
9280
Beachweg
OGGENDSPITS: VANAF 06h45 TOT 07h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013
Beachweg
76 % 1854 24 % <- RIGTINGSVERDELING
1401 453
^ 98 297 58
/\ ( 21.63 %)( 65.5629 %)( 12.8035 %)
| | | |
79 % <-- v --> 45.0 %
429 ( 97 %) ----^
444 11 ( 2.5 %) ----> -----> 85
4 ( 0.9 %) ----v
Panther Rylaan Edenpark
189
/\----- ( 73 %) 76
115 <----- <----- ( 11 %) 11 104
v----- ( 16 %) 17
<-- /\ -->
21 % | | | | 55.0 %
( 0.65359477 %)( 97.6035 %)( 1.74291939 %) v
6 896 16
918 318
1236
74 % Beachweg 26 %
28
ANNEXURE C
SIDRA RESULTS – 2013
• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM
• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM
• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM
• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 3 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 3 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 4 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 4 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2013 PEAK HR AM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Beach Road
1 L 8 0.0 0.586 21.0 LOS C 14.0 98.0 0.75 0.94 40.3
2 T 1166 0.0 0.586 12.8 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.75 0.66 42.1
3 R 43 0.0 0.156 19.9 LOS B 0.8 5.9 0.59 0.73 38.7
Approach 1218 0.0 0.586 13.1 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.74 0.67 42.0
East: Eden Park Road
4 L 64 0.0 0.172 27.1 LOS C 2.6 17.9 0.76 0.79 35.0
5 T 38 0.0 0.172 18.9 LOS B 2.6 17.9 0.76 0.60 36.3
6 R 259 0.0 0.555 30.1 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.88 0.82 32.9
Approach 361 0.0 0.555 28.4 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.85 0.79 33.6
North: Beach Road
7 L 142 0.0 0.077 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
8 T 415 0.0 0.207 9.9 LOS A 3.8 26.8 0.58 0.48 45.2
9 R 103 0.0 0.519 31.1 LOS C 3.1 22.0 0.86 0.81 32.4
Approach 660 0.0 0.519 12.7 LOS B 3.8 26.8 0.50 0.56 43.4
West: Panther Street
10 L 452 0.0 0.243 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
11 T 27 0.0 0.059 18.1 LOS B 0.8 5.5 0.73 0.54 37.9
12 R 5 0.0 0.059 26.2 LOS C 0.8 5.5 0.73 0.80 36.3
Approach 484 0.0 0.243 8.4 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.05 0.60 48.7
All Vehicles 2723 0.0 0.586 14.2 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.57 0.65 41.9
X: Not applicable for Continuous movement.
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 26.6 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.87 0.87
P3 Across E approach 53 13.8 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.63 0.63
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P7 Across W approach 53 12.0 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.59 0.59
All Pedestrians 212 20.4 LOS C 0.75 0.75
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 12:38:17 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2013 PEAK HR PM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Beach Road
1 L 33 0.0 0.344 19.0 LOS B 6.9 48.5 0.63 0.92 41.2
2 T 656 0.0 0.344 10.8 LOS B 7.0 48.7 0.63 0.54 44.1
3 R 176 0.0 0.854 42.2 LOS D 7.0 49.0 1.00 0.97 27.7
Approach 864 0.0 0.854 17.5 LOS B 7.0 49.0 0.70 0.64 39.3
East: Eden Park Road
4 L 119 0.0 0.274 27.9 LOS C 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.80 34.4
5 T 43 0.0 0.274 19.7 LOS B 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.65 35.5
6 R 153 0.0 0.300 27.9 LOS C 4.0 28.2 0.80 0.78 34.0
Approach 315 0.0 0.300 26.8 LOS C 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.77 34.3
North: Beach Road
7 L 297 0.0 0.160 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
8 T 1145 0.0 0.571 12.6 LOS B 13.5 94.5 0.74 0.66 42.3
9 R 175 0.0 0.652 27.0 LOS C 4.9 34.3 0.78 0.85 34.5
Approach 1617 0.0 0.652 13.3 LOS B 13.5 94.5 0.61 0.67 42.4
West: Panther Street
10 L 57 0.0 0.031 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
11 T 1 0.0 0.034 20.5 LOS C 0.3 2.3 0.76 0.54 34.9
12 R 12 0.0 0.034 28.6 LOS C 0.3 2.3 0.76 0.70 33.7
Approach 69 0.0 0.034 11.3 LOS B 0.3 2.3 0.14 0.62 45.9
All Vehicles 2865 0.0 0.854 16.0 LOS B 13.5 94.5 0.65 0.67 40.5
X: Not applicable for Continuous movement.
