Final Report Pedestrian Wind Tunnel Tests for

Final Report

Pedestrian Wind Tunnel Tests for:

Elizabeth Quay Lot 4

Perth, WA

Prepared for:

D&C Corporation

Level 19, 1 William Street

Perth WA

Australia

February 2021

CPP Project: 14355

Prepared by:

Thomas Evans, Project Engineer

Adam van Duijneveldt, Senior Engineer

February 2021 Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 CPP Project 14355

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A wind tunnel study of the proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 development to be located in Perth, WA

was conducted to assess the pedestrian wind environment in and around the development site. A model

of the project was fabricated to a 1:400 scale and centred on a turntable in the wind tunnel. Replicas of

surrounding buildings within a 570 m radius were constructed and placed on the turntable.

The wind tunnel testing was performed in the natural boundary layer wind tunnel of Cermak Peterka

Petersen Pty. Ltd., St. Peters. Approach boundary layers, representative of the environment surrounding

the proposed development, were established in the test section of the wind tunnel. The approach wind

flow had appropriate turbulence characteristics corresponding to Suburban and Open Approaches as

defined in Standards Australia (2011).

Measurements of winds likely to be experienced by pedestrians were made with a hot-film

anemometer at 24 locations for 16 wind directions each. These points were tested around the

development in the proposed configuration, focusing on access routes, entries, and outdoor areas. The

measurements were combined with site specific wind statistics to produce results of wind speed versus

the percentage of time that wind speed is exceeded for each location.

Under the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA) wind criteria (2015), the wind tunnel

assessment showed the wind conditions along the surrounding streets are mostly suitable for transient

activities, and generally exceed the target comfort levels suggested by the MRA. Two areas were found

to experience unacceptably high wind speeds when assessed using this method. It is noted that the

indicated results are typical for this area of Perth. The conservatism of the assessment method contained

in the MRA document is also highlighted.

Under the Lawson (1990) criteria, the wind environment around the site is characterised as suitable

for Pedestrian Standing to Pedestrian Walking. A small number of areas were found to experience

stronger wind conditions. The pedestrian level wind environment is considered to be suitable for its

intended use and commensurate with the targeted comfort levels considered to be in line with the intent

of the MRA design guidelines. Amelioration measures for specific areas will be necessary to achieve a

wind environment suitable for medium to long term stationary activity or uses such as sitting or dining.


ii

DOCUMENT VERIFICATION

Date Revision Prepared

by Checked

by Approved

by 12/02/21 Draft report TXE AVD AVD

08/02/21 Final report TXE AVD AVD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................ iii 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 2 THE WIND TUNNEL TEST ........................................................................................................... 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL WIND CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 9 4 DATA ACQUISITION AND RESULTS ...................................................................................... 11

4.1 Velocities ................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Velocity Profiles ..................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Pedestrian Winds .................................................................................................... 11

5 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 14 5.1 MRA Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Lawson Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 19 5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 23

6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 24 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix 1: Additional photographs of the CPP wind tunnel model ................................................... 26 Appendix 2: Directional wind results ................................................................................................... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic of the closed-circuit wind tunnel. ........................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Mean velocity and turbulence profiles approaching the model. .............................................. 6 Figure 3: Project location and turntable layout. ...................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the west. .................. 8 Figure 5: Wind rose for Perth Airport. .................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6: Ground level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort ratings – MRA

criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7: Podium level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort rating – MRA

criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Ground level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort/distress ratings –

Lawson Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 9: Podium level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort/distress ratings –

Lawson criteria .............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 10: Proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the south. ............ 26 Figure 11: Close-up of the proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the

south. ............................................................................................................................................. 26


iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Parameters and configurations for data acquisition. ................................................................. 4 Table 2: Summary of MRA wind speed criteria ..................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Summary of Lawson criteria. .................................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Summary of wind effects on people, Penwarden (1973) ........................................................ 13 Table 5: Summary of expected wind rating targets versus wind tunnel results, MRA criteria............. 15 Table 6: Summary of expected wind rating targets versus wind tunnel results, Lawson criteria ......... 19

LIST OF SYMBOLS

𝐷 Characteristic dimension (building height, width, etc.), m

𝑛 Mean velocity profile power law exponent

𝑇𝑢 Turbulence intensity, 𝑈rms 𝑈⁄

𝑈 Local mean velocity, m/s

𝑈ref Reference mean velocity at reference height 𝑧ref, m/s

𝑈pk Peak wind speed in pedestrian studies, m/s

𝑈rms Root-mean-square of fluctuating velocity, m/s

𝑧 Height above surface, m

𝜈 Kinematic viscosity of approach flow, m²/s

𝜎( ) Standard deviation of ( ), = ( )rms′

𝜌 Density of approach flow, kg/m³

( )max Maximum value during data record

( )min Minimum value during data record

( )mean Mean value during data record

( )rms Root mean square about the mean


4

1 INTRODUCTION

Pedestrian acceptability of footpaths, entrances, plazas and terraces is an important design

parameter of interest to the building owner and architect. Assessment of the acceptability of the

pedestrian level wind environment is desirable during the project design phase so that modifications

can be made, if necessary, to create wind conditions suitable for the intended use of the space.

Techniques have been developed which permit boundary layer wind tunnel modelling of buildings

to determine wind velocities in pedestrian areas. This report includes wind tunnel test procedures, test

results, and discussion of acquired test results. Table 1 summarises the model configurations, test

methods, and data acquisition parameters used. All the data collection was performed in accordance

with Australasian Wind Engineering Society (2001), and American Society of Civil Engineers (1999,

2010). While analytical methods such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) have some utility in the

field of pedestrian wind comfort, they are not yet capable of reliably and accurately predicting gust

wind speeds for assessment of wind conditions from a safety perspective.

Table 1: Parameters and configurations for data acquisition.

General Information

Model scale 1:400

Surrounding model radius (full-scale) 570 m

Reference height (full-scale) 200 m AGL

Approach Terrain Category Suburban Approach (Terrain Category 3) Clockwise from

270°-180°

Open Approach (Terrain Category 2) Clockwise from 202.5°

-247.5°.

Testing Configurations

Configuration Proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 development with existing and

approved surrounding buildings, as shown in Figure 3.

Pedestrian winds measured at 24 locations for 16 wind

directions at 22.5° increments from 0° (north).


5

2 THE WIND TUNNEL TEST

Modelling of the aerodynamic flow around a structure requires special consideration of flow

conditions to obtain similitude between the model and the prototype. A detailed discussion of the

similarity requirements and their wind tunnel implementation can be found in Cermak (1971, 1975,

1976). In general, the requirements are that the model and prototype be geometrically similar, that the

approach mean velocity and turbulence characteristics at the model building site have a vertical profile

shape similar to the full-scale flow, and that the Reynolds number for the model and prototype be equal.

Due to modelling constraints, the Reynolds number cannot be made equal and the Australasian Wind

Engineering Society Quality Assurance Manual (2001) suggests a minimum Reynolds number of

50,000, based on minimum model width and wind velocity at the top of the model; in this study the

modelled Reynolds number was over 50,000.

The wind tunnel test was performed in the boundary layer wind tunnel shown in Figure 1. The wind

tunnel test section is 3.0 m wide, by 2.4 m high with a porous slatted roof for passive blockage

correction. This wind tunnel has a 21 m long test section, the floor of which is covered with roughness

elements, preceded by vorticity generating fence and spires. The spires, barrier, and roughness elements

were designed to provide a modelled atmospheric boundary layer approximately 1.2 m thick with a

mean velocity and turbulence intensity profile similar to that expected to occur in the region

approaching the modelled area. The approach wind characteristics used for the model test are shown in

Figure 2 and are explained more fully in Section 4.1.1.

Figure 1: Schematic of the closed-circuit wind tunnel.


6

Terrain Category 2

Terrain Category 3

Figure 2: Mean velocity and turbulence profiles approaching the model.

A model of the proposed development and surrounds to a radius of 570 m was constructed at a scale

of 1:400, which was consistent with the modelled atmospheric flow, permitted a reasonable test model

size with an adequate portion of the adjoining environment to be included in a proximity model, Figure

3, and was within wind tunnel blockage limitations. Significant variations in the building surface were

formed into the model. The models were mounted on the turntable located near the downstream end of


7

the wind tunnel test section, Figure 4. The turntable permitted rotation of the modelled area for

examination of velocities from any approach wind direction. Additional photos of the test models are

included in Appendix 1.

Figure 3: Project location and turntable layout.


8

Figure 4: Proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the west.


9

3 ENVIRONMENTAL WIND CRITERIA

A number of researchers have added to the knowledge of wind effects on pedestrians by suggesting

criteria for comfort and safety. Because pedestrians will tolerate higher wind speeds for a smaller period

of time than for lower wind speeds, these criteria provide a means of evaluating the overall acceptability

of a pedestrian location. Also, a location can be evaluated for its intended use, such as for an outdoor

café or a footpath.

The Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA) specifies wind criteria to be applied to the

Elizabeth Quay development area (Elizabeth Quay Design Guidelines, 2015). These are defined in

Table 2 and appear to be based on the work of Melbourne (1978) with the category of “Waterfront”

added. The Melbourne criteria are based on the peak 3 second gust wind speed, occurring during an

hour event, exceeded 0.1% of the time occurring from any 22.5° wind direction sector. This value is

intended to represent a once per annum event, though strictly speaking a one hour in a year event occurs

with a probability of 0.0114%. It is understood that the 0.1% quoted in the Melbourne criteria refers to

a once per annum storm event occurring during daylight hours.

The MRA comfort criteria have categories for comfort, ranging from “Long-term stationary”

activities, such as sitting, to “Walking” (Melbourne, 1978). The criteria also include a distress rating,

for safety assessment, which is based on observations of individuals blown over during strong wind

events, and limits the peak gust wind speed, occurring with a 0.1% probability, to 23 m/s. In the MRA

Design Guidelines, the “Uncomfortable” category defined by Melbourne (1978) is divided into

“Waterfront” (16 - 20 m/s) and “Above Waterfront” (20 - 23 m/s).

Table 2: Summary of MRA wind speed criteria

Comfort (based on the peak 3 second gust wind speed exceeded 0.1% of the time from any 22.5°

wind direction sector)

< 10 m/s Long-term stationary activities (outdoor sitting, theatres)

10 - 13 m/s Short-term stationary activities (window shopping, standing, or sitting in plazas)

13 - 16 m/s Walking in urban and suburban areas (main public accessways)

16 - 20 m/s Waterfront (Uncomfortable under Melbourne (1978))

20 - 23 m/s Above Waterfront (Uncomfortable under Melbourne (1978))

Distress (based on the peak 3 second gust)

> 23 m/s Unacceptable, not to be exceeded with a probability greater than 0.1% of the time from

any 22.5° wind direction sector

The Melbourne/MRA criteria are limited in that they rely upon an infrequent gust event to describe

the entire distribution of wind speeds, which may not adequately characterise the general conditions at

the site. To address this limitation, the results of the wind tunnel testing have also been evaluated using

the criteria of Lawson (1990), which are described in Table 3.


10

Lawson’s criteria have categories for comfort, based on wind speeds exceeded 5% of the time,

allowing planners to judge the usability of locations for various intended purposes ranging from

“Business Walking” to “Pedestrian sitting”. The level and severity of these comfort categories can vary

based on individual preference, so calibration to the local wind environment is recommended when

evaluating the Lawson ratings. The criteria also include a distress rating, for safety assessment, which

is based on occasional (once or twice per year) wind speeds1. In both cases, the wind speed used is the

larger of a mean or gust equivalent-mean (GEM) wind speed. The GEM is defined as the peak gust

wind speed divided by 1.85; this is intended to account for locations where the gustiness is the dominant

characteristic of the wind. Assessment using the Lawson criteria provides a similar descriptive

classification as using once per annum gust criteria, but also provides significantly more information

regarding the serviceability of the wind climate, and is less prone to over-estimation of the prevalence

of windy conditions.

Table 3: Summary of Lawson criteria.

Comfort (maximum of mean or gust equivalent mean (GEM†.) wind speed exceeded 5% of the time)

< 4 m/s Pedestrian Sitting (considered to be of long duration)

4 - 6 m/s Pedestrian Standing (or sitting for a short time or exposure)

6 - 8 m/s Pedestrian Walking

8 - 10 m/s Business Walking (objective walking from A to B or for cycling)

> 10 m/s Uncomfortable1

Distress (maximum of mean or GEM wind speed exceeded 0.022% of the time)

<15 m/s not to be exceeded more than two times per year (or one time per season) for general

access area

<20 m/s not to be exceeded more than two times per year (or one time per season) where only

able-bodied people would be expected; frail or cyclists would not be expected

Note: †. The gust equivalent mean (GEM) is the peak 3 s gust wind speed divided by 1.85.

1 The rating of “Uncomfortable” in Table 3 is the word of the acceptance criteria author and may not apply directly to any

particular project. High wind areas are certainly not uncomfortable all the time, just on windier days. The word uncomfortable,

in our understanding, refers to acceptability of the site by pedestrians for typical pedestrian use; i.e., on the windiest days,

pedestrians will not find the areas “acceptable” for walking and will tend to avoid such areas if possible. The distress rating

fail indicates some unspecified potential for causing injury to a less stable individual who might be blown over. The likelihood

of such events is not well described in the literature and is likely to be strongly affected by individual differences, presence of

water, blowing dust or particulates, and other variables in addition to the wind speed.


11

4 DATA ACQUISITION AND RESULTS

4.1 Velocities

Velocity profile measurements were taken to verify that appropriate boundary layer flow

approaching the site was established and to determine the likely pedestrian level wind climate around

the test site. Pedestrian wind measurements and analysis are described in Section 4.1.2. All velocity

measurements were made with hot-film anemometers, which were calibrated against a Pitot-static tube

in the wind tunnel. The calibration data were described by a King’s Law relationship (King, 1914).

4.1.1 Velocity Profiles

Mean velocity and turbulence intensity profiles for the boundary layer flow approaching the model

are shown in Figure 2. Turbulence intensities are related to the local mean wind speed. These profiles

have the form as defined in Standards Australia (2011) and are appropriate for the approach conditions.

4.1.2 Pedestrian Winds

The development site is located at the southern edge of the Perth CBD, within the Elizabeth Quay

development precinct. The site is bounded by The Esplanade and proposed neighbouring developments

at Elizabeth Quay Lots 2-3 to the south and Lots 5-6 to the east. The Swan River is to the immediate

south of the site with the massing of the Perth CBD to the north.

For this report, wind speed measurements were recorded at 24 locations, as described in Table 1, to

evaluate pedestrian wind comfort and safety in and around the project site shown in Figure 6 to Figure

9. Velocity measurements were made at the model scale equivalent of 1.5 to 2.1 m above the surface

for 16 wind directions at 22.5° intervals. Locations were chosen to determine the degree of pedestrian

wind comfort and safety at building corners where relatively severe conditions are frequently found,

near building entrances and passageways, and at upper level outdoor locations.

The hot-film signal was sampled for a period corresponding to one hour in prototype. All velocity

data were digitally filtered to obtain the two to three second running mean wind speed at each point;

this is the minimum size of a gust affecting a pedestrian and is the basis for the various acceptability

criteria. These local wind speeds, 𝑈, were normalised by the tunnel reference velocity, 𝑈ref. Mean and

turbulence statistics were calculated and used to calculate the normalised effective peak gust using:

𝑈𝑝𝑘

𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑓=

𝑈 + 3𝑈𝑟𝑚𝑠

𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑓

The mean and gust equivalent mean velocities relative to the free stream wind tunnel reference

velocity at a full-scale elevation of 200 m are plotted in polar form in Appendix 2. The graphs show

velocity magnitude and the approach wind direction for which that velocity was measured. The polar


12

plots aid in visualisation of the effects of the nearby structures or topography, the relative significance

of various wind azimuths, and whether the mean or gust wind speed is of greater importance.

To enable a quantitative assessment of the wind environment in the region, the wind tunnel data

were combined with wind frequency and direction information measured by the Bureau of Meteorology

at a standard height of 10 m at Perth Airport from 1995 to 2017, Figure 5.

From these data, directional criterion lines for the MRA and Lawson rating wind speeds have been

calculated and included on the polar plots in Appendix 2; this gives additional information regarding

directional sensitivity at each location.

The criteria of Lawson consider the integration of the velocity measurements with local wind

climate statistical data summarised in Figure 5 to rate each location. From the cumulative wind speed

distributions for each location, the percentage of time each of the Lawson comfort rating wind speeds

are exceeded are presented in tabular form under the polar plots in Appendix 2. In addition to the rating

wind speeds, the percentage of time that 2 m/s is exceeded is also reported. This has been provided as

it has been found that the limiting wind speed for long-term stationary activities such as fine outdoor

dining should be about 2 to 2.5 m/s rather than 4 m/s.

Interpretation of these wind levels can be aided by the description of the effects of wind of various

magnitudes on people. The earliest quantitative description of wind effects was established by Sir

Francis Beaufort in 1806, for use at sea; the Beaufort scale is reproduced in Table 4 including qualitative

descriptions of wind effects.

The tables in Appendix 2 additionally provide the wind speed exceeded 5% and 0.022% of the time

for direct comparison with the Lawson comfort and distress criteria, and the associated Lawson ratings

for both mean and GEM wind speeds. A colour coded summary assessment of pedestrian wind comfort

and safety with respect to the MRA and Lawson criteria is presented in Figure 6 to Figure 9 for each

test location. The implications of the results are discussed in Section 5.


13

Figure 5: Wind rose for Perth Airport.

Table 4: Summary of wind effects on people, Penwarden (1973)

Description Beaufort

Number

Speed

(m/s) Effects

Calm, light air 0, 1 0–2 Calm, no noticeable wind.

Light breeze 2 2–3 Wind felt on face.

Gentle breeze 3 3–5 Wind extends light flag. Hair is disturbed. Clothing flaps

Moderate breeze 4 5–8 Raises dust, dry soil, and loose paper. Hair disarranged.

Fresh breeze 5 8–11 Force of wind felt on body. Drifting snow becomes

airborne. Limit of agreeable wind on land.

Strong breeze 6 11–14

Umbrellas used with difficulty. Hair blown straight.

Difficult to walk steadily. Wind noise on ears unpleasant.

Windborne snow above head height (blizzard).

Near gale 7 14–17 Inconvenience felt when walking.

Gale 8 17–21 Generally impedes progress. Great difficulty with

balance in gusts.

Strong gale 9 21–24 People blown over by gusts.


14

5 DISCUSSION

The wind climatology chart of Figure 5 indicates that the most frequent strong winds are from the

east and south-west quadrants. The locations tested around the development site are susceptible to winds

from these directions, depending on the relative position of the location tested to the geometry of the

proposed development and surrounds. The influence of wind direction on the suitability of a location

for an intended purpose can be ascertained from the polar plots in Appendix 2 under the MRA and

Lawson criteria. The polar plots show the severity, distribution, and frequency of steady winds and

gusts (gusts only for MRA) from 16 directions at 22.5° intervals.

The primary conclusions of the pedestrian study can be understood by reviewing Table 5 and Table

6 which list the locations selected for investigation of pedestrian wind comfort and safety, along with

the measured comfort and safety ratings. Table 5 is based on the MRA criteria while Table 6 is based

on the Lawson criteria. Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the test locations and are colour coded to reflect

their corresponding MRA classification, while Figure 8 and Figure 9 are colour coded to reflect the

Lawson comfort and distress ratings.

The ‘Wind Rating Target’ columns in Table 5 and Table 6 are based on Figure 9, pg. 35 of the

Elizabeth Quay Design Guidelines (MRA, 2015). When assessed under the MRA criteria, a significant

number of the investigated locations in the public domain did not meet the comfort rating targets. Two

locations in the public domain were assessed as unacceptably windy. It is noted that an exceedance of

the target wind speed from any direction will register as a failure when applying the MRA criteria,

regardless of the frequency of occurrence of that direction. For this reason, the resulting ratings are

considered conservative.

Note that testing was performed without existing and proposed trees, and other plantings to provide

a worst-case assessment. Heavy landscape planting typically reduces the wind speeds by less than 10%

and cannot be relied on to provide sufficient shielding from winds that potentially pose a safety risk due

to their vulnerabilities. Mitigation measures are likely to be required for orange and red locations and

may be necessary for other locations depending on the intended use of the space. Although conditions

may be classified as acceptable, there may be certain wind directions that cause regular strong events,

and these can be determined by an inspection of the polar plots in Appendix 2.


15

5.1 MRA Criteria

Table 5: Summary of expected wind rating targets versus wind tunnel results, MRA criteria

Wind Rating Target

Comfort Rating, 0.1% exceedance

wind speed

Comfort rating, 0.1%

exceedance wind speed

(m/s)

Meets target

Y(es)/N(o)

1 13.0 18.3 N

2 16.0 14.5 Y

3 16.0 18.1 N

4 16.0 23.7 N

5 16.0 20.8 N

6 16.0 22.0 N

7 16.0 19.9 N

8 13.0 18.2 N

9 10.0 18.4 N

10 13.0 21.3 N

11 16.0 25.6 N

12 16.0 18.6 N

13 16.0 15.5 Y

14 13.0 21.9 N

15 16.0 18.9 N

16 16.0 21.4 N

17 16.0 20.0 N

18 16.0 18.2 N

19 16.0 15.5 Y

20 16.0 17.8 N

21 13.0 17.1 N

22 NA 11.7

23 NA 16.4

24 NA 10.7

Description /

Location

Wind Tunnel Results

Gro

un

d P

lan

eT

err

ace

Comfort Criteria

Long-term stationary Walking Above Waterfront

Short-term Stationary Waterfront Unacceptable/Dangerous


16

The results of the environmental wind assessment using the MRA criteria are summarised in Figure

6. On the ground plane, conditions range from suitable for Walking type activities to Unacceptable,

with the majority of locations classified as Waterfront or above.

Along the southern boundary of the site, pedestrian areas are predominantly affected by winds from

the south, south-west, and west (see Appendix 2). This area is generally rated at the Waterfront category.

Conditions are similar on the western side of the development. Though the awning and entry colonnade

provide some protection from downwash flow here, this area is still affected by strong winds

approaching from the south and south-west.

To the east, the neighbouring tower on Lot 5 provides some shielding from easterly winds, however

directional results indicate strong channeling flows arise between Lots 4 and 5 during winds from the

southern quadrant, resulting in comfort ratings above target levels. The local flow direction is expected

to be aligned with the north-south orientation of the street grid here.

On the north side of the site, conditions are generally classified in the Above Waterfront category,

and to the north-east conditions are assessed as unacceptably windy at two locations. The combined

massing of the subject development and the neighbouring Lot 5 tower is expected to induce strong

channeling flow along The Esplanade, particularly during winds from the east, which drives the

exceedances in this area.

Test locations further from the influence of the development and other large buildings are generally

rated as Walking to Waterfront under the MRA criteria.

On the podium terrace, conditions are classified as Waterfront, with the dominant wind direction

being the south-west. Location 22 is positioned within the undercroft space, and the additional

protection to this area results in a Short-Term Stationary rating. Similarly, the south-facing terraces at

lower elevation are less exposed to strong winds and also achieve a Short-Term Stationary rating

(Location 24).


17

Figure 6: Ground level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort ratings – MRA criteria

Comfort Criteria



N


18

Figure 7: Podium level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort rating – MRA criteria

Comfort Criteria




19

5.2 Lawson Criteria

Table 6: Summary of expected wind rating targets versus wind tunnel results, Lawson criteria

Comfort rating, 5% exceedance wind

speed (m/s)

Comfort rating, 5%

exceedance wind speed (m/s)Meets target Y/N

Safety rating, 0.022% exceedance

wind speed (m/s)

1 >4 to 6 7.2 N 13.8

2 >6 to 8 4.6 Y 9.1

3 >6 to 8 7.6 Y 14.1

4 >6 to 8 6.9 Y 14.2

5 >6 to 8 6.2 Y 13.3

6 >6 to 8 7.6 Y 14.4

7 >6 to 8 6.8 Y 13.1

8 >4 to 6 7.0 N 13.7

9 >2 to 4 7.0 N 12.9

10 >4 to 6 7.7 N 15.1

11 >6 to 8 7.6 Y 15.5

12 >6 to 8 7.8 Y 13.3

13 >6 to 8 5.7 Y 9.9

14 >4 to 6 8.5 N 17.2

15 >6 to 8 6.7 Y 11.7

16 >6 to 8 8.8 N 15.3

17 >6 to 8 5.8 Y 12.1

18 >6 to 8 7.6 Y 14.0

19 >6 to 8 5.6 Y 10.5

20 >6 to 8 5.3 Y 10.7

21 >4 to 6 7.3 N 12.7

22 NA 4.0 7.5

23 NA 6.2 11.7

24 NA 3.3 6.7

Description /

Location

Target Wind Tunnel Results

Gro

un

d P

lan

eT

err

ace

LEGEND

Comfort Criteria Safety Criteria

Outdoor Dining Passes safety criteria

Pedestrian Sitting Able bodied

Pedestrian Standing Fails safety criteria

Pedestrian Walking

Business Walking

Uncomfortable


20

The results of the wind tunnel test as assessed under the Lawson criteria are summarised in Table

6. The pedestrian wind environment around the subject site is generally classified as suitable for

Pedestrian Standing and Pedestrian Walking activity levels. Two locations fall into the Business

Walking category, and a total of four test locations exceed the Able-Bodied distress threshold on the

ground plane.

Pedestrian locations around the site boundary are generally categorized as suitable for Pedestrian

Walking, indicating they would be suitable for use as a general accessway and pedestrian thoroughfare.

Slightly calmer conditions are available under the protection of the awning in some areas, and at the

entries located in the colonnade on the western side of the building, where conditions meet the

Pedestrian Standing category.

Test locations 14 and 16 are assessed as windier, falling into the Business Walking category.

Conditions in these areas would be suited to transient activity only without mitigation measures.

Location 14 is primarily affected by winds from the west, while Location 16 is strongly affected by

winds from the south and south-west channeling between Lots 4 and 5. Both locations also exceed the

Able-Bodied distress/safety threshold, indicating wind speeds may occur that pose a hazard to some

pedestrians.

Locations 10 and 11 also exceed the Able-Bodied Lawson distress threshold, suggesting this side

of the site will experience relatively high wind speeds during strong wind events. Mitigation would also

be suggested from a comfort perspective for areas intended for longer-duration activities such as

strolling/window shopping or sitting.

Under the Lawson criteria, conditions on the podium terrace are assessed as suitable for Pedestrian

Walking for the outer area, with calmer conditions available in the under-croft area, which is rated in

the Pedestrian Standing comfort category. On the lower south-facing balconies, conditions are expected

to be generally calm, with a Pedestrian Sitting rating indicated.


21

Figure 8: Ground level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort/distress ratings – Lawson

Criteria

N


22

Figure 9: Podium level pedestrian wind speed measurement locations with comfort/distress ratings – Lawson

criteria


23

5.3 Recommendations

In general terms, the pedestrian wind environment is assessed as suitable for short term duration

activity such as walking or thoroughfare. For areas intended for pedestrian uses involving stationary or

longer duration type activity, and where potentially hazardous wind speeds are indicated, some level of

mitigation or treatment will be required. The level of mitigation required for particular locations is

dependent on how the area is to be used and the directionality of the wind environment. Wind treatments

for this site may incorporate vertical screening elements and/or landscaped zones with a mix of solid

and porous media at varying heights. It is expected an effective mitigation strategy may be developed

during detailed design where necessary.


24

6 CONCLUSION

Cermak Peterka Petersen Pty. Ltd. has conducted a wind tunnel assessment to ascertain the impact

of the proposed development at Lot 4, Elizabeth Quay Perth on the local wind environment. A total of

24 locations in and around the development site were investigated including surrounding footpaths and

entries.

Under the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA) wind criteria (2015), the development

area was generally categorised as Waterfront comfort or above, and a large number of areas exceeded

target comfort levels. A comfort rating of Waterfront to Above Waterfront is considered typical for this

area of Perth, based on previous testing conducted by CPP. Some areas were assessed as unacceptably

windy under the MRA criteria. The conservatism of this assessment method is noted.

Under the criteria of Lawson, the public domain wind environment was characterised as suitable

for Pedestrian Standing to Pedestrian Walking. A small number of locations indicated windier

conditions and exceedance of the Able-Bodied distress level.

The wind environment for the proposed development is assessed as broadly in line with the intent

of the MRA wind guidelines and suitable for general public access and thoroughfare. It is expected that

inclusion of wind mitigation treatments to particular locations would be necessary for medium to long

term pedestrian activity, which may be developed and implemented during detailed design.


25

7 REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (1999), Wind Tunnel Model Studies of Buildings and Structures

(ASCE Manual of Practice Number 67).

American Society of Civil Engineers (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures (ASCE 7–10).

Australasian Wind Engineering Society (2001), Wind Engineering Studies of Buildings (AWES-QAM-

1-2001).

Cermak, J.E. (1971), “Laboratory Simulation of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer,” AIAA Jl., Vol. 9,

September.

Cermak, J.E. (1975), “Applications of Fluid Mechanics to Wind Engineering,” A Freeman Scholar

Lecture, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 97, No. 1, March.

Cermak, J.E. (1976), “Aerodynamics of Buildings,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 8, pp. 75

– 106.

King, C.V. (1914), “On the Convection of Heat from Small Cylinders in a Stream of Fluid,”

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Vol. A214, p. 373.

Lawson, T.V. (1990), “The Determination of the Wind Environment of a Building Complex before

Construction” Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Report Number

TVL 9025.

Penwarden, A.D. (1973), "Acceptable wind speeds in towns", Building Science, Vol.8, pp. 259-267.

Standards Australia (2011), Australian/New Zealand Standard, Structural Design Actions, Part 2: Wind

Actions (AS/NZS1170 Pt.2).


26

Appendix 1: Additional photographs of the CPP wind tunnel model

Figure 10: Proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the south.

