183-95-02-tshepisong ext 4 - laptop - BA Tshepisong/Draft Basic... · -ii-Mariteng Consulting...

-i-

Mariteng Consulting Engineers

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains a Traffic Impact Study undertaken for the following development:

� The proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ.

� The development is situated along Kagiso Avenue and falls within the area of jurisdiction of the City of

Johannesburg.

The proposed township is earmarked for the following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for details):

a) Erf 1

� Zoning : Business 1 for retail

� FAR : 0.6

� Erf size : 3.0938ha

� GLA : 18 562.8m²

b) Erf 2 to 143

� Zoning : Res 1

� Density : 1 dwelling/erf

� Erf size : Average size/erf = 200m² (total "Res" area = 3.2050ha

c) Erf 144

� Zoning : Public Open Space

The proposed development will generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak) and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak

hour trips. Note: The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst case scenarios and all calculations

in this report are based on the traffic demand generated during these two peak periods.

The main access to the township is from Cremona Drive with a 20m road reserve. In terms of the township layout

the individual stands will be served by roads with a minimum reserve width of 13m.

THE SITE

-ii-


MARITENG INFORMATION PAGE

TITLE OF REPORT:

Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4

DATE : May 2016 STATUS OF REPORT : Revision 0

MARITENG PROJECT NUMBER: 183/95 MARITENG REPORT NUMBER: 183-95-02-tshepisong ext 4

PREPARED BY: Mariteng Management Solutions

P.O. Box 8864

VERWOERD PARK

1453

Tel : (082) 854 7358

Fax : (086) 547 8882

E-mail: [email protected]

Name Signature Date

AUTHOR/S OF REPORT

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

: L J du Toit .................... 02-05-2016

: E Muller

: L du Toit

Revision

No.

Date Comments

-iii-


TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY:

PROPOSED TOWNSHIP TSHEPISONG EXTENSION 4

(REVISION 0)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE RIGHTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.3 APPLICATION .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

3.4 TIME FRAME OF DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

4. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 EXTENT OF STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

4.2 LATENT LAND-USES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................... 5

4.3 EXISTING ROAD AND STREET NETWORK ............................................................................................................................................ 5

4.4 INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

5. SCENARIOS.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

6. DESIGN PEAK HOURS AND PEAK-HOUR FACTORS ............................................................................................................................ 7

6.1 DESIGN PEAK HOURS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7

6.2 PEAK HOUR FACTORS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

7. GAUTENG TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 7

8. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

-iv-


8.1 BASE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND .................................................................................................................................. 7

8.2 IMPACT OF CHANGES TO ROAD NETWORK PLANNED BY THE ROAD AUTHORITIES ............................................................... 8

8.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DUE TO TRAFFIC GROWTH ............................................................................................ 8

8.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEMAND DUE TO LATENT LAND USES ........................................................................................... 8

9. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................................................... 8

9.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

9.2 TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 8

9.3 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 10

10. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 11

10.1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

10.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

11. TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

12. CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 12

12.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

12.2 MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

12.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 13

12.4 DISPLAY OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

13. TOWNSHIP LAYOUT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

13.1 PROPOSED EXTERNAL ACCESS ROADS ............................................................................................................................................. 23

13.2 PROPOSED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK ............................................................................................................................................ 23

13.3 SPLAY REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24

13.4 FUTURE EXTERNAL ROADS .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

14. PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 24

-v-


14.1 RETAIL SITE .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

14.2 RESIDENTIAL ERVEN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25

15. PUBLIC TRANSPORT & NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................. 25

15.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 25

15.2 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................... 25

15.3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS ................................................................................................................... 25

15.4 PROPOSED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................... 25

15.5 PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 25

16. PROPOSED TAXI FACILITIES ON RETAIL SITE .................................................................................................................................. 26

17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 26

17.1 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27

ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A: EXTRACT FROM TOWNSHIP APPLICATION MEMORANDUM AND TOWNSHIP LAYOUT

ANNEXURE B: RISFSA 2009 ROAD HIERARCHY - REGION D

ANNEXURE C: TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

ANNEXURE D: CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

ANNEXURE E: PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AND NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC TRANSPORT

FACILITIES - MARITENG PLAN NO.: 183-95-01

ANNEXURE F: CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS - AUTOJ

ANNEXURE G: STANDARD SPLAYS - JRA DRAWING NO.: JRA-SD-RD-070

ANNEXURE H: EXTRACT FROM TMH 16 VOLUME 2 - THROAT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Total Number of Development Trips .......................................................................................................................... -10-

Table 2: Level of Service Results: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street .................................................................. -18-

Table 3: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street ........................................... -18-

Table 4: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street ......................... -19-

Table 5: Level of Service Results: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive............................................................. -20-

Table 6: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive ..................................... -20-

Table 7: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive ................... -21-

Table 8: Level of Service Results: Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Street ........................................................... -21-

Table 9: Level of Service Results: Intersection 4 – Cremano Drive & Road A ......................................................................... -22-

-vi-


Table 10: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremano Drive & Road B ......................................................................... -22-

Table 11: Level of Service Results: Intersection 6 – Cremano Drive & Road C ......................................................................... -22-

Table 12: Level of Service Results: Intersection 7 – Cremano Drive & Road D ......................................................................... -23-

Table 13: Level of Service Results: Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access ........................................................... -23-

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure 2: Aerial View of Study Area

Figure 3: PWV Road Network

Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic

Figure 5: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic

Figure 6: Trip Generation Characteristics - Retail Component

Figure 7: Trip Generation Characteristics - Residential Component

Figure 8: Total Trip Demand - Retail Plus Residential

Figure 9: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development

Figure 10: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development

-1-


1. STUDY METHODOLOGY

This report contains a Traffic Impact Study undertaken for the following development:

� The proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238

IQ.

� The development is situated along Kagiso Avenue and falls within the area of jurisdiction of the City of

Johannesburg.

The details of the town planner involved with the projects/development are:

� To Plan Consulting Town Planner

P.O. Box 8364

BIRCHLEIGH

1621

For Attention: Me. C Denner

Tel No.: 083 644 6729

E-mail address: [email protected]

This study was undertaken by traffic engineer:

Mr. Louis du Toit, P.O. Box 8864, Verwoerd Park, 1453

The traffic engineer has the following qualifications for undertaking Traffic Impact Studies:

� Registered as a professional engineering technologist (Registration No. 200270072);

� Baccalaureus Technologiae – Engineering Civil (Transportation) (1997); and

� Experienced in the field of evaluating the traffic impact of developments.

“I Louis du Toit, author if this traffic impact study, hereby certify that I am a professional traffic engineer

(ECSA Registration No.: 200270072) and that I have the required experience and training in the field of

traffic and transportation engineering, as required by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), to

compile this traffic impact study/statement and I take full responsibility for the content, including all

calculations, conclusions and recommendations made therein”.

Signature:............................

-2-


2. STUDY METHODOLOGY

The traffic impact study was executed in accordance with the following guideline documents:

� Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), August 2012, South African Traffic Impact and Site

Traffic Assessment Manual (TMH 16 - Volume 1) (Version 1.0).

� Department of Transport, 1995, Manual for Traffic Impact Studies.

� Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), September 2012, South African Trip Data Manual

(TMH 17 - Version 1.01).

The proposed development will generate more than 150 peak hour trips and the following procedure was

followed, in the execution of the study:

� The extent of the study was determined by identifying the intersections in the vicinity of the

development on which the traffic generated by the development may have a significant impact. The

target years and peak scenarios to be analysed were also determined, based on the land-use and extent of

the development.

� The existing traffic flow patterns were surveyed, where after the functioning of the intersections was

analysed. Recommendations were made on the need for road upgrades, without the development.

� In the study, future traffic flow conditions were also taken into consideration, namely one target year, i.e.

5 years beyond the base year. Given the existing traffic, volumes and assuming a growth rate, the

expected target year were determined, where after the intersections were again analysed and

recommendations were made on the future road upgrades required.

� The study also assessed the applicant site in terms of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act.

� Given the extent of the development and using the applicable trip generation rates, the expected number

of trips that will be generated was determined.

� The trip distribution of the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development was derived from

the existing traffic flow patterns, the location as well as the potential market area of the development in

relation to the road network. For ease of reference the proposed development will be referred to as with

or proposed development scenario.

� Given the trip distribution, the generated traffic was assigned to the road network together with the

existing and estimated target year traffic volumes. The functioning of the intersections were again

analysed and recommendations were made on the need for additional road upgrading necessary, due to

the proposed development.

-3-


� As part of the study, the existing public transport infrastructure was also evaluated and where required

upgrading to the existing infrastructure was recommended.

The following documentations were also used as part of this study:

� Institute of Transportation, 2nd

Edition, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook.

� Akcelik and Associates (Pty) Ltd, 2011, Sidra Version 6.1.

� Dr J Sampson, November 2015, AutoJ.

� Transport Research Board, 1994, Highway Capacity Manual.

� Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), August 2012, South African Road Classification and

Access Management Manual (TRH 26) (Version 1.0).

� Department of Transport, South African Development Community, Road Traffic Signs Manual

(SARTSM) Volume 1, Chapter 4 (3rd

Edition).

� Johannesburg Roads Agency SOC Limited (JRA), June 2015, Roads & Stormwater Manual -

Volumes 2 - Standard Design Details for Roads & Stormwater Part 1 - Roads).

� City of Johannesburg, Complete Street Design Guideline Manual - Complete Streets.

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This traffic impact study was undertaken for the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4.

The location of the proposed township is shown in Figure 1.

3.2 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE RIGHTS

The site is currently zoned "Undetermined" and the site is currently improved with a single residential house

and associated outbuildings.

3.3 APPLICATION

The town planner for the project, To Plan Consulting Town Planner, submitted a township application for the

following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for the township layout):

-4-


a) Erf 1


� FAR : 0.6


� GLA : 18 562.8m²

b) Erf 2 to 143

� Zoning : Res 1



c) Erf 144


3.4 TIME FRAME OF DEVELOPMENT

It is anticipated that the full development will be completed within the next 5 years.

4. STUDY AREA

4.1 EXTENT OF STUDY AREA

The study area for this application is shown in Figures 1 and 2, and is surrounded by the following land

uses/roads:

� To the north of the property is Geba Street.

� To the east of the site is vacant land.

� To the south the applicant site abuts the proposed Cremona Drive. Further south of the site is Sandpiper

Road.

� To the west the applicant site abuts Kagiso Avenue.

-5-


4.2 LATENT LAND-USES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN STUDY AREA

As part of this study no latent rights development could be indentified in the study area that could impact on

the findings of the traffic report.

4.3 EXISTING ROAD AND STREET NETWORK

The existing surrounding road network is briefly discussed hereafter, and indicated on Figure 1 and 2

respectively.

� Kagiso Avenue is a single lane road running in a north-south direction. Based on the RISFSA 2009

road classification (refer to Annexure B), Kagiso Avenue is still indicated as an informal settlement

road. In terms of the information obtain from Gautrans' road master plan (refer to Figure 3), the section

of Kagiso Avenue north of Road R41 (Randfontein Road extension) is a Class 3 road. It is therefore

assumed that the section of road passing through the study area will also be a Class 3 road. Kagiso

Avenue falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.