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 26.6 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.87 0.87
P3 Across E approach 53 13.8 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.63 0.63
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P7 Across W approach 53 12.0 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.59 0.59
All Pedestrians 212 20.4 LOS C 0.75 0.75
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 12:41:58 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2013 PEAK HR AM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: BEACH ROAD
2 T 966 0.0 0.445 9.8 LOS A 9.7 68.0 0.63 0.56 45.1
3 R 36 0.0 0.085 17.0 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.51 0.72 40.9
Approach 1002 0.0 0.445 10.1 LOS B 9.7 68.0 0.63 0.56 44.9
East: ACCESS 1
4 L 83 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
6 R 251 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
Approach 334 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
North: BEACH ROAD
7 L 109 0.0 0.176 16.0 LOS B 1.7 12.2 0.50 0.73 41.7
8 T 335 0.0 0.154 8.0 LOS A 2.7 19.2 0.51 0.42 47.2
Approach 444 0.0 0.176 10.0 LOS A 2.7 19.2 0.51 0.50 45.7
All Vehicles 1780 0.0 0.445 13.9 LOS B 9.7 68.0 0.64 0.59 42.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P3 Across E approach 53 10.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
All Pedestrians 159 22.9 LOS C 0.79 0.79
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:14:19 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2013 PEAK HR PM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: BEACH ROAD
2 T 464 0.0 0.214 8.3 LOS A 4.0 27.7 0.53 0.45 46.8
3 R 140 0.0 0.548 25.4 LOS C 3.8 26.8 0.79 0.81 35.3
Approach 604 0.0 0.548 12.3 LOS B 4.0 27.7 0.59 0.53 43.5
East: ACCESS 1
4 L 93 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
6 R 278 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
Approach 371 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
North: BEACH ROAD
7 L 419 0.0 0.679 18.2 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.61 0.80 39.9
8 T 777 0.0 0.358 9.2 LOS A 7.3 51.2 0.59 0.51 45.8
Approach 1196 0.0 0.679 12.4 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.60 0.61 43.5
All Vehicles 2171 0.0 0.679 15.5 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.64 0.62 41.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P3 Across E approach 53 10.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
All Pedestrians 159 22.9 LOS C 0.79 0.79
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 12:51:24 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2013 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 2
1 L 126 0.0 0.119 11.2 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.119 11.0 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.98 46.5
Approach 127 0.0 0.119 11.2 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.89 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 79 0.0 0.040 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
12 R 56 0.0 0.054 8.9 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.21 0.64 47.8
Approach 135 0.0 0.054 3.7 NA 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.27 54.3
All Vehicles 373 0.0 0.119 5.2 NA 0.5 3.2 0.11 0.40 52.6
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 29 November 2013 12:52:58 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2013 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 2
1 L 165 0.0 0.150 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 0.90 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.150 10.9 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 1.03 46.5
Approach 166 0.0 0.150 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 0.90 46.4
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 98 0.0 0.050 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
12 R 236 0.0 0.226 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.19 0.65 47.9
Approach 334 0.0 0.226 6.2 NA 0.8 5.5 0.13 0.46 50.9
All Vehicles 574 0.0 0.226 6.8 NA 0.8 5.5 0.13 0.53 50.4
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:01:29 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 3 2013 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 3
1 L 46 0.0 0.045 11.2 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.88 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.045 11.0 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.97 46.5
Approach 47 0.0 0.045 11.2 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.88 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 79 0.0 0.059 0.4 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.00 55.3
