APPENDIX 5.10: Traffic Impact Assessment€¦ · Local Municipality for Traffic Impact Assessment....

The South African Breweries (Pty) Limited ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR A GLASS BOTTLE MANUFACTURING PLANT PROPOSED BY SAB AND PARTNERS File name: 2019-01-30_Glass Bottle Manufacturing Plant_EIAR-Final GDARD - Print version

720.19124.00005

January 2019

137

APPENDIX 5.10: Traffic Impact Assessment

THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

26 SEPTEMBER 2018

WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd.


TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ISSUE 1

PROJECT NO.: OUR REF. NO. 24738

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018

WSP

314 GLENWOOD ROAD

LYNNWOOD PARK

PRETORIA, 0081

SOUTH AFRICA

T: +27 12 762 1262

F: +27 12 762 1301

WSP.COM

iii

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks

Date September 2018

Prepared by Basetsana Kgatle

Traffic and Transportation

Technologist

Signature

Checked by Herbert Phahlane (Pr Tech

Eng)


Director

Signature

Authorised by Herbert Phahlane (Pr Tech

Eng)


Director

Signature

Project number 24738

Report number 1

File reference Z:\24000\24738 AB-InBev

Jordan & Isanti Traffic\21

CC\01-DOCS\02-

Reports\24738_Isanti

Project_TIA.docx

ZABK03042

My Signature

iv

S I G N A T U R E S

PREPARED BY

Basetsana Kgatle, Traffic and Transportation Technician

Miss

REVIEWED BY

Herbert Phahlane, Traffic and Transportation Director

Mr

This report was prepared by WSP in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any

information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects

WSP’s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third

party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such

third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions

made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report.

The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be retained by WSP

for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of WSP’s control and its integrity can no longer

be ensured, no guarantee may be given to by any modifications to be made to this document.

Certification

I, Herbert Phahlane, certify that I am a professional Traffic Engineer Technologist 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), and I take full responsibility for the content, including all calculations, conclusions and recommendations made herein.

Signatory: Date: September 2018 ECSA no: 2016 700 19

WSP Contact Person

Name: Herbert Phahlane (Pr. Tech Eng.) Address: Postnet Suite 287, Private Bag X025,

Lynnwood Ridge, 0040 Telephone: 012 762 1200 Cellphone: 083 445 6907 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ZABK03042

My Signature

D E C L A R A T I O N

I, Herbert Phahlane, declare that:

— I act as an independent specialist in this application;

— I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and

findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

— I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

— I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the

Act, EIA Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

— I will comply with the Act, EIA Regulations and all other applicable legislation;

— I will consider, to the extent possible, the matters listed in Regulation 13;

— I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

— I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession

that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the

application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared

by myself for submission to the competent authority; and

— All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct;

— I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section

24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company: WSP

Date: 13 September 2018

THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ Project No. OUR REF. NO. 24738

WSP September 2018

Page vi

P R O D U C T I O N T E A M

WSP

Traffic and Transportation Technologist Basetsana Kgatle

Traffic Engineer Pieter Jooste

Traffic and Transportation Director Herbert Phahlane (Pr Tech Eng)


WSP September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

1.2 PURPOSE ......................................................................... 1

1.3 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ................................................ 1

1.4 METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 1

1.5 CONSULTATION WITH MUNICIPALITY ......................... 1

1.6 COMMENTS FROM EMFULENI LOCAL

MUNICIPALITY ................................................................. 1

1.7 ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ......................... 2

2 EIA REGULATIONS .......................................... 3

3 EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT .................. 4

4 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK AND

STUDY AREA ................................................... 5

4.1 ROAD NETWORK AND MASTER PLANNING ............... 5

4.1.1 MUNICIPAL PLANNING ............................................................................ 5

4.1.2 PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING ............................................. 5

4.2 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK ................................ 5

4.3 DETERMINATION OF THE STUDY AREA ...................... 5

5 SITE ACCESS ................................................... 6

6 EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOWS ............................ 7

6.1 GENERAL ......................................................................... 7

6.2 FUTURE TRIPS ................................................................ 7

7 DEVELOPMENT TRIPS .................................... 8

7.1 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL TRIPS ............................... 8