Figure 11: Close-up of the proposed Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 model in the wind tunnel viewed from the south.


27

Appendix 2: Directional wind results

MRA Criteria


28


29


30


31


32


33

Lawson Criteria


34


35


36


37


38


39

Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay | 21 The Esplanade, Perth Proposed Mixed Use Development

44

CIVIC | EDUCATION | HEALTH | INDUSTRIAL | MISSION CRITICAL | OFFICES | RESIDENTIAL & HOTELS | RETAIL | TRANSPORT

NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG Level 11 200 St. Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 Australia T +618 9281-6800 F +618 9281-6888 www.ndy.com NDY MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED TRADING AS NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG ABN 29 003 234 571

17 February 2021

D&C Corporation

1 William Street

Perth WA 6000

AU

ELIZABETH QUAY LOT 4 - SUSTAINABILITY

Norman Disney and Young have been engaged by D&C Corporation to provide sustainability services for the above project.

The Elizabeth Quay Tower 4 development is a 52-level building with a NLA of approx. 86,600m2, including offices (corporate

and co-working studio), apartments, child care centre, wellness centre, and food and beverage facilities together with three

basement levels with car parking, bicycle parking, end-of-trip cyclist facilities, and service areas.

In line with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Development Policy 1 Green Building requirements for a Tier 2 site,

the Elizabeth Quay Tower 4 development will be designed to achieve a 5 star Green Star Design and As-Built v1.3 certification

form the Green Building Council of Australia.

At this early stage of the project the following key sustainability initiatives are being considered:

High performance building fabric and glazing exceeding the minimum requirements under the 2019 provisions of the National Construction Code (NCC), ensuring the development achieves a 5 star Green star Design and As-Built rating.

To encourage active and public transport, substantial cyclist parking and end of trip facilities will be provided.

Rainwater will be collected from the rooftop to provide non-potable water for landscape irrigation.

Energy-efficient LED lighting with Organic Response control technology or equivalent will be considered for the office components of the development to provide occupants with control over individual luminaires throughout office areas.

Minimise energy consumption through specification of efficient building fabric, building services and controls in line with Green Star requirements.

Minimise potable water consumption through specification of water-efficient fixtures and controls, and rainwater harvesting as applicable.

Reduce construction waste and provide facilities to help users reduce operational waste in line with best practice standards.

Reduce overall materials impact and enhance occupant wellbeing through specification of healthy, sustainable internal materials and finishes.

Enhanced indoor environmental quality through passive design ensuring adequate daylight levels to all primary spaces are balanced with energy consumption and thermal comfort through high performance building fabric and glazing, and efficient services design.

The sustainability strategy for the development will continue to be developed as the project progresses, with the

sustainability initiatives and Green Star scorecard outlining the projects pathway to achieving a 5 star Green Star Design and

17 Feb. 21 | Elizabeth Quay – Tower 4 Development | 2

\\tt.local\NDY\per\w\P683xx\P68303\001\00\18_Professional_Fees\ls210217p0005

As-Built v1.3 certification to be provided in a sustainability services brief at the Working Drawings stage in line with the MRA

Green Building policy requirements.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned if further information is required.

NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG

Thomas Monkhouse | Senior Consultant - Sustainability

[email protected]


46

Acoustic Services DA Submission ELIZABETH QUAY – LOT 4 D&C Corporation

CONFIDENTIAL

Revision: 1.0 – DA Issue Issued: 19 February 2021

Table of Contents

ELIZABETH QUAY – LOT 4 | Acoustic Services DA Submission Report i DA Issue | 1.0 | 19-Feb-21 | \\ndy.group\per\w\P683xx\P68303\001\J-\24_Reports\rp210216p0010

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Purpose of Report 1

1.2 Required and Recommended Design Standards 1

1.3 Authority 1

1.4 Information Sources 1

1.5 Revision History 2

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3

2.1 Site location and surroundings 3

2.2 Nearest noise sensitive receivers 5

2.3 Existing external noise environment 5

3 PROJECT CRITERIA 7

3.1 WA State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise 7

3.2 Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997 7

3.3 City of Perth, Planning Scheme No.2 8

3.4 MRA Development Policy 3: Sound and Vibration Attenuation 9

3.5 Sound Insulation 10

3.6 Green Star – Design and As Built V1.3 14

3.7 Internal Noise Criteria 15

3.8 Reverberation Control 17

3.9 Building Services Noise & Vibration 17

4 SOUND INSULATION – INTERNAL SEPARATION 20

4.1 Constructions 20

4.2 Specialty Areas 20

5 SOUND INSULATION - EXTERNAL ENVELOPE 21

5.1 Facade Construction 21

5.2 Train Vibration 21

6 BUILDING SERVICES CONSIDERATIONS 22

6.1 Mechanical noise 22

6.2 Hydraulic noise 22

6.3 Machine Vibration Isolation 22

6.4 Lift Noise and Vibration 22

7 REVERBERATION CONTROL 24

8 SPECIALTY AREAS 25

8.1 Pool 25

8.2 Gymnasium 25

8.3 Car Parks 26

ELIZABETH QUAY – LOT 4 | Acoustic Services DA Submission Report

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NDY has been engaged by D&C to provide acoustic advice on the Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 (EQ4) project. This is an interim report to assist informing the ongoing design. As per MRA Development Policy 3: Sound and Vibration Attenuation and MRA Elisabeth Quay Development Guidelines an Acoustic Report will be provided at Working Drawing stage.

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide acoustic design input into the following areas:

▪ Noise emissions to the boundary from onsite plant equipment

▪ Control of external noise intrusion and facade design

▪ Architectural acoustic considerations

▪ Reverberation control in critical areas

▪ Buildings services noise and vibration control, e.g. hydraulic and mechanical services

▪ Lift noise and vibration control

1.2 Required and Recommended Design Standards

This report has been written with reference to the following mandatory and recommended documents, which set out various acoustic criteria.

▪ City of Perth City Planning Scheme No. 2, 2006

▪ Western Australia Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

▪ The Western Australian Planning Commission State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise

▪ The National Construction Code of Australia (NCC)

▪ MRA Development Policy 3: Sound and Vibration Attenuation and MRA Elisabeth Quay Development Guidelines

▪ Australian / New Zealand Standards including AS/NZS 2107:2016 — Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors

▪ Australian Standard 2670.2-2001: Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration – Continuous and shock induced vibration in buildings

▪ Green Star Design & As Built V1.3

1.3 Authority

Authority to undertake this report was provided by D&C Corporation.

1.4 Information Sources

This report was written with reference to the following documents:

▪ DA documents provided to date


1.5 Revision History

Revision Date Issued Comment

1.0 19 February 2021 DA Issue


2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site location and surroundings

The project is a 52-storey mixed use development comprising office, apartments and various support facilities; e.g. gymnasium, restaurants etc. Details and floor plans are set out in the Architectural submission.

FLOOR NET LETTABLE AREA

Office F& B Creche Gym/Wellness Residential

B3 Basement

B2 Basement

B1 Basement

GF Lobbies /F&B 200

M Lobbies/ Office 1000

1F Podium 2500

2F Podium 2500

3F Podium 2500

4F Podium 1000 1000

5F Office 2020

6F Office 2038

7F Office 2055

8F Office 2070

9F Office 2085

10 Office 2097

11 Office 2107

12 Office 2117

13 Office 2124

14F Office 2129

15F Office 2134

16F Office 2137

17F Office 2134

18F Office 2136

19F Office 2000

20F Plant Level

21F Plant Level

22F Office 2176

23F Office 2160

24F Office 2156

25F Office 2143

26F Office 2129

27F Office 2114

28F Office 2095

29F Office 2078

30F Office 2057

31F-47F Residential 31959

48F F&B Restaurant 1200

49F F&B Bar Lounge 600


FLOOR NET LETTABLE AREA

Office F& B Creche Gym/Wellness Residential

50F F&B Bar Pool 100 1200

51F Plant Level

52F Plant Level

Subtotals 58991 2100 1000 2200 31959

TOTAL 96250

Table 1 – Development Mix

The Development site is located at Elizabeth Quay Lots 4 in Perth. See below for context with its surroundings.

Sources: DA package and Google Maps

Figure 1 – Site Context


2.2 Nearest noise sensitive receivers

It is likely that the noise sensitive areas within the EQ 4 development will pose the more onerous restrictions than those in spaces/buildings nearby. Nearby noise sensitive locations include:

▪ Lawson Apartments, 4 Sherwood Ct (approximately 120m East)

▪ Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1 Barrack StCt (approximately 160m South East)

▪ Future residential and hotel, Elizabeth Quat Lot 2&3 (approximately 80m South)

Noise impacts to the development itself, and to existing and future noise sensitive receivers will be resolved in more detail during the design process to ensure compliance with EPA and brief requirements.

2.3 Existing external noise environment

A preliminary noise study was undertaken in 2017, see extract below from MDA _EQ West Development Application Acoustic_Report_16 March 2017. A more detailed noise assessment will be undertaken during the design to ensure criteria set out in this report are addressed.

“A preliminary noise survey was conducted on March 13 2017. It was observed that the ambient noise environment at the Development site is dominated by traffic noise from Riverside Drive, the nearby freeway access roads, and traffic on the Mitchell Freeway itself. Noise from trains was also observed via openings to the Mandurah line rail tunnel to the west of the site.

For the purposes of this Development Application report, preliminary building envelope design information is based on noise levels measured at the site during the preliminary survey. A summary of the measured noise levels is presented in Table 1. Further details of the survey are provided in Appendix B.

The noise levels in Table 1 are considered to be representative of typical noise levels likely at the most noise-affected facades of the Development. A more extensive survey, including measurements of night-time levels, will be carried out at a later stage of the project to better understand the noise levels at each façade. Night-time levels are expected to be lower than those presented in Table 1.

Noise modelling may also be used to estimate the facade noise levels.

Future noise levels at the Development site are likely to be also affected by entertainment and other activity in the Elisabeth Quay public realm.

Typical measured noise

level (dB)

Position Location Description LAeq LAmax

1 Corner of Riverside Drive west bound traffic

Road traffic noise, rail noise, wind noise

67 77

2 Corner of Riverside Drive east bound traffic


65 83

3 Corner of Riverside Drive between bus lanes


66 72

"


A more detailed noise assessment will be undertaken during the design to ensure criteria set out in this report are addressed.


3 PROJECT CRITERIA

This section provides acoustic performance criteria for the project.

3.1 WA State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise

The project is to be designed with respect to the requirements of the State Planning Policy (SPP) 5.4 Road and Rail Noise. The policy mainly refers to indoor noise targets for noise sensitive areas such as bedrooms and living rooms.

For other types of spaces such as commercial buildings, it is suitable to align with AS/NZS 2107:2016 which matches the project criteria for the office component of the project.

The “noise sensitive” areas as defined in SPP 5.4 section 4.1, the Policy would apply primarily to the residential areas. The following indoor noise targets will apply:

▪ LAeq (Day) 40 dBA (living and work areas)

▪ LAeq (Night) 35 dBA (bedrooms)

3.2 Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997

Noise emissions from the EQ4 development are to comply with the Western Australian Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (State Noise Regulations).

To achieve compliance with this policy, noise levels at nearby areas are not to exceed assigned levels. Assigned levels are determined from consideration of prevailing background noise levels and ‘influencing factors’ that consider the level of commercial and industrial zoning in the locality.

A summary of applicable noise limits are provided in Table 2, with the most ‘at-risk’ criteria to this project highlighted.

The assigned noise levels were determined on the basis of an Influencing Factor of 9.5 dB (rounded to 10dB) applicable at the nearest noise receivers, comprising:

▪ A transport factor of 6dB on the basis of:

− William Street considered to be Major road (23,760 VPD 2018/2019 average)

− The Esplanade considered to be Major road (23,232 VPD 2018/2019 average)

▪ A minimum commercial zoning factor of 3.5dB on the basis of:

− 30% commercial in small circle (noting that zoning of MRA is not clear, a conservative estimate is used)

− 40% commercial in large circle (noting that zoning of MRA is not clear, a conservative estimate is used)

, and

▪ A minimum industrial zoning factor of 0dB (0% in both small and large circles)

Zoning circles are demonstrated in Figure 2.

Noise emitted from the building must not;

▪ Cause a level of noise which exceeds the assigned levels at the receiving premise, refer Table 2; and

▪ Significantly contribute to a level of noise which exceeds the assigned levels at the receiving premise, refer Table 2, taking into consideration surrounding site noise emitting developments. Note as per the State Noise Regulations, a noise emission significantly contributes to the overall noise level when is 5dB below the assigned level at the point at reception.


Penalties of up to 15dB may be applied if the noise from the development contains annoying characteristics such as tones, modulation or impulses as defined in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations, 1997.

Table 2 – Assigned Noise Levels Summary

Part of premises receiving noise Time of day Assigned level, dB(A)

LA10 LA1 LAmax

Noise Sensitive premises at locations

within 15 metres of a building directly

associated with a noise sensitive use

0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday 55 65 75

0900 to 1900 hours Sunday and public holidays 50 60 75

1900 to 2200 hours all days 50 60 65

2200 hours on any day to 0700 Monday to

Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and public

holidays

45 55 65

Noise Sensitive premises at locations

further than 15 metres from a building

directly associated with a noise

sensitive use.

All hours 60 75 80

Commercial premises All hours 60 75 80

Industrial and utility premises All hours 65 80 90

Figure 2 – Determination of Influencing Factor – Zoning Map

3.3 City of Perth, Planning Scheme No.2

The EQ4 development is assessed as a development that potentially can cause noise emission affecting the amenity of surround sites.

On this basis, City of Perth requirements for environmental noise emission are to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 as per Section 3.2.


3.4 MRA Development Policy 3: Sound and Vibration Attenuation

The MRA sets out the statutory planning framework for the development. MRA development Policy 3 (Sound and Vibration Attenuation) addresses the acoustic requirements for developments.

These requirements will be addressed as the project design develops.

Figure 3 – MRA Development Policy 3 Sound and Vibration Attenuation – Performance Standard Summary


In addition to the above the MRA also has the following guidelines relating to acoustics on projects - MRA Elizabeth Quay Development Guidelines.

Figure 4 – MRA Elizabeth Quay Development Guidelines

The guidelines also require that the Development meet a minimum Green Building Policy Classification of “Tier 2”(5-star Green Star).

3.5 Sound Insulation

3.5.1 Residential - Australian National Construction Code (NCC)

The National Construction Code (NCC) sets minimum building construction performance requirements for multiple occupancy dwellings to control the standard of sound isolation between Sole Occupancy Units. Compliance with the NCC requires either that the adopted constructions are those scheduled as “Deemed to Satisfy” within the NCC, or if alternative constructions are implemented, that these achieve a specified acoustic rating. The methods of verifying the constructions as satisfactory for compliance with the NCC may require verification testing.

The following table summarises the performance requirements for the development based on NCC Design Requirements. This table presents the minimum recommended requirements, and higher performance will result in a better acoustic environment. Consideration may be given to more stringent criteria to increase the acoustic quality of the project, in particular to achieve the Acoustic 10.3 Credit for Green Star (see notes in table).


Table 3 – Residential Intertenancy Design Criteria

Minimum Airborne

Insulation Rating Maximum Impact Insulation

Rating

Sound Insulation of Floors

Separating SOUs Rw + Ctr 50* Ln,w 62*** Separating a dwelling from a plantroom, lift shaft, stairway, public corridor, public lobby, etc.

Rw + Ctr 50* Ln,w 62***

Separating a balcony from a dwelling below - Ln,w 62*** Sound Insulation of Walls

Separating dwellings, generally Rw + Ctr 50* **

Separating a habitable room in one dwelling from a bathroom, sanitary compartment, laundry or kitchen in an adjoining dwelling

Rw + Ctr 50* Discontinuous

Separating a dwelling from a stairway, public corridor, public lobby, etc.

Rw 50* -

Separating a dwelling from a plantroom or lift shaft Rw 50 Discontinuous

Between a car park and a dwelling Rw 50* Discontinuous

Separating rooms within the same dwelling No specific requirements

-

Door separating a dwelling from a stairway, public corridor, public lobby, etc.

Rw 30 -

Sound Insulation of Services

Riser, wall or ceiling construction separating a duct, soil, waste, storm water or water supply pipe passing through more than one dwelling from -

- a habitable room

- a non-habitable room or kitchen

Rw + Ctr 40

Rw + Ctr 25

-

-

Circulating or other pumps Flexible coupling required

Electrical outlets located in a wall separating dwellings

Electrical outlets must be offset from each other:

◼ In masonry walling, not less than 100mm; and

◼ In timber or steel framed walling, not less than 300mm.

*to achieve the Acoustic 10.3 Credit for Green Star, an upgrade of 5dB is required above the NCC criteria

** to achieve the Acoustic 10.3 Credit for Green Star, Discontinuous Construction is required

***to achieve the Acoustic 10.3 Credit for Green Star, an upgrade Ln,w +CI 55 is required

Refer to Section 0.


3.5.2 Residential / Commercial - Communal Areas

Further to the NCC requirements above, the following sound insulation design criteria is recommended to internal partitions to communal areas and BOH Services.

Table 4 – Other Sound Insulation Recommended Design Criteria

Enclosed Spaces Recommended Airborne Insulation Rating

Internal Partition Internal Door

F&B Walls: Rw 45 Glazing: Rw 35

Rw 30 to corridor

Pool / Pool Equipment

Walls: Rw 50 Glazing: Rw 35 Ceiling+Slab: Rw 55

Rw 30 to corridor

Gym

Walls: Rw 50 Glazing: Rw 35 Ceiling+Slab: Rw 55*

Rw 30 to corridor

Toilets / Change Rooms Walls: Rw 45 Rw 30 to corridor

Plant Walls: Rw 50** Rw 32 to corridor

Enclosed Car parks Walls: Rw 50** Rw 32 to corridor

Major Services Risers Walls: Rw 45 (to common areas) -

*Impact Isolation may be required, depending on gym activities. **Depending on final selection of noisy equipment, sound insulation requirement may increase


3.5.3 Commercial

Table 5 below summarises the airborne and impact sound insulation criteria for the project. Better performance criteria may be considered and will generally result in a better acoustic environment.

Table 5: Airborne and Impact Sound Insulation Criteria

Separating Construction Minimum Sound Insulation Rating

Maximum Impact Insulation Rating

Airborne Sound Insulation of Floor-ceiling Constructions

Between office floors Rw 50 Ln,w 60

Between carpark and office Rw 55 -

Between plantroom and office* Rw 60 -

Between retail and office Rw 55 Ln,w 60

Between generator room and office* Rw 70 (min.) -

Airborne Sound Insulation of Walls

Between toilet and office Rw 45 Discontinuous where walls carry pipework

Between corridor/lift lobby and office Rw 45 -

Between lift shaft and office Rw 60 Discontinuous

Between atrium and office Rw 40 -

Between carpark and office Rw 60 -

Between plantroom and office* Rw 65 Discontinuous

Between retail and office Rw 55 -

Between generator room and office* Rw 70 (min.) Discontinuous

Airborne Sound Insulation of Services Risers

Hydraulics riser adjacent office containing unlagged pipes Rw 45 -

Mechanical riser adjacent to office space Rw 45 -

Airborne Sound Insulation of Doors

Plantroom door Rw 35

*To be rationalised, depending on final noise levels of equipment during design


3.6 Green Star – Design and As Built V1.3

Three Green Star points are available for Acoustic Comfort for the base building of this development, as outlined in the Green Star Design & As Built v1.3 Credit 10 Acoustic Comfort tool.

Potential points for consideration are indicated in this section, where applicable points to achieve the required Green Star targets will be determined during the design of the project with consultation with the client and stakeholders.

3.6.1 Acoustic Comfort 10.1

The first point relates to mechanical services and external noise intrusion as follows:

▪ One (1) point is awarded where project teams demonstrate that internal ambient noise levels in the nominated area is no more than 5dB(A) above the “satisfactory” sound levels provided in Table 1 of AS/NZS 2107:2016


The second point relates to reverberation control as follows:

▪ One (1) point is awarded where the reverberation time in the nominated area must be below the maximum stated in ‘Recommended Reverberation Time’ provided in Table 1 of AS/NZS 2107:2016.

Where Note 3 of AS/NZS 2107:2016 applies and requires that reverberation times be minimised as far as practical, acoustic absorption should be installed in the noise sensitive space. The amount of acoustic absorption must be equivalent to at least 50% of the area in the space with a material having a noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of at least 0.5.

Generally, office areas and residential common areas will be designed to AS/NZS 2107:2016.


The third point relates to noise privacy between enclosed spaces as follows:

3.6.3.1 Residential Projects

The third point relates to noise privacy between enclosed spaces as follows for residential projects:

▪ The inter-tenancy apartment construction to habitable areas results in airborne noise isolation standard of Rw+Ctr > 55; and

▪ All inter-tenancy walls should include Discontinuous Construction as defined by the Building Code of Australia

▪ Walls between apartments and public corridors results in airborne noise isolation standard of Rw > 55; and

▪ The floor construction above habitable rooms and wet areas of adjacent dwellings (i.e. floor cover) results in an impact isolation standard of Ln,w + CI < 55.

▪ Apartment entry doors include acoustic seals and achieve laboratory acoustic rating of Rw 30.

Where:

Ln,w + Cl is used to describe impact sound performance of floors Ln,w = Weighted Normalised Impact Sound Pressure Level and Cl = Spectrum Adaptation Term. The lower the Ln,w + Cl, the better the performance of the floor.


Rw + Ctr is used to describe the sound insulation performance Rw = The Weighted Sound Reduction Index and Ctr = A correction factor (and is a negative number). So if a building element has Rw of 60 and a Ctr of –10, its Rw + Ctr will equal 50. The addition of Ctr and Rw helps to account for lower frequency sounds, such as those created by modern home theatre systems and music equipment. The higher the Rw + Ctr number, the better the performance of the system.

3.6.3.2 Commercial Projects

▪ One (1) point is awarded where the project addresses noise transmission in enclosed spaces within the nominated area. Enclosed space is defined as meeting rooms, private offices, classrooms, and other similar space where it is expected that noise should not carry over from one space to the next. It is proposed Method 10.3A is utilised as follows.

▪ The partition between the spaces should be constructed to achieve a weighted sound reduction index (Rw) of:

− At least 45; for all partitions which are:

− Fixed without a door; and/or

− Glazed partitions without a door*.

− At least 35; for all partition types that contain a door.

*The Acoustic Consultant can use their discretion to determine whether an Rw of 35 or 45 is more applicable when using glazed partitions. The selected Weighted Sound Reduction index must be justified in terms of adjoining space use, required levels of noise sensitivity between spaces and any other aspects which would help to achieve acoustic separation.

3.7 Internal Noise Criteria

3.7.1 City of Perth and Western Australian Planning Commission

The site is subject to the following planning schemes:

▪ City of Perth – City of Perth City Planning Scheme

▪ Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) – State Planning Policy 5.4

Both planning schemes set a recommended internal noise level targets, however offer the dispensation for relaxed criteria. The City of Perth planning policy requires demonstration that meeting the recommended levels are not appropriate. The WAPC planning policy allows relaxed criteria where recommended targets are not practicable, where practicable is noted as taking into consideration aspects such as cost, feasibility and amenity impacts.

According to the City of Perth Planning Policy, the City of Perth Policy planning requirements are to be shown to be met at DA approval, and then confirmed that have been met at project completion. The WAPC State Planning Policy provisions are implemented by local planning schemes and may be referenced by the City of Perth as being an appropriate alternative standard as a development near a major traffic distributor.


3.7.2 Project Internal Noise Criteria

Table 6 below outlines the recommended project internal noise levels, which are based on AS/NZS 2107:2016 - Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors and to achieve the Acoustic 10.1 Credit for Green Star. The Overall criteria are inclusive of both external noise intrusion and building services noise contributions. We have assumed this includes steady state traffic noise.

Column 3 of the table outlines the recommended internal HVAC noise levels, described as either Noise Rating (NR) curves or A-weighted Leq sound pressure levels, as appropriate. The NR curves have been selected for particular areas as they offer a more suitable noise spectrum than the A-weighting (dBA) for noise sources such as continuous mechanical services noise. Note that where wall mounted or ceiling mounted cassettes are utilised for HVAC, these criteria are not likely to be achieved as acoustic treatment of these units are impractical.

Table 6 – Internal Noise Criteria

Type of Occupancy

Internal Noise Criteria Leq

Overall (External Noise Intrusion & HVAC)

HVAC

Residential - SOU

Sleeping Areas 40 dBA

35 dBA (Night) NR 30

Living Areas, including Kitchen* 40 dBA NR 35

Bathrooms / Toilets 50 dBA 50 dBA

Residential / Commercial - Communal Areas

Lobby / Foyer / Reception 50 dBA NR 40

F&B 50 dBA NR 45

Pool

50 dBA 50 dBA

Gym 50 dBA 50 dBA

Toilets / Change Room 55 dBA 55 dBA

Commercial

General Office Areas 45 dBA NR 40

*Criterion for kitchens excludes noise from range hood; range hoods to be designed to 55 dBA.


3.8 Reverberation Control

The reverberation time (RT) of an enclosed space is defined as the time that would be required for the sound to decay by 60dB. The recommended reverberation times outlined below are in general alignment to AS/NZS 2107:2016 – Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors and to achieve the Acoustic 10.2 Credit for Green Star.

Table 7 – Recommended Reverberation Time

Type of Occupancy Recommended Reverberation Times

Communal Areas

Lobby / Foyer / Reception Reverberation time should be minimised for noise control*

F&B 0.6 – 0.8

Pool / Pool Equipment Reverberation time should be minimised for noise control*

Gym Reverberation time should be minimised for noise control*

Commercial

General office areas 0.6

*Where nominated area is applicable to Green Star, the amount of acoustic absorption must be equivalent to at least 50% of the area in the space with a material having a noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of at least 0.5.

3.9 Building Services Noise & Vibration

3.9.1 NCC Requirements for Emergency Plant and Equipment

NCC clause E1.8 states the following maximum noise levels for fire control centres:

“5. Ambient sound level for a fire control centre

(a) The ambient sound level within the fire control centre measured when all fire safety equipment is operating in the manner in which it operates in an emergency must not exceed 65 dBA.”

The NCC also references AS1668.1-1998 The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings, Part 1: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings, which specifies in Section 4.6:

“4.6 Noise

The noise level during operation of the smoke control systems (including smoke-spill fans and air pressurization fans) shall not exceed 65 dBA in occupied spaces or 5 dBA above the ambient noise levels to a maximum level of 80 dBA. Noise levels in fire-isolated exits shall not exceed 80 dBA.”

3.9.2 HVAC Services Airborne Noise

HVAC services noise for various areas of occupancy within the project should not exceed the values in column 3 of Table 6.

3.9.3 HVAC Services Vibration Criteria

Table 8 below outlines the recommended project vibration levels within the building, which are based on AS 2670.2-1990 — Evaluation of human expose to whole-body vibration - Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80Hz). Annex A of this standard lists multiplication factors to be applied to a base


curve for various spaces. Note that these criteria only apply to vibration from building services and exclude footfall and vehicular induced vibration.

Table 8 – Criteria for Continuous or Intermittent Vibration

Type of Occupancy Curve Multiplier

Residential - SOU

Day 2

Night 1.4

Residential / Commercial - Communal Areas

All other areas (including offices), excluding car park 4

Enclosed car park N/A

Figure 5 – AS 2670.2 Base Curve for Whole Body Vibration

3.9.4 Lift Noise Criteria

Lift noise will be assessed by the LAmax, slow descriptor, which represents the maximum sound level occurring during the measurement period. Lift transit and lift machinery noise will need to be restricted to the following maximum levels.

Table 9 – Lift Noise Criteria

Type of Occupancy Maximum Noise Levels,

Lmax, slow (dBA)

Residential - SOUs

Sleeping Areas - Bedrooms 30

Living Areas - Habitable rooms other than Garage, Kitchen, Bathroom or Hallway

30

Living Areas - Kitchen / Hallway 35

Bathrooms / Toilets 35

Commercial

General Office Areas 45


Type of Occupancy Maximum Noise Levels,

Lmax, slow (dBA)

Lift Car / Lobbies

Lift Car (inside car, car running, accelerating or decelerating, fan off)

55

Lift Lobbies (during door opening, closing or reversal sequences, fan off)

60

In order to control structure-borne noise potentially affecting SOUs, set lift operating speed and install equipment so that the maximum combined tri-axial vibration levels in SOU walls, floors and roof slabs common to lift shafts and motor rooms does not exceed the levels stated in Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Maximum Combined Tri-Axial Vibration Levels


4 SOUND INSULATION – INTERNAL SEPARATION

4.1 Constructions

Wall, floor, ceiling, door constructions are to be constructed to achieve NCC requirements (airbone and impact), and to achieve internal noise criteria as per Section 0.

All SOU perimeter walls are required to extend slab-to-slab, penetrating any ceilings. Similarly, any acoustic partitions with Rw 40 and above are required to extend slab-to-slab.

Where Green Star upgrades are required pending Green Star pathway, upgrades may be necessary. This will require coordination with the Architectural design as the project progresses.

4.1.1 Perimeter Sealing of Gaps or Joints

Gaps or joints in acoustically rated partitions are to be sealed with Bostik Fireban One or other approved polyurethane mastic with specific gravity of no less than 1.3.

4.2 Specialty Areas

Entertainment and other activity noise within the larger Elizabeth Quay precinct will be considered in the façade design, particularly for apartment accommodation.

Floor and ceiling configuration for Specialty Areas such as the following may require upgrades, depending on the final location and intended use of each area:

▪ Pools

▪ Gyms

▪ Other communal areas


5 SOUND INSULATION - EXTERNAL ENVELOPE

5.1 Facade Construction

5.1.1 Office

External noise intrusion into the space will be calculated based on the facade glazing extending from floor to ceiling, with a thin spandrel at slab edge level.