� Sandpiper Road is a single lane road running in a north-south direction. Sandpiper Road ties in with

Kagiso Avenue, to the south of the applicant site. Based on the current alignment Sandpiper Road ties

in as an extension of Kagiso Avenue, while Kagiso Avenue continues further south as a gravel road

forming the secondary link in the road network. Based on the RISFSA 2009 road classification,

Sandpiper Road is still shown as an informal settlement road. However, given the alignment of the road

and based on the information obtain from Gautrans' road master plan, the road function as a Class 3

road. In terms of the future planning, Sandpiper Road deviates at the point where it currently ties in

with Kagiso Avenue, to tie in with an existing east-west link road. The existing east-west link (no street

name) ties in with Adcock Street in the east. Sandpiper Road is earmarked as a major east-west link in

the road network. Sandpiper Road falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.

� Geba Street is a single road running in an east-west direction. The road serves residential erven. Geba

Street intersects with Kagiso Avenue, and is a 3-way stop controlled intersection. Geba Street falls

under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.

� Cremona Drive is a proposed east-west road in a 20m road reserve. Although not yet constructed, the

road master plan for the area already makes provision for the proposed road. Cremona Drive will fall

under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.

� Road A is a residential road running in a north-south direction. The road is unsurfaced and falls under

the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.

-6-


4.4 INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED

For the purposes of this study, the following existing intersections were analysed (also refer to Figure 1):

� Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street - 3-way stop control;

� Intersection 2: Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive - Stop control with priority on Kagiso Avenue. (Note:

Cremona Drive will replace Prospect Road and all existing traffic was diverted from Prospect to

Cremona Drive.) The road is already part of the township located directly south of the applicant site;

and

� Intersection 3: Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road - Stop control with priority on Kagiso

Avenue/Sandpiper Road.

Based on the proposed township layout, the following new intersections were also identified and analysed

(refer to Figure 2 for location of roads):

� Intersection 4: Cremona Drive & Road A - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;

� Intersection 5: Cremona Drive & Road B - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;

� Intersection 6: Cremona Drive & Road C - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;

� Intersection 7: Cremona Drive & Road D - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive; and

� Intersection 8: Road B & Shopping Centre Access - Stop control with priority on Road B.

The above intersections were selected as it provides the main access to the study area, and the additional

development traffic will have the highest impact on these intersections.

5. SCENARIOS

It is expected, that the development will generate more than 150 peak hour trips and the following traffic

assessment scenarios were analysed:

� Scenario 1: Base year (2016) PM peak background traffic;

� Scenario 2: Base year (2016) PM peak with development traffic;

� Scenario 3: Target year (2021) PM peak background traffic;

� Scenario 4: Target year (2021) PM peak with development traffic;

� Scenario 5: Base year (2016) Sat peak background traffic;

-7-


� Scenario 6: Base year (2016) Sat peak with development traffic;

� Scenario 7: Target year (2021) Sat peak background traffic; and

� Scenario 8: Target year (2021) Sat peak with development traffic.

6. DESIGN PEAK HOURS AND PEAK-HOUR FACTORS

6.1 DESIGN PEAK HOURS

Given the trip generation characteristics of the proposed development, the peak demand is during the

weekday afternoon and Saturday peak hours of the adjacent road network. The peak hour for the

intersections selected varies and for the purpose of this study, the peak hour for each intersection was

selected to represent the worst case scenario. The peak hours selected for this application is as follows:

� Weekday afternoon peak hour (selected critical peak for each intersection); and

� Saturday midday peak hour (selected critical peak for each intersection).

6.2 PEAK HOUR FACTORS

The following peak hour factors (PHF) were used in the capacity analysis and level-of-service (LOS)

calculations:

� Base year – peak hour factors obtained from the existing traffic counts.

� For the future (2021) horizon, a PHF of 0.95 or LOS E was considered for a signalized controlled

intersection. For unsignalized intersections a PHF of 0.85 was used.

7. GAUTENG TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT EVALUATION

The application was also evaluated in terms of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act of 2001. Based on

the provincial PWV Road Master Plan shown in Figure 3, the applicant site is not affected by any existing or

future provincial roads.

8. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND

8.1 BASE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND

Detailed traffic counts were carried out at the intersection, on Friday 26 February 2016 and Saturday 27

February 2016. The peak hour background traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.

-8-


8.2 IMPACT OF CHANGES TO ROAD NETWORK PLANNED BY THE ROAD

AUTHORITIES

No road construction is currently under construction that could affect the findings of this report.

8.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DUE TO TRAFFIC GROWTH

For the purpose of this study, an annual growth rate of 3.0% was considered reasonable for the study area.

The growth rate was used to determine the expected future target year through traffic volumes from the base

year volumes. Therefore the annual growth rate compounded over 5 years yield an expected increase of

15.9% in the traffic volumes between base year and target year.

Given the existing weekday morning peak hour traffic volumes, refer to Figure 4, and the projected growth

rate, the expected future target year peak hour traffic volumes were calculated – refer to Figure 5.

8.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEMAND DUE TO LATENT LAND USES

The applicant site is not affected by latent rights traffic.

9. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The application is for the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4 for a community shopping centre of

18 562.8m² GLA and 142 "Res 1" erven.

9.2 TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The trip generation rates for the land uses were obtained from the guideline document of the Department of

Transport entitled “South African Trip Data Manual”, and can be summarised as follows:

a) Business 1 (Retail) - refer to Annexure C for calculations

� Weekday morning peak hour: 1.17 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 65:35 (in:out)

� Weekday afternoon peak hour: 6.64 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)

� Saturday midday peak hour: 8.78 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)

In terms of the "guideline document", the following the trip generation rate reduction factors can be applied

provided, provided the site meet the necessary requirements. These factors are as follows:

� Mixed-use development : 10%

� Low vehicle ownership : 30%

-9-


� Very low vehicle ownership : 60%

� Transit nodes or corridors : 15%

In terms of the manual a combined trip reduction factor can also be applied where a combination of the above

factors are applicable to the applicant site. The calculation formula is as follows:

� Pc = 1- (1-Pm) * (1-Pv) * (1-Pt)

� In which:

• Pc = Combined reduction factor

• Pm = Reduction factor for mixed use development

• Pv = Reduction factor for vehicle ownership

• Pt = Reduction factor for transit nodes or corridors

The site is earmarked for a shopping centre and is located a low vehicle ownership residential area where

residents dependents on public transport for daily commuting dependent. Further to this, a taxi rank is also

proposed on the site to increase accessibility of the retail component. The retail site is located in an area with

a well-established township to the north, and south of the site and a 142 residential erven township proposed

direct east of the applicant site. Given the surrounding existing and proposed land uses, it increases the

potential of the centre to attract a higher number of non-motorized transport users, reducing the demand for

private vehicle usage. Further to this, a well-established taxi route is operating along Kagiso Avenue. In

light of this, the combined trip reduction factor was applied. The trip reduction percentages used for each

category is as follows:

� Pm = 0%

� Pv = 30%

� Pt = 15%

Thus, as part of this study the following reduction rate was applied:

� Combined reduction factor (Pc ) : Pc = 1- (1-Pm) * (1-Pv) * (1-Pt) = 40.5%

Pc = 1- (1-0) * (1-0.3) * (1-0.15)

Pc = 40.5%

-10-


b) Residential erven

� Weekday morning peak hour: 1.0 trips/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 25:75 (in:out)

� Weekday afternoon peak hour: 1.0 trip/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 70:30 (in:out)

� Saturday midday peak hour: 0.50 trip/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)

In terms of the "guideline document", the following the trip generation rate reduction factors can be applied

provided, provided the site meet the necessary requirements. These factors are as follows:

� Mixed-use development : 10%


� Very low vehicle ownership : 70%

� Transit nodes or corridors : 15%

The site is earmarked for a residential development with low vehicle ownership and the residents will be

dependent on public transport for their daily commuting. In light of this the following rate was applied:


9.3 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The total trip generation for the development discussed in Section 9.2 is summarised in Table 1, and the

detail calculations are appended in Annexure C.

Table 1: Total Number of Development Trips

DESCRIPTION MORNING PEAK HOUR AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Retail - 18 562.8m² GLA 84 45 129 366 366 733 485 485 970

142 “Res 1” erven 21 64 85 60 26 85 21 21 43

TOTAL 105 109 215 426 392 818 506 506 1 013

Note: Values in Table 1 calculated in Excel spreadsheet and was rounded up or down, based on the formula used in the spread sheet.

Based on the results the proposed development will generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak)

and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak hour trips. Note: The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst

case scenarios and all calculations in this report are based on the traffic demand generated during

these two peak periods.

-11-


10. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

10.1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The most likely direction from which the generated traffic will approach and leave the study area was

determined by taking the following in consideration:

� The location of the development in relation to main central business districts/residential areas; and

� The existing traffic flows on the adjacent road network during the respective peak hours were used as an

adaptation of the Analogy Method.

For the purpose of this study, the following distribution was assumed:

a) Retail Component (refer to Figure 6)

� Kagiso Avenue - North = 10%

� Geba Street - East = 20%

� Road A - South = 30%

� Sandpiper Road - Southwest = 35%

b) Residential Component (refer to Figure 7)

� Kagiso Avenue - North = 22%

� Geba Street - East = 43%

� Sandpiper Road - Southwest = 35%

10.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT

Given the trip distributions, the expected development traffic was assigned to the road network. The total

development demand (retail plus residential) is shown in Figure 8.

11. TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND

The total traffic demand on the road network was determined by adding the development traffic to the base

year and target year background traffic. The details are shown in Figures 9 to 10 for the for the respective

traffic flow scenarios.

-12-


12. CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS

12.1 INTRODUCTION

The following methodology was adopted in evaluating the intersections included as part of this study:

� Analyse the existing and future background traffic demand, using the existing intersection layout;

� Determine the road upgrades required to accommodate the background traffic scenarios.

� Analyse the expected base year and future year scenarios, taking the additional development traffic into

consideration.

� Determine the road upgrades required to accommodate the background traffic and the development

trips. It was assumed, as part of this application, that the upgrades required to accommodate the

background traffic would be implemented.

� In order to determine the required road upgrading, a level-of-service E or worse on any approach at an

intersection was accepted at the stage when road upgrading will be implemented.

12.2 MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS

The capacity analysis was done according the method as contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (4-way

stop scenario) and SIDRA intersection software program. The operation of an intersection is defined in

terms of levels-of-service (LOS).

The LOS for a traffic light controlled intersection is defined in terms of average total vehicle delay (not

average stop delay), where delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost

travel time. However, for an unsignalized intersection the average delay for any particular minor movement

is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation.

The LOS for an approach values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movements. The average

intersection delay is not a good LOS measure for two-way control intersection, as the major through

movements normally have a zero delay. The average intersection LOS is therefore recorded as “NOT

APPLICABLE”.

The thresholds for signalized intersection and stop-controlled intersection can be summarised as follows:

Signalized intersections

LOS A describes operations with very low delays, up to 10 sec/vehicle. The LOS occurs when progression is

extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.

LOS B describes operations with delays greater than 10 sec and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally

-13-


occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing

higher levels of average delay.

LOS C describes operations with delays greater than 20 sec and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays

may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear

at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many vehicles still pass

through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with delays greater than 35 sec and up to 55 sec per vehicle. This level, the

influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of

unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume over capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and

the proportion of vehicles not stopping decline considerable. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

LOS E describes operations with delays greater than 55 sec and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is

considered by many road agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally

indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume over capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures

are frequent occurrences.

LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable

to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the

intersection.

Unsignalized intersections

LOS A describes operations with very low delays, up to 10 sec per vehicle.

LOS B describes operations with delays greater than 10 sec and up to 15 sec per vehicle.