7.2 LAND-USE ESTIMATED TRIPS ...................................... 8

7.3 GROWTH RATE ............................................................... 9

7.4 TRAFFIC VOLUME SCENARIOS .................................... 9

7.5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .................... 10

viii


WSP September 2018

8 BASELINE OPERATING CONDITIONS ......... 11

9 OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH

DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 16

9.1 PRE MITIGATION ........................................................... 16

9.1.1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE MITIGATION)....................................... 21

9.2 POST MITIGATION ........................................................ 24

9.2.1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (POST MITIGATION) .................................... 28

9.2.2 UPGRADES REQUIRED ......................................................................... 30

9.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PRE AND POST

MITIGATION ................................................................... 32

10 NON-MOTORISED AND PUBLIC

TRANSPORT .................................................. 35

10.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................. 35

10.2 EXISTING AND PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSPORT

SERVICES AND FACILITIES ......................................... 35

10.2.1 MINIBUS TAXIS ....................................................................................... 35

10.2.2 BUSES ...................................................................................................... 35

10.2.3 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT .......................................................... 35

10.3 PROPOSED / NEW FACILITIES .................................... 35

10.3.1 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT .......................................................... 35

11 OTHER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

CONSIDERATION .......................................... 36

11.1 ROAD SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION ................. 36

11.2 ROAD SAFETY DURING OPERATIONAL .................... 36

12 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 37

13 REFERENCES ................................................ 38

ix


WSP September 2018

TABLES

TABLE 1 - APPENDIX 6 OF THE EIA REGULATIONS ....................... 3 TABLE 2 – PROPOSED LAND-USE .................................................... 4 TABLE 3 - TRIP GENERATIONS ASSUMPTIONS FROM CLIENT .... 8 TABLE 4 - PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ....... 9 TABLE 5 – DAILY TRIPS ACCORDING TO TMH17 MANUAL ........... 9 TABLE 6 - TYPICAL TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES .............................. 9 TABLE 7 - BASELINE OPERATING LAYOUT ................................... 11 TABLE 8 - BASELINE OPERATING CONDITIONS .......................... 14 TABLE 9 - INTERSECTION LAYOUTS (PRE MITIGATION) ............ 16 TABLE 10 - OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT

(PRE MITIGATION) ........................................................ 19 TABLE 11 - DEFINITION AND CRITERIA (PRE MITIGATION) ........ 21 TABLE 12 - DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE (PRE MITIGATION) . 22 TABLE 13 - DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE (PRE MITIGATION) ... 23 TABLE 14 - INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (PRE

MITIGATION) ................................................................. 23 TABLE 15 - INTERSECTION LAYOUTS (POST MITIGATION) ........ 24 TABLE 16 - OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT

(POST MITIGATION) ..................................................... 26 TABLE 17 - DEFINITION AND CRITERIA (POST MITIGATION) ...... 28 TABLE 18 - DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE (POST

MITIGATION) ................................................................. 29 TABLE 19 - DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE (POST MITIGATION) . 30 TABLE 20 - INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (POST

MITIGATION) ................................................................. 30 TABLE 21 - COMPARING OPERATING CONDITIONS (PRE AND

POST MITIGATION) ....................................................... 32 TABLE 22 - COMPARING SIGNIFICANCE (PRE AND POST

MITIGATION) ................................................................. 34

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - LOCALITY PLAN

FIGURE 2 - EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ROAD NETWORK

PLAN

FIGURE 3 - GAUTENG STRATEGIC MAJOR ROAD NETWORK PLAN

FIGURE 4 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 5 - PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRIPS

FIGURE 6 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 7 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE TRAFFIC

VOLUMES

FIGURE 8 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 9 - PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS

x


WSP September 2018

FIGURE 10 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS

DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 11 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS


DRAWING

SKC003 REV A - PROPOSED ACCESS LAYOUT AND ROAD

UPGRADES

APPENDICES

A-1 LEETER FROM EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

A-2 CURRICULUM VITAE

A-3 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS

A-4 DETAILED SIDRA ANALYSIS

1


WSP September 2018

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

WSP has been appointed to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment for a proposed development situated on the Remainder

of Portion 238 (A portion of portion 149) of the farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ in Vereeniging, Gauteng Province (hereinafter

referred to as the Project Site). The proposed site is undeveloped and is located on the corner of Boy Louw Street (R28)

and Lager Road intersection. The site location is indicated on Figure 1.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to consider the traffic impact of the proposed development on the existing surrounding road

network and possible mitigation of the anticipated traffic.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

The reports addresses the following aspects:

— Extent of the Development;

— Road Network;

— Site Access;

— Existing Traffic Flows;

— Development Trips;

— Baseline Operating Conditions;

— Operating Conditions with Development (Pre and Post Mitigation);

— Other Traffic Engineering Consideration; and

— Conclusion and Recommendations.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

The basis of this report is in accordance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

1.5 CONSULTATION WITH MUNICIPALITY

Consultation with the municipality was undertaken during the study with Mr JP Squirra, a representative of the Emfuleni

Local Municipality for Traffic Impact Assessment. Communication was done via email to get the relevant information for

the proposed development.

1.6 COMMENTS FROM EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

The comments are attached as Appendix A-1 and addressed as follows:

2.1. The report makes a reference to “Brentwood X 19” in paragraph 7.3.2. Please correct.

— Corrected.

2.2. Lager / New Access

2


WSP September 2018

2.2.1. The right turn movement at this intersection, southern approach is the same for the 2018 and for 20123. Discuss and

address.

— The right turn movement volumes for 2018 and 2023 will remain the same, as it is the development volumes only.

There are no existing volumes on the right turn movement for this intersection.

2.2.2. The Heavy vehicles percentage shown is 0%, which can only be if this is for passenger vehicles only. The layout in

the outline scheme report (OSR) however shows otherwise. Please confirm. Study needs to be rectified/amended either

way.

— The Heavy vehicles percentage have been increased to 15% to accommodate heavy vehicle going to the development.

The intersection was re-analysed and the results have been updated as shown on Appendix A-4.

2.2.3. Storage lane is shown at 30m while the queue is shown as 44.0m. In addition, the layout in the OSR shows access

control and an access to parking area very close to the road at this access as well (could not confirm distance). The concern

is vehicles backing up into the road. Discuss and address.

— As the intersection has been re-analysed, the required storage lane is no 67m. A storage lane of 70m has been provided

as shown on Drawing SKC003 Rev A .The issue of the access control being to the parking will be discussed at the

SDP stage.

2.3. .Boy Louw / Lager

2.3.1. The HV% turning right is shown only as 3%. It seems low considering the predominant developments I the area as

well as the proposed developments. Please elaborate.

— The HV% for the right turning volumes on the eastern approach has been increased to 15%. The intersection was

re-analysed and the results have been updated as shown on Appendix A-4.

2.3.2. The RTL is shown as 60m only while the queue is shown to be 100m. Discuss and address. (Eastern approach).

— There are two right turning lanes provided on the eastern approach (60m and 60m long = 120m), therefore the queue

distance need to be divided by two. With the new capacity of the intersection as stated on 2.3.1, the queue distance is

now 119m. The queue need to be divided by two which then equates to 60m. Therefore it is evident that the two right

turning lanes will be able to accommodate the vehicles queuing.

2.3.3. The southern approach LOS is increased from F to D after upgrades. It is assumed that it is due to changes to the

timing plans as none of the other upgrades could facilitate an increase? Confirm and discuss.

— Yes, the changes in the timing plans contributed to the LOS of the southern approach.

2.3.4. As the upgrades of this timing plan is the responsibility of the developer, the details of amendments to this timing

plans needs to be stated in the recommendations.

— The timing plans for this intersection have been discussed in the recommendations and included in Appendix A-4.

1.7 ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

Assumptions and uncertainties made in this report include the following:

— Trip rate: Based on the description of the development, vehicle trip generation rates for light manufacturing was

considered to determine the expected developments trips to be generated.