Glazing to the facade is assumed to be sealed, as ventilation and cooling/heating will be provided mechanically.

Other facade elements and construction details will be developed to ensure that the overall external acoustic performance is met.

5.1.2 Residential

External noise intrusion into the space will be calculated based on the facade glazing extending from floor to ceiling, with a thin spandrel at slab edge level.

Glazing is assumed to be sealed with the exception of opening of windows to provide natural ventilation. Windows will be selected to minimise impact on acoustic performance of facade when closed.

Wintergardens will have a sliding door with acoustic seals.

Other facade elements and construction details will be developed to ensure that the overall external acoustic performance is met.

5.2 Train Vibration

From anecdotal evidence the risk of train vibration exceeding the maximum requirements is low. Further studies will be undertaken during the design phase of the project.


6 BUILDING SERVICES CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Mechanical noise

At this stage, the design and selection of mechanical plant is still underway. There will be a mid-level plant room, and a rooftop plantroom in the development.

Preliminary acoustic treatment are as follows.

▪ Selection of low noise units

▪ Strategic location of equipment away from most sensitive receivers

▪ Duct internal acoustic lining (where appropriate)

▪ Acoustic attenuators (where appropriate)

▪ Acoustic louvres (where appropriate)

▪ Acoustic barriers (where appropriate)

The mechanical services noise emissions from the development will be designed to satisfy the requirements of the WA EPA, and internal noise criteria, as per Sections 3.2 and 0.

This is to be reviewed in detail as the design of the development progresses.

6.2 Hydraulic noise

The following guidelines should be incorporated within hydraulic services documentation. Review of the hydraulic documentation will be required to confirm adequate acoustic lagging and resilient isolation to the pipes.

▪ Where practicable, pipe systems should be routed away from noise sensitive areas to minimise penetrations in acoustically rated walls and minimise noise impacts.

▪ Clamps supporting pipes should have a soft neoprene sleeve, e.g. Binder clips.

▪ Plumbing service piping to fittings should be sized to provide flow velocity of not greater than 2.1 metres per second.

▪ All piping in risers must be firmly supported and clamped so as to eliminate excessive movement and water hammer with pressure surges.

▪ Pumps should be mounted on vibration isolators and joined to pipework with flexible couplings.

6.3 Machine Vibration Isolation

Install all rotating plant and equipment on vibration isolation mounts. Install components which are connected to rotating plant and equipment, such as pipework, with compatible vibration isolation mountings. Install vibration isolating mounts for a sufficient distance from the plant or equipment to control structure borne vibration.

Install mounts which are manufactured by a supplier who can demonstrate a proven record of successful installations and that will provide appropriate warranty and technical support.

6.4 Lift Noise and Vibration

Noise problems in SOUs adjacent to lift shafts are invariably due to structure borne noise rather than airborne noise. The noise is usually most strongly radiated from the shaft wall, but noise is also carried in the


floor slabs. Noise directly from the wall usually affects only the rooms immediately adjacent, however, noise in the slabs can travel up to several rooms away.

The noise is generally one or both of the following:

▪ Vibration noise from the lift machinery located in the lift motor room or alternatively in the rear of the lift shaft travelling in the lift structure;

▪ Transit or pass by noise that is generated by passage of the lift guides along the guide rails. This is usually similar in level from floor to floor and for any given floor reaches its peak or peaks whenever a lift car or counter weight passes by.

6.4.1 Minimisation of Transit Noise Problems

Our preliminary guidelines/suggestions are:

▪ Limit transit speed to 4.0m/s maximum

▪ If transit speeds are to exceed 4.0m/s additional consideration will need to be given to the acoustics. This could include aerodynamic cowlings and improved lift shaft ventilation.

▪ All lift carriages and counter weights are to have spring loaded guides for lifts > 2.0m/s.

▪ All counter weights should be located next to non habitable spaces

▪ Make sure guide rails are ground to give smooth joint transition

▪ Ensure that the Contractor is prepared to give a of warranty on noise levels and structure borne vibrations

▪ Machine and Controllers mounted on neoprene pads


7 REVERBERATION CONTROL

Further coordination and discussions with the architect will be required to understand aesthetic requirements for the following areas.

▪ General Office Areas

▪ Lobby / Foyer / Reception

▪ F&B

▪ Pool

▪ Gym

It is recommended that acoustically absorptive ceilings and wall panels are considered within these areas. Further recommendations will follow.

Where Green Star upgrades are required pending Green Star pathway, upgrades may be necessary. This will require coordination with the Architectural design as the project progresses.


8 SPECIALTY AREAS

8.1 Pool

At this stage, the following acoustic treatment should be considered.

8.1.1 Vibration Treatment

As the pool will be constructed in ground, it is unlikely that there will be vibration concerns to adjacent noise sensitive spaces.

8.1.2 Reverberation and Noise Control

There is no strict guideline for the acoustic performance of swimming pools under AS2107:2016, however it is important for the amenity of the space that reverberation is controlled so that unacceptable noise build up is avoided and clarity of communication maintained.

We recommend that the reverberation time within the space should be controlled at an appropriate level.

Where habitable or noise sensitive spaces spaces occur directly above or below a portion of the pool area, we recommend that the pool ceiling be upgraded in these areas.

8.1.3 Hours of Operation

It is recommended that the open hours of the pool be limited to 7:00am-10:00pm as part of good management practice.

If extended hours of operation is desired, signage can be installed around the pool area to remind users to be considerate of neighbours.

8.2 Gymnasium

The development may consist of a Gym mid level.

The main sources of potential disturbance between the Gymnasium and the adjacent units include airborne noise transfer (e.g. music, voices & shouting etc), and structure-borne noise through the building structure (due to ‘impact’ noise sources, e.g. treadmill, cross-trainer, weights, etc).

Resonant vibration of floor slabs to habitable spaces can be triggered by rhythmic activities in the gymnasium (such as in aerobics classes).

Depending on the types of activities to be carried out within the gym, it may be necessary to install a resiliently-mounted floating floor, or sections of resilient flooring to reduce impact energy from being imparted into the building structure.

Further information regarding gym equipment being installed and activities being performed in these rooms is required , however as a guideline the following should be considered as a minimum.

8.2.1 Noise Control

Upgrades to the floor/ceiling should be considered.


8.2.2 Weight Machines

Weight machines can be located over carpeted floor, however a resilient rubber square should be positioned below each of the machine’s footings to reduce the transmission of machine impacts into the floor structure. A suitable produce is 17mm thick Embelton Supershearflex, or approved equivalent.

8.2.3 Free Weights

A very resilient floor covering will be required in areas where free weights are to be used. We recommend that carpet is replaced with a two layer matting system, or equivalent.

8.2.4 Treadmills

Treadmills should be mounted on the gymnasium floor, but may require an additional vibration isolated platform below each to reduce rhythmic excitation of the floor slab. We expect such platforms to be provided as part of the gym fitout, if deemed necessary subsequent to trial installation of the treadmills without the platforms. They will raise the treadmills by approximately 100mm.

Treadmills should also be located only above column lines to reduce transmission of impact vibration into the building structure.

8.2.5 Group Exercise Classes

Resonant vibration in the floor slabs of habitable spaces, caused by rhythmic activities in gymnasiums, can be annoying to residents and very costly to resolve.

For this reason, we do not recommend that any aerobic classes are run in gym spaces adjacent to residential areas (this includes gymnasiums below SOUs, as well as above or beside).

If aerobics classes are to be considered in any areas near to habitable spaces, this should only be considered with full analysis and collaboration between acoustic and structural engineers. Structural upgrades can be expected.

8.2.6 Hours of Operation

It is recommended that the gym hours of operation are limited to 7:00am-10:00pm as part of good management practice.

If extended hours of operation is desired, signage can be installed around the gym area to remind users to be considerate of neighbours.

8.3 Car Parks

Slab and ceiling construction of the car park will be confirmed.

We recommend a broom finish is provided on the car park floor to minimise tyre squeal.


NORMAN DISNEY & YOUNG CONSULTING ENGINEERS

NDY Management Pty Limited trading as Norman Disney & Young ABN 29 003 234 571 200 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000 Telephone: +618 9281-6800 Facsimile: +618 9281-6888

OFFICES

Australia: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Adelaide, Gold Coast Canada: Vancouver Hong Kong SAR: Hong Kong New Zealand: Auckland, Wellington United Kingdom: London

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This document is made available to the recipient on the express understanding that the information contained in it be regarded and treated by the recipient as strictly confidential. The contents of this document are intended only for the sole use of the recipient and should not be disclosed or furnished to any other person.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

The information contained in this document is provided under direction from the nominated client and addresses this direction. Any third party reviewing the content of this document needs to make their own assessment on the appropriateness of the information contained. NDY Management Pty Limited trading as Norman Disney & Young makes no assurance the information meets the needs of a third party and as such accepts no liability for any loss or damage incurred by third parties whatsoever as a result of using the information.

COPYRIGHT © NDY Group 2021. Learn more about NDY Website: www.ndy.com Twitter: @ndygroup LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/norman-disney-&-young YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ndygroup Facebook: www.facebook.com/NDY-Group

NDY QA SYSTEM

Revision No: 1.0

Revision Date: 19 February 2021

Reason Description: DA Issue

File Location: \\ndy.group\per\w\P683xx\P68303\001\J-\24_Reports

Filename: rp210216p0010

Client Name: D&C Corporation

Client Contact: Victor Goh

Project Leader: Darrel Williams

Editor: Gabriel Lu

Authorisation By: Darrel Williams

Verification By: -

http://www.linkedin.com/company/norman-disney-&-young

https://www.youtube.com/ndygroup

http://www.facebook.com/NDY-Group


48

T: +61 8 9274 7076 6 Burgess St Midland WA 6056PO Box 5060 Midland WA 6056

E: [email protected] www.dvcworld.com

February 2021

Final

Elizabeth Quay Lot 4

Prepared For:

D & C Corporation

Transport Impact Assessment

Report

Client: D&C Corporation

Project: Elizabeth Quay Lot 4– Transport Impact Assessment

DVC Z810 EQ 4 TIA i February 2021

DOCUMENT ISSUE AUTHORISATION

Issue Rev Date Description Prepared

By

Checked

By

Approved

By

0 0 17/02/2021 DRAFT Report SY/CS CS/DNV DNV

1 0 19/02/2021 FINAL Report SY/CS CS/DNV DNV

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the client identified for the purpose

for which it has been prepared. It is not to be used by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken

to any third party. All photographs remain the copyright of Donald Veal Consultants and are included

for illustration only.

Donald Veal Consultants Pty Ltd



DVC Z810 EQ 4 TIA ii February 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SITE LOCATION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 2

2 EXISTING AND FUTURE ROAD NETWORKS.................................................................. 3

2.1 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 FUTURE ROAD NETWORK PROPOSALS .............................................................................................. 3

3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ............................................................................................... 5

3.1 LAND USES ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS .................................................................................................................. 6

4 ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORT NETWORK .......................................................................... 7

4.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 7

4.2 SIDRA OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.3 ASSESSMENT YEARS ....................................................................................................................... 9

4.4 TRAFFIC GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................................... 10

4.5 MODEL CALIBRATION ................................................................................................................... 13

4.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.7 MODELLED NETWORK ................................................................................................................... 20

4.8 ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS ....................................................................................................... 22

4.8.1 Base Year 2019 .................................................................................................................. 22

4.8.2 Opening Year 2023 ............................................................................................................ 25

4.8.1 Future Year 2033 ............................................................................................................... 25

5 PARKING AND ACCESS .................................................................................................... 31

5.1 PARKING PROVISION ..................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 VEHICLE ACCESS AND PARKING.................................................................................................... 31

5.3 SERVICE AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 35

5.4 VISIBILITY AT THE CROSSOVER ..................................................................................................... 36

6 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ............................................................................................ 37

6.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORT....................................................................................................................... 37

6.2 PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS ........................................................................................................ 37

6.2.1 Site Access ......................................................................................................................... 37

6.2.2 Building Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists ................................................................... 37

6.2.3 Internal access for Cyclists ............................................................................................... 38

6.2.4 Pedestrian interaction at the Crossover ............................................................................ 39

7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX A: BASE YEAR CORRESPONDENCE .................................................................. 43

APPENDIX B: GAF TRAFFIC MODELLING AND RESULTS ................................................ 46



DVC Z810 EQ 4 TIA iii February 2021

APPENDIX C: SIDRA NETWORK RESULTS ........................................................................... 64

APPENDIX D: MOBILEDOCK SYSTEM INFORMATION .................................................... 144

APPENDIX E: SWEPT PATH DRAWINGS ............................................................................. 169



DVC Z810 EQ 4 TIA 1 February 2021

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The development at Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay (EQ4) will consist of a 52-storey building of approximately

86,600m2 NLA. It will include offices, apartments, a child care centre, a wellness centre and various

food and beverage facilities. There will be 3 basement levels housing car and bicycle parking, as well

as end of trip cycling facilities and service areas.

1.2 SITE LOCATION

EQ4 is located in the north western corner of the Elizabeth Quay Precinct as shown in Figures 1.1 &1.2.

Figure 1.1: General site location

Figure 1.2: Elizabeth Quay Lot 4

Site

Bell Tower

Convention Centre

Chevron Tower

Brookfield Tower

Enchantress Way Geoffrey

Bolton Avenue

William Street

The Esplanade




1.3 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

This Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) has been prepared in accordance with the Western Australian

Planning Commission’s (WAPC’s) Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments Volume 4

Individual Developments (August 2016). Its intent is to provide the approving authority with sufficient

traffic information to confirm that the proponent has adequately considered the traffic aspects of the

development and that it would not have an adverse traffic impact on the surrounding area.




2 EXISTING AND FUTURE ROAD NETWORKS

2.1 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK

The existing road layout in the vicinity was established at the beginning of the Elizabeth Quay

development and has not changed significantly since. The surrounding road network is shown in Figure

2.1.

Figure 2.1: Existing Road Network

William Street adjacent to the site intersects with the Mitchell Freeway off ramp as a T-junction and is

controlled by signals. At this intersection Williams Street southbound has a right turn lane and a single

through lane.

The Mitchell Freeway off ramp has a left turn lane and a right turn lane. From the south (Riverside

Drive) there is a single through lane and left turns are banned. This intersection is further complicated

by bus lanes into and out of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre (PCEC) and an exit lane from

the PCEC underground parking.

More specifically relating to the EQ4 site, the site is bounded by Enchantress Way to the east and

Geoffrey Bolton Avenue to the south. Geoffrey Bolton Avenue runs almost east-west between William

Street and Barrack Street. Movements at both the William Street and Barrack Street intersections with

Geoffrey Bolton Avenue are currently limited to left in and left out.

2.2 FUTURE ROAD NETWORK PROPOSALS

Donald Veal Consultants (DVC) is not aware of any road network proposals in the area. The Perth

Bicycle Plan identifies the provision of separate cycle lanes in William Street but the City recognizes

that this will likely require significant modification to the adjacent roads and intersections and is

therefore only likely to be implemented in the long term.

Site

The Esplanade

William Street

Mounts Bay Road

Mitchell Freeway Off ramp

Kwinana Freeway & Riverside Drive




Currently, there are some temporary changes to the road network in the vicinity of Elizabeth Quay,

associated with the construction process. These include occasional and sometimes longer term full or

partial road closures, and some temporary access and movement changes to facilitate the works. The

following assumptions have been made when distributing future year forecast traffic through these

intersections.

At the moment, the median along Barrack Street, south of the Geoffrey Bolton Way intersection has

been partially removed, to allow construction traffic only to turn right out of the side road. It is assumed

that this intersection will be returned to left in left out in the longer term.

Similarly, the signalised intersection of Duchess Way with The Esplanade is currently under temporary

traffic control, with one lane of the side road closed off, and entry only allowed. It is assumed that,

following completion of the works, this will revert to allowing left and right turns into the side road, and

right out only movements. It is not clear why left out movements are not permitted, but this appears to

be the intention.




3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

3.1 LAND USES

The development will consist of a 52-storey tower block, with three basement levels. The various

elements of the development are summarised in Table 3.1, however, it is noted that other information

identifies that 32 of the 68 three bedroom apartments may have a fourth bedroom.

Table 3.1: Development summary




3.2 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS

Vehicular access to the building will be via a single crossover to Enchantress Way, allowing access to

the basement parking levels. A separate cycle ramp will run parallel to the 2-way vehicular ramps.

Figure 3.1: Enchantress Way Crossover

There are also a number of pedestrian accesses to the various ground floor sections.




4 ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORT NETWORK

4.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

DVC has recently undertaken SIDRA Network Modelling for the EQ2/3 development on William

Street. This included the William Street corridor from Mounts Bay Road to the Riverside Drive/Freeway

off ramp intersection and included the access crossovers of EQ2/3. That model was based on SIDRA

Network modelling originally undertaken by GAF Traffic with a 2019 base year (see Section 4.3).

DVC made enquiries of the City of Perth and MRWA about alternative traffic models (Vissum and

LinSig) of the roads adjacent to Elizabeth Quay. These were not considered appropriate as they were

developed for other purposes and do not contain trip data relevant to Elizabeth Quay developments.

The EQ2/3 model has now been updated and extended to include the traffic associated with EQ4. The

extended model includes Enchantress Way, Duchess Way and Geoffrey Bolton Avenue, and the

following key intersections:

- Esplanade/Enchantress Way;

- Esplanade/ Duchess Way;

- Barrack Street/Geoffrey Bolton Avenue; and

- William Street/Geoffrey Bolton Avenue.

The existing intersections of William Street/Mounts Bay Road and William Street/Riverside Drive are

key intersections for the Perth CBD access. They provide access to key arterials which distribute traffic

to all parts of the metropolitan area and directly to those areas serviced by the Mitchell and Kwinana

Freeways, and Stirling Highway. These intersections already experience traffic delays during peak hours

which will continue as the City grows.

DVC understands that future demand at busy intersections is not a linear extension of current conditions.

As delays increase, drivers may choose alternative modes and/or routes, or choose to travel outside of

the existing peak hours, thus widening the peak periods and reducing the maximum levels of travel

demand.

DVC has modelled a linear 1% annual growth in traffic for future years as it does provide an indication

of where future problems may be experienced, albeit perhaps representing a worst-case scenario. Indeed,

it should be noted that in this location there is little opportunity for further development, and moves

towards reducing travel demand and increasing alternative mode shares are likely to lead to zero, or

potentially even negative growth rates in years to come.

4.2 SIDRA OUTPUTS

The SIDRA software computes a wide range of operational performance measures from vehicle delay

to estimates of emission gases. For this review we have collated the outputs for the four standard

measures of assessing the impact on vehicular movement. These comprise Degree of Saturation (DoS),

Average Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service (LoS).




Degree of Saturation

Degree of Saturation is a measure of how much physical capacity is being used with reference to the

full capability of the particular movement, approach or overall intersection. A DoS of 1.0 therefore

equates to full theoretical capacity although in some instances this level is exceeded in practice. SIDRA

uses maximum acceptable DoS of 0.90 for signalised intersections for its Design Life analysis, whereas

design engineers typically set a maximum DoS threshold of 0.95 for new intersection layouts or

modifications.

Average Delay

Average Delay reports the average delay per vehicle in seconds experienced by all vehicles in a

particular lane, approach or for the intersection as a whole. For severely congested intersections the

average delay begins to climb exponentially.

Queue Length

Queue Length measures the length of approach queues. In this document we have reported queue length

in terms of the number of vehicles in the queue at the 95th percentile and also at the 50th percentile.

Hence, in the first case the program measures the maximum queue length that will not be exceeded for

95 percent of the time. In the second case it computes the maximum queue that will occur for half of the

time. Queue lengths provide a useful indication of the impact of signals on network performance. It also

enables the traffic engineer to consider the likely impact of queues blocking back and impacting on

upstream intersections and accesses.

Level of Service

Level of Service is a combined appreciation of queuing incidence and delay time incurred, producing

an alphanumeric ranking of A through F. A LoS of A indicates an excellent level of service whereby

drivers delay is at a minimum and they clear the intersection at each change of signals or soon after

arrival with little if any queuing. Values of B through D are acceptable in normal traffic conditions.

Whilst values of E and F are typically considered undesirable, within the CBD vehicular and pedestrian

numbers are significant with corresponding delays/queues unavoidable and hence, are generally

accepted by road users.

The definitions in Table 4.1 were extracted from the Sidra User Guide and provide a definition for LOS

for vehicles based on delay (HCM method).

Table 4.1: Level of Service Definitions for Vehicles (HCM method)

LOS Delay in seconds (d)

Signals/Roundabouts Stop/Give Way

A d ≤ 10 d ≤ 10

B 10 < d ≤ 20 10 < d ≤ 15

C 20 < d ≤ 35 15 < d ≤ 25

D 35 < d ≤ 55 25 < d ≤ 35

E 55 < d ≤ 80 35 < d ≤ 50

F 80 < d 50 < d

Source: Sidra V3.0 User Guide Table 6.11.1a




Table 4.2 was likewise extracted from the Sidra User Guide and provides a definition for LOS for

pedestrians.

Table 4.2: Level of Service Definitions for Pedestrians (HCM method)

LOS

Delay in seconds (d) Likelihood of risk-taking

behaviour Signals Unsignalised

Intersections

A d ≤ 10 d ≤ 5 Low

B 10 < d ≤ 20 5 < d ≤ 10 -

C 20 < d ≤ 30 10 < d ≤ 20 Moderate

D 30 < d ≤ 40 20 < d ≤ 30 -

E 40 < d ≤ 60 30 < d ≤ 45 High

F 60 < d 45 < d Very High

Source: Sidra V3.0 User Guide Table 6.11.1b

The following provides a legend for the abbreviations used in the tables which summarise the SIDRA

outputs:

DoS Degree of Saturation (volume/capacity) 1.0 = Full Capacity; 0.95 = Design Capacity

LoS Level of Service (A = Excellent; B, C, and D = Acceptable; E, F = Unacceptable)

Average Delay Average Delay per vehicle (seconds)

Queue 95% 95th percentile back of queue, in metres

Queue 50% 50th percentile back of queue, in metres

N, S, E, W North, South, East, West

4.3 ASSESSMENT YEARS

A review of SCATS data for 2020 during DVC’s assessment of EQ2&3 showed some irregularities

which were discussed with MRWA (see Appendix A). These prevented 2020 being used as the base

year and 2019 was adopted instead. Previous SIDRA network modelling was undertaken in 2019 (by

GAF Traffic) which MRWA has agreed can be used for the base year. DVC therefore relied on the

SCATS traffic volumes, signal data, queue observations and calibration used in the GAF Traffic

Modelling.

Given these previous issues, and in order to remain consistent, DVC has retained 2019 data as the base

year modelling for EQ4.

Opening of the EQ4 development is estimated at 2023 which has been adopted as the Opening Year for

the modelling exercise. EQ2&3 is expected to open prior to this, and trips associated with that

development will therefore be included in the 2023 scenario modelling.

Other lots within Elizabeth Quay (Lot 7 Chevron and Lots 5&6) are also understood to be scheduled for

completion around 2023, so both the ‘Opening Year’ and the ‘Year of opening plus ten’ horizons will

capture the full development of these lots.




4.4 TRAFFIC GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

A number of sources of trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours have been adopted for

development in the EQ precinct as follows:

- EQ2&3: Transcore Transport Impact Assessment (2019);

- EQ5&6: Cardno Transport Impact Assessment (2020); and

- EQ 7: GTA Consultants Transport Impact Assessment (2019).

The modelled traffic volumes for EQ 2&3 included a 1% per annum growth factor, to allow for other,

at that stage unidentified developments. Whilst this may be sufficient to cater for the trips generated by

EQ4, DVC has estimated those trips separately as well, based on the methodologies used in the

previously quoted sources.

Given the high likelihood of public transport trips, shared trips and walking trips within a CBD location

such as this, DVC has adopted a car parking supply-based trip generation approach, in line with GTA’s

methodology for EQ7.

The development drawings indicate the provision of 90 car parking bays for office or commercial use,

with a further 206 bays designated for the 168 apartments.

Using the assumptions made in the previous GTA report, it is assumed that not all of the ‘office’ use car

parking bays will be occupied continuously throughout the day. In order to allow for the unoccupied

bays, the following parking utilisation reduction percentages have been applied for the AM and PM

peak periods:

AM Peak – 50% utilisation; and

PM Peak – 35% utilisation.

Using the 80/20 inbound/outbound AM peak period splits, reversed for the PM peak, as quoted in the

WAPC Guidelines, the trip generation rates as shown in Table 4.3 are suggested for the commercial

parking bays.

Table 4.3: Trip generation rates - commercial

Peak period Trips per bay Inbound Outbound

AM 0.50 0.40 0.10

PM 0.35 0.07 0.28

The above reduction factors and the subsequent trip generation rates were verified by GTA through

survey data of similar CBD facilities.

Similarly, it is possible to estimate the number of trips likely to be generated by the residential parking

bays.




It is considered unlikely, given the potential market for these CBD apartments, that all of the units, or

their allocated parking bays, will be occupied at any one time. Buyers of some of the apartments may

be based overseas or interstate, whilst others may be offered for rental. As a conservative estimate,

average occupancy has therefore been taken as 80%.

In addition, it is not expected that the majority of residents will be making regular commuter trips in

their private vehicles during the peak AM and PM periods. The CBD location and the readily accessible

public transport options make this unlikely, and the proportion of peak hour trips is therefore estimated

conservatively at 25% of the 80% occupied bays, or 0.2 trips per bay overall. These trips are assumed

to split 30/70 and 60/40 for inbound / outbound trips for the AM and PM peaks, respectively (see Table

4.4).

Table 4.4: Peak period trip rates - residential

Peak period Trips per

bay Inbound Outbound

AM 0.20 0.06 0.14

PM 0.20 0.12 0.08

It is assumed that patrons of the various commercial businesses, such as the cafe, restaurant, creche etc,

will primarily be residents or workers within the immediate area, and no additional private vehicle trips

will therefore be generated by these, particularly in the peak periods.

The total estimated trip generation for the development would therefore be as indicated in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Total peak hour trip generation

Land Use Number

of bays

AM

inbound

AM

outbound

PM

inbound

PM

outbound

Commercial 90 36 9 6 25

Residential 206 12 29 25 16

Total 296 48 38 31 41

Technically, these peak period trip generation figures, being less than 100 trips in each peak hour, only

constitute a moderate traffic impact, and in accordance with the WAPC Transport Impact Guidelines,

only require a non-technical Transport Impact Statement. However, given the nature and location of this

development, a more detailed assessment has been undertaken.

The general trip distribution assumptions used in the GTA study for EQ7 have been adopted, with

adjustments applied to allow for the different points of access to the network associated with EQ4.

Background traffic growth of 1% per annum was applied from the 2019 Base Year to provide

background traffic volumes at 2023 (Opening) and 2033 (10 Years after). Development traffic for each

of the relevant developments was added at the appropriate scenario.




Figures 4.1 & 4.2 show the arrival and departure distributions used for EQ4.

Figure 4.1: Trip distribution – Arrivals

Figure 4.2: Trip distribution – Departures




4.5 MODEL CALIBRATION

A section from the GAF Traffic Report on the model calibration and base year results is provided in

Appendix B. Calibration techniques are logical adjustments to the model input data in order that the

base year model reflects the actual conditions observed and to provide a platform for future modelling.

A number of calibration techniques were adopted in the original modelling including increasing the

Saturation Flow, and reducing the vehicle queue lengths.

DVC refined the model calibration further during modelling for EQ2&3, and again for the EQ4

modelling. This included increasing the saturation flow on the right turn at the Riverside Drive/Freeway

Offramp/Williams Street intersection to 2500vph. It also included changing the Blockage Calibration

Factor for turning movements at the William Street/ Esplanade intersection during the PM peak hour.

Results showed that traffic blocking back from the downstream intersection at Williams Street

/Riverside Drive reduced the effective capacity of the following southbound movements upstream at the

Esplanade intersection:

- left turn from the Esplanade (0.75);

- through movement at William Street (0.45); and

- right turn from Mounts Bay Road (0.2).

The reduced capacity for these movements caused them to have a Degree of Saturation > 1 which is not

permissible in the Base Year. The figure in brackets above indicates the adopted Blocking Calibration

Factor. Also the saturation flows on the east to west and north to south have been increased to 2200vph

and 2250vph respectively.

It should be noted that the base year (2019) flows used on the EQ ‘internal’ road network, including

those on Geoffrey Bolton Way, Enchantress Way and Duchess Way, have been extracted from the

earlier work done by others. However, it is recognised that these flows, whilst representative of the

network movements at the time, due to limited accessibility and interim restrictions on turning

movements, caused by temporary construction traffic management, may not be fully representative of

the likely travel behaviour in future year scenarios.

4.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTS

A section of the intersection turning movements based on a 1% annual background traffic growth rate

and traffic modelling undertaken for other developments used in the SIDRA modelling are shown in

Figures 4.3 to 4.5.

The full networks are shown in Appendix C.