LOS C describes operations with delays greater than 15 sec and up to 25 sec per vehicle.

LOS D describes operations with delays greater than 25 sec and up to 35 sec per vehicle.

LOS E describes operations with delays greater than 35 sec and up to 50 sec per vehicle.

LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 50 sec per vehicle.

12.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS

Sidra 6.1 was used to assess the capacity for each intersection. The conceptual intersection layout for each

intersection evaluated as part of this application is illustrated below:

-14-


a) Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street

b) Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive

Note: Based on the township layout prepared by the town planner Prospect Road will be closed with the

establishment of the township and replaced by Cremona Drive. Thus for the purpose of this study all

calculations were done for the Kagiso Avenue/Cremona Drive intersection.

-15-


c) Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road

d) Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A

-16-


e) Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B

f) Intersection 6 – Cremona Drive & Road C

g) Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D

-17-


h) Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access

12.4 DISPLAY OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The following figures should be read in conjunction with the capacity analysis:

� Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic

� Figure 5: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic

� Figure 9: Estimated (2016) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development

� Figure 10: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development

The results are summarised hereafter, with detailed results appended in Annexure D.

-18-


a) Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street

Table 2: Level of Service Results: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street

PEAK SCENARIO

TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND

APPROACH INTERSECTION

S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L

PM

SC1 0.41 12.1 B 0.74 31.0 D 0.54 8.5 C - - - 0.74 20.6 C

SC2 0.55 13.9 B 0.99 >80 F 0.61 20.2 C - - - 0.99 42.1 E

SC3 0.48 12.9 B 0.86 46.3 E 063 21.4 C - - - 0.86 27.1 D

SC4 0.48 7.5 A 0.58 8.9 A 0.55 10.5 B - - - 0.58 8.8 A

SAT

SC5 0.45 11.8 B 0.44 24.1 C 0.27 12.4 B - - 0.45 14.3 B

SC6 0.62 14.4 B 0.78 46.0 E 0.35 13.0 B - - - 0.78 2105 C

SC7 0.50 12.4 B 0.49 25.9 D 0.31 12.8 B - - - 0.50 15.0 C

SC8 0.54 6.6 A 0.32 7.6 A 0.36 8.2 A - - - 0.54 7.2 A

Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS)

From Table 2 it can be concluded the intersection will operate at LOS E or worst with the additional

development assigned to the road network. The road network upgrades required to improve the LOS is

discussed in Table 3.

Table 3: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 1 - Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street

Description Road Improvement Summary Responsibility Comments

Scenario 2 & 6 Install a traffic circle with an inner diameter of 5.0m and a

single circulation lane of 5.0m.

Developer Sufficient road

reserve available

to accommodate

upgrade.

The proposed road upgrade is illustrated below, as well as in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in

Annexure E.

-19-


Table 4: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba

Street

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC2 0.42 7.3 A 0.50 8.2 A 0.46 8.7 A - - - 0.50 8.0 A

SAT SC6 0.48 6.5 A 0.28 7.4 A 0.31 7.8 A - - - 0.48 7.0 A


It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.

NOTE: The preferred road improvement was also tested using the modelling program AutoJ. Based on the

result (refer to details appended in Annexure F), the best ICD, at 84%, is a traffic circle. (ICD -

Intersection Control Device, the device or method by which the intersection is controlled. ICD's can be

priority (stops, yields and roundabouts) or signal controls. Uncontrolled intersections have no ICD.).

-20-


b) Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive

Table 5: Level of Service Results: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM

SC1 0.23 0.3 A 0.06 13.1 B 0.25 0.2 A - - - 0.25 0.6 A

SC2 0.48 6.2 A >1.0 >50 F 0.36 1.6 A - - - >1.0 23.6 C

SC3 0.27 0.3 A 0.09 15.3 C 0.29 0.2 A - - - 0.29 0.7 A

SC4 0.25 2.3 A 0.83 33.7 D 0.37 1.3 A - - - 0.83 7.4 A

SAT

SC5 0.23 0.1 A 0.01 10.5 B 0.12 0.1 A - - - 0.23 0.3 A

SC6 0.38 3.4 A 0.65 18.3 C 0.21 2.4 A - - - 0.65 6.9 A

SC7 0.27 0.2 A 0.02 11.1 B 0.14 0.2 A - - - 0.27 0.4 A

SC8 0.26 2.1 A 0.77 25.4 D 0.23 2.2 A - - - 0.77 7.7 A


From Table 5 it can be concluded the intersection will operate at LOS F for the base year "With

Development" scenario. The road network upgrades required to improve the LOS is discussed in Table 6.

Table 6: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 2 - Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive

Description Road Improvement Summary Responsibility Comments

Scenario 2 & 6 Provide an exclusive right-turn lane (storage length = 45m) on

the northbound approach of Kagiso Avenue.

Developer Sufficient road

reserve available

to accommodate

upgrade. Provide an exclusive left-turn lane (storage length = 45m) on

the westbound approach of Cremona Drive.

-21-


Table 7: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue &

Cremona Drive

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC2 0.22 2.3 A 0.61 20.9 C 0.32 1.4 A - - - 0.61 5.5 A

SAT SC6 0.22 2.2 A 0.61 18.5 C 0.21 2.4 A - - - 0.61 6.5 A


Based on the detail results appended in Annexure D, the right-turn movement on the westbound approach of

Cremona Drive will experience LOS F and E, during the target year 2021, even with the proposed road

widening proposed.

The intersection was evaluated with a traffic circle control device and based on eth results will operate at

acceptable LOS even for the target year 2021. The SIDRA results were compared, using the modelling

program AutoJ. Based on the result (refer to details appended in Annexure F), the best ICD, at 86%, is a

traffic circle. Thus as part of the study a traffic circle with an inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation

lane of 5.0m. The details are shown in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E.

c) Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road

Table 8: Level of Service Results: Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



AM

SC1 0.11 13.5 B - - - 0.28 5.1 A 0.24 5.3 A 0.28 5.7 A

SC2 0.18 19.0 C - - - 0.38 5.1 A 0.33 5.3 A 0.38 5.8 A

SC3 0.17 15.8 C - - - 0.33 5.2 A 0.27 5.4 A 0.33 5.8 A

SC4 0.30 25.6 D - - - 0.43 5.2 A 0.37 5.3 A 0.43 6.1 A

PM

SC5 0.23 10.5 B - - - 0.15 5.3 A 0.23 5.4 A 0.23 6.5 A

SC6 0.37 15.2 C - - - 0.33 5.4 A 0.33 5.4 A 0.37 6.8 A

SC7 0.30 11.6 A - - - 0.18 5.4 A 0.27 5.4 A 0.30 6.7 A

SC8 0.50 18.8 C - - - 0.30 5.5 A 0.37 5.4 A 0.50 7.5 A



-22-


d) Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A

Table 9: Level of Service Results: Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC4 0.28 14.3 B 0.25 1.5 A - - - 0.20 0.2 A 0.28 2.7 A

SAT SC8 0.45 18.1 C 0.30 1.7 A - - - 0.22 0.2 A 0.45 3.6 A



e) Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B

Table 10: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC4 - - - 0.04 1.4 A 0.53 11.5 B 0.27 4.8 A 0.53 7.4 A

SAT SC8 - - - 0.03 3.3 A 0.69 13.4 B 0.31 5.2 A 0.69 9.0 A



f) Intersection 6 – Cremona Drive & Road C

Table 11: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road C

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC4 - - - 0.02 0.8 A 0.02 8.0 A 0.04 1.7 A 0.04 2.3 A

SAT SC8 - - - 0.02 1.1 A 0.02 7.9 A 0.03 1.5 A 0.03 2.7 A



-23-


g) Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D

Table 12: Level of Service Results: Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC4 - - - 0.02 1.2 A 0.02 7.9 A 0.03 2.6 A 0.03 3.2 A

SAT SC8 - - - 0.01 1.9 A 0.02 7.8 A 0.02 2.0 A 0.02 3.5 A



h) Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access

Table 13: Level of Service Results: Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access

PEAK SCENARIO


NORTHBOUND

APPROACH

WESTBOUND

APPROACH

SOUTHBOUND

APPROACH

EASTBOUND



PM SC4 0.24 5.2 A - - - 0.02 4.3 A 0.48 10.0 B 0.48 7.5 A

SAT SC8 0.30 5.5 A - - 0.02 5.7 A 0.67 12.5 B 0.67 8.9 A



13. TOWNSHIP LAYOUT ASSESSMENT

13.1 PROPOSED EXTERNAL ACCESS ROADS

The main access to the proposed township is from Cremona Drive, which intersects with Kagiso Avenue.

The road is planned along the southern property boundary of the township, with a 20.0m road reserve. As

part of the investigation and given the higher order function the road will fulfill, a minimum lane width of

3.5m should be provided long the full length of the property. The details are shown in Mariteng Plan No.:

183-95-01, appended in Annexure E.

13.2 PROPOSED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK

The proposed township will be served by a network of smaller roads with a minimum of 13.0m road reserve

widths. In the absence of registered street names the roads are for ease of reference marked Road B, Road C,

Road D, Road E and Road F. The location of each road is shown in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01,

-24-


appended in Annexure E.

With the exception of Road B, Roads C to F will function as residential road and it is recommended that the

surfaced width be limited to 5.5m. Road B will carry some heavy vehicles for daily deliveries to the

proposed shopping centre site. A minimum road width of 7.0m is therefore recommended for Road B for the

full length of the road.

13.3 SPLAY REQUIREMENTS

The splay requirements for the road network is as follows (also refer to JRA Standard, Drawing No.JRA-

SD-RD-070), appended in Annexure G):

� The splay at the Kagiso Avenue and Cremona Drive intersection to be 15m * 5m.

� All remaining township roads should have a minimum splay of 5m*5m.

13.4 FUTURE EXTERNAL ROADS

In terms of the township layout a future road is planned along the eastern boundary of the township. The

road will link Cremano Drive with the existing residential area located to the north of the applicant site. It is

not necessary to construct this road as part of the approval of this application. However, provision is made in

the township layout for a 9.46m road reserve widening in favour of the future road.

14. PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

14.1 RETAIL SITE

At present no site development plan (SDP) is available for the property. In the absence of such details the

following minimum access requirements are recommended (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01,

appended in Annexure E):

� Access from Road B, to be a minimum distance of 65m from Cremona Drive.

� No access control proposed at the site entrance. It is expected that a security gate will be provided at

the entrance, which will be closed at night for security purposes.

� One inbound and one outbound lane.

� A minimum lane width of 3.5m was provided for (assumed no raised median along the access road). In

the event a raised median island is considered at SDP stage, then one lane should have a minimum lane

width of 4.5m.

� A minimum throat length of 15m is required. Refer to Table 27 and Table 28, extracted from the TMH

16 (Volume 2), appended in Annexure H.

-25-


� Any structures at the site entrance to have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2m.

14.2 RESIDENTIAL ERVEN

Each residential erven will have a single access from the adjacent road network. The final position for each

residential erven to be confirmed at SDP phase.

15. PUBLIC TRANSPORT & NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS

15.1 INTRODUCTION

In terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act, Act 5 of 2009 (Section 38), it is also necessary to

carry out a public transport assessment for all new developments. The assessment need to address aspects

such as the additional transport trips that will be generated, the expected traveling pattern of these users, as

well as the impact it may have on the existing public transport network.

15.2 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Kagiso Avenue is a well-established taxi route, with no formal taxi lay-bys along this section of Kagiso

Avenue. Taxis make unscheduled stops as and when required.