12 R 24 0.0 0.059 8.9 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.89 48.6
Approach 103 0.0 0.059 2.4 NA 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.21 53.6
All Vehicles 261 0.0 0.059 3.0 NA 0.3 2.2 0.13 0.25 54.5
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:44:51 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 3 2013 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 3
1 L 24 0.0 0.023 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.023 10.8 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.98 46.5
Approach 25 0.0 0.023 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.90 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 98 0.0 0.085 0.3 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.00 56.1
12 R 46 0.0 0.085 8.7 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.86 48.5
Approach 144 0.0 0.085 3.0 NA 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.28 53.4
All Vehicles 243 0.0 0.085 3.0 NA 0.4 3.1 0.13 0.26 54.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:45:29 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 4 2013 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 4
1 L 73 0.0 0.069 11.2 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.069 11.0 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.97 46.5
Approach 74 0.0 0.069 11.2 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.89 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 79 0.0 0.071 0.4 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.00 55.2
12 R 39 0.0 0.071 8.9 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.85 48.5
Approach 118 0.0 0.071 3.2 NA 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.28 52.8
All Vehicles 302 0.0 0.071 4.0 NA 0.4 2.6 0.14 0.33 53.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:46:29 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 4 2013 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 3
1 L 39 0.0 0.037 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.90 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.037 10.8 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.99 46.5
Approach 40 0.0 0.037 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.90 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 98 0.0 0.104 0.3 LOS A 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.00 55.9
12 R 73 0.0 0.104 8.7 LOS A 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.82 48.4
Approach 171 0.0 0.104 3.9 NA 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.35 52.5
All Vehicles 284 0.0 0.104 3.9 NA 0.5 3.8 0.13 0.34 53.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:46:58 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
29
SIDRA RESULTS – 2018
• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM
• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2018 PEAK HOUR PM
• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM
• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2018PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2018 PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 3 - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 3 - 2018 PEAK HOUR PM
• EDEN/ACCESS 4 - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM
• EDEN/ACCESS 4 - 2018 PEAK HOUR PM
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2018 PEAK HR AM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Beach Road
1 L 9 0.0 0.672 21.8 LOS C 17.2 120.1 0.80 0.93 39.8
2 T 1338 0.0 0.672 13.6 LOS B 17.2 120.2 0.80 0.72 41.3
3 R 46 0.0 0.171 20.1 LOS C 0.9 6.4 0.60 0.73 38.6
Approach 1394 0.0 0.672 13.9 LOS B 17.2 120.2 0.79 0.72 41.2
East: Eden Park Road
4 L 67 0.0 0.181 27.2 LOS C 2.7 18.9 0.76 0.79 34.9
5 T 40 0.0 0.181 19.0 LOS B 2.7 18.9 0.76 0.61 36.2
6 R 272 0.0 0.584 30.4 LOS C 8.1 56.4 0.89 0.83 32.7
Approach 379 0.0 0.584 28.6 LOS C 8.1 56.4 0.86 0.80 33.5
North: Beach Road
7 L 152 0.0 0.082 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
8 T 464 0.0 0.231 10.1 LOS B 4.4 30.5 0.59 0.49 45.0
9 R 120 0.0 0.727 40.1 LOS D 4.5 31.6 0.96 0.94 28.5
Approach 736 0.0 0.727 14.5 LOS B 4.5 31.6 0.53 0.59 41.9
West: Panther Street
10 L 523 0.0 0.282 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.7
11 T 29 0.0 0.065 18.2 LOS B 0.9 6.0 0.73 0.54 37.8
12 R 6 0.0 0.065 26.3 LOS C 0.9 6.0 0.73 0.80 36.3
Approach 559 0.0 0.282 8.4 LOS A 0.9 6.0 0.05 0.60 48.7
All Vehicles 3067 0.0 0.727 14.8 LOS B 17.2 120.2 0.60 0.68 41.3
X: Not applicable for Continuous movement.