Figure 4.3a: 2019 AM and PM Base Year Turning Movements

10

0%

6%

6%

10

2

36

2

62

20

20

11

7

15

11

6

21

2

71

20

20

34

1

Date 18-22/03/19 4% 68 146AM Peak 4% 595 482 4% 993 1252 4% 1134 1144PM Peak 4% 217 108

Bus Lane 175 181 6% 776 575 6% 786 585 6%

Pedestrian 530 388 6% 10 10 0% 114 94 0%

% Heavy Vehicles

40

14

2

56

3 8 7

10

33

28

37

8 8 7

10

6%

6%

0 10

0 10

0 00 0

0

15

0

15

#

10

53

8 8 2 24

6

0 80

8

88

8

5 8 2 11

5

0 70

6

2 1 6 4 0 06 4 14 13 0 0 6 4

109 241 101 233 0 0

6%

12

94

99

7

0

89

3

0

57

4

10

0%

6%

7%

MO

UN

TS B

AY

RD

25

0

250

750

12

008:00-900

15:00-16:00

WILLIAM ST

THE ESPLANADE THE ESPLANADE

HOWARD ST

ENC

HA

NTR

ESS

WA

Y

EQ 4

CR

OSS

OV

ER

DU

CH

ESS

WA

Y

BA

RR

AC

K S

T

GEOFFREY BOLTON WAY

SHERWOOD CT

THE ESPLANADE




Figure 4.4b: 2019 AM and PM Base Year Turning Movements

12

98

0

71

3

0

0 0

33 401

00

%

6%

6%

35

31

3

98

5

32

28

6

42

7

10% 19 8

10% 63 5

4% 196 492

4% 158 318

36

17

6

36

18

1

#### 4%

6%

0%

12

06

0

75

0

0

0 0

EQ 2

&3

SO

UTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER

6%

RIVERSIDE DRBUS LANES

FWY

RA

MP

2525

PC

EC

BUS PORT

EQ 2

&3

NO

RTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER




####

6%

6%

10

2

38

7

64

21

21

12

5

16

11

6

23

9

74

21

21

42

1

THE ESPLANADE THE ESPLANADE THE ESPLANADE2023 4% 71 152

4% 619 501 4% 1033 1302 4% 1215 12084% 334 251

211 241 6% 829 635 6% 862 660 6%

573 441 6% 111 72 0% 153 114 0%

40

17

4

58

6

37

28

41

33

43

39

3

61

46

63

#### 6%

6%

15

57

22

88

11 1130 27

26

99

16

66

6%

7%

####

85

52

60

27

0

45

90

6

93

5

13

8

32

41

12

9

29

77

2

63 102 63 59 62 4522 36 22 19 17 16 20 11

146 308 114 256 8 5

6%

14

39

####

22

99

2

12

65

1

Bus Lane

Pedestrian

% Heavy Vehicles MO

UN

TS B

AY

RD

8:00-90015:00-16:00

AM PeakDate

PM Peak

750

12

00

250

25

0

BA

RR

AC

K S

T

GEOFFREY BOLTON WAY

7%

SHERWOOD CT

DU

CH

ESS

WA

Y

EQ 4

CR

OSS

OV

ER

ENC

HA

NTR

ESS

WA

Y

WILLIAM ST HOWARD ST




Figure 4.5: 2023 AM and PM Opening Year Turning Movements

14

82

3

78

6

36

3 26

33 40

10

0%

6%

6%

35

34

1

11

42

32

30

5

48

1

10% 20 8

10% 66 5

4% 215 532

4% 164 331

36

18

9

36

19

2

10

0% 4%

6%

0%

13

09

75

80

0

11

101 38

RIVERSIDE DR

EQ 2

&3

SO

UTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER

BUS LANES

EQ 2

&3

NO

RTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER

BUS PORT

PC

EC 25 25

FWY

RA

MP




####

6%

6%

10

2

42

3

71

23

23

13

6

17

11

6

26

0

81

23

23

46

1

THE ESPLANADE THE ESPLANADE2023 4% 78 166

8:00-900 4% 678 549 4% 1132 1427 4% 1329 132215:00-16:00 4% 355 262

228 259 6% 907 693 6% 940 719 6%

626 479 6% 112 73 0% 164 123 0%

40

18

8

64

2

38

29

42

33

46

43

1

61

47

64

#### 6%

6%

15

58

22

89

11 1130 27

26

10

0

16

67

6%

7%

11

31

85

52

61

29

4

45

98

7

93

5

13

8

33

41

14

0

29

84

2

64 102 64 60 62 4523 37 24 20 17 16 21 12

146 308 124 280 8 5

##1

46

31

09

2

22

####

12

70

8

MO

UN

TS B

AY

RD

7%

DateAM PeakPM Peak

Bus Lane

Pedestrian

% Heavy Vehicles

THE ESPLANADE

12

00

250

25

0

750

BA

RR

AC

K S

T

GEOFFREY BOLTON WAY

DU

CH

ESS

WA

Y

EQ 4

CR

OSS

OV

ER

ENC

HA

NTR

ESS

WA

Y




Figure 4.6: 2033 AM and PM Full Development Turning Movements

6%

16

12

3

85

7

36

3 26

33 401

00

%

6%

6%

35

37

2

12

41

32

33

3

52

4

10% 22 9

10% 72 6

4% 234 581

4% 180 363

36

20

7

36

21

0

#### 4%

6%

0%

14

30

75

87

5

11

101 38

PC

EC 25 25

FWY

RA

MP

EQ 2

&3

NO

RTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER

BUS LANES RIVERSIDE DR

BUS PORT

EQ 2

&3

SO

UTH

CR

OSS

OV

ER




4.7 MODELLED NETWORK

Figure 4.6 shows the Base Year modelled network while Figure 4.7 shows the future configuration.

These networks have been expanded significantly from those employed for EQ2&3, due to the location

of the EQ4 access, and the various turning movement restrictions.

Figure 4.7: 2019 Base Year Network




Figure 4.8: Opening and Future Year Network




4.8 ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS

Comprehensive SIDRA results are contained in Appendix C. The results of the SIDRA modelling

presented below provide a pictorial representation for the whole network for the 2019 Base Year, the

2023 Opening year and the 2033 Future year (opening +10) scenario for the AM and PM peak hours.

This shows the performance of network (and individual lanes) as traffic volumes increase over time in

terms of:

a) Degree of Saturation (DoS);

b) Level of Service (LoS); and

c) Percentile queue storage ratio.

These are standard indicators of lane, intersection and network performance as explained above and

allow the analyst to identify problem areas quickly and if necessary, drill deeper into performance using

the appended SIDRA output.

The percentile queue storage ratio is expressed as the ratio of the average back of queue distance to the

available storage distance per lane.

4.8.1 Base Year 2019

The 2019 Base Year AM peak hour results are shown in Figure 4.8.

The model results reflect the heavy demand from the Mitchell Freeway off ramp at the Riverside Drive

intersection and the subsequent pressure downstream on the intersection of William Street

/Esplanade/Mounts Bay Road. This intersection is heavily congested in the morning peak hour,

although the 2019 results reflect (by definition) no turning movement with a DoS>1.

Congestion and delays on CBD roads are to be expected. Road authorities may however use these results

to determine if queueing potentially backs up onto high-speed roads such as the Mitchell Freeway.

Clearly this would be a safety concern if such queueing occurred and would need to be managed

appropriately. In this case the Mitchell Freeway off ramp average queue of 17 vehicles is <60% of the

identified storage distance, and is therefore not considered a problem. The available storage distance is

modelled as 500m.

The 2019 Base Year PM peak hour results are shown in Figure 4.9.

By definition no turning movement can experience a DoS of >1 in the Base Year and this is reflected in

Figure 4.9. However, observations show that there are significant delays and queues on each of the

southbound turning movements at the intersection of Williams Street /The Esplanade as the intersection

attempts to cope with peak traffic demand to the Freeways and Stirling Highway. This is indicated by

the LoS for these movements and vehicle queues close to or at storage limits.

At the intersection of William Street/Riverside Drive, the results demonstrate the signal priority given

to the approach from the north on William Street. Critically, there is no queueing pressure on the freeway

off ramp due to the PM demand being significantly less here than in the AM peak.




Figure 4.9: 2019 Base Year AM Peak Hour Results




Figure 4.10: 2019 Base Year PM Peak Hour Results




4.8.2 Opening Year 2023

The Opening Year modelled network has been modified to include the Elizabeth Quay 4 crossover as

an intersection. The 2023 Opening AM peak hour results are shown in Figure 4.10, with the PM results

in Figure 4.11.

It should be noted that the 2023 modelling, in contrast to the 2022 opening year scenario employed for

the EQ2&3 modelling, includes not only trips generated by EQ2&3 and EQ4, but also those from

EQ5&6 and EQ7, all of which are scheduled to open by 2023. Thus, a comparison between scenarios

cannot be used to assess the direct impact of the EQ4 development alone, which in itself, is moderate.

The inclusion of these additional developments, together with an additional year of growth in

background traffic, may help to explain the increased AM peak hour congestion shown by the modelling

in some parts of the network. Even so, with an average delay of only 122 seconds for the Freeway off

ramp, this means drivers should be through the traffic signals within one or two cycles. Average queue

distances remain well within the assumed queuing capacity.

The modelling shows significant delays in traffic attempting to turn out of Enchantress Way onto The

Esplanade in both the AM and PM peaks. As identified in section 4.5 above, the volumes of traffic

making these movements is unlikely to reach the indicated levels, due to the opening up of alternative

options during the post-construction period. Drivers now have easier, and in some cases signalised

options to make these turns at other locations. Driver behaviour will, as always, adapt to find the paths

of least resistance. It is also envisaged – although not a factor represented in the modelling – that some

degree of driver generosity will afford additional opportunities for vehicles to pull out into the queues

on The Esplanade.

During both 2023 peak periods, the right turn from Mounts Bay Road into William Street shows

significant queueing. As can be seen from the base year results, this movement was already approaching

capacity at that time, and a combination of the forecast development traffic and the conservative level

of growth in background traffic sees it exceeding that mark. Whilst it is unlikely that queues will actually

reach the indicated extent, as such growth is difficult to envisage and drivers change their behaviour to

avoid the delays, this and other southbound movements at the intersection will undoubtedly experience

pressure, at least in the short term.

Fundamentally, both the 2023 Opening year and 2033 Future year results show the impact of increasing

traffic demand on an already saturated system.

4.8.1 Future Year 2033

The 2033 Full Development AM peak hour results are shown in Figure 4.12, with the PM results in

Figure 4.13.

The only change in trips between the 2023 and 2033 scenarios is the addition of a compounded 1% per

annum growth in background traffic.

This increase clearly exacerbates the situations identified in the 2023 models, but does not appear to

affect any other areas excessively.




The main areas of concern are again the intersections of William Street with Mounts Bay Road and with

the Mitchell Freeway off ramp.

Again, the right turn from Mounts Bay Road into William Street is difficult in both peaks, whilst the

queuing back towards the freeway is only significant in the AM peak, exceeding the indicated queueing

capacity by around 10%.

As noted previously SIDRA is modelling development demand and a linear growth in background traffic

demand in a single hour. Opportunities for this projected growth in demand in future years appear

limited in this location, and actual flows in 2033 may well fail to meet those modelled here.

In addition, when faced with lengthy delays and queues motorists may well opt to change their travel

patterns and choose to travel outside of the peak hour (i.e., in the shoulder peak) or use alternative modes

such as public transport. The SIDRA modelling in this instance demonstrates where queues and delays

are likely to develop on the modelled network, and by interpolation, further back into the local street

network. This is typical of any busy CBD environment.

The SIDRA model does however provide a level of comfort that key infrastructure such as the Mitchell

Freeway will not be adversely impacted as a result of the future demand queueing back along the off

ramps and onto the freeway itself. The modelling demonstrates that in the AM peak hour that traffic

inbound to the city can dissipate quickly enough so as not to cause queues back onto the freeway.

Adjustments to the allocation of green time, and the further roll out of ramp metering and other MRWA

initiatives would also be expected to reduce these issues.

In the PM peak hour queues develop but are contained to the slow-moving CBD network which is

considered acceptable and perhaps largely unavoidable.


Project: Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 – Transport Impact Assessment


Figure 4.11: 2023 Opening AM Peak Hour Results




Figure 4.12: 2023 Opening PM Peak Hour Results




Figure 4.13: 2033 Full Development AM Peak Hour Results




Figure 4.14: 2033 Full Development PM Peak Hour Results




5 PARKING AND ACCESS

5.1 PARKING PROVISION

The latest layout plans indicate that 296 car parking bays will be provided, with 18 motorcycle bays and

sufficient racks to cater for 456 bicycles.

A number of the car parking bays are designated as small car bays (98), whilst 44 of these have been

provided as tandem bays. Tandem bays should only be used where they are allocated to staff members

of the same business, or where both bays are allocated to the same apartment.

ACROD bays will be provided as required by the appropriate Australian Standard.

Table 5.1: Parking provision

5.2 VEHICLE ACCESS AND PARKING

The development parking is provided over 3 basement levels. Access is provided via the single crossover

onto Enchantress Way, with a single access ramp to the first basement. A set of internal circulation

ramps is provided within the basement car park to subsequent parking levels. Note that all swept path

drawings are included at A3 size in Appendix E.

The basements also contain the loading and service facilities, some commercial parking and some

residential parking. Aisle widths comply with Australian Standards for Category 1A (Residential Off-

street) parking and vehicles can negotiate the turning movements.

Figure 5.1 shows the typical swept paths of the B99 vehicle entering the site from the Enchantress Way

crossover.




Figure 5.1: Swept Path of B99 Vehicles entering and leaving the site at the crossover.

Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show the swept paths for the entry and exit of the service vehicle at the Enchantress

Way crossover.

Figure 5.2: Swept path – MRV Service Vehicle Entering at the Enchantress Way Crossover




Figure 5.3: Swept path – MRV Service Vehicle Exiting from the Enchantress Way Crossover

The Access Ramp has a vertical clearance of 3.038m. The design vehicle for servicing is the standard

City of Perth refuse truck, with the following dimensions:

- Overall Length 8.0m;

- Overall Width 2.6m;

- Overall Body Height 2.800m; and

- Wheelbase 3.925m.

During the work for EQ2&3, MRWA commented that a truck with a 4.3m vertical clearance should be

accommodated for service vehicles. Previous communications noted that 4.3m is the unrestricted height

for vehicles/loads on the WA road network. However, the design vehicle adopted here has a height of

2.8m and larger/higher vehicles will not be permitted to enter the building. This will be managed by a

Service and Delivery Management Plan potentially including the use of a Web-based loading dock

system.

The vertical sag clearance of the proposed design vehicle on the access ramp is shown in Figure 5.4

which indicates vertical clearance is adequate.

Whist the Service and Delivery Management Plan should prevent over-height vehicles entering the site,

it is nonetheless recommended that clearance height indicators should be installed.




Figure 5.4: Sag Clearance of Design Vehicle at Entry Ramp

Figure 5.5 shows the service vehicle reversing into the loading dock / refuse collection bays.

Figure 5.5: Swept Path of a MRV Entering the Loading Docks




5.3 SERVICE AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Previously, the developers of EQ 2&3 presented a Service and Delivery Management Plan (see Updated

Service and Delivery Management Plan (Transcore, November 2019)), which adopts common practice

for building servicing, including:

All service vehicles attending the site must be scheduled prior to attendance. Waste collection and other regular service vehicle traffic will be scheduled in fixed weekly

timeslots. Other service vehicles will be scheduled in available timeslots as needed;

The loading dock office will schedule all deliveries, waste collection and other service traffic

requiring access to the loading docks or waste collection.

Service vehicles will be scheduled with a minimum 15 minutes buffer between the scheduled

departure time of a service vehicle and scheduled arrival time of the next vehicle for

contingency.

A maximum of one service truck will generally be permitted to attend the site at any time. This

includes waste collection trucks.

In the rare instances where a second truck arrives at the site, the loading facility has been

designed to easily accommodate a second truck without disruption to car park traffic.

If a service vehicle arrives late to the extent that it will interfere with another scheduled vehicle

then it will be turned away.

Service vehicle drivers will be required to call ahead 15 minutes prior to entering the site.

Supervisory staff will be present on site at all times while the loading docks or waste collection

area is being utilised, to ensure no conflicts between trucks and cars can occur.

While it is DVC’s understanding that this is common practice for service and delivery to buildings across

Australia, the approving authority has sought reassurance that the use of such Management Plans will

ensure appropriate building functionality and avoid access failure.

The developer, through DVC, has investigated other methods of access control. The use of web-based

management systems is becoming increasingly popular by both building managers and by

couriers/service providers. One such system is MobileDock.

MobileDock provides an automated, web-based platform which:

creates a virtual organisation (the building) and associated service dock;

defines the service dock parameters e.g. size, permissible loading times, permissible vehicle

dimensions, permissible loading durations etc.;

invites members (couriers, service companies etc) to join the organisation in order to gain access

to the service dock. In joining the organisation members must define their vehicle parameters;

and

requires members to book a delivery slot in order to access the site.

Considerable effort is spent during the implementation of the System to ensure that the service dock

parameters are defined properly. For example, loading times might include maintenance, rubbish




collection, food deliveries etc all of which have unique loading time requirements. These parameters are

defined such that a range of loading times is defined in the system from which members can select a

suitable slot. Considerable time is also spent defining the loading dock size so that members can select

an appropriate delivery vehicle from their fleet to make the delivery. DVC understands that transport

companies strive to get this right as it is costly for their vehicle to be turned away at a building because

it doesn’t fit. Considerable effort is also spent engaging with all potential members to ensure that they

join the organisation and train their drivers in the use of the App (although it is understood that after the

initial setup it is very easy to use).

Any member who cannot comply with all of the service dock requirements will not be given access.

Members who require frequent and/or regular access can book ahead, match the delivery vehicle to the

loading dock parameters and plan their delivery route based on the scheduled times. Less formal or

regular deliveries can access the organisation from any device with Web access and check whether a

loading slot is available at short notice and whether the delivery vehicle is suitable. Loading slots are

typically confirmed by email.

Web-based loading management systems do not dispense with the role of the dock master. The dock

master still has oversight of the system and ultimate control if the system should fail for any reason.

However, the system does remove the current paper-based approach with its dependence on humans. It

reduces the possibility of double-booking service deliveries and ensures that vehicle parameters meet

the loading dock and access parameters. More information on the MobileDock system is included in

Appendix D.

It is understood that a number of prominent developments across Australia have invested in this system,

including the iconic Barangaroo development on Sydney harbour.

The developers of Elizabeth Quay 4 will investigate the potential for implementing such an automated

system to ensure a safe and efficient service operation for the development.

5.4 VISIBILITY AT THE CROSSOVER

The kerb line along Enchantress Way appears to be some distance from the point at which vehicles

would emerge from the basement ramp, and any building walls would not therefore impede visibility

for drivers along the road. However, the presence of on-street parking bays and/or street trees too close

to the crossover may affect visibility, and this should be considered in the detailed design of these

elements.




6 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT

6.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The site is exceptionally well serviced by public transport. The Perth Busport and Elizabeth Quay train

station are both within 250m of the site, providing access to almost the whole of the metropolitan area.

Also, a regional cycle route (see Figure 6.1) along the northern banks of the Swan River passes within

metres of the development.

Figure 6.1: Cyclist and Pedestrian Route Network

6.2 PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS

6.2.1 Site Access

Access to the site is excellent for pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists especially will be able to use the

internal EQ precinct road network to access the surrounding cycle network. To the north cyclists will

use cycle facilities on Barrack Street or can access the Mitchell Freeway cycle network via the riverside

cycle network. Cyclists to/from the east and west have excellent access to the riverside network. Cyclists

to/from the south again have excellent access to facilities along the Kwinana Freeway and over the

Causeway to Victoria Park and beyond. The Causeway route will soon be improved with the provision

of a bespoke cyclist/pedestrian bridge to be constructed nearby (starting in 2022).

6.2.2 Building Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists

The main access to the site for cyclists will be via an access ramp running from the Enchantress Way

crossover down to the first basement level.




The ramp forms part of the general vehicle access ramp and consists of a separate 2.5m wide section of

the general ramp. It is expected that separation will be achieved through the use of appropriately painted

lines, together with painted symbols and associated signage.

The access ramp varies in grade with the steepest section being 1:6.5 (about15%).

Access points for pedestrians include doors into the ground level Lobby area from Enchantress Way,

and direct accesses to the restaurant and café from the adjacent pedestrian areas.

6.2.3 Internal access for Cyclists

Cyclist end of trip (EOT) facilities are located on the first basement level, adjacent to the lifts and stairs,

with the entrance to the bicycle parking immediately to the right at the bottom of the basement access

ramp. This precludes any requirement for cyclists to cross the paths of other entering or exiting vehicles.

The interaction between cyclists and vehicles should be quite limited. DVC has reviewed the cycling

operations and notes the following:

Given the provision of a separate bicycle section of the access ramp, and the lack of need for

any cyclist to access anything below the first basement level, there is not expected to be any

significant interaction between cyclists and other vehicles within the site.

One area of potential conflict is the small zone at the base of the bicycle ramp, where cyclists

enter and leave the bicycle parking area. As drivers approach the bottom of the ramp, they may

encroach on this area, if they keep too far left, not realising that the left section of the ramp is

dedicated to cyclist use. It is therefore recommended that a painted line (and possibly hatching)

be installed from the aisle intersection, around to the separation line on the ramp, as shown in

Figure 6.2. Clear delineation and signing of the cycling section of the ramp is also required.

Figure 6.2: Suggested line marking to guide drivers away from the bicycle ramp.




The only other likely conflict point is at the crossover on Enchantress Way, where entering and

exiting drivers and cyclists may interact. However, the frequency of such interaction is

expected to be low. DVC considers that to ensure the safety of cyclists, measures to alert

motorists that there is bicycle traffic present and to provide good visibility of cyclists are the

preferred options.

We therefore recommend the following measures:

clear signposting at the top and base of the access ramp to warn motorists of the presence of

cyclists;

the provision of good lighting in the service and end of trip areas on the first basement level, as

well as on the ramps; and

painting the bicycle ramps the standard emerald green colour, with distinct separation lines.

6.2.4 Pedestrian interaction at the Crossover

The current drawings do not show any detail of a pedestrian crossing over the proposed crossover on

Enchantress Way.

There would not appear to be any significant visibility issues associated with cars emerging from the

basement, so long as the pedestrian crossing is located well away from the basement ramp and any

associated walls.

The crossing ramps should be designed to meet the relevant standards.




7 SUMMARY

The development at Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay (EQ4) will consist of a 52-storey building of approximately

86,600m2 NLA. It will include offices, apartments, a child care centre, a wellness centre and various

food and beverage facilities. There will be 3 basement levels housing car and bicycle parking, as well

as end of trip cycling facilities and service areas.

Traffic Modelling

DVC’s recent EQ2/3 model has now been updated and extended to include the traffic associated with

EQ4. The extended model includes Enchantress Way, Duchess Way and Geoffrey Bolton Avenue, and

the following key intersections:

- Esplanade/Enchantress Way;

- Esplanade/ Duchess Way;

- Barrack Street/Geoffrey Bolton Avenue; and

- William Street/Geoffrey Bolton Avenue.

The modelled scenarios are Base year (2019); Opening Year (2023) and Opening +10 (2033).

It should be noted that the 2023 modelling, in contrast to the 2022 opening year scenario employed for

the EQ2&3 modelling, includes not only trips generated by EQ2&3 and EQ4, but also those from

EQ5&6 and EQ7, all of which are scheduled to open by 2023. Thus, a comparison between scenarios

cannot be used to assess the direct impact of the EQ4 development alone, which in itself, is moderate.

DVC has modelled a linear 1% annual growth in traffic for future years as it does provide an indication

of where future problems may be experienced, albeit perhaps representing a worst-case scenario. Indeed,

it should be noted that in this location there is little opportunity for further development, and moves

towards reducing travel demand and increasing alternative mode shares are likely to lead to zero, or

potentially even negative growth rates in years to come.

During both 2023 peak periods, the right turn from Mounts Bay Road into William Street shows

significant queueing. It can be seen from the base year results that this movement was already

approaching capacity at that time, and a combination of the forecast development traffic and the

conservative level of growth in background traffic sees it exceeding that mark.

The only change in trips between the 2023 and 2033 scenarios is the addition of a compounded 1% per

annum growth in background traffic. This increase clearly exacerbates the situations identified in the

2023 models, but does not appear to affect any other areas excessively.

The main areas of concern are again the intersections of William Street with Mounts Bay Road and with

the Mitchell Freeway off ramp.

The SIDRA model does however provide a level of comfort that key infrastructure such as the Mitchell

Freeway will not be adversely impacted as a result of the future demand queueing back along the off

ramps and onto the freeway itself. The modelling demonstrates that in the AM peak hour that traffic




inbound to the city can dissipate quickly enough so as not to cause queues back onto the freeway.

Adjustments to the allocation of green time, and the further roll out of ramp metering and other MRWA

initiatives would also be expected to reduce these issues.

In the PM peak hour queues develop but are contained to the slow-moving CBD network which is

considered acceptable and perhaps largely unavoidable.

Access and Parking

The development parking is provided over 3 basement levels. The development will include 296 car

parking bays, with 18 motorcycle bays and sufficient racks to cater for 456 bicycles.

A number of the car parking bays are designated as small car bays (98), whilst 44 of these have been

provided as tandem bays. Tandem bays should only be used where they are allocated to staff members

of the same business, or where both bays are allocated to the same apartment.

ACROD bays will be provided as required by the appropriate Australian Standard.

Vehicular access is provided via the single crossover onto Enchantress Way, with a single access ramp

to the first basement. A set of internal circulation ramps is provided within the basement car park to

subsequent parking levels.

The basements also contain the loading and service facilities, some commercial parking and some

residential parking. Aisle widths comply with Australian Standards for Category 1A (Residential Off-

street) parking and vehicles can negotiate the turning movements.

The design vehicle for servicing is the standard City of Perth refuse truck, which has a height of 2.8m.

The vertical sag clearance on the access ramp is adequate for the proposed design vehicle, and

larger/higher vehicles will not be permitted to enter the building. This will be managed by a Service and

Delivery Management Plan potentially including the use of a Web-based loading dock system.

A 2.5m wide section of the ramp between the crossover and the first basement level will be designated

for cyclist use only.

Service and Delivery Traffic Management

A service and delivery management plan has been developed by others. It adopts common practice for

managing and coordinating deliveries to ensure that no major traffic issues arise. A dock manager

coordinates and schedules deliveries to ensure that the right size vehicle is used and has a dedicated

delivery time.

To further reinforce the management of services and deliveries the developer has committed to

investigating state-of-the-art web-based management systems. One such system (MobileDock) supports

the role of the dock manager by ensuring that the limitations of the loading area (size, time slots and

duration) are precisely defined before inviting service providers (couriers, suppliers etc) to register with

the system. Providers are required to specify a delivery vehicle which matches the constraints of the

building before booking an available time slot which matches the loading time required.




Sustainable Transport

The site is exceptionally well serviced by public transport. The Perth Busport and Elizabeth Quay train

station are both within 250m of the site, providing access to almost the whole of the metropolitan area.

Also, a regional cycle route along the northern banks of the Swan River passes within metres of the

development.

Access to the site is also excellent for pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists especially will be able to use the

internal EQ precinct road network to access the surrounding cycle network.

The main access to the site for cyclists will be via an access ramp running from the Enchantress Way

crossover down to the first basement level. The ramp forms part of the general vehicle access ramp and

consists of a separate 2.5m wide section of the general ramp. It is expected that separation will be

achieved through the use of appropriately painted lines, together with painted symbols and associated

signage.

Cyclist end of trip (EOT) facilities are located on the first basement level, adjacent to the lifts and stairs,

with the entrance to the bicycle parking immediately to the right at the bottom of the basement access

ramp. This precludes any requirement for cyclists to cross the paths of other entering or exiting vehicles.




APPENDIX A: BASE YEAR CORRESPONDENCE




APPENDIX B: GAF TRAFFIC MODELLING AND RESULTS

P0134-07_EQ Lots 2_3 Traffic and Access Report_Rev 1.docx Page 6

4.

The impacts of these construction trucks have been assessed using SIDRA analysis for the networkof William Street / Riverside Drive / Freeway Ramps (TCS 849) and William Street / Mounts BayRoad / The Esplanade (TCS 37). Traffic counts and heavy vehicle percentages were taken from thelatest available SCATS and traffic data on the MRWA Trafficmap, the peak hour data used for themodelling is shown in Figure 3 to Figure 6. The peak hours were determined as 8.15am – 9.15amAM Peak and 4.00pm – 5.00pm PM Peak.

Figure 3: TCS 37 – AM peak traffic data


Figure 4: TCS 37 – PM peak traffic data


Figure 5: TCS 849 – AM peak traffic data


Figure 6: TCS 849 – PM peak traffic data


Pedestrian counts for the two crossing points on the north side of intersection TCS 849 were takenfrom available video count data on MRWA Trafficmap for the intersection. These counts are shownon the existing volume figures. The pedestrian numbers used for intersection TCS 37 wereestimated from observations on site.

Data for the Perth Convention Exhibition Centre (PCEC) exit was only available for the total exitingvehicles. As these vehicles are permitted to turn left or right, an assumption was made on theproportions to make these movements as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: PCEC volume split

Direction AM PM

Left turn (to the North) 58% 23%

Right turn (to the south) 42% 77%

The traffic signal information was requested from MRWA for the phasing and phase times. Thephasing of the intersections used for both the base and development assessments are outlined inTable 3 and Table 4.

Table 3: TCS 37 – Intersection phasing

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D

Table 4: TCS 849 – Intersection phasing

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D

Phase time data was obtained from MRWA for the week commencing 18 March 2019 for bothintersections and reviewed for the AM and PM peaks to determine phase timing. The nominatedphase times for each peak are shown in Table 5.


Table 5: Calculated phase times

TCS 37 – William Street / Mounts Bay Road

PhaseTime (seconds)

AM Peak PM Peak

A 22 24

B 47 37

C 34 38

D 21 26

PM Peak

PhaseTime (seconds)

AM Peak PM Peak

A 54 60

B 27 24

C 13 18

D 30 23

Modelling for the intersection was completed using a network model in SIDRA Intersection (Version8.0.5.7916) and the inputs outlined in this section. Modelling was completed for AM and PM peaksfor base (existing scenario) and construction (including truck movements).

4.1 Modelling assumptions

A number of assumptions were required to allow for the modelling to be completed. Theseassumptions are outlined in this section and where relevant split into each intersection.

Intersection TCS 37 – William Street / Mounts Bay Road / The Esplanadeo Lane 1 (shared left through)

AM peak - 50% turn leftPM peak – 20% turn left

o Lane 5 (shared through right)AM peak - 40% travel throughPM peak – 25% travel through

o Lanes 4 & 11 – buses onlyo Heavy vehicle percentages

5.9% on William Street4.3% on Mounts Bay Road5.7% on The Esplanade

Due to the limitations of SIDRA Intersection the model layout does not reflect the real-world layoutof the intersection TCS 849. Figure 7 has been included to shown how the model replicates the realworld.


Figure 7: TCS 849 – SIDRA model layout

4.2 Base modelling

The base modelling was completed for the average AM and PM weekday peak as these areexpected to present the worst case for the operation of the network.

Some calibration was required with the base models to reflect real world information. Followingthe MRWA guidelines for operational modelling the parameters in SIDRA were set as per therecommendations. Due to the limitations of the model, modifications were required to be made tothe “Vehicle Movement Data -> Path Data” tab for all approaches at both intersections.

The vehicle lengths were updated as per the lengths outlined in the MRWA operational modellingguidelines, with an addition of 2.5 metres added for queue length for the AM peak and a lower 1.5metres for the PM peak. The lower length was chosen due to the congested nature of the area inthe PM peak and therefore closure observed queuing between cars.

Additional changes were required on the PM peak to calibrate the model to real world observations.Target queues were observed for the PM peak at intersection TCS 37 as follows:

o Mounts Bay Road approach – 300 metres

o William Street approach – 260 metres

o The Esplanade approach – 100 metres


At intersection TCS 849 the observed through movement southbound was approximately 1,100

vehicles / hour. To calibrate the PM peak model the basic saturation flow for the southbound

through movement at William Street / Riverside Drive was increased to 2,500 tcu/h following the

methodology outlined in the MRWA operational modelling guidelines.

The network modelling linking the two intersections allows for an assessment of flow on impacts

between TCS 849 and TCS 37. The network model layout is shown in Appendix B. The SCATS data

provided on Trafficmaps for the two intersections triggered a warning on the base network

modelling. The AM peak noted a variance of 144 vehicles difference between southbound traffic

leaving TCS 37 and arriving at TCS 849. The PM peak noted a variance of 380 vehicles for the same

movement. On reviewing the site area, it is possible that this volume of traffic has come from rat

running through Elizabeth Quay entering William Street just prior to intersection TCS 849.

4.3 Construction modelling

The four stages of the construction project result in a demand for approximately 40 trucks per day.However, the distribution between 12.5 metre and 19 metre trucks changes on a few of the stages.For the modelling the number of trucks has been reviewed considering their Passenger CarEquivalents or passenger car units per vehicle (pch / veh) as outlined in Table 6. This results in thevolumes used for the modelling outlined in Table 7.

Table 6: Truck pcu / veh

Austroads VehicleClass

Length (m) PCU / VEH

3, 4 and 5 12.5 2

6, 7, 8 and 9 19.0 3

Table 7: Expected truck movements

ConstructionStage

19m Trucks12.5mtrucks

Totaltrucks

PCU

(daily)

Hourlyvolume

PCU

(hourly)

Stage 1 15 25 40 95 4.4 10.6

Stage 2 30 10 40 110 4.4 12.2

Stage 3 30 10 40 110 4.4 12.2

Stage 4 10 30 40 90 4.4 10

Table 7 shows that the potential impact will be greatest during stages 2 and 3. Therefore thedevelopment modelling has been undertaken for 12.2 pcu accessing the site. SIDRA currentlycalculates a heavy vehicle as 1.65 pcu / veh, therefore the volume above was converted to heavyvehicles using this ratio. This results in 7 heavy vehicles added to the nominated truck route asoutlined in the development traffic data in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The truck movements are shownwith by a blue line on the two figures. There is no change to the volumes on TCS 37. The site accessitself is located to the south of the modelled area on Riverside Drive.


Figure 8: AM peak development traffic data


Appendix C Base traffic modelling results

TCS 37 – AM peak base results

Site: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - AMPeak - April 2019]

Network: N101 [Network - AM PeakBase - April 2019]

Base AM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 124 seconds (Network Site User-Given Phase Times)

Movement Performance - Vehicles

MovID

Turn

DemandFlows

ArrivalFlows Deg.

SatnAverage

Delay

Levelof

Service

Aver. Back ofQueue Prop.

Queued

EffectiveStopRate

Aver.No.

Cycles

AverageSpeed

Total HV Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h

South: William Street (south)

2 T1 192 26.4 192 26.4 0.904 46.8 LOS D 13.0 101.5 0.80 0.85 0.98 15.5

3 R2 593 5.9 593 5.9 0.904 54.1 LOS D 13.0 101.5 0.82 0.94 1.06 16.2

Approach 784 10.9 784 10.9 0.904 52.3 LOS D 13.0 101.5 0.81 0.91 1.04 16.0

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 558 5.7 558 5.7 0.665 30.3 LOS C 15.8 123.2 0.83 0.81 0.83 15.1

5 T1 184 5.7 184 5.7 0.751 59.9 LOS E 7.0 54.4 1.00 0.91 1.11 17.2

Approach 742 5.7 742 5.7 0.751 37.7 LOS D 15.8 123.2 0.87 0.84 0.90 16.0

North: William St (North)

7 L2 75 5.6 75 5.6 0.237 50.9 LOS D 2.4 18.7 0.90 0.74 0.90 15.1

8 T1 223 6.1 223 6.1 0.589 46.8 LOS D 7.4 58.0 0.94 0.79 0.94 8.9

9 R2 122 100.0 122 100.0 0.515 50.6 LOS D 4.1 61.8 0.93 0.79 0.93 18.5

Approach 420 33.3 420 33.3 0.589 48.6 LOS D 7.4 61.8 0.93 0.78 0.93 13.6

West: Mounts Bay Road

10 L2 154 4.1 154 4.1 0.603 42.6 LOS D 10.6 81.0 0.91 0.80 0.91 20.3

11 T1 507 4.4 507 4.4 0.603 40.3 LOS D 10.6 81.0 0.91 0.79 0.91 21.0

12 R2 114 4.6 114 4.6 0.613 62.8 LOS E 4.2 32.5 1.00 0.81 1.02 12.8

Approach 775 4.3 775 4.3 0.613 44.1 LOS D 10.6 81.0 0.93 0.80 0.93 19.5

AllVehicles

2721 11.1 2721 11.1 0.904 45.4 LOS D 15.8 123.2 0.88 0.84 0.95 16.8

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog(Network tab).

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Movement Performance - Pedestrians

MovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Average Back of Queue Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m

P1 South Full Crossing 789 58.1 LOS E 2.7 2.7 0.98 0.98

P2 East Full Crossing 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96

P3 North Full Crossing 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96

P4 West Full Crossing 1263 59.3 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00

All Pedestrians 2579 58.4 LOS E 0.99 0.99

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.


TCS 849 – AM peak base results

Site: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive -AM Peak - March 2019]

Network: N101 [Network - AM PeakBase - April 2019]

Base Case AM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 124 seconds (Network Site User-Given Phase Times)


MovID

Turn

DemandFlows

ArrivalFlows

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Levelof

Service

Aver. Back ofQueue

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStopRate

Aver.No.

Cycles

AverageSpeed



South: Riverside Drive

3a R1 185 3.6 185 3.6 0.604 53.0 LOS D 6.5 49.6 0.98 0.80 0.98 13.0

Approach 185 3.6 185 3.6 0.604 53.0 LOS D 6.5 49.6 0.98 0.80 0.98 13.0

NorthEast: William Street

24a L1 449 5.9 449 5.9 0.412 10.1 LOS B 5.9 46.4 0.39 0.35 0.39 32.3

26a R1 301 5.9 301 5.9 0.444 27.9 LOS C 6.6 51.7 0.64 0.64 0.64 28.6

Approach 751 5.9 751 5.9 0.444 17.3 LOS B 6.6 51.7 0.49 0.47 0.49 30.3

North: Perth Busport Access

7b L3 42 100.0 42 100.0 0.040 7.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 0.00 40.9

9a R1 34 100.0 34 100.0 0.175 49.8 LOS D 1.1 16.7 0.90 0.68 0.90 22.8

Approach 76 100.0 76 100.0 0.175 26.1 LOS C 1.1 16.7 0.40 0.62 0.40 26.2

NorthWest: PCEC Car Park Exit

27 L2 8 10.0 8 10.0 0.128 62.7 LOS E 0.5 4.1 0.98 0.67 0.98 8.8

29a R1 5 10.0 5 10.0 0.128 62.7 LOS E 0.5 4.1 0.98 0.67 0.98 14.2

Approach 14 10.0 14 10.0 0.128 62.7 LOS E 0.5 4.1 0.98 0.67 0.98 11.1

West: Riverside Dr Off Ramp

10a L1 518 3.7 518 3.7 0.749 38.0 LOS D 16.7 127.2 0.94 0.85 0.94 22.1

12 R2 335 3.7 335 3.7 0.956 84.1 LOS F 15.9 121.6 1.00 1.19 1.47 18.7

Approach 853 3.7 853 3.7 0.956 56.1 LOS E 16.7 127.2 0.96 0.98 1.14 20.3

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.0 0.207 50.2 LOS D 1.3 18.9 0.90 0.69 0.90 22.7

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.0 0.207 50.2 LOS D 1.3 18.9 0.90 0.69 0.90 22.7

AllVehicles

1916 10.3 1916 10.3 0.956 39.3 LOS D 16.7 127.2 0.76 0.74 0.84 22.8








MovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService



ped/h sec ped m

P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 8 56.2 LOS E 0.0 0.0 0.95 0.95







TCS 37 – PM peak base results

Site: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - PMPeak - April 2019]

Network: N101 [Network - PM PeakBase - April 2019]

Base AM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 125 seconds (Network Site User-Given Phase Times)


MovID

Turn

DemandFlows

ArrivalFlows

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Levelof

Service

Aver. Back ofQueue

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStopRate

Aver.No.

Cycles

AverageSpeed




2 T1 64 57.4 64 57.4 0.479 41.7 LOS D 7.2 49.1 0.88 0.71 0.88 17.0

3 R2 398 5.8 398 5.8 0.479 47.0 LOS D 7.2 49.2 0.95 0.81 0.95 17.7

Approach 462 13.0 462 13.0 0.479 46.3 LOS D 7.2 49.2 0.94 0.80 0.94 17.6

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 377 6.1 377 6.1 0.786 42.9 LOS D 13.3 90.6 0.94 0.91 1.01 12.0

5 T1 191 5.5 191 5.5 0.737 59.1 LOS E 7.2 48.8 1.00 0.89 1.09 17.3

Approach 567 5.9 567 5.9 0.786 48.4 LOS D 13.3 90.6 0.96 0.90 1.04 14.5


7 L2 65 6.5 65 6.5 0.178 47.2 LOS D 2.0 13.8 0.86 0.73 0.86 16.4

8 T1 381 5.8 381 5.8 1.282 319.6 LOS F 38.4 261.2 1.00 2.35 2.87 1.7

9 R2 107 100.0 107 100.0 0.397 46.3 LOS D 3.4 51.5 0.88 0.76 0.88 19.9

Approach 554 24.1 554 24.1 1.282 234.5 LOS F 38.4 261.2 0.96 1.85 2.25 3.4


10 L2 73 5.8 73 5.8 0.545 38.0 LOS D 10.4 69.9 0.86 0.76 0.86 22.1

11 T1 626 4.4 626 4.4 0.545 35.2 LOS D 10.5 70.2 0.86 0.75 0.86 22.4

12 R2 228 4.1 228 4.1 1.333 366.5 LOS F 24.4 162.6 1.00 2.25 3.11 2.9

Approach 927 4.4 927 4.4 1.333 117.0 LOS F 24.4 162.6 0.89 1.12 1.41 10.1

AllVehicles

2511 10.7 2511 10.7 1.333 114.4 LOS F 38.4 261.2 0.93 1.17 1.43 8.7








MovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService



ped/h sec ped m

P1 South Full Crossing 789 58.6 LOS E 2.8 2.8 0.98 0.98

P2 East Full Crossing 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96


P4 West Full Crossing 1263 59.8 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00






TCS 849 – PM peak base results

Site: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive -PM Peak - April 2019]

Network: N101 [Network - PM PeakBase - April 2019]

Base Case PM PeakSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 125 seconds (Network Site User-Given Phase Times)


MovID

Turn

DemandFlows

Arrival Flows Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Levelof

Service

Aver. Back ofQueue Prop.

Queued

EffectiveStopRate

Aver.No.

Cycles

AverageSpeed




3a R1 191 3.6 191 3.6 0.736 59.1 LOS E 7.2 47.7 1.00 0.89 1.09 12.1

Approach 191 3.6 191 3.6 0.736 59.1 LOS E 7.2 47.7 1.00 0.89 1.09 12.1


24a L1 1037 5.9 925 6.0 0.832 16.0 LOS B 21.4 145.8 0.69 0.63 0.69 29.0

26a R1 329 5.9 294 6.0 0.387 29.0 LOS C 7.6 51.5 0.74 0.71 0.74 28.2

Approach 1366 5.9 1219N1 6.0 0.832 19.1 LOS B 21.4 145.8 0.70 0.65 0.70 28.8


7b L3 55 100.0 55 100.0 0.052 3.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.47 0.00 34.1

9a R1 37 100.0 37 100.0 0.227 53.9 LOS D 1.3 17.9 0.93 0.70 0.93 22.0

Approach 92 100.0 92 100.0 0.227 24.0 LOS C 1.3 17.9 0.37 0.56 0.37 24.9


27 L2 20 10.0 20 10.0 0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.9

29a R1 66 10.0 66 10.0 0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 14.5

Approach 86 10.0 86 10.0 0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 13.4


10a L1 206 3.7 206 3.7 0.266 27.1 LOS C 5.0 33.1 0.70 0.66 0.70 25.4

12 R2 166 3.7 166 3.7 0.676 60.4 LOS E 6.2 40.8 1.00 0.85 1.04 22.1

Approach 373 3.7 373 3.7 0.676 41.9 LOS D 6.2 40.8 0.83 0.74 0.85 23.5

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.0 0.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 18.5 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.0 0.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 18.5 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9

AllVehicles

2145 11.2 1998N1 12.0 0.832 29.8 LOS C 21.4 145.8 0.76 0.69 0.77 24.3







N1 Arrival Flow value is reduced due to capacity constraint at oversaturated upstream lanes.


MovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService



ped/h sec ped m

P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95









APPENDIX C: SIDRA NETWORK RESULTS

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - AM Peak- Base Year

(Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]

Base Case AM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - EQUISAT (Fixed-Time/SCATS) Coordinated Cycle Time = 124 seconds (Network User-Given Cycle Time)

Vehicle Movement PerformanceDEMAND FLOWS

ARRIVAL FLOWS

AVERAGE BACK OF QUEUE

MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed

[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h

South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.065 58.6 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.67 0.93 8.9

Approach 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.065 58.6 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.67 0.93 8.9

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.326 6.7 LOS A 4.3 31.3 0.28 0.34 0.28 27.5

5 T1 827 6.0 827 6.0 0.326 3.3 LOS A 4.7 34.5 0.28 0.29 0.28 28.6

Approach 947 5.2 947 5.2 0.326 3.7 LOS A 4.7 34.5 0.28 0.30 0.28 28.5

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.154 57.7 LOS E 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 11.3

8 T1 36 0.0 36 0.0 ＊0.154 54.3 LOS D 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 7.8

Approach 37 0.0 37 0.0 0.154 54.4 LOS D 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 7.9

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1204 4.0 1204 4.0 ＊0.389 2.0 LOS A 3.3 24.1 0.15 0.14 0.15 36.0

Approach 1204 4.0 1204 4.0 0.389 2.0 LOS A 3.3 24.1 0.15 0.14 0.15 36.0

All Vehicles 2199 4.4 2199 4.4 0.389 3.9 LOS A 4.7 34.5 0.23 0.22 0.23 31.3

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Network tab).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included).Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

＊ Critical Movement (Signal Timing)

Pedestrian Movement PerformanceAVERAGE BACK OF

QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed

[ Ped Dist ]ped/h sec ped m sec m m/sec

South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.0 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 215.5 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.2 217.0 0.97

All

Pedestrians158 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 218.6 211.0 0.97

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.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: DONALD VEAL CONSULTANTS PTY LTD | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Wednesday, 17 February 2021 10:31:38 AMProject: X:\Donald Veal Consultants\Jobs\Private Sector\Z810 EQ 4 TIA & TMP\Data\Sidra\EQ Lots 4 - Modelling.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Wy & The Esplanade - AM Peak -

Base Year (Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]

Base Case AM PeakSite Category: (None)Give-Way (Two-Way)


ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Enchantress Way

1 L2 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.471 53.2 LOS F 0.4 2.6 0.92 1.02 1.12 2.9

3 R2 7 0.0 7 0.0 0.471 191.4 LOS F 0.4 2.6 0.92 1.02 1.12 2.9

Approach 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.471 117.7 LOS F 0.4 2.6 0.92 1.02 1.12 2.9

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.233 3.4 LOS A 5.1 37.6 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.6

5 T1 817 6.0 817 6.0 0.233 0.0 LOS A 5.1 37.6 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

Approach 827 5.9 827 5.9 0.233 0.1 NA 5.1 37.6 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

North: Howard St

7 L2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.904 162.8 LOS F 1.7 11.6 0.96 1.43 2.13 2.2

9 R2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.904 300.1 LOS F 1.7 11.6 0.96 1.43 2.13 2.2

Approach 42 0.0 42 0.0 0.904 231.5 LOS F 1.7 11.6 0.96 1.43 2.13 2.2

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1318 4.0 1318 4.0 0.343 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 1318 4.0 1318 4.0 0.343 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

All Vehicles 2203 4.6 2203 4.6 0.904 5.3 NA 5.1 37.6 0.03 0.04 0.05 24.9

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Network tab).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.Minor 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.Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included).Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Way & Geoffrey Bolton Way - AM

Peak - Base Year (Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


East: Geoffrey Bolton Way

5 T1 106 0.0 106 0.0 0.063 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.06 0.01 38.1

6 R2 15 0.0 15 0.0 0.063 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.06 0.01 38.1

Approach 121 0.0 121 0.0 0.063 0.4 NA 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.06 0.01 38.1

North: Enchantress Way

7 L2 2 0.0 2 0.0 0.009 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.03 0.48 0.03 28.2

9 R2 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.009 3.9 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.03 0.48 0.03 28.2

Approach 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.009 3.8 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.03 0.48 0.03 28.2

West: Geoffrey Bolton Way

10 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.003 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.2

11 T1 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.003 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.2

Approach 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.003 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.2

All Vehicles 137 0.0 137 0.0 0.063 0.7 NA 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.09 0.01 37.1



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Barrack St & Geoffrey Bolton Way - AM Peak -

Base Year (Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

2 T1 940 7.0 940 7.0 0.253 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 940 7.0 940 7.0 0.253 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

North: Barrack St

8 T1 743 7.0 743 7.0 0.398 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 743 7.0 743 7.0 0.398 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


10 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 5.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.45 0.48 0.45 31.0

Approach 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 5.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.45 0.48 0.45 31.0

All Vehicles 1684 7.0 1684 7.0 0.398 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - AM Peak - Base Year


General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 192 26.4 192 26.4 ＊0.823 36.9 LOS D 8.0 62.0 0.77 0.74 0.85 13.7

3 R2 593 6.0 593 6.0 0.823 41.9 LOS D 8.0 62.0 0.79 0.82 0.89 6.8

Approach 784 11.0 784 11.0 0.823 40.7 LOS D 8.0 62.0 0.78 0.80 0.88 8.6

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 558 6.0 558 6.0 0.613 27.1 LOS C 10.2 80.0 0.82 0.81 0.82 10.4

5 T1 184 6.0 184 6.0 ＊0.709 57.7 LOS E 6.8 53.3 1.00 0.87 1.07 15.4

Approach 742 6.0 742 6.0 0.709 34.7 LOS C 10.2 80.0 0.86 0.82 0.88 12.7


7 L2 75 6.0 75 6.0 0.308 56.2 LOS E 2.6 19.9 0.94 0.76 0.94 7.9

8 T1 223 6.0 223 6.0 ＊0.732 53.9 LOS D 8.1 63.0 0.99 0.88 1.06 7.9

9 R2 122 100.0 122 100.

00.631 56.9 LOS E 4.4 66.4 0.98 0.84 1.01 17.2

Approach 420 33.3 420 33.3 0.732 55.2 LOS E 8.1 66.4 0.98 0.85 1.03 11.3


10 L2 154 4.0 154 4.0 0.571 41.0 LOS D 10.3 78.6 0.89 0.79 0.89 20.8

11 T1 507 4.0 507 4.0 0.571 38.4 LOS D 10.3 78.6 0.89 0.78 0.89 17.0

12 R2 114 4.0 114 4.0 ＊0.610 62.7 LOS E 4.2 32.2 1.00 0.81 1.02 12.8

Approach 775 4.0 775 4.0 0.610 42.5 LOS D 10.3 78.6 0.91 0.78 0.91 17.0

All Vehicles 2721 11.1 2721 11.1 0.823 41.8 LOS D 10.3 80.0 0.87 0.81 0.91 12.9




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.1 LOS E 2.7 2.7 0.98 0.98 86.2 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.0 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 87.8 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.3 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.3 36.4 0.42

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 57 [William Street & Riverside Drive - AM Peak - Base

Year (Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 185 3.6 185 3.6 ＊0.525 49.7 LOS D 6.3 47.9 0.95 0.78 0.95 13.6

Approach 185 3.6 185 3.6 0.525 49.7 LOS D 6.3 47.9 0.95 0.78 0.95 13.6


24a L1 449 5.9 449 5.9 0.377 8.4 LOS A 5.5 43.1 0.36 0.32 0.36 32.4

26a R1 301 5.9 301 5.9 ＊0.409 29.6 LOS C 7.0 54.7 0.68 0.67 0.68 27.1

Approach 751 5.9 751 5.9 0.409 16.9 LOS B 7.0 54.7 0.49 0.46 0.49 29.5


7b L3 42 100.0 42 100.

00.040 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.55 0.00 39.3

9a R1 34 100.0 34 100.

00.152 46.6 LOS D 1.1 16.1 0.87 0.66 0.87 23.4

Approach 76 100.0 76 100.

00.152 25.0 LOS C 1.1 16.1 0.39 0.60 0.39 26.6


27 L2 8 10.0 8 10.0 0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 8.7

29a R1 5 10.0 5 10.0 ＊0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 14.0

Approach 14 10.0 14 10.0 0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 11.0


10a L1 518 3.7 518 3.7 0.689 34.3 LOS C 15.8 120.3 0.89 0.82 0.89 23.2

12 R2 335 3.7 335 3.7 ＊0.994 98.6 LOS F 16.9 129.2 1.00 1.28 1.60 17.1

Approach 853 3.7 853 3.7 0.994 59.5 LOS E 16.9 129.2 0.93 1.00 1.17 19.7

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.180 47.0 LOS D 1.2 18.2 0.88 0.67 0.88 23.3

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.180 47.0 LOS D 1.2 18.2 0.88 0.67 0.88 23.3





QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P6 Full 8 56.2 LOS E 0.0 0.0 0.95 0.95 84.6 37.0 0.44


P3 Full 13 56.2 LOS E 0.0 0.0 0.95 0.95 80.0 31.0 0.39

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - AM Peak - Base

Year (Site Folder: Base Year -AM)]Network: N101 [Base year -AM Peak (Network Folder:

General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 784 9.8 784 9.8 0.392 0.0 LOS A 3.2 23.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 784 9.8 784 9.8 0.392 0.0 NA 3.2 23.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

East: Geoffrey Bolton Ave

4 L2 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.194 9.5 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.69 0.83 0.69 19.9

Approach 115 0.0 115 0.0 0.194 9.5 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.69 0.83 0.69 19.9

North: William St

7 L2 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.471 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7

8 T1 935 6.0 935 6.0 0.471 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7

Approach 940 6.0 940 6.0 0.471 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7

All Vehicles 1839 7.2 1839 7.2 0.471 0.6 NA 3.2 23.2 0.04 0.05 0.04 37.1



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - AM Peak- Base Year


General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.065 58.6 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.67 0.93 8.9

Approach 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.065 58.6 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.67 0.93 8.9

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.326 6.7 LOS A 4.3 31.3 0.28 0.34 0.28 27.5

5 T1 827 6.0 827 6.0 0.326 3.3 LOS A 4.7 34.5 0.28 0.29 0.28 28.6

Approach 947 5.2 947 5.2 0.326 3.7 LOS A 4.7 34.5 0.28 0.30 0.28 28.5

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.154 57.7 LOS E 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 11.3

8 T1 36 0.0 36 0.0 ＊0.154 54.3 LOS D 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 7.8

Approach 37 0.0 37 0.0 0.154 54.4 LOS D 1.3 8.8 0.94 0.69 0.94 7.9

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1204 4.0 1204 4.0 ＊0.389 2.0 LOS A 3.3 24.1 0.15 0.14 0.15 36.0

Approach 1204 4.0 1204 4.0 0.389 2.0 LOS A 3.3 24.1 0.15 0.14 0.15 36.0





QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed


South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.0 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 215.5 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.2 217.0 0.97

All



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Barrack St & Geoffrey Bolton Way - PM Peak -

Base Year (Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -

PM Peak (Network Folder: General)]

Base Case PM PeakSite Category: (None)Give-Way (Two-Way)


ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

2 T1 604 7.0 604 7.0 0.163 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0

Approach 604 7.0 604 7.0 0.163 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0

North: Barrack St

8 T1 851 7.0 851 7.0 0.456 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 851 7.0 851 7.0 0.456 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


10 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 4.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.44 0.36 31.6

Approach 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.001 4.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.44 0.36 31.6

All Vehicles 1456 7.0 1456 7.0 0.456 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & Geoffrey Bolton Way - PM Peak -





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.003 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.38 0.03 30.5

6 R2 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.003 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.38 0.03 30.5

Approach 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.003 2.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.38 0.03 30.5

North: Duchess Way

7 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.203 3.4 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.8

9 R2 259 0.0 259 0.0 0.203 3.6 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.8

Approach 260 0.0 260 0.0 0.203 3.6 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.8


10 L2 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.003 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.37 0.00 31.4

11 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.003 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.37 0.00 31.4

Approach 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.003 2.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.37 0.00 31.4

All Vehicles 271 0.0 271 0.0 0.203 3.5 NA 0.3 1.8 0.04 0.47 0.04 27.9



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - PM Peak- Base Year

(Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -


Base Case PM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - EQUISAT (Fixed-Time/SCATS) Coordinated Cycle Time = 125 seconds (Network User-Given Cycle Time)


ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.067 59.3 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.68 0.93 8.8

Approach 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.067 59.3 LOS E 0.4 2.5 0.93 0.68 0.93 8.8

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 99 0.0 99 0.0 0.250 8.1 LOS A 3.9 28.1 0.32 0.37 0.32 25.0

5 T1 616 6.0 616 6.0 0.250 4.7 LOS A 3.9 28.1 0.32 0.32 0.32 25.9

Approach 715 5.2 715 5.2 0.250 5.1 LOS A 3.9 28.2 0.32 0.32 0.32 25.7

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.411 54.8 LOS D 4.7 33.1 0.95 0.76 0.95 11.7

8 T1 123 0.0 123 0.0 ＊0.411 51.4 LOS D 4.7 33.1 0.95 0.76 0.95 8.1

Approach 139 0.0 139 0.0 0.411 51.8 LOS D 4.7 33.1 0.95 0.76 0.95 8.5

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1194 4.0 1194 4.0 ＊0.409 3.2 LOS A 4.2 30.6 0.21 0.19 0.21 33.9

Approach 1194 4.0 1194 4.0 0.409 3.2 LOS A 4.2 30.6 0.21 0.19 0.21 33.9





QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed


South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.5 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 216.0 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.7 217.0 0.97

All



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Way & Geoffrey Bolton Way - PM

Peak - Base Year (Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 245 0.0 245 0.0 0.132 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.03 0.01 39.1

6 R2 14 0.0 14 0.0 0.132 3.5 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.03 0.01 39.1

Approach 259 0.0 259 0.0 0.132 0.2 NA 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.03 0.01 39.1


7 L2 2 0.0 2 0.0 0.010 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.3

9 R2 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.010 4.4 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.3

Approach 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.010 4.2 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.48 0.04 27.3


10 L2 2 0.0 2 0.0 0.004 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 36.6

11 T1 6 0.0 6 0.0 0.004 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 36.6

Approach 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.004 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 36.6

All Vehicles 278 0.0 278 0.0 0.132 0.4 NA 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.01 38.5



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Wy & The Esplanade - PM Peak -





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.148 4.2 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.66 0.68 0.66 11.1

3 R2 7 0.0 7 0.0 0.148 47.1 LOS E 0.1 0.8 0.66 0.68 0.66 11.1

Approach 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.148 24.2 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.66 0.68 0.66 11.1

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.217 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.1

5 T1 605 6.0 605 6.0 0.217 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

Approach 616 5.9 616 5.9 0.217 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

North: Howard St

7 L2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.271 9.0 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.81 0.90 0.92 12.4

9 R2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.271 50.5 LOS F 0.4 2.6 0.81 0.90 0.92 12.4

Approach 42 0.0 42 0.0 0.271 29.7 LOS D 0.4 2.6 0.81 0.90 0.92 12.4

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1045 4.0 1045 4.0 0.272 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 1045 4.0 1045 4.0 0.272 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

All Vehicles 1719 4.5 1719 4.5 0.272 1.0 NA 0.4 2.6 0.03 0.03 0.03 35.9



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - PM Peak - Base

Year (Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 462 10.8 462 10.8 0.290 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 462 10.8 462 10.8 0.290 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


4 L2 254 0.0 254 0.0 0.961 60.2 LOS F 3.7 26.1 0.87 2.31 4.31 5.4

Approach 254 0.0 254 0.0 0.961 60.2 LOS F 3.7 26.1 0.87 2.31 4.31 5.4

North: William St

7 L2 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.560 3.4 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5

8 T1 1108 6.0 1108 6.0 0.560 0.0 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5

Approach 1117 6.0 1117 6.0 0.560 0.1 NA 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5

All Vehicles 1833 6.3 1833 6.3 0.961 8.4 NA 8.4 62.0 0.12 0.32 0.60 19.3



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - PM Peak - Base year

(Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -


Base Case PM PeakSite Category: (None)Signals - EQUISAT (Fixed-Time/SCATS) Coordinated Cycle Time = 125 seconds (Network Site User-Given Phase Times)


ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 64 57.4 64 57.4 ＊0.480 41.4 LOS D 6.7 46.0 0.85 0.69 0.85 13.4

3 R2 398 6.0 398 6.0 0.480 46.2 LOS D 6.8 46.1 0.89 0.78 0.89 6.3

Approach 462 13.1 462 13.1 0.480 45.5 LOS D 6.8 46.1 0.89 0.77 0.89 7.4

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 408 6.0 408 6.0 0.913 66.1 LOS E 11.7 80.0 1.00 1.10 1.31 5.0

5 T1 191 6.0 191 6.0 ＊0.655 56.5 LOS E 6.9 47.1 1.00 0.83 1.01 15.6

Approach 599 6.0 599 6.0 0.913 63.1 LOS E 11.7 80.0 1.00 1.01 1.22 8.8


7 L2 65 6.0 65 6.0 0.177 47.2 LOS D 2.0 13.7 0.86 0.73 0.86 10.0

8 T1 381 6.0 381 6.0 ＊0.997 99.5 LOS F 20.5 139.5 1.00 1.34 1.60 5.3

9 R2 107 100.0 107 100.

00.397 46.5 LOS D 3.4 51.5 0.88 0.76 0.88 19.8

Approach 554 24.2 554 24.2 0.997 83.1 LOS F 20.5 139.5 0.96 1.16 1.38 8.0


10 L2 72 4.0 72 4.0 0.542 38.0 LOS D 10.4 69.2 0.86 0.75 0.86 22.2

11 T1 626 4.0 626 4.0 0.542 35.1 LOS D 10.5 69.6 0.86 0.75 0.86 17.9

12 R2 228 4.0 228 4.0 ＊0.992 104.1 LOS F 12.0 79.7 1.00 1.29 1.68 8.8

Approach 926 4.0 926 4.0 0.992 52.4 LOS D 12.0 79.7 0.89 0.88 1.06 14.6

All Vehicles 2541 10.5 2541 10.5 0.997 60.3 LOS E 20.5 139.5 0.93 0.95 1.13 10.5




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.6 LOS E 2.8 2.8 0.98 0.98 86.7 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.5 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 88.3 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.8 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.8 36.4 0.41

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive - PM Peak - Base

Year (Site Folder: Base Year - PM)]Network: N101 [Base year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 191 3.6 191 3.6 ＊0.736 59.1 LOS E 7.2 47.7 1.00 0.89 1.09 12.1

Approach 191 3.6 191 3.6 0.736 59.1 LOS E 7.2 47.7 1.00 0.89 1.09 12.1


24a L1 1037 5.9 1037 5.9 0.934 35.5 LOS D 14.8 101.0 0.73 0.83 0.89 20.0

26a R1 329 5.9 329 5.9 ＊0.434 29.6 LOS C 8.6 58.8 0.76 0.72 0.76 27.2

Approach 1366 5.9 1366 5.9 0.934 34.1 LOS C 14.8 101.0 0.73 0.80 0.86 22.0


7b L3 35 100.0 35 100.

00.033 4.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.44 0.00 33.7

9a R1 37 100.0 37 100.

00.227 53.9 LOS D 1.3 17.9 0.93 0.70 0.93 22.0

Approach 72 100.0 72 100.

00.227 29.7 LOS C 1.3 17.9 0.48 0.57 0.48 24.0


27 L2 20 10.0 20 10.0 0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.9

29a R1 66 10.0 66 10.0 ＊0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 14.5

Approach 86 10.0 86 10.0 0.468 59.7 LOS E 3.2 22.5 0.99 0.77 0.99 13.4


10a L1 206 3.7 206 3.7 0.266 27.1 LOS C 5.0 33.1 0.70 0.66 0.70 25.4

12 R2 166 3.7 166 3.7 ＊0.676 60.4 LOS E 6.2 40.8 1.00 0.85 1.04 22.1

Approach 373 3.7 373 3.7 0.676 41.9 LOS D 6.2 40.8 0.83 0.74 0.85 23.5

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 18.5 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 18.5 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9





QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed

[ Ped Dist ]

ped/h sec ped m sec m m/sec


P6 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 85.3 37.2 0.44


P3 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 80.6 31.0 0.38

All





2023 (Site Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -

AM (Network Folder: General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

1 L2 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.288 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.0

2 T1 1044 7.0 1044 7.0 0.288 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

Approach 1067 6.8 1067 6.8 0.288 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

North: Barrack St

8 T1 813 7.0 813 7.0 0.436 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 813 7.0 813 7.0 0.436 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


10 L2 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.048 5.5 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.49 0.61 0.49 30.7

Approach 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.048 5.5 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.49 0.61 0.49 30.7

All Vehicles 1927 6.7 1927 6.7 0.436 0.2 NA 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.01 39.4



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & Geoffrey Bolton Way - AM Peak -





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 8 0.0 8 0.0 0.017 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

6 R2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.017 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

Approach 29 0.0 29 0.0 0.017 2.7 NA 0.0 0.2 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

North: Duchess Way

7 L2 31 0.0 31 0.0 0.131 3.5 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.47 0.09 27.4

9 R2 136 0.0 136 0.0 0.131 3.8 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.47 0.09 27.4

Approach 166 0.0 166 0.0 0.131 3.7 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.47 0.09 27.4


10 L2 62 0.0 60 0.0 0.040 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5

11 T1 17 0.0 16 0.0 0.040 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5

Approach 79 0.0 76N1

0.0 0.040 2.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5

All Vehicles 275 0.0 272N1

0.0 0.131 3.3 NA 0.2 1.2 0.07 0.43 0.07 28.9




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - AM Peak- 2023 (Site

Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 43 0.0 42 0.0 ＊0.269 61.6 LOS E 1.5 10.5 0.96 0.74 0.96 8.6


0.0 0.269 61.6 LOS E 1.5 10.5 0.96 0.74 0.96 8.6

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 161 0.0 161 0.0 0.368 6.9 LOS A 5.1 36.9 0.30 0.37 0.30 26.8

5 T1 907 6.0 907 6.0 0.368 3.5 LOS A 5.5 40.8 0.30 0.31 0.30 28.2

Approach 1068 5.1 1068 5.1 0.368 4.0 LOS A 5.5 40.8 0.30 0.32 0.30 27.9

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.189 58.0 LOS E 1.5 10.8 0.94 0.70 0.94 11.3

8 T1 44 0.0 44 0.0 0.189 54.6 LOS D 1.5 10.8 0.94 0.70 0.94 7.7

Approach 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.189 54.7 LOS D 1.5 10.8 0.94 0.70 0.94 7.8

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1272 4.0 1239 4.1 ＊0.400 1.8 LOS A 3.0 21.8 0.14 0.13 0.14 36.3

Approach 1272 4.0 1239N

14.1 0.400 1.8 LOS A 3.0 21.8 0.14 0.13 0.14 36.3

All Vehicles 2428 4.3 2395N

14.4 0.400 4.8 LOS A 5.5 40.8 0.24 0.24 0.24 29.6


＊ Critical Movement (Signal Timing)N1 Arrival Flow value is reduced due to capacity constraint at oversaturated upstream lanes.


QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed


South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.0 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 215.5 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.2 217.0 0.97

All


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.

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [EQ 4 Crossover - AM Peak - 2023 (Site Folder:

Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 27 0.0 26 0.0 0.113 2.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 24.3

2 T1 104 0.0 98 0.0 0.113 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 47.0


0.0 0.113 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.00 36.2


8 T1 93 0.0 93 0.0 0.062 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 46.9

9 R2 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.062 4.4 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 32.8

Approach 116 0.0 116 0.0 0.062 1.0 NA 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 42.1

West: EQ 4 Crossover

10 L2 12 0.0 12 0.0 0.044 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.23 0.53 0.23 24.7

12 R2 28 0.0 28 0.0 0.044 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.23 0.53 0.23 24.7

Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.044 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.23 0.53 0.23 24.7


0.0 0.113 1.2 NA 0.1 0.4 0.07 0.18 0.07 37.1




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [North Crossover - AM Peak - 2023 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William st

2 T1 842 6.1 792 6.2 0.660 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.3


6.2 0.660 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.3

East: EQ 2 & 3 North Access

4 L2 3 0.0 3 0.0 0.007 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.40 0.50 0.40 17.7

Approach 3 0.0 3 0.0 0.007 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.40 0.50 0.40 17.7

North: William St

7 L2 38 0.0 35 0.0 0.217 3.4 LOS A 4.8 35.1 0.00 0.04 0.00 28.8

8 T1 827 6.0 775 6.1 0.217 0.0 LOS A 4.8 35.1 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.1


5.9 0.217 0.2 NA 4.8 35.1 0.00 0.02 0.00 38.4


16.3 0.660 0.1 NA 4.8 35.1 0.00 0.01 0.00 38.6




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [South Crossover - AM Peak - 2023 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Riverside Dr

2 T1 199 4.0 199 4.0 0.209 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 199 4.0 199 4.0 0.209 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

East: EQ 2 & 3 South Access

4 L2 106 0.0 106 0.0 0.091 3.7 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.44 0.54 0.44 34.6

Approach 106 0.0 106 0.0 0.091 3.7 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.44 0.54 0.44 34.6

North: Riverside Dr

7 L2 12 0.0 11 0.0 0.217 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 11.0

8 T1 842 6.0 800 6.1 0.217 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.9


6.0 0.217 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.4


15.2 0.217 0.4 NA 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.06 0.04 39.0





Peak - 2023 (Site Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.076 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5

6 R2 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.076 3.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5

Approach 143 0.0 143 0.0 0.076 0.7 NA 0.1 0.4 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5


7 L2 43 0.0 43 0.0 0.059 2.6 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.7

9 R2 34 0.0 34 0.0 0.059 3.4 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.7

Approach 77 0.0 77 0.0 0.059 2.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.7


10 L2 107 0.0 99 0.0 0.071 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5

11 T1 38 0.0 35 0.0 0.071 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.071 2.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.076 1.9 NA 0.1 0.6 0.06 0.26 0.06 32.2









ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 39 0.0 37 0.0 2.432 1387.0 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.82 7.80 0.2

3 R2 29 0.0 28 0.0 2.432 1467.8 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.82 7.80 0.2


0.0 2.432 1421.8 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.82 7.80 0.2

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 117 0.0 117 0.0 0.313 3.4 LOS A 6.6 48.1 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.1

5 T1 873 6.0 873 6.0 0.313 0.0 LOS A 6.6 48.1 0.00 0.05 0.00 38.3

Approach 989 5.3 989 5.3 0.313 0.4 NA 6.6 48.1 0.00 0.05 0.00 38.2

North: Howard St

7 L2 22 0.0 22 0.0 1.428 537.6 LOS F 4.9 34.4 1.00 2.37 4.59 0.8

9 R2 22 0.0 22 0.0 1.428 663.5 LOS F 4.9 34.4 1.00 2.37 4.59 0.8

Approach 44 0.0 44 0.0 1.428 600.6 LOS F 4.9 34.4 1.00 2.37 4.59 0.8

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1371 6.0 1350 6.0 0.356 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 1371 6.0 1350N

16.0 0.356 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


15.5 2.432 48.6 NA 7.9 55.0 0.04 0.17 0.29 5.9




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive - AM Peak - 2023

(Site Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 199 3.6 199 3.6 ＊0.926 76.4 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 1.17 1.46 3.4

Approach 199 3.6 199 3.6 0.926 76.4 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 1.17 1.46 3.4


24a L1 506 6.0 475 6.1 0.399 10.6 LOS B 3.3 25.5 0.51 0.45 0.51 13.5

26a R1 321 6.0 301 6.1 ＊0.347 23.3 LOS C 3.3 25.5 0.67 0.66 0.67 28.3


6.1 0.399 15.5 LOS B 3.3 25.5 0.57 0.53 0.57 24.4


7b L3 42 100.0 42 100.

00.040 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.55 0.00 39.3

9a R1 34 100.0 34 100.

00.250 56.7 LOS E 1.2 17.9 0.95 0.71 0.95 21.5

Approach 76 100.0 76 100.

00.250 29.5 LOS C 1.2 17.9 0.42 0.62 0.42 24.8


27 L2 8 10.0 8 10.0 0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 8.7

29a R1 5 10.0 5 10.0 ＊0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 8.7

Approach 14 10.0 14 10.0 0.149 64.3 LOS E 0.5 4.2 0.99 0.68 0.99 8.7


10a L1 560 4.0 560 4.0 0.633 27.5 LOS C 15.4 117.9 0.81 0.77 0.81 25.2

12 R2 348 4.0 348 4.0 ＊1.037 122.1 LOS F 19.9 152.0 1.00 1.41 1.77 11.2

Approach 908 4.0 908 4.0 1.037 63.8 LOS E 19.9 152.0 0.88 1.01 1.18 17.0

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.295 57.3 LOS E 1.4 20.4 0.96 0.72 0.96 21.4

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.295 57.3 LOS E 1.4 20.4 0.96 0.72 0.96 21.4


110.4 1.037 45.0 LOS D 19.9 152.0 0.76 0.82 0.94 17.2




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed

[ Ped Dist ]



P6 Full 26 56.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 84.7 37.0 0.44


P3 Full 26 56.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 80.1 31.0 0.39

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - AM Peak - 2023

(Site Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 842 6.1 798 6.2 0.425 0.0 LOS A 7.5 55.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


6.2 0.425 0.0 NA 7.5 55.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


4 L2 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.247 9.7 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.69 0.85 0.74 19.7

Approach 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.247 9.7 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.69 0.85 0.74 19.7

North: William St

7 L2 145 0.0 134 0.0 0.526 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2

8 T1 984 6.0 912 6.2 0.526 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2

Approach 1129 5.2 1047N

15.4 0.526 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2


15.5 0.526 1.0 NA 7.5 55.1 0.05 0.10 0.06 35.0




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - AM Peak - 2023 (Site

Folder: Open Year(2023)-AM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 225 24.7 217 25.4 ＊0.912 53.0 LOS D 7.9 62.0 0.85 0.94 1.11 11.0

3 R2 617 6.0 590 6.1 0.912 61.4 LOS E 7.9 62.0 0.89 1.04 1.21 4.9

Approach 842 11.0 807N1

11.3 0.912 59.2 LOS E 7.9 62.0 0.88 1.01 1.18 6.5

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 603 6.0 584 6.2 0.653 29.3 LOS C 10.2 80.0 0.86 0.83 0.86 9.8

5 T1 222 6.0 215 6.2 ＊0.828 62.9 LOS E 8.5 66.6 1.00 0.99 1.21 14.5


6.2 0.828 38.4 LOS D 10.2 80.0 0.90 0.87 0.95 12.1


7 L2 78 6.0 78 6.0 0.321 56.4 LOS E 2.7 20.8 0.94 0.76 0.94 7.9

8 T1 252 6.0 252 6.0 ＊0.846 60.6 LOS E 9.9 77.2 1.00 1.01 1.22 7.2

9 R2 122 100.0 122 100.

00.631 56.9 LOS E 4.4 66.4 0.98 0.84 1.01 17.2

Approach 452 31.4 452 31.4 0.846 58.9 LOS E 9.9 77.2 0.98 0.92 1.12 10.6


10 L2 160 4.0 160 4.0 0.579 40.4 LOS D 10.6 81.4 0.88 0.79 0.88 20.9

11 T1 527 4.0 527 4.0 0.579 37.8 LOS D 10.6 81.4 0.89 0.78 0.89 17.2

12 R2 264 4.0 264 4.0 ＊1.317 348.6 LOS F 27.1 207.5 1.00 2.19 3.03 3.0

Approach 952 4.0 952 4.0 1.317 124.5 LOS F 27.1 207.5 0.92 1.17 1.48 7.8


110.7 1.317 74.3 LOS E 27.1 207.5 0.91 1.01 1.21 8.5




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.1 LOS E 2.7 2.7 0.98 0.98 86.2 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.0 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 87.8 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.3 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.3 36.4 0.42

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Barrack St & Geoffrey Bolton Way PM Peak - 2023

(Site Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -

PM (Network Folder: General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

1 L2 13 0.0 13 0.0 0.180 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.3

2 T1 685 0.0 685 0.0 0.180 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.8

Approach 698 0.0 698 0.0 0.180 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.8

North: Barrack St

8 T1 954 0.0 954 0.0 0.489 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 954 0.0 954 0.0 0.489 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


10 L2 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.054 4.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.38 0.53 0.38 31.5

Approach 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.054 4.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.38 0.53 0.38 31.5


10.0 0.489 0.2 NA 0.1 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.01 39.3





2023 (Site Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.010 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.32 0.17 30.2

6 R2 12 0.0 12 0.0 0.010 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.32 0.17 30.2

Approach 17 0.0 17 0.0 0.010 2.6 NA 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.32 0.17 30.2

North: Duchess Way

7 L2 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.263 3.5 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2

9 R2 284 0.0 284 0.0 0.263 3.8 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2

Approach 332 0.0 332 0.0 0.263 3.8 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2


10 L2 66 0.0 65 0.0 0.043 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5

11 T1 18 0.0 17 0.0 0.043 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.043 2.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.263 3.5 NA 0.4 2.6 0.09 0.45 0.09 28.2




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - PM Peak- 2023 (Site

Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 66 0.0 65 0.0 0.431 62.7 LOS E 2.4 16.7 0.98 0.77 0.98 8.5


0.0 0.431 62.7 LOS E 2.4 16.7 0.98 0.77 0.98 8.5

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.285 8.2 LOS A 4.6 33.1 0.33 0.38 0.33 24.6

5 T1 695 6.0 695 6.0 0.285 4.8 LOS A 4.6 33.1 0.33 0.33 0.33 25.5

Approach 815 5.1 815 5.1 0.285 5.3 LOS A 4.6 33.3 0.33 0.34 0.33 25.4

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 17 0.0 17 0.0 0.440 55.1 LOS E 5.1 35.5 0.95 0.77 0.95 11.7

8 T1 132 0.0 132 0.0 ＊0.440 51.7 LOS D 5.1 35.5 0.95 0.77 0.95 8.0

Approach 148 0.0 148 0.0 0.440 52.1 LOS D 5.1 35.5 0.95 0.77 0.95 8.5

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1279 4.0 1270 4.0 ＊0.435 5.1 LOS A 6.8 49.6 0.31 0.29 0.31 31.1

Approach 1279 4.0 1270N

14.0 0.435 5.1 LOS A 6.8 49.6 0.31 0.29 0.31 31.1


14.0 0.440 9.8 LOS A 6.8 49.6 0.38 0.35 0.38 23.8




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed


South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.5 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 216.0 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.7 217.0 0.97

All


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.

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [North Crossover-AM peak - 2022 - PM Peak - 2023





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William st

2 T1 494 11.0 494 11.0 0.242 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 494 11.0 494 11.0 0.242 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


4 L2 324 0.0 324 0.0 0.861 16.2 LOS C 24.1 168.5 0.61 1.39 1.91 6.2

Approach 324 0.0 324 0.0 0.861 16.2 LOS C 24.1 168.5 0.61 1.39 1.91 6.2

North: William St

7 L2 89 0.0 83 0.0 0.318 3.4 LOS A 9.7 71.0 0.00 0.07 0.00 28.3

8 T1 1191 6.0 1104 6.1 0.318 0.0 LOS A 9.7 71.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.7

Approach 1280 5.6 1187N

15.6 0.318 0.3 NA 9.7 71.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 37.5


16.3 0.861 2.8 NA 24.1 168.5 0.10 0.24 0.31 26.5




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [South Crossover- PM Peak - 2023 (Site Folder:

Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Riverside Dr

2 T1 202 4.0 202 4.0 0.106 0.0 LOS A 0.6 4.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0

Approach 202 4.0 202 4.0 0.106 0.0 NA 0.6 4.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0


4 L2 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.042 4.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.55 0.58 0.55 33.0

Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.042 4.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.55 0.58 0.55 33.0

North: Riverside Dr

7 L2 79 0.0 75 0.0 0.370 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 10.9

8 T1 1378 6.0 1304 6.0 0.370 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.6

Approach 1457 5.7 1379N

15.7 0.370 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 37.9


15.6 0.370 0.3 NA 0.6 4.6 0.01 0.04 0.01 37.9




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [EQ 4 Crossover - PM Peak - 2023 (Site Folder:

Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 17 0.0 16 0.0 0.062 2.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 24.4

2 T1 69 0.0 65 0.0 0.062 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 47.7


0.0 0.062 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 37.0


8 T1 60 0.0 60 0.0 0.040 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 47.2

9 R2 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.040 4.2 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 32.9

Approach 76 0.0 76 0.0 0.040 0.9 NA 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 42.2


10 L2 12 0.0 12 0.0 0.041 3.2 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4

12 R2 32 0.0 32 0.0 0.041 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4

Approach 43 0.0 43 0.0 0.041 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4


0.0 0.062 1.3 NA 0.0 0.3 0.07 0.20 0.07 36.5




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Way & Geoffrey Bolton Way -PM Peak

- 2023 (Site Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 120 0.0 120 0.0 0.086 0.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.06 0.07 0.06 37.1

6 R2 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.086 3.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.06 0.07 0.06 37.1

Approach 140 0.0 140 0.0 0.086 0.6 NA 0.1 0.4 0.06 0.07 0.06 37.1


7 L2 63 0.0 63 0.0 0.098 2.6 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.07 0.45 0.07 21.9

9 R2 55 0.0 55 0.0 0.098 3.2 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.07 0.45 0.07 21.9

Approach 118 0.0 118 0.0 0.098 2.9 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.07 0.45 0.07 21.9


10 L2 66 0.0 60 0.0 0.043 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.9

11 T1 23 0.0 21 0.0 0.043 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.9


0.0 0.043 2.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.9


0.0 0.098 1.8 NA 0.1 0.9 0.05 0.27 0.05 31.9





2023 (Site Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 64 0.0 61 0.0 1.298 341.7 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.05 7.82 0.7

3 R2 48 0.0 46 0.0 1.298 402.8 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.05 7.82 0.7


0.0 1.298 368.0 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.05 7.82 0.7

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 76 0.0 76 0.0 0.368 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.0

5 T1 668 6.0 668 6.0 0.368 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 38.4

Approach 744 5.4 744 5.4 0.368 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 38.3

North: Howard St

7 L2 22 0.0 22 0.0 0.584 34.6 LOS D 0.6 4.4 0.87 1.10 1.28 6.8

9 R2 22 0.0 22 0.0 0.584 95.2 LOS F 0.6 4.4 0.87 1.10 1.28 6.8

Approach 44 0.0 44 0.0 0.584 64.9 LOS F 0.6 4.4 0.87 1.10 1.28 6.8

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1087 4.0 1087 4.0 0.283 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 1087 4.0 1087 4.0 0.283 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


14.2 1.298 21.6 NA 7.9 55.0 0.07 0.26 0.45 11.2




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - PM Peak - 2023





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 494 11.0 494 11.0 0.419 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7

Approach 494 11.0 494 11.0 0.419 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7


4 L2 324 0.0 324 0.0 1.133 162.0 LOS F 12.7 89.0 1.00 5.00 10.69 2.2

Approach 324 0.0 324 0.0 1.133 162.0 LOS F 12.7 89.0 1.00 5.00 10.69 2.2

North: William St

7 L2 89 0.0 81 0.0 0.582 3.4 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.2

8 T1 1191 6.0 1078 6.2 0.582 0.1 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.2

Approach 1280 5.6 1159N

15.8 0.582 0.3 NA 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.2


16.4 1.133 26.7 NA 12.7 89.0 0.16 0.84 1.75 8.4




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - PM Peak - 2023 (Site

Folder: Open Year (2023) - PM)]Network: N101 [Open Year -




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 80 61.9 80 61.9 ＊0.535 41.7 LOS D 7.2 57.1 0.86 0.70 0.86 12.5

3 R2 414 6.0 414 6.0 0.535 46.5 LOS D 7.3 56.9 0.91 0.79 0.91 6.3

Approach 494 15.1 494 15.1 0.535 45.8 LOS D 7.3 57.1 0.90 0.78 0.90 7.4

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 464 6.0 457 6.1 1.021 113.6 LOS F 10.2 80.0 1.00 1.30 1.61 3.1

5 T1 254 6.0 250 6.1 ＊0.858 64.9 LOS E 10.1 78.9 1.00 1.02 1.24 14.3


6.1 1.021 96.4 LOS F 10.2 80.0 1.00 1.20 1.48 6.5


7 L2 67 6.0 67 6.0 0.183 47.2 LOS D 2.1 16.3 0.86 0.73 0.86 9.1

8 T1 407 6.0 407 6.0 ＊0.979 88.5 LOS F 20.5 160.5 1.00 1.27 1.52 5.2

9 R2 107 100.0 107 100.

00.397 46.5 LOS D 3.4 51.5 0.88 0.76 0.88 19.3

Approach 582 23.3 582 23.3 0.979 76.0 LOS E 20.5 160.5 0.96 1.12 1.32 7.9


10 L2 75 4.0 75 4.0 0.564 38.3 LOS D 10.9 83.7 0.86 0.76 0.86 21.6

11 T1 652 4.0 652 4.0 0.564 35.5 LOS D 11.0 84.2 0.87 0.76 0.87 17.8

12 R2 352 4.0 352 4.0 ＊1.526 531.0 LOS F 45.2 346.4 1.00 2.66 3.69 2.0

Approach 1078 4.0 1078 4.0 1.526 197.3 LOS F 45.2 346.4 0.91 1.38 1.79 5.1


110.4 1.526 121.5 LOS F 45.2 346.4 0.94 1.18 1.46 5.9




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.6 LOS E 2.8 2.8 0.98 0.98 86.7 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.5 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 88.3 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.8 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.8 36.4 0.41

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive - PM Peak - 2023





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 202 4.0 202 4.0 ＊0.783 60.9 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 0.94 1.14 4.2

Approach 202 4.0 202 4.0 0.783 60.9 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 0.94 1.14 4.2


24a L1 1202 6.0 1137 6.0 1.012 83.2 LOS F 3.3 25.5 1.00 1.38 1.44 2.4

26a R1 359 6.0 340 6.0 ＊0.447 29.6 LOS C 3.3 25.5 0.77 0.73 0.77 26.0

Approach 1561 6.0 1477N

16.0 1.012 70.9 LOS E 3.3 25.5 0.95 1.23 1.29 7.3


7b L3 35 100.0 35 100.

00.033 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.55 0.00 39.3

9a R1 37 100.0 37 100.

00.227 53.9 LOS D 1.3 19.1 0.93 0.70 0.93 22.0

Approach 72 100.0 72 100.

00.227 31.4 LOS C 1.3 19.1 0.48 0.63 0.48 24.6


27 L2 21 10.0 21 10.0 0.491 59.8 LOS E 3.3 27.0 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.9

29a R1 69 10.0 69 10.0 ＊0.491 59.8 LOS E 3.3 27.0 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.9

Approach 91 10.0 91 10.0 0.491 59.8 LOS E 3.3 27.0 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.9


10a L1 226 4.0 226 4.0 0.292 27.4 LOS C 5.6 42.5 0.71 0.67 0.71 25.3

12 R2 173 4.0 173 4.0 ＊0.703 61.1 LOS E 6.5 49.4 1.00 0.86 1.07 17.6

Approach 399 4.0 399 4.0 0.703 42.0 LOS D 6.5 49.4 0.83 0.75 0.86 21.2

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 19.8 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 19.8 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9


110.4 1.012 63.0 LOS E 7.2 55.0 0.92 1.08 1.16 10.5



Pedestrian Movement PerformanceAVERAGE BACK OF Mov Dem. Aver. Level of Prop. Effective Travel Travel Aver.