15.3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS

The proposed development is planned within a residential area where public transport forms an integral part

of the resident’s daily commuting requirements. It is also expected the proposed shopping center will

generate a substantial number of public transport trips and will also form an important public transport node.

15.4 PROPOSED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

As indicated, the proposed township is earmarked for a retail and residential component, planned in an area

with low vehicle ownership. Thus, as part of the approval of this application, sufficient public transport

infrastructure is required to meet the expected demand. The following public transport facilities should be

included in the final township layout:

� Provide taxi stops along both sides of Kagiso Avenue, downstream of the Cremona Drive intersection.

Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E.

15.5 PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

As part of the study, and in line with the City of Johannesburg - Transportation’s policy the following non-

motorized facilities are proposed (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E):

� 2.0m paved sidewalk along the northern side of Cremona Drive, for the full length of the township

boundary;

-26-


� 2.0m paved sidewalks along both side of Road B, between Cremano Drive and Road E; and

� 2.0m paved sidewalks on one side of all remaining township roads.

16. PROPOSED TAXI FACILITIES ON RETAIL SITE

As part of this study, it is assumed that some form of taxi facility will be provided on the property. This

could either be in the form of a full taxi rank or allocating some of the parking bays on site for "taxi use

only".

The final layout to be addressed at SDP stage of the shopping centre.

17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17.1 CONCLUSIONS

The study addresses the impact of the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of

the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ, on the surrounding road network. The following conclusion can be reached

from the study:

i. The applicant site is earmarked for a retail component (18 562.8m² GLA) and 142 "Res 1" erven.

ii. The intersections listed in Section 4.4, forms part of the study area.

iii. No latent rights were identified in the study area that could affect the findings of this study.

iv. Gauteng Infrastructure Act: The applicant site is not affected by any existing or future provincial

roads.

v. The proposed development will generate the following number of trips: The proposed development will

generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak) and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak hour trips. Note:

The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst case scenarios and all calculations in

this report are based on the traffic demand generated during these two peak periods.

vi. Proposed road network upgrade – background traffic demand: No external road network

improvement is required to accommodate the background traffic demand.

vii. Proposed road network upgrade – development traffic: Based on the analysis, additional road

upgrade is required to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed development. The details are

discussed in Section 17.2.

NOTE: The existing Prospect Road will be replaced by the new road, Cremona Drive, shown along the

southern side of the township.

-27-


viii. Access arrangements: The main access for the proposed development is from Cremona Drive, as well

as several new roads proposed for the township.

ix. Public transport assessments: The area is well served by frequent public transport throughout the

day. Additional facilities are recommended to serve the applicant site.

x. Non-motorized public transport assessments: No non-motorized transport facilities are provided in

the study area. New facilities are proposed to serve the applicant site.

17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the traffic impact study, it is recommended that the proposed the proposed Township Tshepisong

Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ., be approved for:

The proposed township is earmarked for the following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for details):

a) Erf 1


� FAR : 0.6


� GLA : 18 562.8m²

b) Erf 2 to 143

� Zoning : Res 1



c) Erf 144


The approval is subject to the following:

i. The construction of the following external road upgrades:

a) Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street

� Convert to a traffic circle with a minimum inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation

of 5.0m.

-28-


b) Intersection 2: Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive

� Convert to a traffic circle with a minimum inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation

of 5.0m.

ii. Approval of the proposed Cremona Drive (20m road reserve width), and construct a 7.0m road, between

Kagiso Avenue and the eastern property boundary of the site. Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01,

appended in Annexure E for details.

iii. Approval of the proposed Road B, Road C, Road D, Road E and Road F, all with a 13m road reserve

width.

iv. Construct the proposed Road C, Road D, Road E and Road F, all with a 5.5m wide road surface. Refer

to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E for details.

v. Construct proposed Road B, with a 7.0m wide road surface (will carry delivery vehicles). Refer to

Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E for details.

vi. Provide the following splays (refer to JRA Standard, Drawing No.JRA-SD-RD-070), appended in

Annexure G):

� The splay at the Kagiso Avenue and Cremona Drive intersection to be 15m * 5m.

� All remaining township roads should have a minimum splay of 5m*5m.

vii. The proposed 9.46m road reserve along the eastern side of the township to be excluded from the

approval of the township. It is not necessary to construct the north-south road as part of the approval of

this application.

viii. The construction of the individual site access arrangements for the "Res 1" erven at Site Development

Phase.

ix. At present no site development plan (SDP) is available for the property. In the absence of such details

the following minimum access requirements are recommended (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-

95-01, appended in Annexure E):

� Access from Road B, to be a minimum distance of 65m from Cremona Drive.

� No access control proposed at the site entrance. It is expected that a security gate will be provided

at the entrance, which will be closed at night for security purposes.3

� One inbound and one outbound lane.

� A minimum lane width of 3.5m was provided for (assumed no raised median along the access

-29-


road). In the event a raised median island is considered at SDP stage, then one lane should have a

minimum lane width of 4.5m.

� A minimum throat length of 15m is required. Refer to Table 27 and Table 28, extracted from the

TMH 16 (Volume 2), appended in Annexure H.

� Any structures at the site entrance to have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2m.

x. The following public transport and non-motorized facilities to be included as part of the township (refer

to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01, appended in Annexure E for details):

� Provide taxi stops along both sides of Kagiso Avenue, downstream of the Cremona Drive

intersection.

� 2.0m paved sidewalk along the northern side of Cremona Drive, for the full length of the township

boundary.

� 2.0m paved sidewalks along both side of Road B, between Cremano Drive and Road E.

� 2.0m paved sidewalks on one side of all remaining township roads.

xi. Provide some form of public transport on the shopping centre site either in the form of a taxi rank or

allocating some of the parking bays on site for "taxi use only".

-30-


FIGURES

FIGURE 1: LOCALITY PLAN

FIGURE 2: AERIAL VIEW OF STUDY AREA

FIGURE 3: PWV ROAD NETWORK

FIGURE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

FIGURE 5: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

FIGURE 6: TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS - RETAIL COMPONENT

FIGURE 7: TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS - RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT

FIGURE 8: TOTAL TRIP DEMAND - RETAIL PLUS RESIDENTIAL

FIGURE 9: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITH DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 10: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITH DEVELOPMENT

ANNEXURE A:

EXTRACT FROM TOWNSHIP

APPLICATION MEMORANDUM

&

TOWNSHIP LAYOUT

TO PLAN Consulting Town Planner

P.O. Box 8364

BIRCHLEIGH

1621

Tel No.: 083 644 6729

Fax No.: 086 553 9977

Project No.: TP107

Ref No.: TP107- Memo

Enqueries : Claudette Denner

Date: April 2015

MOTIVATING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR

TOWNSHIP ESTABLISHMENT ON PORTION 64 (a portion of

Portion 8) OF FARM VLAKFONTEIN

No. 238, REGISTRATION DIVISION I.Q. TRANSVAAL

TO BE KNOWN AS

TSHEPISONG EXTENSION 4

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. TOWNSHIP NAME 3

3. PROPERTY PARTICULARS 3

3.1 Local Authority

3.2 Property Description

3.3 Size

3.4 Location

3.5 Servitudes

3.6 Land Uses of Surrounding Properties

3.7 Zoning of Surrounding Properties

4. LEGAL ASPECTS 5

4.1 Registered Owner

4.2 Zoning

4.3 Bondholder’s Consent

4.4 Mineral Rights

4.5 Conditions of Title

5. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS 6

5.1 National Level

5.2 Local Level

6. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6

6.1 Current Land Use

6.2 Topography and Hydrology

6.3 Geology

6.4 Vegetation

6.5 Flood Line

6.6 Environmental

7. PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES 8

7.1. Water

7.2. Sewer

7.3. Electricity

7.4. Roads

7.5. Storm water drainage

8. MOTIVATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION 9

8.1 Design of the township

8.2 Need and Desirability

8.2.1. Housing/Residential

8.2.2. Neighborhood Shopping Center

8.2.3. Public Open Space

9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS 15

9.1. Erf 1

9.2. Erf 2-143

9.3. Erf 144

10. CONCLUSION 17

ANNEXURE A – LOCALITY 18

ANNEXURE B – ZONING 19

ANNEXURE C – LAND USES 20

ANNEXURE D – TOWNSHIP LAYOUT 21

1. INTRODUCTION

ToPlan Consulting acts on behalf of the registered owner of Portion 64(a portion of Portion 8) of the Farm

Vlakfontein, Antonio Cremona, with the objective to procure rights to develop a township with erven for

business (retail) and residential purposes, respectively.

In 2006 a township application was submitted By Kamekho Town and Regional Planners to the Local

Authority, of which this property was part of. The proposed township included Portions 63, 64, 21 and 23

of the farm Vlakfontein, and would have been known as Tshepisong Extension 3. Due to several factors,

the proposed township application was withdrawn on the 7th

September 2010.

Hence the submission of this application, in terms of Section 96 (1) of the Town Planning and Township

Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance 15 of 1986) in order to procure the desired land use rights.

This memorandum deals with the various particulars and the motivation of the application.

2. TOWNSHIP NAME

The township name allocated by the City of Johannesburg on the 10th

December 2014 is Tshepisong

Extension 4.

3. PROPERTY PARTICULARS

3.1 Local Authority

City of Johannesburg

3.2 Property Description

Portion 64 (a portion of Portion 8) of the farm Vlakfontein No. 238, Registration Division I.Q.

Transvaal (hereafter referred to as “the property”).

3.3 Size

The property measures 8,5653 (eight comma five six five three) hectares in extent, as per the

registered deed of transfer.

3.4 Location

The property is situated south of Kagiso (Mogale City) and east of Rietvallei (Mogale City). Thus

the property is located on the western boundary of the City of Johannesburg, along Kagiso

Avenue, south off Randfontein Road (R41). See Annexure A.

3.5 Servitudes

Servitudes, which affect the property are as follows:

• The registered deed of transfer reserves a servitude as “a roadway of 9,45 meters wide

along the eastern boundary in favor of portion 21 of the same farm.

• The property is further affected by three servitudes in favor of ESKOM on the northern,

western and southern boundaries, each 18m wide.

3.6 Land uses of surrounding properties

Kindly refer to Annexure C in this regard. The land uses identified within a 2km radius, are as

follows:

To the north (Mogale) : residential, spaza shops, community facilities,

School (Maponyana Primary),

shopping centre (Kagiso), filling station (Shell)

To the east : vacant land, residential, community facilities,

schools, spaza, Shops, public open spaces

To the south : Cheese Factory, informal residential, vacant land,

slimes dam

To the west (Mogale) : agricultural, water works, residential, schools

3.7 Zoning of surrounding properties

The property is surrounded by various zonings within a 2km radius, described as follows

(Annexure B):

To the north (mogale) : “Residential”; “Community facility”

To the east : “Residential”; “Business” Community Facility”

To the south : “Undetermined”

To the west (mogale) : “Undetermined”; “Residential 1”

4. LEGAL ASPECTS

4.1 Registered owner The property is registered in the name of the ANTONIO CREMONA vide the registered Deed of

Transfer known as T18166/1979.

4.2 Zoning

In terms of the Roodepoort Town Planning Scheme, 1987 the property is zoned for

“Undetermined”.

4.3 Bondholder’s Consent

The property is not encumbered by a mortgage bond. The bond was cancelled in November 2007.

The relevant Title Deed was endorsed to reflect the cancellation.