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 26.6 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.87 0.87
P3 Across E approach 53 13.8 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.63 0.63
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P7 Across W approach 53 12.0 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.59 0.59
All Pedestrians 212 20.4 LOS C 0.75 0.75
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:05:03 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2018 PEAK HR PM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Beach Road
1 L 46 0.0 0.384 19.3 LOS B 7.9 55.4 0.65 0.92 41.0
2 T 721 0.0 0.384 11.1 LOS B 8.0 55.7 0.65 0.56 43.7
3 R 181 0.0 0.934 40.2 LOS D 7.0 49.0 1.00 0.90 28.4
Approach 948 0.0 0.934 17.0 LOS B 8.0 55.7 0.71 0.64 39.5
East: Eden Park Road
4 L 123 0.0 0.285 27.9 LOS C 4.4 30.8 0.79 0.80 34.3
5 T 45 0.0 0.285 19.8 LOS B 4.4 30.8 0.79 0.65 35.4
6 R 159 0.0 0.313 28.0 LOS C 4.2 29.6 0.80 0.78 33.9
Approach 327 0.0 0.313 26.9 LOS C 4.4 30.8 0.80 0.77 34.3
North: Beach Road
7 L 307 0.0 0.166 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
8 T 1198 0.0 0.597 12.9 LOS B 14.4 100.8 0.75 0.67 42.0
9 R 202 0.0 0.786 35.7 LOS D 7.1 49.6 0.85 0.96 30.3
Approach 1707 0.0 0.786 14.6 LOS B 14.4 100.8 0.63 0.69 41.3
West: Panther Street
10 L 66 0.0 0.036 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8
11 T 1 0.0 0.038 20.6 LOS C 0.4 2.5 0.76 0.54 34.9
12 R 13 0.0 0.038 28.6 LOS C 0.4 2.5 0.76 0.70 33.7
Approach 80 0.0 0.038 11.1 LOS B 0.4 2.5 0.13 0.62 46.1
All Vehicles 3063 0.0 0.934 16.6 LOS B 14.4 100.8 0.66 0.68 40.0
X: Not applicable for Continuous movement.
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 26.6 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.87 0.87
P3 Across E approach 53 13.8 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.63 0.63
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P7 Across W approach 53 12.0 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.59 0.59
All Pedestrians 212 20.4 LOS C 0.75 0.75
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:08:17 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2018 PEAK HR AM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: BEACH ROAD
2 T 1120 0.0 0.515 10.4 LOS B 11.9 83.2 0.67 0.59 44.4
3 R 36 0.0 0.088 17.5 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.53 0.72 40.4
Approach 1156 0.0 0.515 10.6 LOS B 11.9 83.2 0.66 0.60 44.3
East: ACCESS 1
4 L 83 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
6 R 251 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
Approach 334 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5
North: BEACH ROAD
7 L 109 0.0 0.176 16.0 LOS B 1.7 12.2 0.50 0.73 41.7
8 T 388 0.0 0.179 8.2 LOS A 3.2 22.7 0.52 0.43 47.1
Approach 498 0.0 0.179 9.9 LOS A 3.2 22.7 0.52 0.50 45.8
All Vehicles 1987 0.0 0.515 13.8 LOS B 11.9 83.2 0.66 0.60 42.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P3 Across E approach 53 10.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
All Pedestrians 159 22.9 LOS C 0.79 0.79
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:15:31 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2018PEAK HR PM
New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: BEACH ROAD
2 T 538 0.0 0.248 8.5 LOS A 4.7 32.9 0.55 0.46 46.6
3 R 140 0.0 0.604 27.2 LOS C 4.1 28.9 0.82 0.85 34.3
Approach 678 0.0 0.604 12.4 LOS B 4.7 32.9 0.60 0.54 43.4
East: ACCESS 1
4 L 93 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
6 R 278 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
Approach 371 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4
North: BEACH ROAD
7 L 419 0.0 0.679 18.2 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.61 0.80 39.9
8 T 901 0.0 0.415 9.6 LOS A 8.9 62.0 0.62 0.54 45.3
Approach 1320 0.0 0.679 12.3 LOS B 8.9 62.0 0.62 0.62 43.5
All Vehicles 2368 0.0 0.679 15.3 LOS B 8.9 62.0 0.65 0.63 41.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue
Mov ID DescriptionDemand
Flow Average
Delay Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance
ped/h sec ped m per ped
P1 Across S approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
P3 Across E approach 53 10.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54
P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91
All Pedestrians 159 22.9 LOS C 0.79 0.79
Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:16:27 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2018 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 2
1 L 126 0.0 0.122 11.3 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.89 46.2
3 R 1 0.0 0.122 11.1 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.99 46.4
Approach 127 0.0 0.122 11.3 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.89 46.2