— Future traffic growth: Considering the current economic growth rate, as well as the location of the Project Site, a 3%

annual growth rate was assumed. This is in line with the growth rates recommended by the South African Trip Data

Manual; and

— Trip distribution: Trip distribution were based on the location of the site; access in relation to the surrounding road

network; the existing traffic volumes, travel patterns as well as the land use nature of the proposed development.

3


WSP September 2018

2 EIA REGULATIONS Table 1 shows the specialist report requirement in terms of Appendix 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

regulations and relevant sections as addressed in the report.

Table 1 - Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations

EIA REGULATIONS (2014) - APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT SECTION IN REPORT

Details of the specialist who prepared the report Page iv

The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report

including a curriculum vitae

Appendix A-2

A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be

specified by the competent authority

Page v

An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the

report was prepared

Section 1.2 and 1.3, page 1

The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance

of the season to the outcome of the assessment

N/A

A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report

or carrying out the specialised process

Section 1.4, page 1

The specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity

and its associated structures and infrastructure

Section 4.3, page 5

An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers N/A

A map superimposing the activity including the associated

structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of

the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

Drawing SKC003 Rev A

A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or

gaps in knowledge;

Section 1.7, page 2

A description of the findings and potential implications of such

findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including

identified alternatives, on the environment

Section 9.2.2, page 30

Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 10, page 35

Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation Section 9.2.2, page 30

Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or

environmental authorisation

Section 10, page 35

A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or

portions thereof should be authorised and

Section 11, page 36

If the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof

should be authorised, any avoidance, management and

mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and

where applicable, the closure plan

Section 10, page 35

A description of any consultation process that was undertaken

during the course of carrying out the study

Section 1.5, page 1

A summary and copies if any comments that were received

during any consultation process Appendix A-1

Any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A

4


WSP September 2018

3 EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT The Remainder of Portion 238 (A portion of portion 149) of the farm Leeuwkuil 596 IQ will consist of the following land

use as shown on Table 2.

Table 2 – Proposed Land-Use

ZONING LAND-USE STE AREA FAR EXTENT

Industrial 2 Manufacturing 292 305m2 0.5 146 153m2 GLA

5


WSP September 2018

4 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK AND

STUDY AREA

4.1 ROAD NETWORK AND MASTER PLANNING

4.1.1 MUNICIPAL PLANNING

The Emfuleni Local Municipality Functional Road Network Planning was considered for this study. The road network

planning is shown on Figure 2.

4.1.2 PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING

The application is not bounded by any provincial roads. The 2010 Gauteng Major Road Network is shown on Figure 3.

4.2 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK

— Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59/P156/2): This is a Class 1 major arterial road located to the east of the site; this

dual carriageway road follows a north-south alignment with two lanes per direction. This road falls under the

jurisdiction of the Emfuleni Local Municipality;

— Boy Louw Street (R28/P88-1): This is a Class 2 collector street located to the south of the site; this road follows an

east-west alignment with two lanes per direction. This road falls under the jurisdiction of the Emfuleni Local

Municipality; and

— Theunis Kruger Street: This is a Class 3 road located to the west of the site; this road follows a north-south alignment

with one lane per direction. This road falls under the jurisdiction of the Emfuleni Local Municipality.

— Lager Road: This is a Class 4a road located to the west of the site; this road follows a north-south alignment with two

lanes per direction to the north and one lane per direction to the south. This road falls under the jurisdiction of the

Emfuleni Local Municipality.

4.3 DETERMINATION OF THE STUDY AREA

In determining the site area TMH 16 volume 1 recommends the following:

— “Class 4 and 5 roads in the vicinity of the development up to the first Class 1 to 3 roads that can be reached by the Class

4 and 5 road network from the development, up to and including the first connection(s) on the Class 1 to 3 roads.

— The elements shall be restricted to those within a maximum distance of 1.5km from the accesses to the site, measured

along the shortest routes to the accesses, provided that there is at least one intersection within this distance. Where

there is no such intersection, the distance will be extended to include at least one intersection.”

TMH 16 also states that judgement should be used in selecting the intersections considered and therefore specific elements

like extent of the development were also considered. A larger development will by its nature require a wider study area to

be considered while for a smaller development the opposite will be true. Given the number of trips this development will

generate and the nature of the development, it was determined that the five (5) key intersections as mentioned in

Chapter 6 (refer to Figure 1) would be sufficient for analyses, for this proposed development.

6


WSP September 2018

5 SITE ACCESS The proposed development will be served by a full access off Lager Road, which is proposed to be controlled by a priority

side stop with traffic on the Lager Road, having the right of way. An additional dedicated right turning lane of 70m long

(with a 30m taper) will be required on Lager Road on the southern approach. The access spacing from the southern

intersection of Lager Road is approximately 200m centre to centre to the proposed access.

7


WSP September 2018

6 EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOWS

6.1 GENERAL

Traffic Surveys were commissioned by WSP on the 20th of February 2018 at the following intersections:

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Theunis Kruger Street;

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Lager Road;

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59) – West Terminal;

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59) – East Terminal; and

— Lager Road and Pilsener Close.

The traffic surveys were done on the Tuesday the 20th of February 2018 as this was during the week. This is according to

the national guideline and is considered acceptable.

The counted intersections are indicated in Figure 1.

From the traffic counts a common peak hour was determined (the busiest hour) for each counted period and was found to

be as follows:

— Weekday AM Peak 07:00 – 08:00

— Weekday PM Peak 16:00 – 17:00

The 2018 base peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4.

6.2 FUTURE TRIPS

It is anticipated that there will be future development which will be realised before the proposed development. The traffic volumes for this future development are shown on Figure 5.

8


WSP September 2018

7 DEVELOPMENT TRIPS

7.1 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL TRIPS

The expected trip generation during the day was determined based on the number of assumptions as outlined in Table 3.

The assumption made in regard with the light vehicles, was that there would be 130 vph trips (in and out) per hour, therefore

for the daily trips, the pick hour trips were multiplied by 8 hours.

Table 3 - Trip Generations Assumptions from Client

Current Warehouse Site

Material Trucks Unit Type Unit Type Trucks per day

Final Product

Trailers (8 axis) 336

Packaging Material Trailers (5 axis) 30

Raw Materials Hopper Trailers (5 axis) 70

Waste Material Hopper Truck 60

Returned Pallets and Tier Sheets Trailers (8 axis)

30

In Bound 58 30 palleter

Out Bound 133

12, 16, 22 and 30 palleter and inter link 22 + 8 palleter

Total Trucks 526

Passenger Car Equivalent 868

Total Light Vehicles 1 040

Total Trips (Trucks and Light Vehicles) 1 908

7.2 LAND-USE ESTIMATED TRIPS

The detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix A-3. Using the COTO document the expected peak hour

development trips generation was calculated and is indicated in Table 4 below.

9


WSP September 2018

Table 4 - Peak Hour Development Generated Trips

TMH17 CODE LAND USE EXTENT

AM PEAK PM PEAK

IN OUT TOT IN OUT TOT

140 Manufacturing 146 153m2 GLA 649 162 811 162 649 811

Total Trips 649 162 811 162 649 811

From Table 4 it can be seen that the development will generate approximately 811 trips during the weekday AM and PM

and peak hours.

Table 5 – Daily Trips according to TMH17 Manual

TMH17 CODE LAND USE EXTENT TRIP RATE DAILY TRIPS

140 Manufacturing 146 153m2 GLA 2.00 2924

From Table 5 it can be seen that the development will generate approximately 2 924 daily trips.

It must be noted that the traffic impact assessment did consider the land use estimated trip generation of the development,

which is approximately 35% more traffic than the assumed trips by the client as shown on Table 3.

7.3 GROWTH RATE

TMH 16 Volume 1 requires that a five-year horizon be considered for developments that generate more than 50 trips.

TMH 17 recommends growth rates for developments as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 - Typical Traffic Growth Rates

Development Area Growth Rates

Low growth areas 0 – 3%

Average growth areas 3 – 4%

Above average growth areas 4 – 6%

Fast growing areas 6 – 8%

Exceptionally high growth areas >8%

A growth rate of 3% was considered appropriate for this study, and applied to the existing traffic volumes over a 5 year

period, as discussed in the next chapter.

7.4 TRAFFIC VOLUME SCENARIOS

The 2018 base peak hour traffic volumes (refer to Figure 4) were thus subjected to a 3% growth rate over five years; this

is in line with an average growth rate as given in Table 6. The 2023 background peak hour traffic volumes are shown in

Figure 6.

To obtain the total background traffic, the future peak hour trip were obtained and added to the 2018 existing peak hour

traffic volumes and 2023 background peak hour traffic volumes as shown on Figure 7 and 8 respectively.

10


WSP September 2018

7.5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Assumptions with respect to the expected trip distribution were based on the location of the site access in relation to the

surrounding road network; the existing traffic volumes, travel patterns as well as the land use nature of the proposed

development.

The total expected development trips are shown in Figure 9. The 2018 base peak hour plus future trips plus total

development traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10. Ultimately, the 2023 background peak hour plus future trips plus

total development traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11.

11


WSP September 2018

8 BASELINE OPERATING CONDITIONS The baseline conditions were determined using the 2018 base peak hour traffic volumes (refer to Figure 4). Capacity

analysis was conducted for the 2018 base peak hour traffic volumes using the SIDRA software. The intersection layouts

and control are shown on Table 7.

Table 7 - Baseline Operating Layout

INTERSECTION LAYOUT AND CONTROL

Boy Louw Street (R28) and Theunis Kruger Street.

Boy Louw Street (R28) and Lager Road

12


WSP September 2018

Boy Louw Street (R28) and Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59) – West Terminal

Boy Louw Street (R28) and Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59) – East Terminal

Lager Road and Pilsner Close

13


WSP September 2018

The baseline operating conditions capacity analysis results for each intersection are summarised in Table 8 and the detailed

SIDRA results are attached as Appendix A-4. These baseline operating conditions are influenced by traffic volumes,

intersection geometry and control.

These operations are based on the peak hours of the AM and PM peak hours. The level of service (LOS) is determined by

V/C ratio and delay values. LOS vary between A and F, with F being the worst operating condition and D or lower being

acceptable.

14 THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

Project No. OUR REF. NO. 24738

WSP September 2018

Table 8 - Baseline Operating Conditions

DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIO APPROACH

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

COMMENTS V/C DELAYS (S) LOS V/C DELAYS (S) LOS

BOY LOUW STREET (R28) AND THEUNIS KRUGER STREET

2018 BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC

VOLUMES

SOUTH 0.519 27.1 D 0.570 28.9 D Acceptable

EAST 1.083 158.1 F 1.321 340.1 F Not acceptable

NORTH 0.225 115.8 F 0.153 74.5 F Not acceptable

WEST 1.157 178.0 F 0.800 41.2 E Not acceptable / Problematic

OVERALL 1.157 151.3 F 1.321 177.3 F Not acceptable

BOY LOUW STREET (R28) AND LAGER ROAD


VOLUMES

SOUTH 0.586 25.5 C 0.400 23.8 C Good

EAST 0.574 11.2 B 0.397 9.3 A Good / Very Good

NORTH 0.198 21.7 C 0.203 22.1 C Good

WEST 0.426 10.2 B 0.341 9.5 A Good / Very Good

OVERALL 0.586 13.2 B 0.400 11.5 B Good

BOY LOUW STREET (R28) AND SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) – WEST TERMINAL


VOLUMES

SOUTH 0.610 19.1 B 0.393 22.0 C Good

EAST 0.471 12.6 B 0.387 5.6 A Good / Very Good

NORTH - - - - - - -


OVERALL 0.610 14.4 B 0.393 7.6 A Good / Very Good

BOY LOUW STREET (R28) AND SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) – EAST TERMINAL


VOLUMES

SOUTH - - - - - - -

EAST 0.373 10.0 B 0.550 11.1 B Good

NORTH 0.651 21.1 C 0.529 22.1 C Good

WEST 0.649 11.1 B 0.550 10.4 B Good

OVERALL 0.651 12.7 B 0.550 12.3 B Good



WSP September 2018

LAGER ROAD AND PILSNER CLOSE


VOLUMES

SOUTH 0.108 2.2 NA 0.022 2.1 NA -

EAST 0.047 7.6 A 0.038 7.1 A Very Good

NORTH 0.040 0.4 NA 0.032 0.3 NA -

WEST - - - - - - -

OVERALL 0.108 2.4 NA 0.038 2.4 NA -

Note: LOS of Not Applicable (N/A) is due to a two way stop sign control

16


WSP September 2018

9 OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH

DEVELOPMENT

9.1 PRE MITIGATION

The operating conditions were determined by doing capacity analysis for the 2023 background peak hour plus future trips

plus total development traffic volumes (refer to Figure 11) scenario using the SIDRA software. The intersection layouts