4.4 Mineral Rights

The mineral rights on the property have been reserved in favour of Wouter Cornelius Justinus

Brink registered as N0.152/1927S, dated 26th

February 1927 (condition (1)(a) page 2 said deed of

transfer).

In terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act

28 of 2002), it is no longer a requirement to obtain the consent of the Mineral Rights Holder prior

to submission of an application.

The authority of the consent has been vested to the Government, and on circulation of this

application to the Department of Mineral and Energy (DME), conditions could be set in this

regard.

4.5 Conditions of title

The registered deed of transfer lists conditions pertaining to the registered farm. All erven within

the proposed township shall be made subject to the conditions of the servitudes and reservation of

the minerals, but exclude certain conditions not applicable to erven in a township.

5. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

The site is subject to the following legal and administrative controls:

5.1 National Level

On a national level this application is in line with the principles of the Development Facilitation

Act (DFA), which has set out a number of principles for land development. The application

promotes the following objectives as stipulated in the mentioned Act:

• Promote the integration of social, economic, institutional and physical aspects of land

development;

• Optimizes the use of existing resources including such resources relating to agriculture,

land, minerals, bulk infrastructure, roads, transportation and social facilities;

• Promote a diverse combination of land uses, also at the level of individual erven or

subdivisions of land.

5.2 Local Level

The property falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg. The Spatial Development

Framework places the property within the Administrative Region C, Sub-Area 15. This sub-area is

characterized by fragmented lower income residential settlements, informal settlements and large

tracts of vacant land. This area falls within the Marginalized Priority Areas in terms of the GMS.

Residential densification and sufficient access routes to public transport is supported, where the

necessary amenities are required to sustain the community regarding day-to-day activities.

In terms of the Roodepoort Town Planning Scheme, 1987, the property is currently zoned

“Undetermined” (Annexure B).

6. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

6.1 Current Land Use

The property is currently improved with a single residential house and associated outbuildings.

The remainder of the property is undeveloped farmland. These buildings would be demolished,

and the rubble removed prior to the development of the property.

A narrow dirt access road off Kagiso Avenue, currently provides access to the Cremona Cheese

Factory located on Portion 21 of the farm Vlakfontein 238-IQ, located on the south-eastern

boundary of the property. The mentioned dirt road forks off to the informal settlement located on

Portion 24 of the same farm.

6.2 Topography and Hydrology The relief of the property is low with an overall cross-fall from the north-east corner to the south-

western edge of about 23m with an overall gradient of about 1:3. No major topographic

constraints are envisaged on future structures.

6.3 Geology

A geo-technical investigation was undertaken by WSM Leshika Consulting (Pty) Ltd and a report

compiled in July 2006. The study covered the Portions 21, 23, 63 and 64 of the farm Vlakfontein

238 IQ. For the purpose of the proposed application only Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3 are relevant.

The report shows that the property, Portion 64 of the farm Vlakfontein 238-IQ, falls under Class

S1. The material found in these test pits were compressible soil identified as fine-grained soils

(clayey silts and sands of low plasticity), sands, sandy and gravelly soils.

The City of JoBurg GIS indicates that the property is underlain by conglomerates which are

sedimentary rocks consisting of rounded fragments. This underlain soil does not pose a threat to

the proposed development. The recommendations in accordance with the SAICE, 1995 is that

after the removal, replacement and compact of the soil, normal construction could proceed.

Dolomite is not identified on the property, however occurs to the south-east there-of.

6.4 Vegetation

In a study conducted by BKS for the West Rand District Municipality, the vegetation on the

property is identified as Soweto Highveld Grassland.

6.5 Flood Line

The property is not affected by any bodies of water and therefore is not affected by any flood line

as per Section 144 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998).The current certification thus

is still in place (done by Mr. A J de Lange, 2006). However, the final layout plan would be signed

off by the professional engineer responsible for the design of civil services and storm water

attenuation, as per Johannesburg Water standards.

6.6 Environmental

A Record of Decision was issued by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and

Environment (GDACE) in 2008 for a mixed use development including business, residential, open

space and educational on Portion 21, 23, 63 and 64 of the farm Vlakfontein.

The writer acknowledges that this ROD has lapsed due to the authorized activity not commencing

within five (5) years of the decision. In terms of NEMA the Environmental application process

would have to be re-applied.

7. THE PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

Preliminary investigations with regards to the availability of services, including water, sewer, electricity,

roads and storm water, will be undertaken and details of these investigations will be incorporated into a

Service Scheme Report to be submitted to the relevant Utilities, Agencies and Departments for comments.

7.1. Water

The bulk supplier of water in this region is Rand Water. A 324-mm South Roodepoort steel pipeline and a

4,0 metre wide Rand Water servitude by description Deed of Servitude K170/1989 is located on the

property’s western boundary, however will not affect the proposed development. Johannesburg Water

would provide connection points into current service network or alternatives would be proposed.

7.2. Sewer

The property falls within the Driefontein Sewer Works catchment area. It is proposed that the proposed

development’s reticulation is a full waterborne system. The sewer pipes would be installed in the road

reserves.

7.3. Electricity

City Power is the main distributor of electricity for this area. The property is encumbered by ESKOM 22-

kVA overhead power lines located on the northern, western and the southern boundary, as will more fully

appear on the proposed layout plan. Although connecting to the City Power grid is favourable, a green

option of solar panels on the roofs of the houses would alleviate the constraint on the supplier.

7.4. Roads

The property gains current access off Kagiso Avenue, which in turn intersects with Randfontein Road (R41)

approximately 1500m north from the property. Randfontein Road is an east-west corridor route identified

by Mogale City for development. This Class 2 Mobility Spine intersects with a north-west Mobility Spine,

known as the R558 (Adcock Street) which currently provides Tshepisong Proper with access.

The township would gain access off Kagiso Avenue, a class 3 mobility road on the western boundary,

through a 20m wide activity street (class 4). The internal road network would provide 13m wide Class 5

roads, which would remain public, thus on proclamation of this township the roads would be transferred to

the City of Johannesburg.

7.5. Storm Water Drainage

The design of the road network will promote the affective drainage of rain water, where storm drainage

and pipelines is required necessary servitudes would be incorporated.

8. MOTIVATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

8.1 Design of the township

The proposed township layout attached under Annexure D, refers.

The design concept of the proposed township layout was to provide access off Kagiso Avenue

through a 20m wide road (proposed street name: Cremona Drive), also in turn providing access to

the current Cremona Cheese Factory on Portion 21 of the farm Vlakfontein. The location of this

road has a dual purpose in also providing access to the current informal settlement located on

Portion 24 of the farm Vlakfontein, which currently gains access off Kagiso Avenue over the

property via a dirt road.

Several 13m wide residential roads (Class 5) give access to the 142 residential erven with a ruling

stand size of 200m², as the current target market finds this erf size favourable. An access road on

the eastern boundary has been provided to Portion 63 of that farm Vlakfontein for potential future

development.

The proposed business erf (“Business 1”) would not gain direct vehicular access off Kagiso

Avenue, however ingress to and egress from this erf could be obtained within the proposed

township either from the 20m wide collector road (Cremona Drive) and/or the 13m residential

road on the proposed ERF 1 eastern boundary. The access points would be finalised and

determined by the layout of the Site Development Plan once the erf is sold to the potential

developer.

The community is ruled by non-motorized transport (pedestrians) and it is suggested that an

acceptable pedestrian access is be provided off Kagiso Avenue to the business erf (ERF 1)

whether developed as a shopping centre or alternatively a residential development.

Due to the locality of the ESKOM power lines, an erf has been allocated on the northern boundary

as “Public open space”. It is suggested that this erf be utilised as a walk way for the pedestrian

traffic travelling by foot from the surrounding area to visit the proposed shopping centre and/or

access the taxi route on Kagiso Avenue.

Due to the property’s fall from north to south, the storm water will flow in a similar fashion, thus

the street design intends to assist with the flow to storm water drains on the southern boundary

along the 20m wide arterial road. Where this not the case underground storm water would be

provided to the council’s satisfaction. An attenuation dam should be provided on ERF 1 in this

regard.

8.2 Need and Desirability

8.2.1. Housing/Residential

With increasing numbers of people working and living in the inner city various organizations are

searching for ways to attract people back to the periphery of the city. With the main focus falling

on the availability of job opportunities and housing (flats) the periphery has little to offer

individuals seeking better paying jobs. Although the Johannesburg inner city provides housing

opportunities, not sufficient supply is available for the demand. Further, it is noted that although

prominent companies occupy office space within the inner city, satellite offices are constructed

within neighboring townships, assisting in the need to connect the inner city with the outskirts of

the city.

The western area of Johannesburg, specifically Roodepoort and surrounding areas, have increased

development of major shopping centers and office parks in the last 10 years. These developments

increased job opportunities in this area and supported the need for the high residential

development within this area. However, the focus remained on the middle to high income groups.

The Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (Chapter 2, Section 26) states that “everyone has the right

to have access to adequate housing”. Although Government has delivered approximately 2,37

million houses and 687 500 stands between 1994 and 2010 throughout South Africa, the demand

for housing still remains high with a backlog of approximately two(2) million houses still required

in 2010 The increase of informal settlements around the country contributes to the greater housing

demand.

In 2011, Minister Sexwale stated that “The solution to this backlog is not going to be through

providing free houses. We can’t sustain what we are doing”. (IHHWC, 2011). President Zuma,

addressing the housing crisis stated in 2012 that South Africa “cannot be a welfare state”. The

Government is continuing efforts to establish ways to provide social housing to the poor, through

subsidies or with the co-operation of the citizens of the country. Through private land owners

developing otherwise non-productive farm land still situated in urban areas with residential stands,

low to middle income citizens have the opportunity to own land, as per the Constitution (Chapter

2, Section 25).

Tshepisong falls on the outskirts of Johannesburg, with Mogale City bordering on the northern

and western boundaries. Excluding agricultural land to the direct west, Mogale City has developed

the township Kagiso, which provides low-rise residential properties (privately owned), supported

by schools, clinic, community facilities, small shops and a neighborhood shopping center.

Informal settlements are on the increase in the immediate area, with the whole of Portion 24 of the

farm Vlakfontein, located on the eastern boundary of the property, encumbered with shacks. The

Tshepisong Township is gradually being developing from the eastern side towards the property.

Tshepisong Proper provides low-rise residential properties (privately owned), supported by

schools, clinic, community facilities and small shops. The development of the remainder of the

farm Vlakfontein towards the western boundary of Johannesburg is a necessity, for it is clear from

the current Mogale City development and the rising informal settlements in the area that a high

demand for residential infrastructure is required.

Thus, the property is located within a growing residential character, providing adequate housing to

the lower income groups. The proposed development of the property with 142 residential erven,

with a minimum size of 200m², provides potential home owners with the opportunity to own an

affordable property within close proximity to Mogale City and Roodepoort. The property is both

accessible and ideally located on an active taxi route along Kagiso, thus providing housing in

close proximity to transport, adhering to the principles of the DFA and the guidelines of the RSDF

2010/11.

8.2.2. Neighborhood Shopping Center

In 2011 Urban Landmark published a study compiled by DEMACON regarding the “Impact of

Township Shopping Centers”. Economic development in these areas are identified as “second

economy areas” of which retail centers represent critical building blocks of nodal development,

serving as catalytic anchors. However, it is recommended that these centers be develop in the right

location with sufficient space to develop into a mature mixed use node over time.”

This study shows that since 1994, the development of shopping centers in townships have

increased by 45%, and development cost has risen from R10million in 1994 to R700million with

the development of Maponya Mall in Soweto.

http://www.urbanlandmark.org.za/downloads/retail_in_townships_2011.pdf

The acknowledgements of the above mentioned study is further supported by findings made by

Dirk Prinsloo from URBAN STUDIES, a company specializing in the study of shopping center

development. Prinsloo identifies three things required for a shopping centre to be successful (1) a

good location (2) a big enough population to warrant the development (or at least prospects for

growth) and (3) people with enough money to spend.

Over time the South African Council of Shopping Centers (SACSC) has developed a shopping

centre hierarchy – detailing the different types of retail centres and the elements that define them.

These range from small free standing centres to super regional centres, value centres, speciality

centres, hyper centres and lifestyle centres. With reference to this classification the following two

criteria has to be met to support a neighborhood shopping center:

• Population 2,400 to 5,700 households

• Area served 2,0km

• Trade Area Strategically located to group of suburbs

• Access Requirements Major collector roads

• Size of center 5,000m² to 12,000m²

• Number of shops 25-50 stores

• Median Travel time 4-9 minutes

• Function Supermarket, convenience, small specialized stores

The Tshepisong community is currently a rising residential area, supported by various schools and

community facilities, as well as small spaza shops providing in the minimum daily requirements

of the community. Only two shopping centers where identified within a two-five kilometers radius

– one located north of the property within the Mogale City jurisdiction (Kagiso Shopping Centre)

and another (Moses Shopping Center) located on Adcock Street (R558) south-east from property;

however with the only accessibility thereto from the property via the R41 (Randfontein Road).

Both shopping centers are best reached by vehicle.

The property is located between several informal settlements, one on its northern the other on its

southern boundary. To the east of the property a proposed township for residential development

(Brink Park Extension 3 and 4) was approved in 2013.

The number of households current and proposed are estimated to be approximately 6,171

households, calculated as follows, excluding informal settlements:

• Tshepisong Proper 5,657 residential erven

• Brink Park Extensions 3 & 4 104 + 268 = 372 erven

• Proposed Tshepisong Extension 4 142 residential erven

The proposed township will provide a neighborhood shopping center on an erf measuring

approximately 3,0938 hectare (area includes the ESKOM power lines on the northern and western

boundaries), with a gross leasable floor area of approximately 2,500m² to 15,000m². Vehicular

access would be provided of the 20m road (class 4) on the southern boundary, as well as off the

residential road (class 5) on the eastern boundary, should be approved by the Local Authority. No

vehicular access to the shopping center would be allowed off Kagiso Avenue. Therefore,

pedestrian access should be provided on the western boundary.

The proposed shopping center would thus cater in the needs of the residents of the proposed 142

residential erven, and also to all existing and potential future residential development around the

property. The shopping center would support the non-motorized community providing goods and

services within walking distance from their homes. For individuals fortunate enough to travel by

private motor car, the shopping center is conveniently accessible from the R41 directly into

Kagiso Avenue.

8.2.3. Public Open Space

The Spatial Development Framework, 2011 identifies “Open spaces, such as roads, pedestrian

paths and linear parks, can provide a network connecting public transportation routes and

important community facilities such as libraries, schools and courthouses. Such inter-connected

open spaces also enhance ecological diversity by providing habitats for the city’s fauna and flora.

A connected system of open spaces can minimize storm water run-off and therefore help to protect

the city’s rivers and streams.”

The overhead ESKOM power lines located on the property’s northern, western and southern

boundaries creates an ideal opportunity to utilize an otherwise dead space and develop these areas

as active open space systems, by providing pedestrian and cycle friendly walk/path ways (northern

boundary), as well as roads (southern boundary). These pathways will support the non-motorized

community by providing them with direct access to the shopping center and the taxi route along

Kagiso Avenue.

9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

The following development controls are proposed for the erven General conditions to be

laid down on all erven as per the relevant town planning scheme:

9.1. ERF 1

Zoning : “Business 1”

Primary Uses : As per Scheme

Secondary Uses : As per Scheme

No Uses : As per Scheme

Height Zone : As per Scheme – Three (3) storeys provided that

the height may be increased with the consent of

the Council

Coverage : As per Scheme - 40% provided that the Council

may authorize a reasonable increase in coverage

upon approval of a building plan.

F.A.R. : As per Scheme – 0,6 provided that the FAR may

be increased with the special consent of the

Council

Density : 40 dwelling units per hectare

Building Lines : As per Scheme

i) 18m along western boundary

ii) 18m along northern boundary

iii) 3m along other street boundaries

Parking : Effective, paved and demarcated parking together

with the necessary manoeuvring space shall be

provided in the following ratio’s on the erf to

satisfaction of the Council:

(1) 6 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable retails floor area

(2) 4 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable office floor area

(3) 8 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable medical consulting room floor area

(4) 10 parking bays per 100m² nett-leasable restaurant floor area

(5) 2 parking bays per 100m² for all other restaurant floor area

(6) 1 parking bay per 6 seats for cinemas

(7) 1 parking bay per bedroom or suite and 6 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable public room

floor area for hotels

(8) 0,75 parking bays per dwelling unit, of which one third shall be covered to the satisfaction of

the Council, together with the necessary manoeuvring space shall be provided on the erf to the

satisfaction of the Council, provided that the above parking ratio may be relaxed to the

satisfaction of the council

(9) Parking for all other uses shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council.

Lines of “No Access” : Along Kagiso Avenue up to point as agreed by

JRA for access to the township.

General Conditions:

(1) A Site Development Plan to the satisfaction of the Council shall be submitted for evaluation

and be approved prior to submission of building plans.

(2) The erf shall be landscaped, preferably by planting of indigenous trees and shrubs, and be

maintained to the satisfaction of the Council.

(3) Ingress to and egress from erf shall be located, built, paved and maintained to the satisfaction

of the Council (JRA) as per the approved SDP

(4) A screen wall or fence, of which the height, extent and material shall be to the satisfaction of

Council, shall be erected and maintained along the boundaries of the erf, if and when

required.

(5) On-site storm water attenuation shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the

Council, if required.

9.2. ERVEN 2- 143

Zoning : “Residential 1”




Height Zone : As per Scheme – Two (2) storeys provided that

the height may be increased with the consent of

the Council

Coverage : As per Scheme - 60% provided that the Council

may authorize a reasonable increase in coverage

upon approval of a building plan.

F.A.R. : As per Scheme - 1,0 provided that the FAR may

be increased with the special consent of the

Council

Density : As per Scheme – 1 dwelling per erf


i) 2m along street boundaries

ii) 1m along one of the side boundaries and the rear

boundary, provided that a carport may be erected

within the side boundary, provided no engineering

services are affected

Parking : As per Scheme

9.3 ERF 144

Zoning : “Public Open Space”




Height Zone : As per Scheme – Zero (0)

Coverage : As per Scheme

F.A.R. : As per Scheme


10. CONCLUSION

In a community dependable on non-motorized transport, it is vital to improve the quality of life for these

citizens by promoting the DFA principals. The proposed development will succeed in promoting the

integration of social, economic, institutional and physical aspects of land development, optimizing the use

of existing resources including such resources relating to bulk infrastructure, roads, transportation and

social facilities and by the diverse combination of land uses, also at the level of individual erven or

subdivisions of land.

In view of the motivation provided the proposed neighborhood shopping center is a requirement

(desirability) for this growing residential community, which currently lacks the necessary facility within

walking distance of their homes. Tthe provision of residential erven further relieves the demand on housing

so desperately needed in these areas of Johannesburg.

It is the applicant's conclusion that this application is both necessary and desirable from a town planning

point of view, and will result in a development which enhances the appearance of the whole area.

It is our submission that this application should be approved without amendment.

ANNEXURE B:

2009 RISFSA ROAD HIERARCHY - REGION D

THE

SITE

ANNEXURE C:

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION –

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

BUSINESS 1 - RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL 1

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC DEMAND

ANNEXURE D:

CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

INTERSECTION 1: KAGISO & GEBA MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)

Movement Performance - Vehicles

Mov ID ODMov

Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h

South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 129 0.0 0.407 12.2 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.5

3 R2 247 0.0 0.407 12.0 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.3

Approach 376 0.0 0.407 12.1 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.4

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 290 0.0 0.735 31.1 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.9

6 R2 87 0.0 0.735 30.6 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.6

Approach 377 0.0 0.735 31.0 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.8

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 164 0.0 0.541 18.7 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 46.2

8 T1 168 0.0 0.541 18.3 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 45.9

Approach 332 0.0 0.541 18.5 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 46.1

All Vehicles 1084 0.0 0.735 20.6 LOS C 5.5 38.7 0.85 1.56 44.7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 177 0.0 0.547 14.0 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.4

3 R2 340 0.0 0.547 13.8 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.2

Approach 517 0.0 0.547 13.9 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.3

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 400 0.0 0.990 89.7 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.3

6 R2 87 0.0 0.990 89.1 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.2

Approach 487 0.0 0.990 89.6 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.3

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 164 0.0 0.611 20.4 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.2

8 T1 223 0.0 0.611 20.0 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.0

Approach 388 0.0 0.611 20.2 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.1

All Vehicles 1391 0.0 0.990 42.1 LOS E 19.3 134.8 0.88 2.18 35.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev upgr Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 177 0.0 0.418 5.7 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.9

3 R2 340 0.0 0.418 8.2 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.6

Approach 517 0.0 0.418 7.3 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.7

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 400 0.0 0.498 7.8 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.0

6 R2 87 0.0 0.498 9.7 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.3

Approach 487 0.0 0.498 8.2 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.1

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 164 0.0 0.460 9.0 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 50.7

8 T1 223 0.0 0.460 8.4 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 51.3

Approach 388 0.0 0.460 8.7 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 51.0

All Vehicles 1391 0.0 0.498 8.0 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.59 0.67 51.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 150 0.0 0.475 13.1 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 49.0

3 R2 289 0.0 0.475 12.8 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 48.8

Approach 439 0.0 0.475 12.9 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 48.9

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 339 0.0 0.857 46.4 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.2

6 R2 100 0.0 0.857 45.9 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.0

Approach 439 0.0 0.857 46.3 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.1

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 194 0.0 0.632 21.6 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.5

8 T1 194 0.0 0.632 21.3 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.4

Approach 389 0.0 0.632 21.4 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.4

All Vehicles 1267 0.0 0.857 27.1 LOS D 9.4 66.0 0.88 1.77 41.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 198 0.0 0.479 5.9 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.7

3 R2 382 0.0 0.479 8.4 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.4

Approach 580 0.0 0.479 7.5 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.5

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 449 0.0 0.581 8.5 LOS A 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.6

6 R2 100 0.0 0.581 10.4 LOS B 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.9

Approach 549 0.0 0.581 8.9 LOS A 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 194 0.0 0.553 10.8 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 49.5

8 T1 250 0.0 0.553 10.2 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 50.0

Approach 444 0.0 0.553 10.5 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 49.8


MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 294 0.0 0.447 11.9 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.7

3 R2 172 0.0 0.447 11.7 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.5

Approach 465 0.0 0.447 11.8 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.7

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 106 0.0 0.439 24.3 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 43.1

6 R2 47 0.0 0.439 23.7 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 42.7

Approach 153 0.0 0.439 24.1 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 43.0

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 88 0.0 0.272 12.6 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.8

8 T1 116 0.0 0.272 12.3 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.5

Approach 204 0.0 0.272 12.4 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.6

All Vehicles 822 0.0 0.447 14.3 LOS B 2.0 14.0 0.71 1.40 48.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 359 0.0 0.621 14.5 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 48.1