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0
5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 92 0.0 0.047 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
12 R 56 0.0 0.054 8.9 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.23 0.64 47.7
Approach 147 0.0 0.054 3.4 NA 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.24 54.7
All Vehicles 403 0.0 0.122 4.8 NA 0.5 3.3 0.11 0.37 53.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:17:49 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2018 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 2
1 L 165 0.0 0.152 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.152 10.9 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 1.03 46.5
Approach 166 0.0 0.152 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.89 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 114 0.0 0.058 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
12 R 236 0.0 0.226 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.6 0.21 0.65 47.8
Approach 349 0.0 0.226 5.9 NA 0.8 5.6 0.14 0.44 51.2
All Vehicles 601 0.0 0.226 6.6 NA 0.8 5.6 0.14 0.50 50.8
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 29 November 2013 01:18:56 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 3 2018 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 3
1 L 46 0.0 0.046 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.88 46.2
3 R 1 0.0 0.046 11.1 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.97 46.4
Approach 47 0.0 0.046 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.88 46.2
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0
5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 92 0.0 0.066 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.00 54.9
12 R 24 0.0 0.066 8.9 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.90 48.7
Approach 116 0.0 0.066 2.3 NA 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.19 53.5
All Vehicles 292 0.0 0.066 2.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.14 0.22 54.7
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:31:28 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 3 2018 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 3
1 L 24 0.0 0.024 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.024 10.9 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.98 46.5
Approach 25 0.0 0.024 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.89 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 114 0.0 0.093 0.3 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.00 55.7
12 R 46 0.0 0.093 8.8 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.87 48.6
Approach 160 0.0 0.093 2.8 NA 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.25 53.5
All Vehicles 271 0.0 0.093 2.7 NA 0.5 3.5 0.14 0.24 54.5
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:32:24 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 4 2018 PEAK HR PM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 4
1 L 39 0.0 0.037 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.89 46.3
3 R 1 0.0 0.037 10.9 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.99 46.5
Approach 40 0.0 0.037 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.89 46.3
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0
5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 114 0.0 0.113 0.3 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.00 55.6
12 R 73 0.0 0.113 8.8 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.83 48.5
Approach 186 0.0 0.113 3.6 NA 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.32 52.6
All Vehicles 312 0.0 0.113 3.6 NA 0.6 4.2 0.15 0.31 53.4
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:34:34 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 4 2018 PEAK HR AM
New SiteStop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue
Mov ID TurnDemand
Flow HVDeg.Satn
AverageDelay
Level ofService
Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 4
1 L 73 0.0 0.071 11.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.88 46.2
3 R 1 0.0 0.071 11.1 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.98 46.4
Approach 74 0.0 0.071 11.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.88 46.2
East: EDEN PARK ROAD
4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0
5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9
West: EDEN PARK ROAD
11 T 92 0.0 0.078 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.00 54.8
12 R 39 0.0 0.078 9.0 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.86 48.6
Approach 131 0.0 0.078 3.0 NA 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.26 52.8
All Vehicles 333 0.0 0.078 3.7 NA 0.4 2.9 0.15 0.30 53.6
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.
Processed: 26 November 2013 02:33:26 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE