Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TRANSPORT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Project: SWAMS Health Hub
Lot 4669 Forrest Avenue, Carey Park
Client: MCG Architects
Author: Paul Nguyen
Version: 3
Document # 1902011-TIA-001
CONSULTING CIVIL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS
1 ST. FLOOR, 908 ALBANY HIGHWAY, EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6101.
PHONE|+61 8 9355 1300
FACSIMILE| +61 8 9355 1922
EMAIL| admin@ shawmac.com.au
i | P a g e
Document Status
Version Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By Date
1 P Nguyen R Jois L Dawson 07/06/2019
2 P Nguyen R Jois L Dawson 19/06/2019
3 P Nguyen R Jois P Nguyen 23/04/2020
File Reference: Y:\Jobs Active 2019\T&T - Traffic & Parking\SWAMS Health Hub_TIA_1902011\Report\SWAMS Health Hub_TIA_V3.docx
ii | P a g e
Contents
1. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Proponent .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Site Location .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Proposed Development ................................................................................................................ 4
2.1. Operating Hours ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Existing Situation.......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2. Road Network ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1. Existing Road Layout and Hierarchy ............................................................................................. 5
3.2.2. Carriageway Width and Cross Section .......................................................................................... 6
3.2.3. Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Flows ................................................................................................ 6
3.3. Traffic Generation .................................................................................................................................. 6
4. Changes to Surrounding Transport Network ................................................................................ 7
5. Integration with Surrounding Area ................................................................................................ 7
6. Transport Assessment ................................................................................................................. 8
6.1. Assessment Years ................................................................................................................................. 8
6.2. Time Period for Assessment .................................................................................................................. 8
6.3. Traffic Generation .................................................................................................................................. 8
6.4. Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 8
6.5. Network Capacity ................................................................................................................................. 10
6.5.1. Roads .......................................................................................................................................... 10
6.5.2. Intersections ................................................................................................................................ 10
6.6. Network Capacity – Long Term (2031) ................................................................................................ 13
6.6.1. Roads .......................................................................................................................................... 13
6.6.2. Intersections ................................................................................................................................ 13
7. Parking Assessment .................................................................................................................. 15
7.1. Car Parking .......................................................................................................................................... 15
iii | P a g e
7.2. Bicycle Parking .................................................................................................................................... 16
8. Road Safety Assessment ........................................................................................................... 17
8.1. Crash History ....................................................................................................................................... 17
8.2. Vehicle Access ..................................................................................................................................... 18
8.3. Access Location ................................................................................................................................... 22
9. Pedestrians and Cyclist Network Assessment ........................................................................... 23
10. Public Transport Accessibility .................................................................................................... 24
11. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix A – WAPC TIA Checklist ....................................................................................................... 26
Figures
Figure 1: Site Location ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Aerial Photo of Site ................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: Existing Road Network Hierarchy ............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 5: Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) Counts ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 6: Assumed Traffic Distribution .................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Distribution of Site Generated Trips - 2021 .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 8: Modelled Layout and Intersection Flows – Western Ground Level Crossover – 2021 ........................... 10
Figure 9: Modelled Layout and Intersection Flows – Eastern Crossover............................................................... 11
Figure 10: SIDRA Assessment Results – Western Crossover – 2021 .................................................................. 12
Figure 11: SIDRA Assessment Results – Eastern Crossover - 2021 .................................................................... 12
Figure 12: Distribution of Site Generated Trips - 2031 .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 13: SIDRA Assessment Results – Western Crossover – 2031 .................................................................. 14
Figure 14: SIDRA Assessment Results – Eastern Crossover - 2031 .................................................................... 14
Figure 15: Crash History January 2015 to December 2019 .................................................................................. 17
iv | P a g e
Figure 16: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Requirements .................................................................................. 18
Figure 17: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Western Crossover (Upper Deck)............................ 19
Figure 18: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Western Crossover (Ground Level) ......................... 20
Figure 19: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Central Crossover .................................................... 21
Figure 20: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Eastern Crossover ................................................... 22
Tables
Table 1: Road Configuration .................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: City of Bunbury LPS8 Car Parking Requirements ................................................................................... 15
Table 4: City of Bunbury LPS8 Car Parking Requirements with Reductions ......................................................... 16
Table 5: City of Bunbury LPP3.1 Bicycle Parking Requirements........................................................................... 16
1
1. Summary
Shawmac Pty Ltd has been commissioned by MCG Architects on behalf of the South West Aboriginal Medical
Services (SWAMS) to prepare a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) for the health hub facility to be located on
Lot 4669 Forrest Avenue, Carey Park, in the City of Bunbury.
The assessment has concluded the following:
The existing road network will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development and no modifications are required.
The calculated parking requirement based on the land uses is 224 bays. A reduction of 30% to the
medical centre component is considered justifiable based on the available SWAMS transport service.
The reduced parking requirement is therefore 189 bays. After reductions have been applied the
proposed 203 available bays is considered to be adequate.
The crash history does not indicate any issues with the road network.
All vehicle crossovers achieve the minimum required sight distance.
The existing and proposed path network is adequate for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians
and cyclists travelling to and from the development.
The existing public transport service is considered sufficient to accommodate the expected demand for
this service.
2
2. Introduction and Background
2.1. Proponent
Shawmac Pty Ltd has been commissioned by MCG Architects on behalf of the South West Aboriginal Medical
Services (SWAMS) to prepare a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) for the health hub facility to be located on
Lot 4669 Forrest Avenue, Carey Park, in the City of Bunbury.
This TIA has been prepared in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Transport
Impact Assessment Guidelines Volume 4 – Individual Developments. The assessment considers the following
key matters:
The site and surrounding road network;
Traffic generation characteristics;
Traffic distribution assessment and network assignment;
Parking assessment and management;
Road safety assessment;
Pedestrian and cyclist demand and facilities assessment; and
Public transport accessibility.
2.2. Site Location
The general site location shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Site Location
SITE
3
The site is the existing Jaycee Park as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Aerial Photo of Site
4
3. Proposed Development
The proposed development is a community and health facility which includes a medical centre with 26 consulting
rooms (approx. 2,358m2), a corporate office (approx. 2,047m2) and a community centre with a capacity of 150
people which is in the separate smaller building.
Vehicle access will be as shown in Figure 3. The central crossover will have a splitter island to restrict right turns
out of the crossover. A total of 213 car parking bays will be provided on the site include 17 bays at the south-east
end of the site adjacent to the park and 72 bays on the upper level of the decked car park at the north-west end
of the site. Along the street frontage, a service/loading bay and a bus bay is also proposed.
A turnaround area is proposed at the rear of the site adjacent to the proposed emergency entrance and the
service areas to accommodate emergency, service and delivery vehicles.
Figure 3: Site Plan
3.1. Operating Hours
The proposed operating hours of all facilities will be from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.
TURNAROUND
PICK-UP / DROP-OFF
To Upper Level
5
4. Existing Situation
4.1. Land Use
The site is currently a public park with a playground, car park and public toilets. Vehicle access is currently
available from a crossover from Forrest Avenue directly opposite Wisbey Street.
Surrounding land use is a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Bunbury Train Station is
directly north-west of the site and Bunbury Catholic College is towards the north-east of the site.
4.2. Road Network
4.2.1. Existing Road Layout and Hierarchy
The layout and hierarchy of the existing local road network according to the Main Roads WA Road Information
Mapping System is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Existing Road Network Hierarchy
SITE
6
4.2.2. Carriageway Width and Cross Section
The configuration of the relevant existing roads are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Road Configuration
Road and Location Road Type Cross Section Approx. Pavement
Width (m) Speed Limit
(km/h)
Forrest Avenue Local Distributor Dual carriageway – 2 lanes (single
carriageway in some sections) 11m 60
Wisbey Street Access Street Single carriageway – 2 lanes 7.2m 50
Picton Road District Distributor A Dual carriageway – 4 lanes 2 x 8.0m 60
4.2.3. Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Flows
The latest available traffic counts were obtained from the City of Bunbury and Main Roads WA as summarised in
Figure 5.
Figure 5: Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) Counts
4.3. Traffic Generation
The existing site is likely to generate minimal vehicular traffic.
761 79 70 795 75 87
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
7
5. Changes to Surrounding Transport Network
The surrounding road network is reasonably well established and there are no known major changes planned.
6. Integration with Surrounding Area
The proposed development itself is an attractor of traffic with the key generator being the residential development
in the surrounding areas.
The main desire lines to and from the development and the surrounding residential development are along Forrest
Avenue and Picton Road. Both of these routes are well established and no major deficiencies have been
identified.
8
7. Transport Assessment
7.1. Assessment Years
The assessment has been based on the year that the development opens which is currently estimated to be
2021.
7.2. Time Period for Assessment
The time period chosen for assessment was the weekday AM and PM peak hour of the road network.
7.3. Traffic Generation
Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation has been used to
estimate the traffic generating potential of the office and community centre components of the development as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Trip Generation
Land Use
Generation Rate Estimated Generation
Unit Quantum ADT AM
Peak PM
Peak % Pass
By ADT
AM Peak
PM Peak
Office GFA
(‘00m2) 24.94 11.87 1.68 1.60 0% 296 42 40
Community Centre GFA
(‘00m2) 7.32 36.40 2.21 2.95 0% 266 16 22
Medical Centre GFA
(‘00m2) 26.78 37.46 2.99 3.72 0% 1003 80 100
Total 1565 138 162
7.4. Distribution
Based on the layout of the road network, the assumed distribution of site generated trips is as shown in Figure
6. The site generated trips were assigned onto the road network based on the assumed distribution is shown in
Figure 7. The distribution of trips to each of the crossovers was assumed based on the most logical route. For
simplicity, all site trips were assumed to use the main car park crossovers accessing the ground level parking. In
reality, a proportion of site trips would use the westernmost crossover to the upper parking deck and so trips
would be more distributed between the crossovers. However, parking on the ground level is typically used before
drivers consider parking on upper levels.
As requested by the City of Bunbury, the background traffic volumes have been factored up by 2% per year to
account for general traffic growth. It is noted that the traffic data suggests that traffic volumes have remained
9
stable or have reduced in recent years and so this assessment is considered to be conservative.
Figure 6: Assumed Traffic Distribution
Figure 7: Distribution of Site Generated Trips - 2021
30%
35%
10%
20%
5%
30%
Background Traffic with 2% Growth per year Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Traffic Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
857 89 79 895 84 98
274 24 28
274 24 28
10
7.5. Network Capacity
7.5.1. Roads
The WAPC TIA Guidelines refers to Austroads Guide to Traffic Management for assessment of the impact of
changes in traffic flows on the surrounding road network. Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3: Traffic
Studies and Analysis (AGTM03) notes that the typical midblock capacity of a single traffic lane on an urban road
with interrupted flow is somewhere between 600 and 1,000 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). Based on the
predicted peak hour traffic flows, the existing and planned road network is considered to have sufficient lane
capacity at mid-block locations to accommodate the increase in vehicle trips associated with the proposed
development.
7.5.2. Intersections
A peak hour capacity assessment of the proposed two crossovers has been undertaken using SIDRA Intersection
8.0. Only the afternoon peak hour has been modelled as the road network traffic and the development traffic are
both higher in the afternoon. The modelled layouts and peak hour flows are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The
peak hour through flows along Forrest Avenue were taken from the traffic counts.
Figure 8: Modelled Layout and Intersection Flows – Western Ground Level Crossover – 2021
11
Figure 9: Modelled Layout and Intersection Flows – Eastern Crossover
The results of the assessment are shown Figure 10 and Figure 11. The results indicated that both the crossovers
are expected to perform well within capacity and that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the development
traffic.
12
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Western Ground Level Crossover - PM Peak]
Give-way / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID
Turn Demand Flows Deg.
Satn Average
Delay Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Aver. No. Cycles
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h
East: Forrest Ave
5 T1 288 10.0 0.177 0.2 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.09 0.05 0.09 49.4
6 R2 28 0.0 0.177 5.7 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.09 0.05 0.09 48.5
Approach 316 9.1 0.177 0.6 NA 0.2 1.8 0.09 0.05 0.09 49.4
North: Crossover
7 L2 28 0.0 0.055 5.4 LOS A 0.2 1.3 0.38 0.61 0.38 45.6
9 R2 24 0.0 0.055 7.4 LOS A 0.2 1.3 0.38 0.61 0.38 45.2
Approach 52 0.0 0.055 6.3 LOS A 0.2 1.3 0.38 0.61 0.38 45.4
West: Forrest Ave
10 L2 24 0.0 0.152 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 49.2
11 T1 254 10.0 0.152 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 49.7
Approach 278 9.1 0.152 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 0.00 49.6
All Vehicles 646 8.4 0.177 1.0 NA 0.2 1.8 0.07 0.10 0.07 49.1
Figure 10: SIDRA Assessment Results – Western Crossover – 2021
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Eastern Crossover - PM Peak]
Give-way / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID
Turn Demand Flows Deg.
Satn Average
Delay Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Aver. No. Cycles
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h
East: Forrest Ave
5 T1 362 11.5 0.222 0.2 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.5
6 R2 28 0.0 0.222 6.4 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.09 0.04 0.09 48.5
Approach 390 10.7 0.222 0.7 NA 0.3 2.2 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.4
North: Crossover
7 L2 28 0.0 0.025 6.0 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.42 0.58 0.42 45.6
Approach 28 0.0 0.025 6.0 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.42 0.58 0.42 45.6
West: Forrest Ave
10 L2 1 0.0 0.211 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.5
11 T1 382 11.5 0.211 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.0
Approach 383 11.5 0.211 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.0
All Vehicles 801 10.7 0.222 0.5 NA 0.3 2.2 0.06 0.04 0.06 49.5
Figure 11: SIDRA Assessment Results – Eastern Crossover - 2021
13
7.6. Network Capacity – Long Term (2031)
To assess the impact of the development in the longer term, an additional scenario 10 years after opening has
been assessed. Again, the background traffic volumes have been factored up by 2% per year to account for
general traffic growth to 2030. The predicted traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Distribution of Site Generated Trips - 2031
7.6.1. Roads
As shown in Figure 12, the resulting peak hour traffic flows with the assumed growth applied remain within the
practical capacity of the existing roads.
7.6.2. Intersections
The capacity assessment of the two crossovers has been repeated based on the projected 2031 traffic volumes.
The results of the assessment are shown Figure 13 and Figure 14. The results indicated that both the crossovers
would continue to perform well within capacity and that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the
development traffic.
Background Traffic with 2% Growth per year Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Traffic Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1,045 108 96 1,091 103 119
274 24 28
274 24 28
14
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Western Ground Level Crossover - PM Peak - 2031]
Give-way / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID
Turn Demand Flows Deg.
Satn Average
Delay Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Aver. No. Cycles
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h
East: Forrest Ave
5 T1 351 10.0 0.213 0.2 LOS A 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.5
6 R2 28 0.0 0.213 6.1 LOS A 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 48.5
Approach 379 9.3 0.213 0.6 NA 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.4
North: Crossover
7 L2 28 0.0 0.062 5.6 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 45.3
9 R2 24 0.0 0.062 8.3 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 44.9
Approach 52 0.0 0.062 6.9 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 45.1
West: Forrest Ave
10 L2 24 0.0 0.180 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.2
11 T1 306 10.0 0.180 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.7
Approach 330 9.3 0.180 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.7
All Vehicles 761 8.6 0.213 0.9 NA 0.3 2.0 0.07 0.08 0.07 49.2
Figure 13: SIDRA Assessment Results – Western Crossover – 2031
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Western Crossover - PM Peak - 2031]
Give-way / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID
Turn Demand Flows Deg.
Satn Average
Delay Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Aver. No. Cycles
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m km/h
East: Forrest Ave
5 T1 351 10.0 0.213 0.2 LOS A 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.5
6 R2 28 0.0 0.213 6.1 LOS A 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 48.5
Approach 379 9.3 0.213 0.6 NA 0.3 2.0 0.09 0.04 0.09 49.4
North: Crossover
7 L2 28 0.0 0.062 5.6 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 45.3
9 R2 24 0.0 0.062 8.3 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 44.9
Approach 52 0.0 0.062 6.9 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.43 0.65 0.43 45.1
West: Forrest Ave
10 L2 24 0.0 0.180 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.2
11 T1 306 10.0 0.180 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.7
Approach 330 9.3 0.180 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 49.7
All Vehicles 761 8.6 0.213 0.9 NA 0.3 2.0 0.07 0.08 0.07 49.2
Figure 14: SIDRA Assessment Results – Eastern Crossover - 2031
15
8. Parking Assessment
8.1. Car Parking
A total of 213 car parking bays are proposed on-site including 17 bays in a separate car park at the south-east
end of the site and 72 bays on the upper level of the decked car park. The City has advised that 10 of the 17 bays
in the separate car park adjacent to the proposed Indigenous Park should be allocated for public use and so the
total parking available for the Health Hub is 203 bays.
The car parking requirements have been calculated in accordance with the City of Bunbury Local Planning
Scheme No. 8 (LPS8) as detailed in Table 3.
Table 3: City of Bunbury LPS8 Car Parking Requirements
Land Use LPS8 Use Requirement Quantum Bays
Required
Community Centre
Reception Centre
1 bay per 4 seats; or 1 bay for every 4 persons the premises is designed to accommodate
150 people 38
Medical Centre Medical Centre
4 bays per consulting room and/or health consultant; or
1 bay per 20m2 of NLA, whichever is greater
26 consulting rooms
2,358m2
118
Office Office 1 bay per 30m2 of NLA 2,047m2 68
Total 224
*NLA – Net Lettable Area, NLA has been used for the Medical Centre parking requirement as this is greater than the requirement based on health
consultants.
It has been observed that approximately two thirds of patients/clients at the existing medical centre travel to and
from the centre via private transport and the remaining one third use other means including the SWAMS transport
service. The SWAMS transport service currently hires four full time drivers and two casual drivers working 8 to
10 hours per day on weekdays transporting booked patients to and from the medical centre. The service will
continue at the new centre with potential for additional drivers to be hired subject to demand.
Therefore the actual parking demand of the medical centre would be reduced. A 30% reduction in the calculated
parking requirement for the medical centre is therefore being sought as calculated in Table 4.
16
Table 4: City of Bunbury LPS8 Car Parking Requirements with Reductions
Land Use Bays Required Reduction Reason Reduced Bays
Required
Community Centre 38 0% - 38
Medical Centre 118 30% SWAMS transport service 83
Office 68 0% - 68
224 189
Based on the above, the estimated parking demand is 189 bays and the available 203 bays would be adequate.
The City of Bunbury Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Access and Parking for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles
(LPP3.1) recommends that as a minimum, 2% of the overall amount of car parking for retail/commercial land
uses must be allocated to disabled parking. Based on the proposed 203 bays, 4 disabled bays are required and
so 4 bays with shared spaces between have been included close to the main building entrance.
8.2. Bicycle Parking
The recommend bicycle parking provision according to LPP3.1 is detailed in Table 5. For simplicity it has been
assumed that the gross leasable area (GLA) is approximately equivalent to the net lettable area (NLA).
Table 5: City of Bunbury LPP3.1 Bicycle Parking Requirements
Land Use LPP3.1
Use Requirement Quantum Spaces Required
Community Centre
Reception Centre
1 space per 100 people the building is designed to accommodate for visitors
150 people 2
Medical Centre Medical Centre
1 space per 400m2 GLA for Occupants/Employees
1 space per 200m2 NLA for visitors 2,358m2
6 for employees
12 for visitors
Office Office 1 space per 200m2 GLA for Occupants/Employees
1 space per 750m2 NLA over 1,000m2 for visitors 2,047 m2
10 for employees
1 for visitors
Total 31 spaces
*NLA – Net Lettable Area
The current proposal includes 18 bicycle racks (36 spaces) near the main entrances of the centre which satisfies
the requirements of LPP3.1.
17
9. Road Safety Assessment
9.1. Crash History
The crash history for the surrounding roads for the five-year period ending December 2019 was obtained from
the MRWA Reporting Centre. A summary of the recorded incidents is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Crash History January 2015 to December 2019
The number of recorded incidents along Forrest Avenue is low and do not suggest any particular safety issue
with the road network.
According to the MRWA Crash Analysis Reporting System, the number of right angle crashes at the Picton Road
/ Forrest Avenue intersection is slightly over-represented when compared to the network average for similar
intersections between a major road and a local road in a built up area. A review of the layout, geometry of the
intersection did not identify any issue with sight distance or safety issues and in this instance the above average
occurrence of right angle crashes is likely due to the volume of traffic along this road.
SITE
1 right turn thru
2 rear end
3 right angle crashes
1 rear end
1 right angle
5 rear ends 1 sideswipe 6 right angle crashes
5 right turn thru
2 rear end
18
9.2. Vehicle Access
The proposed crossovers have been assessed for entering sight distance (ESD) in accordance with Australian
Standard AS 2890.1-2004 Parking Facilities - Off-street car parking (AS2890.1). Figure 3.2 of AS2890.1, shown
as Figure 16, outlines the minimum required ESD for access driveways based on the approach speed of vehicles
on the frontage road.
Figure 16: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Requirements
Based on the frontage road speed of 60 km/h, the minimum required sight distance is 65 metres and 83 metres
is desirable. A desktop review of the available sight distance from each of the exit crossovers using the latest
aerial imagery and Google Street view concludes that the desirable 83 metres of sight distance is available at all
crossovers in both directions as shown in Figure 17 to Figure 20.
19
Figure 17: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Western Crossover (Upper Deck)
20
Figure 18: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Western Crossover (Ground Level)
21
Figure 19: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Central Crossover
22
Figure 20: AS2890.1 Access Sight Distance Assessment – Eastern Crossover
9.3. Access Location
The City of Bunbury have expressed concern over the location of the ground level western crossover being
adjacent to the end of the existing right turn lane from Forrest Avenue onto Wisbey Street.
It is noted that there is an existing example of this arrangement along Forrest Avenue to the west of the site at
97 Forrest Avenue which is a tour bus facility. A review of crash history along this section of Forrest Avenue
indicated no crashes in the five year period from January 2015 to December 2019 which suggests that this
arrangement can exist without issue.
As suggested by the City, an independent Road Safety Audit of the proposed access / egress arrangement can
be undertaken to identify any potential safety issues and any measures to mitigate these.
23
10. Pedestrians and Cyclist Network Assessment
The existing pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure in the vicinity of the site includes:
A path along the south side of Forrest Avenue west of Wisbey Street; and
A railway crossing between the Bunbury Terminal and the site.
The development plans include a proposed footpath along the north side of Forrest Avenue for the majority of the
site frontage. Internally, a path connection is proposed between the railway crossing and Forrest Avenue as well
as through the public open space.
The existing and planned paths and walkways are considered to be sufficient for the movement of people to and
from the development site.
24
11. Public Transport Accessibility
The existing available public transport services include:
TransBunbury Bus Route 826 between Bunbury Bus Station and Bunbury Passenger Terminal;
TransBunbury Bus Route 827 between Bunbury Bus Station and Glen Iris; and
TransBunbury Bus Route 828 between Bunbury Bus Station and Bunbury Health Campus.
The closest bus stops are at the Bunbury Passenger Terminal adjacent to the site (for Route 826 and 827) and
on Yorla Road approximately 200 metres walking distance from the site (for Route 828).
The existing available services are considered to be sufficient to meet the likely public transport demand of the
proposed development.
25
12. Conclusion
A detailed Transport Impact Assessment of the proposed community and health facility concluded the following:
The existing road network will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development and no modifications are required.
The calculated parking requirement based on the land uses is 224 bays. A reduction of 30% to the
medical centre component is considered justifiable based on the available SWAMS transport service.
The reduced parking requirement is therefore 189 bays. After reductions have been applied the
proposed 203 available bays is considered to be adequate.
The crash history does not indicate any issues with the road network.
All vehicle crossovers achieve the minimum required sight distance.
The existing and proposed path network is adequate for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians
and cyclists travelling to and from the development.
The existing public transport service is considered sufficient to accommodate the expected demand for
this service.
26
Appendix A – WAPC TIA Checklist
Not considered necessary
Not considered necessary
27
None proposed
28
Not applicable
Not applicable