3 R2 302 0.0 0.621 14.3 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 47.9

Approach 662 0.0 0.621 14.4 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 48.0

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 237 0.0 0.779 46.1 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.3

6 R2 47 0.0 0.779 45.5 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.1

Approach 284 0.0 0.779 46.0 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.2

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 88 0.0 0.351 13.2 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.4

8 T1 181 0.0 0.351 12.9 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.2

Approach 269 0.0 0.351 13.0 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.3


MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev uppr Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 359 0.0 0.478 5.3 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.4

3 R2 302 0.0 0.478 7.8 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.2

Approach 662 0.0 0.478 6.5 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.3

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 237 0.0 0.282 7.1 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.5

6 R2 47 0.0 0.282 8.9 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.8

Approach 284 0.0 0.282 7.4 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 88 0.0 0.305 8.2 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.3

8 T1 181 0.0 0.305 7.6 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.9

Approach 269 0.0 0.305 7.8 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.7


MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 324 0.0 0.498 12.5 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.3

3 R2 194 0.0 0.498 12.3 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.1

Approach 518 0.0 0.498 12.4 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.3

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 118 0.0 0.490 26.1 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 42.2

6 R2 53 0.0 0.490 25.5 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 41.9

Approach 171 0.0 0.490 25.9 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 42.1

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 100 0.0 0.307 13.0 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.6

8 T1 129 0.0 0.307 12.6 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.3

Approach 229 0.0 0.307 12.8 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.4


MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 405 0.0 0.542 5.5 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.3

3 R2 335 0.0 0.542 8.0 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.0

Approach 740 0.0 0.542 6.6 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.2

East: Geba - WB

4 L2 254 0.0 0.316 7.3 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.4

6 R2 56 0.0 0.316 9.2 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.7

Approach 310 0.0 0.316 7.6 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.4

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 105 0.0 0.360 8.6 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.0

8 T1 201 0.0 0.360 8.0 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.6

Approach 306 0.0 0.360 8.2 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.4


INTERSECTION 2: KAGISO & CREMONA

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 431 0.0 0.227 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7

3 R2 9 0.0 0.227 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 57.6

Approach 440 0.0 0.227 0.3 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 11 0.0 0.061 10.3 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 49.0

6 R2 19 0.0 0.061 14.7 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 48.6

Approach 29 0.0 0.061 13.1 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 48.7

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 12 0.0 0.246 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.2

8 T1 472 0.0 0.246 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

Approach 484 0.0 0.246 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 953 0.0 0.246 0.6 NA 0.2 1.4 0.03 0.04 59.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 457 0.0 0.476 3.9 LOS A 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 54.5

3 R2 198 0.0 0.476 11.5 LOS B 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 52.7

Approach 655 0.0 0.476 6.2 NA 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 53.9

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 183 0.0 1.038 87.7 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 23.0

6 R2 179 0.0 1.038 108.5 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 22.9

Approach 361 0.0 1.038 98.0 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 23.0

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 199 0.0 0.360 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 56.9

8 T1 501 0.0 0.360 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.4

Approach 700 0.0 0.360 1.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.0

All Vehicles 1716 0.0 1.038 23.6 NA 23.4 163.9 0.44 0.75 42.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev upgr Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 431 0.0 0.219 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

3 R2 158 0.0 0.174 8.6 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.59 0.79 51.2

Approach 589 0.0 0.219 2.3 NA 0.7 5.1 0.16 0.21 57.3

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 146 0.0 0.171 10.6 LOS B 0.7 4.7 0.52 0.95 50.7

6 R2 143 0.0 0.613 31.3 LOS D 2.8 19.3 0.90 1.15 39.3

Approach 289 0.0 0.613 20.9 LOS C 2.8 19.3 0.71 1.05 44.3

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 159 0.0 0.324 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 57.0

8 T1 472 0.0 0.324 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 58.6

Approach 631 0.0 0.324 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 58.2

All Vehicles 1508 0.0 0.613 5.5 NA 2.8 19.3 0.20 0.35 54.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 500 0.0 0.266 0.1 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 59.7

3 R2 12 0.0 0.266 8.7 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 57.5

Approach 512 0.0 0.266 0.3 NA 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 59.6

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 12 0.0 0.092 10.9 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.7

6 R2 24 0.0 0.092 17.5 LOS C 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.3

Approach 35 0.0 0.092 15.3 LOS C 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.4

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 18 0.0 0.287 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 58.1

8 T1 547 0.0 0.287 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8

Approach 565 0.0 0.287 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7

All Vehicles 1112 0.0 0.287 0.7 NA 0.3 2.0 0.04 0.05 59.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 500 0.0 0.254 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

3 R2 160 0.0 0.198 9.3 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.62 0.84 50.7

Approach 660 0.0 0.254 2.3 NA 0.8 5.7 0.15 0.20 57.4

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 147 0.0 0.191 11.3 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.56 0.98 50.2

6 R2 147 0.0 0.830 56.1 LOS F 4.6 32.5 0.97 1.32 31.0

Approach 294 0.0 0.830 33.7 LOS D 4.6 32.5 0.76 1.15 38.4

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 164 0.0 0.365 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 57.1

8 T1 547 0.0 0.365 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 58.7

Approach 711 0.0 0.365 1.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 58.3

All Vehicles 1665 0.0 0.830 7.4 NA 4.6 32.5 0.19 0.34 53.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 434 0.0 0.225 0.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 59.8

3 R2 7 0.0 0.225 6.4 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 57.7

Approach 441 0.0 0.225 0.1 NA 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 59.8

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 4 0.0 0.012 8.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.5

6 R2 5 0.0 0.012 11.7 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.1

Approach 8 0.0 0.012 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.3

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 6 0.0 0.121 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.2

8 T1 233 0.0 0.121 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

Approach 239 0.0 0.121 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 688 0.0 0.225 0.3 NA 0.1 0.4 0.01 0.02 59.7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC6- 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 434 0.0 0.384 1.3 LOS A 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 56.8

3 R2 194 0.0 0.384 7.9 LOS A 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 54.8

Approach 628 0.0 0.384 3.4 NA 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 56.2

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 189 0.0 0.650 13.5 LOS B 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.8

6 R2 172 0.0 0.650 23.6 LOS C 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.5

Approach 361 0.0 0.650 18.3 LOS C 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 173 0.0 0.210 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 56.2

8 T1 233 0.0 0.210 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.7

Approach 406 0.0 0.210 2.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.1

All Vehicles 1394 0.0 0.650 6.9 NA 4.7 33.1 0.33 0.46 53.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev upgr Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 434 0.0 0.220 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

3 R2 194 0.0 0.160 7.1 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.67 52.0

Approach 628 0.0 0.220 2.2 NA 0.7 5.1 0.15 0.21 57.3

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 189 0.0 0.166 9.1 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.36 0.88 51.5

6 R2 172 0.0 0.613 28.8 LOS D 3.3 22.9 0.88 1.17 40.4

Approach 361 0.0 0.613 18.5 LOS C 3.3 22.9 0.61 1.02 45.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 173 0.0 0.210 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 56.2

8 T1 233 0.0 0.210 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.7

Approach 406 0.0 0.210 2.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.1

All Vehicles 1394 0.0 0.613 6.5 NA 3.3 22.9 0.22 0.43 53.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 506 0.0 0.266 0.0 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.8

3 R2 12 0.0 0.266 6.7 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 57.6

Approach 518 0.0 0.266 0.2 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 6 0.0 0.018 9.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 50.2

6 R2 6 0.0 0.018 13.1 LOS B 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 49.8

Approach 12 0.0 0.018 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 50.0

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 12 0.0 0.144 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 58.1

8 T1 271 0.0 0.144 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7

Approach 282 0.0 0.144 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7

All Vehicles 812 0.0 0.266 0.4 NA 0.1 0.8 0.02 0.03 59.5

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 506 0.0 0.257 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

3 R2 198 0.0 0.172 7.4 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.51 0.70 52.0

Approach 704 0.0 0.257 2.1 NA 0.8 5.4 0.14 0.20 57.5

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 192 0.0 0.175 9.3 LOS A 0.7 5.2 0.39 0.89 51.4

6 R2 173 0.0 0.768 43.2 LOS E 4.7 32.6 0.94 1.29 34.9

Approach 364 0.0 0.768 25.4 LOS D 4.7 32.6 0.65 1.08 42.0

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 178 0.0 0.232 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 56.4

8 T1 271 0.0 0.232 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 57.9

Approach 448 0.0 0.232 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 57.3

All Vehicles 1516 0.0 0.768 7.7 NA 4.7 32.6 0.22 0.42 52.7

WITH ROUNDABOUT

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev - Conversion Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with ROUNDABOUT Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 500 0.0 0.585 6.5 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.9

3 R2 160 0.0 0.585 9.0 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.6

Approach 660 0.0 0.585 7.1 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.8

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 147 0.0 0.442 11.1 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.4

6 R2 147 0.0 0.442 13.0 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.7

Approach 294 0.0 0.442 12.0 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 164 0.0 0.635 7.4 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.4

8 T1 547 0.0 0.635 6.8 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.9

Approach 711 0.0 0.635 6.9 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.8


MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev - Conversion Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with ROUNDABOUT Roundabout


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Kagiso - NB

2 T1 506 0.0 0.406 6.1 LOS A 3.2 22.6 0.50 0.58 52.5

3 R2 198 0.0 0.223 9.0 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.47 0.67 50.8

Approach 704 0.0 0.406 6.9 LOS A 3.2 22.6 0.50 0.61 52.0

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 192 0.0 0.177 7.3 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.52 0.65 51.5

6 R2 173 0.0 0.171 9.1 LOS A 1.1 7.4 0.52 0.68 50.8

Approach 364 0.0 0.177 8.1 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.52 0.67 51.1

North: Kagiso - SB

7 L2 178 0.0 0.434 7.4 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 51.6

8 T1 271 0.0 0.434 6.7 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 52.2

Approach 448 0.0 0.434 7.0 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 52.0


INTERSECTION 3: KAGISO & SANDPIPER

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



SouthEast: Kagiso - NB

21 L2 19 0.0 0.106 10.4 LOS B 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.9

23a R1 32 0.0 0.106 15.3 LOS C 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.6

Approach 51 0.0 0.106 13.5 LOS B 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.7

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 19 0.0 0.283 5.5 LOS A 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.1

9a R1 475 0.0 0.283 5.1 LOS A 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.3

Approach 494 0.0 0.283 5.1 NA 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.3

SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB

30a L1 411 0.0 0.235 5.3 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2

32 R2 39 0.0 0.235 5.5 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2

Approach 449 0.0 0.235 5.3 NA 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2

All Vehicles 994 0.0 0.283 5.7 NA 1.6 11.5 0.11 0.58 53.0

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 19 0.0 0.176 11.9 LOS B 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.7

23a R1 32 0.0 0.176 23.2 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.5

Approach 51 0.0 0.176 19.0 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.5

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 19 0.0 0.375 5.5 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.1

9a R1 636 0.0 0.375 5.1 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.2

Approach 655 0.0 0.375 5.1 NA 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.2


30a L1 587 0.0 0.326 5.3 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.2

32 R2 39 0.0 0.326 5.5 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.3

Approach 626 0.0 0.326 5.3 NA 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.2

All Vehicles 1332 0.0 0.375 5.8 NA 2.4 17.1 0.11 0.57 52.9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 24 0.0 0.170 11.1 LOS B 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.5