QUEUEIDCrossing

Flow Delay Service Que Stop Rate

Time Dist. Speed[ Ped Dist ]



P6 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 85.2 37.0 0.43


P3 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 80.6 31.0 0.38

All





2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast

Year - AM (Network Folder: General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

1 L2 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.313 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.1

2 T1 1138 7.0 1138 7.0 0.313 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

Approach 1161 6.9 1161 6.9 0.313 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.7

North: Barrack St

8 T1 886 0.0 886 0.0 0.455 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 886 0.0 886 0.0 0.455 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


10 L2 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.051 5.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.51 0.64 0.51 30.3

Approach 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.051 5.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.51 0.64 0.51 30.3


13.8 0.455 0.2 NA 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.02 0.01 39.4




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [EQ 4 Crossover - AM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:

Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 27 0.0 25 0.0 0.063 2.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 24.4

2 T1 105 0.0 98 0.0 0.063 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 47.1


0.0 0.063 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 36.3


8 T1 94 0.0 94 0.0 0.062 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 46.9

9 R2 23 0.0 23 0.0 0.062 4.4 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 32.9

Approach 117 0.0 117 0.0 0.062 1.0 NA 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.11 0.10 42.2


10 L2 12 0.0 12 0.0 0.045 3.3 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.23 0.54 0.23 24.6

12 R2 28 0.0 28 0.0 0.045 3.7 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.23 0.54 0.23 24.6

Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.045 3.6 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.23 0.54 0.23 24.6


0.0 0.063 1.2 NA 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.17 0.07 37.2




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [North Crossover- AM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William st

2 T1 916 8.6 780 9.4 0.389 0.0 LOS A 3.5 25.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


9.4 0.389 0.0 NA 3.5 25.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


4 L2 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.348 4.6 LOS A 1.7 11.6 0.46 0.68 0.51 15.6

Approach 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.348 4.6 LOS A 1.7 11.6 0.46 0.68 0.51 15.6

North: William St

7 L2 145 0.0 134 0.0 0.281 3.4 LOS A 4.2 30.4 0.00 0.12 0.00 27.5

8 T1 984 6.0 913 6.2 0.281 0.0 LOS A 4.4 32.6 0.00 0.05 0.00 37.9

Approach 1129 5.2 1047N

15.4 0.281 0.5 NA 4.4 32.6 0.00 0.06 0.00 35.9


17.0 0.389 0.6 NA 4.4 32.6 0.04 0.08 0.04 34.8




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [South Crossover - AM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Riverside Dr

2 T1 218 4.0 218 4.0 0.115 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0

Approach 218 4.0 218 4.0 0.115 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0


4 L2 106 0.0 106 0.0 0.093 3.8 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.45 0.55 0.45 34.4

Approach 106 0.0 106 0.0 0.093 3.8 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.45 0.55 0.45 34.4

North: Riverside Dr

7 L2 12 0.0 11 0.0 0.229 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 11.0

8 T1 921 6.0 843 6.2 0.229 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.9


6.1 0.229 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.5


15.4 0.229 0.4 NA 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.05 0.04 39.1





Peak - 2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 131 0.0 131 0.0 0.083 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5

6 R2 25 0.0 25 0.0 0.083 3.9 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5

Approach 156 0.0 156 0.0 0.083 0.7 NA 0.1 0.5 0.09 0.08 0.09 36.5


7 L2 43 0.0 43 0.0 0.060 2.6 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.6

9 R2 35 0.0 35 0.0 0.060 3.4 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.6

Approach 78 0.0 78 0.0 0.060 3.0 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.10 0.45 0.10 21.6


10 L2 107 0.0 98 0.0 0.070 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5

11 T1 39 0.0 36 0.0 0.070 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.070 2.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.083 1.8 NA 0.1 0.6 0.06 0.25 0.06 32.4





2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 40 0.0 38 0.0 3.371 2237.0 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.44 7.22 0.1

3 R2 31 0.0 29 0.0 3.371 2312.4 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.44 7.22 0.1


0.0 3.371 2269.7 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 3.44 7.22 0.1

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 118 0.0 118 0.0 0.364 3.4 LOS A 8.9 64.7 0.00 0.08 0.00 37.5

5 T1 955 6.0 955 6.0 0.364 0.0 LOS A 8.9 64.7 0.00 0.05 0.00 38.3

Approach 1073 5.3 1073 5.3 0.364 0.4 NA 8.9 64.7 0.00 0.05 0.00 38.2

North: Howard St

7 L2 24 0.0 24 0.0 2.360 1351.7 LOS F 8.9 62.5 1.00 2.81 5.84 0.4

9 R2 24 0.0 24 0.0 2.360 1450.9 LOS F 8.9 62.5 1.00 2.81 5.84 0.4

Approach 48 0.0 48 0.0 2.360 1401.3 LOS F 8.9 62.5 1.00 2.81 5.84 0.4

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1502 4.0 1454 4.0 0.379 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 1502 4.0 1454N

14.0 0.379 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


14.4 3.371 82.7 NA 8.9 64.7 0.04 0.16 0.29 3.7




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - AM Peak - 2033

(Site Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 916 8.6 816 9.2 0.408 0.0 LOS A 9.8 71.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


9.2 0.408 0.0 NA 9.8 71.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


4 L2 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.242 9.5 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.69 0.85 0.72 20.0

Approach 154 0.0 154 0.0 0.242 9.5 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.69 0.85 0.72 20.0

North: William St

7 L2 145 0.0 133 0.0 0.520 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2

8 T1 984 6.0 901 6.3 0.520 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2

Approach 1129 5.2 1034N

15.5 0.520 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.00 37.2


16.9 0.520 1.0 NA 9.8 71.0 0.05 0.10 0.06 35.1




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - AM Peak - 2033 (Site

Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 240 23.5 225 24.7 ＊0.994 81.2 LOS F 7.9 62.0 0.86 1.13 1.36 8.5

3 R2 676 6.0 625 6.2 0.994 95.8 LOS F 7.9 62.0 0.90 1.26 1.51 3.3

Approach 916 10.6 850N1

11.1 0.994 91.9 LOS F 7.9 62.0 0.89 1.22 1.47 4.4

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 659 6.0 632 6.3 0.707 31.1 LOS C 10.2 80.0 0.90 0.85 0.90 9.3

5 T1 240 6.0 230 6.3 ＊0.887 68.5 LOS E 9.6 75.4 1.00 1.08 1.32 13.8


6.3 0.887 41.1 LOS D 10.2 80.0 0.92 0.91 1.01 11.5


7 L2 85 6.0 85 6.0 0.351 56.6 LOS E 2.9 22.9 0.95 0.76 0.95 7.8

8 T1 274 6.0 274 6.0 ＊0.939 76.5 LOS E 12.4 96.5 1.00 1.20 1.45 5.9

9 R2 122 100.0 122 100.

00.631 56.9 LOS E 4.4 66.4 0.98 0.84 1.01 17.2

Approach 481 29.9 481 29.9 0.939 68.0 LOS E 12.4 96.5 0.99 1.03 1.25 9.3


10 L2 175 4.0 175 4.0 0.655 41.7 LOS D 12.4 95.0 0.91 0.81 0.91 20.6

11 T1 578 4.0 578 4.0 0.655 38.6 LOS D 12.4 95.0 0.91 0.80 0.91 17.0

12 R2 276 4.0 276 4.0 ＊1.374 398.0 LOS F 30.4 232.8 1.00 2.33 3.23 2.6

Approach 1028 4.0 1028 4.0 1.374 135.5 LOS F 30.4 232.8 0.93 1.21 1.53 7.3


110.4 1.374 88.7 LOS F 30.4 232.8 0.93 1.11 1.33 7.4




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.1 LOS E 2.7 2.7 0.98 0.98 86.2 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.0 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 56.8 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 87.8 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.3 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.3 36.4 0.42

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive - AM Peak - 2033

(Site Folder: Forecast Year(2033)-AM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 218 4.0 218 4.0 ＊2.033 977.6 LOS F 7.2 55.0 1.00 3.07 4.87 0.3

Approach 218 4.0 218 4.0 2.033 977.6 LOS F 7.2 55.0 1.00 3.07 4.87 0.3


24a L1 552 6.0 517 6.1 0.434 11.0 LOS B 3.3 25.5 0.52 0.47 0.52 13.3

26a R1 351 6.0 329 6.1 ＊0.379 23.7 LOS C 3.3 25.5 0.68 0.68 0.68 28.2


6.1 0.434 15.9 LOS B 3.3 25.5 0.59 0.55 0.59 24.2


7b L3 42 100.0 42 100.

00.040 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.55 0.00 39.3

9a R1 34 100.0 34 100.

00.250 56.7 LOS E 1.2 17.9 0.95 0.71 0.95 21.5

Approach 76 100.0 76 100.

00.250 29.5 LOS C 1.2 17.9 0.42 0.62 0.42 24.8


27 L2 9 10.0 9 10.0 0.275 67.4 LOS E 0.6 5.0 0.99 0.70 0.99 8.4

29a R1 6 10.0 6 10.0 ＊0.275 67.4 LOS E 0.6 5.0 0.99 0.70 0.99 8.4

Approach 16 10.0 16 10.0 0.275 67.4 LOS E 0.6 5.0 0.99 0.70 0.99 8.4


10a L1 612 4.0 612 4.0 1.382 408.1 LOS F 71.9 550.5 1.00 2.71 3.22 4.1

12 R2 382 4.0 382 4.0 ＊1.137 195.7 LOS F 28.3 216.9 1.00 1.74 2.22 7.7

Approach 994 4.0 994 4.0 1.382 326.4 LOS F 71.9 550.5 1.00 2.34 2.84 5.0

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.295 57.3 LOS E 1.4 20.4 0.96 0.72 0.96 21.4

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.295 57.3 LOS E 1.4 20.4 0.96 0.72 0.96 21.4


110.0 2.033 254.4 LOS F 71.9 550.5 0.82 1.62 2.04 4.6




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed

[ Ped Dist ] Rateped/h sec ped m sec m m/sec


P6 Full 26 56.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 84.7 37.0 0.44


P3 Full 26 56.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 80.1 31.0 0.39

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Barrack St & Geoffrey Bolton Way- PM Peak - 2033

(Site Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast

Year - PM (Network Folder: General)]



ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Barrack St

1 L2 13 0.0 13 0.0 0.204 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.3

2 T1 745 7.0 745 7.0 0.204 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.8

Approach 758 6.9 758 6.9 0.204 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 39.8

North: Barrack St

8 T1 1039 7.0 1039 7.0 0.557 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7

Approach 1039 7.0 1039 7.0 0.557 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.7


10 L2 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.056 4.7 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.41 0.55 0.41 31.3

Approach 65 0.0 65 0.0 0.056 4.7 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.41 0.55 0.41 31.3


16.7 0.557 0.2 NA 0.1 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.01 39.3





2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.011 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

6 R2 13 0.0 13 0.0 0.011 3.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

Approach 18 0.0 18 0.0 0.011 2.7 NA 0.0 0.1 0.17 0.33 0.17 30.0

North: Duchess Way

7 L2 47 0.0 47 0.0 0.346 3.5 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2

9 R2 309 0.0 309 0.0 0.346 3.8 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2

Approach 357 0.0 357 0.0 0.346 3.8 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.11 0.48 0.11 27.2


10 L2 67 0.0 65 0.0 0.043 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5

11 T1 18 0.0 17 0.0 0.043 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.043 2.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.346 3.5 NA 0.4 2.9 0.09 0.45 0.09 28.1




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Duchess Wy & The Esplanade - PM Peak- 2033 (Site

Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Duchess Wy

3 R2 67 0.0 65 0.0 0.459 63.9 LOS E 2.4 17.0 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.3


0.0 0.459 63.9 LOS E 2.4 17.0 0.99 0.77 0.99 8.3

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 129 0.0 129 0.0 0.359 8.6 LOS A 4.5 32.8 0.36 0.42 0.36 23.7

5 T1 757 6.0 757 6.0 0.359 5.2 LOS A 6.2 45.4 0.36 0.35 0.36 24.9

Approach 886 5.1 886 5.1 0.359 5.7 LOS A 6.2 45.4 0.36 0.36 0.36 24.7

North: Sherwood Ct

7 L2 18 0.0 18 0.0 0.477 55.5 LOS E 5.5 38.8 0.96 0.78 0.96 11.6

8 T1 143 0.0 143 0.0 ＊0.477 52.1 LOS D 5.5 38.8 0.96 0.78 0.96 8.0

Approach 161 0.0 161 0.0 0.477 52.4 LOS D 5.5 38.8 0.96 0.78 0.96 8.4

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1399 4.0 1354 4.1 ＊0.464 5.4 LOS A 8.6 62.0 0.35 0.32 0.35 30.7

Approach 1399 4.0 1354N

14.1 0.464 5.4 LOS A 8.6 62.0 0.35 0.32 0.35 30.7


14.1 0.477 10.1 LOS B 8.6 62.0 0.41 0.38 0.41 23.5




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed


South: Duchess Wy

P1 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 217.5 209.0 0.96

North: Sherwood Ct

P3 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 216.0 207.0 0.96

West: The Esplanade

P4 Full 53 56.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95 223.7 217.0 0.97

All



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.


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [EQ 4 Crossover- PM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:

Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 17 0.0 15 0.0 0.073 2.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 24.4

2 T1 71 0.0 64 0.0 0.073 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 47.8


0.0 0.073 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 0.00 37.1


8 T1 61 0.0 61 0.0 0.070 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 47.3

9 R2 16 0.0 16 0.0 0.070 4.2 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 33.0

Approach 77 0.0 77 0.0 0.070 0.9 NA 0.0 0.3 0.08 0.12 0.08 42.3


10 L2 12 0.0 12 0.0 0.068 3.2 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4

12 R2 32 0.0 32 0.0 0.068 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4

Approach 43 0.0 43 0.0 0.068 3.3 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.18 0.52 0.18 25.4


0.0 0.073 1.3 NA 0.0 0.3 0.07 0.20 0.07 36.6




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [North Crossover - PM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William st

2 T1 537 12.5 537 12.5 0.268 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9

Approach 537 12.5 537 12.5 0.268 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.9


4 L2 27 0.0 27 0.0 0.110 7.7 LOS A 2.6 18.2 0.64 0.80 0.64 11.1

Approach 27 0.0 27 0.0 0.110 7.7 LOS A 2.6 18.2 0.64 0.80 0.64 11.1

North: William St

7 L2 3 0.0 3 0.0 0.415 3.4 LOS A 9.6 71.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.4

8 T1 1697 6.0 1543 6.3 0.415 0.0 LOS A 9.6 71.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 1700 6.0 1546N

16.2 0.415 0.0 NA 9.6 71.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


18.0 0.415 0.1 NA 9.6 71.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 39.2




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 102 [South Crossover - PM Peak - 2033 (Site Folder:





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: Riverside Dr

2 T1 221 4.0 221 4.0 0.116 0.0 LOS A 1.8 13.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0

Approach 221 4.0 221 4.0 0.116 0.0 NA 1.8 13.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.0


4 L2 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.043 5.0 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.55 0.59 0.55 32.9

Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.043 5.0 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.55 0.59 0.55 32.9

North: Riverside Dr

7 L2 79 0.0 70 0.0 0.376 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 10.9

8 T1 1505 6.0 1331 6.2 0.376 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 39.6

Approach 1584 5.7 1401N

15.9 0.376 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.00 38.0


16.0 0.376 0.3 NA 1.8 13.3 0.01 0.03 0.01 38.1




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [Enchantress Way & Geoffrey Bolton Way- PM Peak

- 2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



5 T1 295 0.0 295 0.0 0.163 0.0 LOS A 2.3 16.2 0.03 0.03 0.03 38.6

6 R2 21 0.0 21 0.0 0.163 3.8 LOS A 2.3 16.2 0.03 0.03 0.03 38.6

Approach 316 0.0 316 0.0 0.163 0.3 NA 2.3 16.2 0.03 0.03 0.03 38.6


7 L2 64 0.0 64 0.0 0.145 2.6 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.06 0.46 0.06 20.6

9 R2 55 0.0 55 0.0 0.145 4.1 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.06 0.46 0.06 20.6

Approach 119 0.0 119 0.0 0.145 3.3 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.06 0.46 0.06 20.6


10 L2 67 0.0 59 0.0 0.042 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5

11 T1 24 0.0 21 0.0 0.042 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.042 2.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.34 0.00 31.5


0.0 0.163 1.3 NA 2.3 16.2 0.03 0.18 0.03 34.3





2033 (Site Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



1 L2 64 0.0 60 0.0 4.534 3261.2 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.55 9.02 0.1

3 R2 49 0.0 47 0.0 4.534 3309.2 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.55 9.02 0.1


0.0 4.534 3282.1 LOS F 7.9 55.0 1.00 4.55 9.02 0.1

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 77 0.0 77 0.0 0.213 3.4 LOS A 6.5 47.5 0.00 0.09 0.00 37.3

5 T1 729 6.0 729 6.0 0.213 0.0 LOS A 6.5 47.5 0.00 0.04 0.00 38.7

Approach 806 5.4 806 5.4 0.213 0.3 NA 6.5 47.5 0.00 0.04 0.00 38.5

North: Howard St

7 L2 24 0.0 24 0.0 2.208 1201.6 LOS F 8.4 58.6 1.00 2.88 6.19 0.4

9 R2 24 0.0 24 0.0 2.208 1293.8 LOS F 8.4 58.6 1.00 2.88 6.19 0.4

Approach 48 0.0 48 0.0 2.208 1247.7 LOS F 8.4 58.6 1.00 2.88 6.19 0.4

West: The Esplanade

11 T1 1502 4.0 1502 4.0 0.416 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8

Approach 1502 4.0 1502 4.0 0.416 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.8


14.2 4.534 167.1 NA 8.4 58.6 0.06 0.27 0.51 1.9




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 101 [William St & Geoffrey Bolton Ave - PM Peak - 2033





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed


South: William St

2 T1 537 12.5 537 12.5 0.525 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5

Approach 537 12.5 537 12.5 0.525 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.5


4 L2 324 0.0 324 0.0 1.031 90.2 LOS F 12.7 89.0 1.00 3.49 6.84 3.8

Approach 324 0.0 324 0.0 1.031 90.2 LOS F 12.7 89.0 1.00 3.49 6.84 3.8

North: William St

7 L2 89 0.0 77 0.0 0.558 3.4 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.3

8 T1 1191 6.0 1031 6.4 0.558 0.0 LOS A 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.3

Approach 1280 5.6 1109N

15.9 0.558 0.3 NA 8.4 62.0 0.00 0.03 0.00 38.3


17.0 1.031 15.0 NA 12.7 89.0 0.16 0.59 1.13 13.0




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 37 [William St & Mounts Bay Rd - PM Peak - 2033 (Site

Folder: Forecast Year (2033) - PM)]Network: N101 [Forecast




ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



2 T1 83 77.7 83 77.7 ＊0.611 41.7 LOS D 7.7 61.3 0.86 0.70 0.86 12.5

3 R2 454 6.0 454 6.0 0.611 47.0 LOS D 7.8 61.3 0.92 0.80 0.92 6.2

Approach 537 17.1 537 17.1 0.611 46.2 LOS D 7.8 61.3 0.91 0.78 0.91 7.3

East: The Esplanade

4 L2 504 6.0 466 6.5 1.046 129.8 LOS F 10.2 80.0 1.00 1.38 1.72 2.7

5 T1 273 6.0 252 6.5 ＊0.869 66.0 LOS E 10.2 80.0 1.00 1.03 1.26 14.1


6.5 1.046 107.4 LOS F 10.2 80.0 1.00 1.26 1.56 5.9


7 L2 75 6.0 75 6.0 0.203 47.5 LOS D 2.3 18.1 0.87 0.73 0.87 9.0

8 T1 445 6.0 445 6.0 ＊1.072 145.5 LOS F 29.4 229.6 1.00 1.59 1.91 3.3

9 R2 107 100.0 107 100.

00.397 46.5 LOS D 3.4 51.5 0.88 0.76 0.88 19.3

Approach 627 22.1 627 22.1 1.072 116.9 LOS F 29.4 229.6 0.96 1.34 1.61 5.3


10 L2 82 4.0 82 4.0 0.639 39.6 LOS D 12.8 98.2 0.90 0.79 0.90 21.3

11 T1 714 4.0 714 4.0 0.639 36.3 LOS D 12.8 98.2 0.89 0.78 0.89 17.6

12 R2 374 4.0 374 4.0 ＊1.622 615.0 LOS F 51.6 395.3 1.00 2.83 3.95 1.8

Approach 1169 4.0 1169 4.0 1.622 221.5 LOS F 51.6 395.3 0.92 1.44 1.87 4.6


110.6 1.622 142.3 LOS F 51.6 395.3 0.95 1.26 1.57 5.1




QUEUEMovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P1 Full 789 58.6 LOS E 2.8 2.8 0.98 0.98 86.7 36.6 0.42

East: The Esplanade

P2 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 89.5 41.9 0.47


P3 Full 263 57.3 LOS E 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.96 88.3 40.3 0.46


P4 Full 1263 59.8 LOS E 4.5 4.5 1.00 1.00 87.8 36.4 0.41

All




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 849 [William Street & Riverside Drive - PM Peak - 2033





ARRIVAL FLOWS


MovID

Turn Deg.Satn

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Aver. No.Cycles

Aver.Speed



3a R1 221 4.0 221 4.0 ＊0.856 65.7 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 1.04 1.26 3.9

Approach 221 4.0 221 4.0 0.856 65.7 LOS E 7.2 55.0 1.00 1.04 1.26 3.9


24a L1 1306 6.0 1191 6.2 1.061 118.4 LOS F 3.3 25.5 1.00 1.63 1.69 1.7

26a R1 392 6.0 357 6.2 ＊0.471 29.9 LOS C 3.3 25.5 0.78 0.73 0.78 25.9

Approach 1698 6.0 1548N

16.2 1.061 98.0 LOS F 3.3 25.5 0.95 1.42 1.48 5.5


7b L3 35 100.0 35 100.

00.033 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.55 0.00 39.3

9a R1 37 100.0 37 100.

00.227 53.9 LOS D 1.3 19.1 0.93 0.70 0.93 22.0

Approach 72 100.0 72 100.

00.227 31.4 LOS C 1.3 19.1 0.48 0.63 0.48 24.6


27 L2 23 10.0 23 10.0 0.536 60.2 LOS E 3.7 29.7 1.00 0.78 1.00 8.9

29a R1 76 10.0 76 10.0 ＊0.536 60.2 LOS E 3.7 29.7 1.00 0.78 1.00 8.9

Approach 99 10.0 99 10.0 0.536 60.2 LOS E 3.7 29.7 1.00 0.78 1.00 8.9


10a L1 246 4.0 246 4.0 0.318 27.7 LOS C 6.1 46.9 0.72 0.68 0.72 25.2

12 R2 189 4.0 189 4.0 ＊0.771 63.5 LOS E 7.3 56.0 1.00 0.92 1.14 17.3

Approach 436 4.0 436 4.0 0.771 43.3 LOS D 7.3 56.0 0.84 0.78 0.90 20.9

SouthWest: Busway

30a L1 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 19.8 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9

Approach 38 100.0 38 100.

00.245 54.2 LOS D 1.3 19.8 0.93 0.71 0.93 21.9


110.3 1.061 80.9 LOS F 7.3 56.0 0.92 1.21 1.29 8.7



Pedestrian Movement Performance


MovID Crossing

Dem.Flow

Aver.Delay

Level ofService

Prop.Que

EffectiveStop Rate

Travel Time

Travel Dist.

Aver. Speed



P6 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 85.2 37.0 0.43


P3 Full 26 56.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95 80.6 31.0 0.38

All







APPENDIX D: MOBILEDOCK SYSTEM INFORMATION

CONFIDENTIAL

MobileDOCKSmart solution for the problems of Urban Developments

12 November 2020 | Presentation

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIALIntelligent Docks2 |

MOBILEDOCK

- AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR THE GROUND

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL5 |

ICONIC CITY LOCATIONS HAVE COMPLEX SUPPLY CHAINS

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL6 |

..WHICH ARE USUALLY MANUALLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED

Manual Planning

INEFFICIENT AND HIGH COST, AND HIGH RISK

Manual Execution

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL7 |

..AND DRIVES BEST PRACTICE

Automated & Coordinated Electronic Execution

AUTOMATED, EFFICIENT, PLANNED, AND CONTROLLED

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – ENABLING A CONNECTED BUILDING

8 |

Check In/out via Bar code /PIN

Automated Access Control –

Boom Gates (Optional)

Community Access via

Smartphone

Analytics/ Alerts

Residential

Commercial

Hotel

Services

Automated Access Control –

License Plate Recognition (Optional)

Approve Appointment

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL9 |

REDUCED CONGESTIONReduced site congestion

Reduced congestion on surrounding city roads

Control & restrict site access as required

IMPROVED VISIBILITYVisibility of arrivals, types & quantities of inbound goods

Driver prompted ETA’s advising docks of their arrival

Dock resourcing planned to meet known demand

IMPROVED SITE AMENITYStreamlined schedule of activities for more organised locations /events

Competitive advantage over other locations/event centres

IMPROVED SAFETYLimit access to site to those who need to be there

Control the number and type of vehicles by time of day

GREATER SECURITYAccess for inbound deliveries, contractors, service agents, exhibitors pre-approved by event

Unique barcoded appointment numbers

Integration with access control capabilities - license plate recognition, boom gates etc

PROVEN TECHNOLOGYDelivering benefits across thousands of carriers and suppliers, with over 4 million appointments executed

Over 95% of appointments auto-approved

MOBILEDOCK – DELIVERS BENEFITS

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – FROM DESIGN > OPERATIONS

DESIGN >

Design the optimal number of docks

needed returning valuable space at

your site for commercial use

OPERATE

Control site amenity through

MobileDOCK automated self

service appointment booking

BUILD >

Efficient & flexible scheduling of

construction and fit-out processes using on

street, or temporary/virtual dock spaces

Barangaroo, Sydney, Australia

10 | Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL11 |

Booking Engine

The booking process is controlled by a wizard

MOBILEDOCK – BOOKINGS MADE EASY

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL12 |

MOBILEDOCK – MADE EASY FOR CARRIERS

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – MADE EASY FOR DRIVERS

13 |

Option: Mobile based execution

Option: paper based execution

Option: old school !

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – MADE EASY FOR DOCK MASTERS


Visibility of future appointments puts the dock master in control of the site

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – MADE EASY FOR DOCK MASTERS


Alternate views of bookings available for review

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – DELIVERY DISTANCING FOR COVID19


Safe, Secure, No Contact Commercial Deliveries to City Destinations

At a time when personal safety has never been more important, and where everyone has a part to play in safety, the ability tocontrol commercial deliveries into city destinations is high on the agenda for all city destinations (commercial buildings, retail centers, residential complexes, warehouses, hospitals, education facilities, Government offices).

Much focus has been given to B2C deliveries, where courier drivers and food deliverers are all adapting to community restrictions on contact between people. Home deliveries are critical to social distancing requirements being set and enforced by governments.

But what about B2B delivery activities. Loading docks inside these buildings have limited access and limited space.

The safety of delivery drivers and load dock personnel is important.

Only authorised vehicles/drivers should be admitted to a loading dock, and only for valid purposes, and following processes which ensure safety for all.

This includes controlling which deliveries should be made, from which suppliers, by which carriers, to which tenants, and most importantly when.

When is critical, as controlling how many vehicles/drivers are allowed into a facility at any one time, to ensure drivers and dock personnel are not in direct contact, or too close.

This is where Delivery Distancing becomes a requirement.

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – DELIVERY DISTANCING FOR COVID19


Delivery DistancingSafe, Secure, No Contact Commercial Deliveries to City Destinations

Verifying which companies can make deliveries

Setting rules about when deliveries can be made• Types of vehicles• Types of products• Number of spaces available• Number of vehicles on site• Priority of deliveries

Automatic approval• Date• Time• Allocated bay

Safety instructions• Notifying all related people

Verifying arrivals electronically• Correct company• Correct time

Ask safety questions and collect responses• Have you been in contact with a person with flu symptoms?• Do you feel well?

Measure temperature• Checking vehicles in electronically• Notifying tenants of arrival

Delivery Distancing has a number of characteristics including:

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – OUR DIFFERENCE

Local Presence

Bestrane have been operating in the Australian market for over 14 years.

We continue to develop the MobileDOCK solution locally, and directly provide support to our customers, and their transporters engaging with the solution.

Proven Technology

MobileDOCK is used by increasing range of customers, and transporters in the Australian market

The MobileDOCK platform has • Managed over 4 million appointments• Over 3,000 supplier/carrier relationships established

Our experience, and local presence

reduces your implementation

risk


CONFIDENTIAL19 |

SELECTED CASE STUDIES

Intelligent Docks

20 |

ChallengeBarangaroo is one of Australia’s busiest commercial, retail and tourism precincts with 32 retailers, 11,000 office workers and 1,200 residents.

All commercial loading docks (90+ bays)are located underground, accessible via a single entry/exit ramp, and no space for queuing.

BARANGAROO – SYDNEY

SolutionMobileDOCK was installed during the construction stage of International Towers and then also implemented after construction to help manage their docks.

Outcomes• Over 95% of appointments approved automatically• 200,000+ appointments performed• Average vehicle dwell time 20 minutes• Congestion eliminated• Increased site security

Intelligent Docks

21 |

ChallengeEmporium was faced with some unique challenges when they were redeveloping their site. The site footprint dictated that all ground level floor space be dedicated to retail, therefore all loading docks had to go underground.

Traditional ramp constructions were not an option, resulting in loading docks being accessed by specialised truck lifts from an adjacent lane in one of the most congested parts of the city.

EMPORIUM – MELBOURNE

SolutionMobileDOCK was introduced to assist with the visibility of lift usage and reduce congestion on site.

Outcomes• Congestion eliminated• Increased site security - all deliveries authorised in

advance of arrival• Maximisation of retail space & tenancies• Reduction of operational risk associated with many truck

movements in a high traffic zone. Drivers now do not leave their vehicles and have no footpath / trolley travel.

Intelligent Docks

22 |

ChallengeWestfield Sydney only had a one way in and out from it’s docks from one of Australia's busiest streets.

There was no control of arrival times of deliveries, no forward understanding of expected volumes and a very manual management process

WESTFIELD – SYDNEY

SolutionMobileDOCK was introduced to assist with the bottleneck of a one way entry and exit area and to assist with congestion reduction and increased security.

Outcomes• Over 90% of appointments approved automatically• Over 1.2m appointments since Oct 2010 • Average vehicle dwell time 25 minutes• Congestion has been eliminated from the site• Increased site security

Before MobileDOCK After MobileDOCK

Intelligent Docks

23 |

ChallengeMsheireb is in the heart of old Doha, bounded by major arterial roads, with significant traffic flows.

With in excess of 1,000 commercial deliveries to Msheireb every day, 7 days a week.

All deliveries are made from 10 underground service areas, linked by tunnels, and accessed by 2 security controlled entrances.

MSHEIREB – DOHA, QATAR

SolutionMobileDOCK

Outcomes• MobileDOCK was operational at the first service area, 6 weeks

of first commencing implementation• Bookings are being made by Carriers/Suppliers, who are self-

activating in MobileDOCK, and connecting with Msheireb and tenants to create their delivery network.

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – MANAGING THE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

MobileDOCK can be used during each of the respective phases of the development.

The nature & duration of the appointments changing during each of these phases before the site moves into a consistent rhythm.