Table 9 - Intersection Layouts (Pre Mitigation)

INTERSECTION EXISTING LAYOUT AND CONTROL



17


WSP September 2018



Lager Road and Pilsner Close

18


WSP September 2018

The operating conditions with the development for each of these intersections are summarised in Table 10 and the detailed

SIDRA results are attached as Appendix A-4. These operating conditions are influenced by traffic volumes, intersection

geometry and control.



acceptable.



WSP September 2018

Table 10 - Operating Conditions with Development (Pre Mitigation)





2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS


SOUTH 0.622 34.7 D 0.654 34.5 D Acceptable

EAST 1.351 365.7 F 1.702 667.8 F Not Acceptable

NORTH 0.551 358.9 F 0.189 85.4 F Not Acceptable

WEST 1.509 432.1 F 0.963 78.2 F Not Acceptable

OVERALL 1.509 356.0 F 1.702 356.5 F Not Acceptable




SOUTH 2.402 1022.2 F 0.878 39.7 D Acceptable / Good

EAST 3.294 957.6 F 0.939 24.9 C Good

NORTH 0.844 36.3 D 0.783 19.9 B Good

WEST 0.455 7.4 A 0.581 19.0 B Good

OVERALL 3.294 503.2 F 0.939 22.7 C Good




SOUTH 0.783 23.9 C 0.635 19.6 B Good

EAST 0.778 16.3 B 0.918 10.1 B Good / Very Good

NORTH - - - - - - -


OVERALL 0.783 17.2 B 0.918 8.8 A Good / Very Good




SOUTH - - - - - - -

EAST 0.609 14.0 B 0.883 32.1 C Good / Very Good

NORTH 0.944 41.8 D 0.929 43.5 D Good

WEST 0.952 442.9 D 0.656 11.1 B Good

OVERALL 0.952 33.9 C 0.929 24.9 C Good



WSP September 2018




SOUTH 0.221 1.7 NA 0.054 2.1 NA -

EAST 0.057 10.3 B 0.054 9.3 A Very Good

NORTH 0.069 0.3 NA 0.125 0.1 NA -

WEST - - - - - - -

OVERALL 0.221 2.0 NA 0.125 1.4 NA -


21


WSP September 2018

9.1.1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE MITIGATION)

Using Table 11 to 14, the significance of the development has been assessed. The assessment was done for the impact of

intersections surrounding the development. Two parameters are used to assess the impact, which are the V/C ratio and the

delay of how the intersections are operating as shown on Table 10.

Table 11 - Definition and Criteria (Pre Mitigation)

PART A: DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA*

Definition of SIGNIFICANCE Significance = consequence x probability

Definition of CONSEQUENCE Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration

Criteria for ranking of the

INTENSITY of

environmental impacts

VH Severe change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with severe

consequences. May result in severe illness, injury or death. Targets, limits and

thresholds of concern continually exceeded. Substantial intervention will be

required. Vigorous/widespread community mobilization against project can be

expected. May result in legal action if impact occurs.

H Prominent change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with real and

substantial consequences. May result in illness or injury. Targets, limits and

thresholds of concern regularly exceeded. Will definitely require intervention.

Threats of community action. Regular complaints can be expected when the

impact takes place.

M Moderate change, disturbance or discomfort. Associated with real but not

substantial consequences. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern may

occasionally be exceeded. Likely to require some intervention. Occasional

complaints can be expected.

L Minor (Slight) change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with minor

consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern rarely

exceeded. Require only minor interventions or clean-up actions. Sporadic

complaints could be expected.