23a R1 41 0.0 0.170 18.5 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.3

Approach 65 0.0 0.170 15.8 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.4

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 24 0.0 0.332 5.5 LOS A 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.0

9a R1 553 0.0 0.332 5.2 LOS A 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.2

Approach 576 0.0 0.332 5.2 NA 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.2


30a L1 476 0.0 0.274 5.3 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2

32 R2 47 0.0 0.274 5.6 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2

Approach 524 0.0 0.274 5.4 NA 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2

All Vehicles 1165 0.0 0.332 5.8 NA 2.0 14.3 0.13 0.58 52.8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 24 0.0 0.300 14.9 LOS B 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.3

23a R1 41 0.0 0.300 31.8 LOS D 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.1

Approach 65 0.0 0.300 25.6 LOS D 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.2

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 24 0.0 0.425 5.5 LOS A 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.0

9a R1 714 0.0 0.425 5.2 LOS A 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.2

Approach 738 0.0 0.425 5.2 NA 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.2


30a L1 653 0.0 0.365 5.3 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2

32 R2 47 0.0 0.365 5.6 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2

Approach 700 0.0 0.365 5.3 NA 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2

All Vehicles 1502 0.0 0.425 6.1 NA 2.9 20.5 0.14 0.57 52.6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 108 0.0 0.230 9.0 LOS A 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.6

23a R1 76 0.0 0.230 12.6 LOS B 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.3

Approach 184 0.0 0.230 10.5 LOS B 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.5

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 43 0.0 0.149 5.6 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 52.9

9a R1 210 0.0 0.149 5.3 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 53.0

Approach 253 0.0 0.149 5.3 NA 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 53.0


30a L1 335 0.0 0.230 5.4 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.0

32 R2 97 0.0 0.230 5.6 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.1

Approach 432 0.0 0.230 5.4 NA 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.0

All Vehicles 868 0.0 0.230 6.5 NA 0.9 6.2 0.18 0.63 52.5

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 108 0.0 0.365 11.3 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.8

23a R1 76 0.0 0.365 20.7 LOS C 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.5

Approach 184 0.0 0.365 15.2 LOS C 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.7

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 43 0.0 0.266 5.7 LOS A 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 52.8

9a R1 404 0.0 0.266 5.3 LOS A 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 53.0

Approach 447 0.0 0.266 5.4 NA 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 53.0


30a L1 531 0.0 0.332 5.4 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1

32 R2 97 0.0 0.332 5.6 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1

Approach 627 0.0 0.332 5.4 NA 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1

All Vehicles 1258 0.0 0.365 6.8 NA 1.6 11.2 0.20 0.62 52.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 126 0.0 0.301 9.5 LOS A 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.9

23a R1 88 0.0 0.301 14.7 LOS B 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.6

Approach 214 0.0 0.301 11.6 LOS B 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.8

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 49 0.0 0.177 5.7 LOS A 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 52.8

9a R1 247 0.0 0.177 5.4 LOS A 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 53.0

Approach 297 0.0 0.177 5.4 NA 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 52.9


30a L1 390 0.0 0.270 5.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.0

32 R2 115 0.0 0.270 5.7 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.1

Approach 505 0.0 0.270 5.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.0

All Vehicles 1016 0.0 0.301 6.7 NA 1.3 8.9 0.21 0.63 52.3

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




21 L2 126 0.0 0.501 13.5 LOS B 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.7

23a R1 88 0.0 0.501 26.5 LOS D 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.5

Approach 214 0.0 0.501 18.8 LOS C 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.6

North: Kagiso - SB

7a L1 49 0.0 0.297 5.8 LOS A 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.7

9a R1 442 0.0 0.297 5.4 LOS A 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.9

Approach 491 0.0 0.297 5.5 NA 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.9


30a L1 586 0.0 0.372 5.4 LOS A 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.0

32 R2 115 0.0 0.372 5.7 LOS A 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.1

Approach 701 0.0 0.372 5.4 NA 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.1

All Vehicles 1407 0.0 0.501 7.5 NA 2.5 17.2 0.24 0.64 51.7

INTERSECTION 4: CREMONA & ROAD A

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road A SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Road A - NB

1 L2 6 0.0 0.283 10.3 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 48.3

3 R2 129 0.0 0.283 14.4 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 47.9

Approach 135 0.0 0.283 14.3 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 47.9

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 129 0.0 0.245 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 56.9

5 T1 346 0.0 0.245 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 58.5

Approach 475 0.0 0.245 1.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 58.1

West: Cremona - EB

11 T1 381 0.0 0.199 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 59.8

12 R2 6 0.0 0.199 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 57.6

Approach 387 0.0 0.199 0.2 NA 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 998 0.0 0.283 2.7 NA 1.1 7.5 0.10 0.22 57.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road A SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Road A - NB

1 L2 6 0.0 0.446 12.2 LOS B 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 46.1

3 R2 171 0.0 0.446 18.3 LOS C 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 45.7

Approach 176 0.0 0.446 18.1 LOS C 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 45.8

East: Cremona - WB

4 L2 171 0.0 0.298 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 56.8

5 T1 407 0.0 0.298 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 58.4

Approach 578 0.0 0.298 1.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 57.9

West: Cremona - EB

11 T1 420 0.0 0.219 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 59.8

12 R2 6 0.0 0.219 8.6 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 57.6

Approach 426 0.0 0.219 0.2 NA 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 1180 0.0 0.446 3.6 NA 1.9 13.4 0.12 0.25 56.3

INTERSECTION 5: CREMONA & ROAD B MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road B SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 54 0.0 0.035 0.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 58.6

6 R2 8 0.0 0.035 7.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 56.5

Approach 62 0.0 0.035 1.4 NA 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 58.3

North: Road B - SB

7 L2 8 0.0 0.528 9.5 LOS A 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 50.0

9 R2 421 0.0 0.528 11.5 LOS B 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 49.6

Approach 429 0.0 0.528 11.5 LOS B 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 49.6

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 439 0.0 0.270 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 54.2

11 T1 72 0.0 0.270 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 55.6

Approach 511 0.0 0.270 4.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 54.4

All Vehicles 1002 0.0 0.528 7.4 NA 3.5 24.8 0.24 0.71 52.4

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road B SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 27 0.0 0.026 1.4 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 56.9

6 R2 12 0.0 0.026 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 54.9

Approach 39 0.0 0.026 3.3 NA 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 56.3

North: Road B - SB

7 L2 12 0.0 0.692 10.6 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.8

9 R2 551 0.0 0.692 13.5 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.4

Approach 562 0.0 0.692 13.4 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.4

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 552 0.0 0.314 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 53.9

11 T1 39 0.0 0.314 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 55.2

Approach 591 0.0 0.314 5.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 54.0

All Vehicles 1192 0.0 0.692 9.0 NA 6.7 47.2 0.30 0.81 51.2

INTERSECTION 6: CREMONA & ROAD C MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road C SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 38 0.0 0.023 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 59.1

6 R2 6 0.0 0.023 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 56.9

Approach 44 0.0 0.023 0.8 NA 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 58.8

North: Road C - SB

7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.2 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.9

9 R2 13 0.0 0.017 8.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.5

Approach 19 0.0 0.017 8.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.6

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 25 0.0 0.041 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 56.8

11 T1 55 0.0 0.041 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 58.3

Approach 80 0.0 0.041 1.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 57.9

All Vehicles 142 0.0 0.041 2.3 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.25 57.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road C SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 25 0.0 0.016 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 58.8

6 R2 6 0.0 0.016 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 56.7

Approach 31 0.0 0.016 1.1 NA 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 58.3

North: Road C - SB

7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 52.0

9 R2 14 0.0 0.017 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 51.5

Approach 20 0.0 0.017 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 51.7

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 14 0.0 0.026 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 57.0

11 T1 36 0.0 0.026 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.5

Approach 51 0.0 0.026 1.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.1

All Vehicles 101 0.0 0.026 2.7 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.30 56.8

INTERSECTION 7: CREMONA & ROAD D MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road D SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 24 0.0 0.015 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 58.7

6 R2 6 0.0 0.015 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 56.6

Approach 29 0.0 0.015 1.2 NA 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 58.3

North: Road D - SB

7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 52.0

9 R2 14 0.0 0.017 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 51.5

Approach 20 0.0 0.017 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 51.7

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 26 0.0 0.029 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 56.0

11 T1 29 0.0 0.029 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 57.5

Approach 55 0.0 0.029 2.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 56.8

All Vehicles 105 0.0 0.029 3.2 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.36 56.1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road D SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



East: Cremona - WB

5 T1 12 0.0 0.009 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 58.0

6 R2 6 0.0 0.009 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 55.9

Approach 18 0.0 0.009 1.9 NA 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 57.3

North: Road D - SB

7 L2 6 0.0 0.016 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 52.0

9 R2 13 0.0 0.016 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 51.5

Approach 19 0.0 0.016 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 51.7

West: Cremona - EB

10 L2 13 0.0 0.019 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 56.6

11 T1 24 0.0 0.019 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 58.1

Approach 36 0.0 0.019 2.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 57.6

All Vehicles 73 0.0 0.019 3.5 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.39 55.9

INTERSECTION 8: ROAD B & SHOPPING CENTRE

ACCESS MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Road B & Shopping Centre Access SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Road B - NB

1 L2 419 0.0 0.240 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 53.9

2 T1 28 0.0 0.240 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 55.2

Approach 447 0.0 0.240 5.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 54.0

North: Road B - SB

8 T1 12 0.0 0.017 1.3 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 55.8

9 R2 13 0.0 0.017 7.0 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 53.9

Approach 25 0.0 0.017 4.3 NA 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 54.8

West: Shopping Centre Acces - EB

10 L2 13 0.0 0.477 8.8 LOS A 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.8

12 R2 418 0.0 0.477 10.1 LOS B 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.3

Approach 431 0.0 0.477 10.0 LOS B 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.3

All Vehicles 902 0.0 0.477 7.5 NA 3.0 20.8 0.20 0.74 52.2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Road B & Shopping Centre Access SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID ODMov


Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: Road B - NB

1 L2 553 0.0 0.303 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 53.7

2 T1 11 0.0 0.303 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 55.0

Approach 564 0.0 0.303 5.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 53.7

North: Road B - SB

8 T1 9 0.0 0.023 2.1 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 54.8

9 R2 18 0.0 0.023 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 52.9

Approach 27 0.0 0.023 5.7 NA 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 53.5

West: Shopping Centre Acces - EB

10 L2 18 0.0 0.668 10.1 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 49.1

12 R2 553 0.0 0.668 12.6 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 48.7

Approach 571 0.0 0.668 12.5 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 48.7

All Vehicles 1161 0.0 0.668 8.9 NA 6.4 45.1 0.21 0.80 51.1

ANNEXURE E:

PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS &

NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES -

MARITENG PLAN NO.: 183-95-01

ANNEXURE F:

CAPACITY RESULTS FROM AUTOJ

INTERSECTION 1: KAGISO & GEBA

INTERSECTION 2: KAGISO & CREMONA

ANNEXURE G:

STANDARD SPLAYS - JRA DRAWING NO.:

JRA-SD-RD-070

ANNEXURE G:

EXTRACT FROM TMH 16 VOLUME 2 -

THROAT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS

183-95-02-tshepisong ext 4 - laptop - BA Tshepisong/Draft Basic... · -ii-Mariteng Consulting...

Documents

Transcript of 183-95-02-tshepisong ext 4 - laptop - BA Tshepisong/Draft Basic... · -ii-Mariteng Consulting...