< Case Study: Deployment at Barangaroo

24 |

Establishment PeriodPre PC + PLD

Operate Period >>Post PPLD

Intelligent Docks

CONFIDENTIAL

MOBILEDOCK – MANAGES THE PROCESS

MobileDOCK enables dock delivery management from first request for a delivery slot, through confirmation of delivery completion; notifying all concerned parties along the way.Self-service web portal; 95% of requests are scheduled and automated approved in real time.

Requests allocated to loading dock space appropriate for the tenant receiving the goods, reduces delivery time.Notification of planned deliveries are sent to the carrier/supplier and the tenant/receiver through email.

Drivers have options to access the site• Present copy of their booking confirmation email• QR code on their smartphone validated by dock

personnel scanning• MobileDOCK’s PIN technology via automated

boom gates

25 |

Approve Appointment

Intelligent Docks




APPENDIX E: SWEPT PATH DRAWINGS

VEHICLE RAMP

OFFICELOBBY

ENC

HAN

TRESS

WAY

BICYCLE RAMP

1:6.5

FOOD & BEVERAGE

1:16

LIFT LOBBY

O O O OS

O O O O

F AAAF

OO O O

O

FSFS

X

WATERGASMETER

FCR

F&B 4

UAT

F&B 5 F&B 6

P

P

CP

Midland WA 60566 Burgess Street

Telephone +61 8 9274 7076Facsimile +61 8 9274 4854

Donald Veal Consultants

RevisionProject Number Drawing File Name

Designed

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Scale

Project

Title

Client Drawing Number

D & C COORPORATION PTY LTD

SWEPT PATH - B99 VEHICLES ACCESS THE CROSSOVER

EQ4 TIA & TMP

1:200 @ A3

SGYKPL

Z810 DVC-Z810-GF 00

16/02/202116/02/2021

SK01

LEGEND300mm OFFSET FROM VEHICLE OVERHANGVEHICLE OVERHANGWHEEL SWEPT PATH


AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: 1. BASE PLAN: EQ4-FP ( F4 FG ) 210203 - 9th February 2021BASE PLAN: EQ4-FP ( F4 FG ) 210203 - 9th February 2021

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

VEHICLE RAMP

OFFICELOBBY

ENC

HAN

TRESS

WAY

BICYCLE RAMP

1:6.5

FOOD & BEVERAGE

1:16

LIFT LOBBY

O O O OS

O O O O

F AAAF

OO O O

O

FSFS

X

WATERGASMETER

FCR

F&B 4

UAT

F&B 5 F&B 6

P

P

CP





Designed

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Scale

Project

Title



SWEPT PATH - SERVICE VEHICLE DESCENDING AT THE CROSSOVER RAMP

EQ4 TIA & TMP

1:200 @ A3

SGYKPL

Z810 DVC-Z810-GF 00

16/02/202116/02/2021

SK02


AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

Service Vehicle (8.8 m) - Mandatory Stop

AutoCAD SHX Text

8.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Length

AutoCAD SHX Text

8.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Body Height

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Min Body Ground Clearance

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.427m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Track Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Lock-to-lock time

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.00s

AutoCAD SHX Text

Curb to Curb Turning Radius

AutoCAD SHX Text

9.000m

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

N

VEHICLE RAMP

OFFICELOBBY

ENC

HAN

TRESS

WAY

BICYCLE RAMP

1:6.5

FOOD & BEVERAGE

1:16

LIFT LOBBY

O O O OS

O O O O

F AAAF

OO O O

O

FSFS

X

WATERGASMETER

FCR

F&B 4

UAT

F&B 5 F&B 6

P

P

CP





Designed

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Scale

Project

Title



SWEPT PATH - SERVICE VEHICLE ASCENDING AT THE CROSSOVER RAMP

EQ4 TIA & TMP

1:200 @ A3

SGYKPL

Z810 DVC-Z810-GF 00

16/02/202116/02/2021

SK03


AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.5

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

8.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Length

AutoCAD SHX Text

8.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Body Height

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

0.427m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Track Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Lock-to-lock time

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.00s

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

9.000m

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

N





Designed

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Scale

Project

Title



SWEPT PATH - SERVICE VEHICLE REVERSING INTO PARKING LOT

EQ4 TIA & TMP

1:200 @ A3

SGYKPL

Z810 DVC-Z810-GF 00

16/02/202116/02/2021

SK04



AutoCAD SHX Text

LOADING AREA

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:16

AutoCAD SHX Text

COURIER

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEHICLE RAMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

BICYCLE RAMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:6.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

COURIER

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEHICLE RAMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEHICLE RAMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:5

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:5

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:8

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOBBY

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

FS

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

FS

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

O

AutoCAD SHX Text

OS

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIRE PUMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

49.50 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

456 BIKES

AutoCAD SHX Text

SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

X

AutoCAD SHX Text

UAT

AutoCAD SHX Text

Toilet

AutoCAD SHX Text

Janitor

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tank

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tank

AutoCAD SHX Text

DOWN TO B2

AutoCAD SHX Text

UP FROM B2

AutoCAD SHX Text

SWITCH GEAR

AutoCAD SHX Text

SECURITY CTRL

AutoCAD SHX Text

GENSET

AutoCAD SHX Text

MAILROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

REFUSE CENTRE

AutoCAD SHX Text

F&B STORAGE

AutoCAD SHX Text

MDF

AutoCAD SHX Text

Linen Store

AutoCAD SHX Text

192.33 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

26.54 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

25.29 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.72 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

26.61 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

70.05 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

34.80 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

47.38 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOBBY

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

pit

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:8

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:8

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRUCK

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRUCK

AutoCAD SHX Text

dock

AutoCAD SHX Text

ctrl

AutoCAD SHX Text

5.76 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

17.09 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

15.64 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.76 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

8.01 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

Receiving

AutoCAD SHX Text

Food Store

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vege

AutoCAD SHX Text

14.65 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

Meat

AutoCAD SHX Text

Freezer

AutoCAD SHX Text

30.45 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

FM

AutoCAD SHX Text

24.85 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

17.09 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

17.09 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

10.44 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

10.44 sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

SC

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.6x2.0

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

8.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Length

AutoCAD SHX Text

8.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overall Body Height

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.800m

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

0.427m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Track Width

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.500m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Lock-to-lock time

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.00s

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

9.000m

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: 1. BASE PLAN: EQ4-FP ( B1 B3 ) 210206 - 9th February 2021BASE PLAN: EQ4-FP ( B1 B3 ) 210206 - 9th February 2021

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

C

3925

8000

2800

3038


Designed

Drawn

Checked

Approved

Scale

Project

Title



VERTICAL CLEARANCE - SERVICE TRUCK AT ACCESS RAMP

EQ4 TIA & TMP

1:50 @ A3

SGYKPL

Z810 DVC-Z810-RAMP 00

16/02/202116/02/2021

SK05

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:6.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

1:16

AutoCAD SHX Text

TANK

AutoCAD SHX Text

OFFICE CARPARK

AutoCAD SHX Text

OFFICE CARPARK

AutoCAD SHX Text

F&B 4

AutoCAD SHX Text

Midland WA 6056

AutoCAD SHX Text

6 Burgess Street

AutoCAD SHX Text

Telephone +61 8 9274 7076

AutoCAD SHX Text

Facsimile +61 8 9274 4854

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: 1. BASE PLAN: EQ4-Access Ramp Section - 11th February 2021BASE PLAN: EQ4-Access Ramp Section - 11th February 2021


50

DA REPORT

ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE REPORT Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 – William Street Perth

Prepared for D & C Corporation Pty Ltd 11 February 2021

Access report for D & C Corporation Pty Ltd - Lot 4 – William Street Perth.

Contents

1.1 Purpose of Report………...2 1.2 Basis of Report…………....2 1.3 Background Building

Description…………………2 1.4 Relevant DTS………………3 1.5 General Analysis………….3 1.6 Relevant Organisations….3 1.7 Relevant Experience …….3 1.8 Conclusion…………………4 1.9 Referenced Codes………..4 1.10 Site Plans ………………..5-7


2

1.1 Purpose of Report This report has been created to confirm compliance of the D & C Corporation Pty Ltd proposed 52 storey mixed use, office and

residential building development for access to the buildings by persons with disabilities on Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay William Street Perth.

Premier Building Surveying is assuming that all pathways and road works external to Elizabeth Quay Lot 4 William Street have been

constructed as compliant to allow for persons with disabilities to be able to gain access to the site boundaries from William Street,

The Esplanade, Geoffrey Bolton Avenue and Enchantress Way.

This report is compiled to be presented as part of the Development Application and subsequently to the City of Perth to confirm

compliance to the provisions contained in Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia 2016 Amendment 1* Access for People with a

Disability and Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standards 2010.

* Note: We have utilized the provisions of the 2019 BCA edition on the basis that most of the design work was undertaken prior to

any issue and adoption of the next edition of the NCC BCA Volume One. The applicable NCC BCA will be determined at the time of

the Building Permit application and all design requirements will be required to comply at the time.

1.2 Basis of Report This report is based upon the drawings by D & C Corporation Pty Ltd DA Package set and include Site Plans, Floor Plan and

elevations.

Premier Building Surveying confirms we have sufficient and adequate documentation to fulfil the obligation required for appropriate

design assessment on the accessibility elements.

This report excludes compliance requirements within the buildings as internal access compliance will be reviewed separately in

preparation of the relevant Building Surveyor to sign off and lodge the BA3 for a building permit application.

1.3 Background and Building Description

This report is limited to advice in relation to the accessibility provisions of NCC BCA Volume One 2019 Part D3 and Disability (Access

to Premises- Buildings) Standards 2010 as the applicable legislation with respect to access for persons with disabilities from an

allotment boundary to the entrance or entrances of a building.

The proposed subject site Lot 4 is located on the corner of William Street and The Esplanade with internal roadways of Elizabeth

Quay abutting the property being Geoffrey Bolton Avenue and Enchantress Way to the south and east respectively. The Lot forms

part of the subdivision of the Elizabeth Quay Precinct and has been determined as essentially flat with level entrances from all sides

of the allotment. There is a slight fall on the site from the north west corner to the south east corner which has no impact on the ability

to gain dignified and equitable access to and from the proposed development.

The proposed 52 storey development on Lot 4 and consists of two basement levels for parking and services with access from

Enchantress Way, ground level being an area for food and beverage and lobby access with three defined access points to the north,

west and south. The lobby entrance is for the upper-level floors which include offices, public building use floor levels and residential

apartments.

Based on a site inspection carried out on 10 February 2021 by the author of this report, it has been confirmed that the above

information with respect to site access and ability to gain access to the building without the inclusion of steps and ramps achieves

equitable and dignified access to the lot and to the defined entrances on the ground floor of the building.

The essentially flat pathways external to the site on all the road reserves surrounding Lot 4 will allow for ease of movement by persons

with disabilities from the adjacent developed areas to move freely to and within the open courtyards to the north, west and south.


3

1.4 Relevant DTS Provisions of Building Code of Australia

Part D3. Access for People with Disabilities Clause D3.2 (a) an accessway must be provided to a building required to be accessible-

(i) from the main points of a pedestrian entry at the allotment boundary; and

(ii) from another accessible building connected by a pedestrian link; and

(iii) from any required accessible carparking space on the allotment.

The BCA defines "accessway" as being an accessible path of travel complying with AS1428.1 2009.

It is the professional opinion of the report writer that the development proposal is required to and already has in the design proposal

taken into consideration of the ability of persons with varying disabilities to gain access to the site from the main roadways and the

adjacent public transport facilities to the west on the opposite side of William Street.

1.5 General Analysis for Comparison with DTS Requirements As a background, the site plan design and finish floor levels already provide sufficient access locations to 3 sides of the building also from the car parking below and public transport facilities to the west. Access to the buildings on site has been determined as compliant and able to achieve without any ramping or steps.

1. Access from the corner of William Street and the Esplanade has been determined as equitable sufficient to allow persons

with disabilities to identify the numerous entrance doorway locations and types.

2. Additional access to entrances at ground level are available from the east at the corner of The Esplanade and Enchantress

Way and to the south from Geoffrey Bolton Avenue.

The consequence of not providing appropriate compliant access to a building can result in a legitimate complaint with the Human

Rights Commission.

It is recommended that installation of landscaping materials, structures and or statues and sculptures take into consideration the

ability of use of the forecourt areas without be injured or impeded by persons that may have a disability whether visual or physical.

Any installed furniture, bollards and the like should be of 30% colour contrasting to ensure the items installed are easily identified

against the background of the pavement and any adjacent building elements.

1.6 Relevant Statutory Organisations

• Development Approval – Metropolitan Regional Authority.

• Building Surveyors engaged to issue CDC – Premier Building Surveying.

• Permit issuing authority -City of Perth.

1.7 Relevant Previous Experience The report writer with 14 years employment as the Director Strategic Projects for the John Massey Group Pty Ltd Trading as JMG

Building Surveyors had been involved with the investigation and provision of previous Development Application Accessibility Reports

on the projects listed below.

I consider that the expertise as a Level 1 Registered Building Surveyor in the preparation of this report that I have had sufficient

knowledge and experience to be able to determine compliance for access and inclusion of persons with disabilities based on the

submission and approval of the reports for the following projects:

• BHP Tower and heritage precinct.


4

• Treasury Tower, Hotel, City of Perth Library precinct.

• Optus Stadium.

• Optus Stadium external parks and play areas.

• Elizabeth Quay Precinct.

• Elizabeth Quay Lot 7.

• Elizabeth Quay Lots 2 and 3.

• Capital Square Precinct.

1.8 Conclusion It is our professional opinion, based upon the information contained in this report that the access for persons with disabilities to and

from the boundary and the entrance to the building located on Lot 4 William Street complies with the relevant applicable legislation.

The access compliance from the entrance to and within the building will be carried out through the building certification process prior

to submission for the relevant statutory building permit application.

1.9 Referenced Applicable Codes and Regulations The following legislated documents are relevant to this report.

• Building Code of Australia; volume 1; (BCA) 2019

• Disability Discrimination Act 1992

• Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010

• AS 1428.1 (2009)

Report compiled by:

Ron Sherar MAIBS Director Level 1 Building Surveyor #289 Grad. Dip. Building Surveying (Curtin)

Exclusions This report is limited to the items discussed.


5

1.10 Referenced Plans

Site Plan


6

Access Plan.


7

Elevation from Inlet.

Elevation from Elizabeth Quay.

End of Report


52

Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay, Perth

Waste Management Plan

19 February 2021

Rev_1

D & C Corporation

19 February 2021 Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay, Perth

Page 2 Encycle Consulting Pty Ltd

Encycle Consulting Pty Ltd ABN 41 129 141 484

Level 1, 76 Roberts St

Osborne Park WA 6017

PO Box 6044

East Perth WA 6892

t: +61 8 9444 7668

[email protected]

www.encycle.com.au

Revision Drafted Reviewed Date issued

Rev_0 A Bremner V Dow 17 February 2021

Rev_1 G Busby J Campbell 19 February 2021

Copyright

All intellectual property rights and copyright associated with Encycle Consulting services and publications shall remain vested in and the property of Encycle Consulting. Advice and material contained within this document may be used exclusively by the Company named as the recipient of this work solely for use as specified in this document. Reproduction, publication or distribution of this work without prior written permission from Encycle Consulting is strictly prohibited.

Disclaimer

While steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of this document, Encycle Consulting cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being accurate, incomplete or misleading. Encycle Consulting 2021

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.encycle.com.au/



Table of contents

Glossary of terms and acronyms ........................................................................................................ 4

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Key components of the WMP ................................................................................................... 5

2 Estimated waste and recycling volumes .................................................................................... 6

2.1 Local government requirements for waste volumes and bin type ................................... 6

2.2 Number and type of bins required for development .......................................................... 7

2.2.1 Residential ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Commercial office/food & beverage/childcare/wellness ......................................... 8

3 Bin store location and amenity .................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Bin store location ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Contingency planning ............................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Bin store amenity ....................................................................................................................... 12

4 Internal transfer ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Transfer of waste from apartments to bin storage room................................................... 13

4.2 Transfer of waste from commercial offices, food & beverage, childcare and wellness areas 13

5 Collection and vehicle access .................................................................................................. 14

6 Ongoing communication and management .......................................................................... 18

6.1 Management............................................................................................................................. 18

6.2 Internal systems .......................................................................................................................... 18

6.3 Communication ........................................................................................................................ 18



Glossary of terms and acronyms

Cart Wheeled, open top bin often used for bulky items such as cardboard

Commingled recycling

Common recyclables, mostly packaging; such as glass, plastics, aluminium, steel, liquid paper board (milk cartons). Commingled recycling may include paper but often, and particularly in offices, paper and cardboard are collected separately.

FOGO Food Organics Green Organics – a third bin offered to residents for the collection of food waste and (if applicable) garden waste

General Waste Material that is intended for disposal to landfill (or in some States, incineration), normally what remains after the recyclables have been collected separately.

MGB Mobile Garbage Bin – A wheeled bin with a lid often used for kerbside collection of waste or recyclables. (Often called a ‘wheelie bin’).

MRB Mobile Recycling Bin – A wheeled bin (“wheelie” bin) with a lid often used for kerbside collection of recyclables (similar to an MGB). Generally have a different colour body and/or lid to MGBs.

Organic waste Separated food and/or ‘green’ material (e.g. grass clippings or vegetation prunings).

Recyclable Material that can be collected separately from the general waste and sent for recycling. The precise definition will vary, depending upon location (i.e. systems exist for the recycling of some materials in some areas and not in others).

Recycling Where a material or product undergoes a form of processing to produce a feedstock suitable for the manufacture of new products.

Reuse The transfer of a product to another user, with no major dismantling or processing required. The term “reuse” can also be applied in circumstances where an otherwise disposable item is replaced by a more durable item hence avoiding the creation of waste (e.g. using a ceramic coffee mug in place of disposable cups).



1 Introduction

This Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been prepared for D&C Corporation for the Development Application for the proposed mixed use, multi-residential and commercial development at Lot 4 Elizabeth Quay, Perth.

The proposed development will consist of a podium and a tower that include: 56,600 m2 of commercial office, 168 residential apartments, 1000 m2 childcare and 4,300 of wellness area/food & beverage space.

This WMP has been prepared based on the following information:

• Architectural plans provided by Cox Architects (16 and 19 February 2021)

• City of Perth – Waste Services Guidelines for New Developments (2019)

• Liaison with City of Perth regarding Council waste management requirements for buildings in this area of Perth

• WALGA Multi-Dwelling Development guidelines for waste generation rates not covered under City of Perth

• Traffic consultant reports and swept paths provided by Donald Veal Consultants (16 February 2021)

1.1 Context

For efficient and effective waste management, the collection and centralisation of waste and recyclables should be carefully considered at the building design phase. Key factors to consider at the design phase include:

• The volumes of waste and recyclables likely to be generated during operation

• Size of bin storage area

• Safety for all operatives involved in waste management

• Access to bins and storage areas from within the building

• Access for trucks for waste collection

• Local council requirements

• Amenity (odours and noise)

• The ongoing management of waste and recycling services

1.2 Key components of the WMP

This WMP consists of five core components. The following report will present detailed information on each of the following components.

Waste recycling volumes

Bin store location and

amenityInternal transfer Collection and

vehicle accessCommunication

and management



2 Estimated waste and recycling volumes

2.1 Local government requirements for waste volumes and bin type

The City of Perth Waste Services Guidelines for New Developments (2019) have been used as a basis for estimating waste generation rates for this development as per below.

No. of bedrooms Waste requirement Recycling requirement

1 bedroom 80 L/unit/week 40 L/unit/week

2 bedroom 160 L/unit/week 80 L/unit/week

3 Bedroom 240 L/unit/week 120 L/unit/week

For the childcare, food & beverage, wellness and office areas, the City of Perth commercial waste generation rates as per the Waste Services Guidelines for new developments (2019) have been used in addition to Encycle’s experience and knowledge. Specifically, the generation rates used are presented below. City of Perth waste generation rates do not include a breakdown of material streams included in the ‘recycling’ stream. The final column presents Encycle Consulting’s in-house estimate of the material streams present in the recycling stream based on our working experience of operational buildings in Perth.

Premises type Waste generation rate

Recycling generation rate

Percentage breakdown of recycling stream by material

Restaurant 6.7 L /1m2/day 1.3 L /1m2/day

50% cardboard 40% commingled

10% soft plastics 20% cooking oi (in addition)l

20% of waste is organics 100% glass (in addition)

Office 0.1 L /1m2/day 0.1 L /1m2/day

77% paper 14% cardboard 2% soft plastics

7% commingled 20% of waste is organics

Takeaway/ small cafe 0.8 L /1m2/day 0.4 L /1m2/day

40% cardboard 40 % commingled

20% cooking oil 20% of waste is organics

20% soft plastics

Bar/lounge 0.5 L /1m2/day 0.5 L /1m2/day


10% soft plastics 20% of waste is organics 100% glass (in addition)

Childcare 3.5 L /1m2/day 3.5 L /1m2/day 50% cardboard 10% soft plastics

40% commingled

Gymnasium/ wellness area1 0.2 L /1m2/day 0.2 L /1m2/day


10% soft plastics

Waste/recycling volumes




and management



2.2 Number and type of bins required for development

2.2.1 Residential

The number of apartments in this development are set out in table 1.

Table 1: Number of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

Number of bedrooms No. of apartments

1 Bedroom 32

2 Bedroom 68

3-4 Bedroom 68

Total apartments 168

The number of bins required for the residential apartments and their collection frequency are shown in table 2.

Table 2: Number of general waste and recycling bins for apartments

Residential apartments Bin size (L) Number of bins Collection frequency

General waste 660 L 14 3 x weekly

Commingled recycling 660 L 13 Twice weekly

Food organics (FOGO) 120 L 32 3 x weekly

On each residential level ‘mini’ bin stores will provide disposal options for general waste, commingled recycling and food waste.

Building management will check bin stores on a regular basis throughout the day and will be responsible for ensuring that full bins are swapped with empty ones and the stores are maintained to be clean and tidy.

Table 3: Number of bins to be stored on the residential levels

Residential apartments Bin size (L) Number of bins Transfer frequency to main bin store

General waste 660 L 1 Daily/as needed

Commingled recycling 660 L 1 Daily/as needed

Food organics (FOGO) 120 L 1 Daily/as needed



2.2.2 Commercial office/food & beverage/childcare/wellness

The bin numbers for commercial office, based on 56,500 m2 (including both the podium and the main tower) are shown in table 4.

Table 4: Number of bins to be stored in the commercial office bin store.

Bin size (L) Number of bins Collection frequency

General Waste (exc. food waste) 1100 5 Daily

Food waste 120 5 Daily

Commingled recycling 240 2 Daily

Cardboard 1100 1 Daily

Paper 240 19 Daily

Soft plastic 1100 1 Daily/as needed

A separate bin store area is provided for waste and recycling from the food & beverage tenancies, wellness areas and the childcare as per Table 5. Floor areas for calculation of bin numbers are:

• Lobby café: 1,000 m2 (Takeaway rate) • Childcare: 1,000 m2 (Childcare rate) • Gym/wellness: 300 m2 (Gym rate) • Tower L 48 restaurant: 1,200 m2 (Restaurant rate) • Tower L 49 lounge/bar: 600 m2 (Hotel bar rate) • Tower L 50 lounge/bar: 100 m2 (Hotel bar rate) • Tower L 50 wellness centre: 1,200 m2 (Gym rate)

Table 5: Number of bins to be stored in the food & beverage, wellness, childcare bin store.

Bin size (L) Number of bins Collection frequency

General Waste 1100 11 Daily

Food waste 120 14 Daily

Commingled recycling 1100 3 Daily

Cardboard 1100 3 Daily

Glass 240 8 Daily

Soft plastic 1100 1 Daily

Used cooking oil 400 1 As required



3 Bin store location and amenity

3.1 Bin store location

The building will have three bin store areas at the Refuse Centre for the separate storage of:

i. Residential waste and recycling

ii. Commercial office waste and recycling

iii. Food & beverage, wellness and childcare waste and recycling

In addition, each residential floor will have a mini bin store for residents to dispose of general waste, commingled recycling and food organics.

Bin stores will be located on basement level 1(refer Figure 1). The layout of bins in each area is shown in Figure 2. The location of mini bin stores on each residential level is shown in Figure 3 and the layout of these mini bin stores is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 1: Basement level 1 floor plan showing the bin storage areas (Refuse Centre)

Bin storage requirements




and management



Figure 2: Layout of bins within the separate bin storage areas (Refuse Centre)

Figure 3: Location of mini bin stores on each residential level



Figure 4: Layout of mini bin stores on each residential level

3.2 Contingency planning

There is a risk that waste collections may be missed (for instance on public holidays). When additional contingency storage is required to store waste until the following day, a loading bay will be cordoned off to allow for temporary storage overnight. The building management team will negotiate contracts with private waste service providers to ensure that collections take place on days when the relevant areas of the building are operational (e.g. for food & beverage tenancies that will be open on most public holidays except Christmas Day).



3.3 Bin store amenity

Bin Transfer

Aisle door and lift width:

All doors, corridors and lifts on the transfer route are designed for the largest bin to fit through.

General health and safety:

Waste systems are designed to ensure that bins (particularly when full) are not required to be moved over any significant distances, up/down steep ramps (grade of slope <1:20) and definitely avoid stairs or other potential hazards.

Manual handling of waste in garbage bags is excluded from the waste management systems where possible.

Bin store

Washing bins and waste storage area:

Impermeable floors grading to an industrial floor waste (including a charged ‘water-trap’ connected to sewer or an approved septic system), with a hose cock to enable bins and /or the enclosure to be washed out. 100 mm floor waste gully to waste outlet. Both hot and cold water will be available.

Bin store walls and ceilings:

All internal walls in bin stores will be cement rendered (solid and impervious) to enable easy cleaning. Ceilings will be finished with a smooth faced, non-absorbent material capable of being easily cleaned. Walls and ceilings will be finished or painted in a light colour.

Ventilation and odour:

The design of bin store/s will provide for adequate separate ventilation with a system that complies with Australian Standard 1668 (AS1668). The ventilation outlet is not in the vicinity of windows or intake vents associated with other ventilation systems.

Doors: Ventilated roller doors will be specified both internally and externally to enable bins to be easily wheeled into and out of the bin stores.

Vermin: Self-closing doors to the bin store/s will be installed to eliminate access by vermin

Lighting: Bin store/s will be provided with artificial lighting, sensor or switch controlled both internal/external to the room.

Noise: Noise is to be minimised to prevent disruption to occupants or neighbours.

Fully Enclosed: The bin store/s will be fully enclosed and only be accessible by residents, tenancy staff and the waste service provider.

Aesthetics: The bin store/s will be consistent with the overall aesthetics of the development.

Signage: Visual aids and signage will be provided to ensure that the area works as intended.



4 Internal transfer

4.1 Transfer of waste from apartments to bin storage room

Residents will be responsible for storing waste and recyclables separately within their apartment.

Residents will be responsible for disposing of waste and recycling into bins provided in the mini bin stores on each residential level. Building Management will be responsible for checking these bins each day (at a minimum) and swapping filled bins with empty ones. Filled bins will be transferred to the basement 01 bin store via the service lifts.

4.2 Transfer of waste from commercial offices, food & beverage, childcare and wellness areas

Staff or cleaners from the food & beverage tenancies, childcare and wellness areas will manually transfer waste and recyclables via the goods lift to bin store.

Office cleaners will transfer the bins from the office floors to bin store 2 for collection using a tug and trailer system.

Staff will use service lifts and back of house corridors to transfer waste and recyclables from the tenancies to the relevant bin store.





and management



5 Collection and vehicle access

The City of Perth will service the residential general waste and recycling bins, while private service providers will undertake the commercial waste and recycling collections.

On collection days rear-lift vehicles for general waste and recycling will enter the building from Enchantress Way. The vehicles will drive in a forwards motion, reverse into the loading area and park adjacent to the bin stores. With assistance from building management, the operatives will enter the bin stores to retrieve and service the bins. Security access keys will be arranged for the waste service vehicles by building management

Access to the grease trap located on basement level 1 will be from Enchantress Way.

A height clearance of at least 3 m along the route of the collection vehicles is provided to accommodate a range of waste and recycling vehicles, including the City of Perth.

Swept path analysis for vehicle ingress and egress has been completed by Donald Veal Consultants (Figures 5-8) taking into consideration the specifications of a vehicle slightly larger than the City of Perth waste collection vehicles:

Service vehicle (8.8 m)

• Overall length: 8.80 m • Overall width: 2.50 m • Overall body height: 3.632 m • Min. body ground clearance: 0.427 m • Track width: 2.50 m • Lock-to-lock time: 4.0 seconds • Curb to curb turning radius 9.0 m





and management



Figure 5: Swept path analysis showing access for waste collection vehicles to loading area



Figure 6: Swept path for vehicle accessing building from Enchantress Way



Figure 7: Swept path for vehicle egressing the building onto Enchantress Way



6 Ongoing communication and management

6.1 Management

The building manager will be responsible for overseeing the waste management systems. The building management staff will be trained and informed about their responsibility to work closely with the private service provider and City of Perth regarding the schedule for collection and presentation of bins. The staff member will be responsible for maintaining the bin store in a clean and tidy condition at all times and ensuring bins are washed regularly.

6.2 Internal systems

During the interior design and fitout phases, the building owners and operators will collaborate with the commercial tenants to ensure that internal systems and communication messaging/signage align with this Waste Management Plan so that material streams are collected in suitable segregated systems for optimal recycling.

6.3 Communication

All residents and commercial tenants will be made aware through a body corporate document (or equivalent) of the waste and recycling systems and how they should be used. An operational Waste Management Plan suitable for presenting to building users, including how the plan should be communicated will be developed and implemented during both the initial occupation and ongoing management of the building.





and management

Final Report Pedestrian Wind Tunnel Tests for

Documents

Transcript of Final Report Pedestrian Wind Tunnel Tests for