VL Negligible change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with very minor

consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern never

exceeded. No interventions or clean-up actions required. No complaints

anticipated.

VL+ Negligible change or improvement. Almost no benefits. Change not

measurable/will remain in the current range.

L+ Minor change or improvement. Minor benefits. Change not measurable/will

remain in the current range. Few people will experience benefits.

M+ Moderate change or improvement. Real but not substantial benefits. Will be

within or marginally better than the current conditions. Small number of people

will experience benefits.

H+ Prominent change or improvement. Real and substantial benefits. Will be better than current conditions. Many people will experience benefits. General community support.

VH+ Substantial, large-scale change or improvement. Considerable and widespread benefit. Will be much better than the current conditions. Favourable publicity and/or widespread support expected.

22


WSP September 2018

Criteria for ranking the

DURATION of impacts

VL Very short, always less than a year. Quickly reversible

L Short-term, occurs for more than 1 but less than 5 years. Reversible over time.

M Medium-term, 5 to 10 years.

H Long term, between 10 and 20 years. (Likely to cease at the end of the

operational life of the activity)

VH Very long, permanent, +20 years (Irreversible. Beyond closure)


EXTENT of impacts

VL A part of the site/property.

L Whole site.

M Beyond the site boundary, affecting immediate neighbours

H Local area, extending far beyond site boundary.

VH Regional/National

Table 12 - Determining Consequence (Pre Mitigation)

PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE

EXTENT

A part of the

site/property

Whole site Beyond the

site, affecting

neighbours

Local area,

extending far

beyond site.

Regional/

National

VL L M H VH

INTENSITY = VL

DURATION

Very long VH Low Low Medium Medium High

Long term H Low Low Low Medium Medium

Medium term M Very Low Low Low Low Medium

Short term L Very low Very Low Low Low Low

Very short VL Very low Very Low Very Low Low Low

INTENSITY = L

DURATION

Very long VH Medium Medium Medium High High

Long term H Low Medium Medium Medium High

Medium term M Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Short term L Low Low Low Medium Medium

Very short VL Very low Low Low Low Medium

INTENSITY = M

DURATION

Very long VH Medium High High High Very High

Long term H Medium Medium Medium High High

Medium term M Medium Medium Medium High High

Short term L Low Medium Medium Medium High

Very short VL Low Low Low Medium Medium

INTENSITY = H

Very long VH High High High Very High Very High

23


WSP September 2018

DURATION

Long term H Medium High High High Very High

Medium term M Medium Medium High High High

Short term L Medium Medium Medium High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium Medium High

INTENSITY = VH

DURATION

Very long VH High High Very High Very High Very High

Long term H High High High Very High Very High

Medium term M Medium High High High Very High

Short term L Medium Medium High High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium High High

Table 13 - Determining Significance (Pre Mitigation)

PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

Definite/ Continuous VH Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Probable H Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Possible/ frequent M Very Low Very Low Low Medium High

Conceivable L Insignificant Very Low Low Medium High

Unlikely/ improbable VL Insignificant Insignificant Very Low Low Medium

VL L M H VVH

CONSEQUENCE

Table 14 - Interpretation of Significance (Pre Mitigation)

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Significance Decision guideline

Very High Potential fatal flaw unless mitigated to lower significance.

High It must have an influence on the decision. Substantial mitigation will be required.

Medium It should have an influence on the decision. Mitigation will be required.

Low Unlikely that it will have a real influence on the decision. Limited mitigation is likely to be required.

Very Low It will not have an influence on the decision. Does not require any mitigation

Insignificant Inconsequential, not requiring any consideration.

*VH = very high, H = high, M= medium, L= low and VL= very low and + denotes a positive impact.

The significance is determined as High.

24


WSP September 2018

9.2 POST MITIGATION

The operating conditions were determined by doing capacity analysis for the 2023 background peak hour plus future trips

plus total development traffic volumes (refer to Figure 11) scenario using the SIDRA software. The intersection layouts


Table 15 - Intersection Layouts (Post Mitigation)

INTERSECTION PROPOSED LAYOUT AND CONTROL




No Mitigation Required.


No Mitigation Required.

Lager Road and Pilsner Close No Mitigation Required.

25


WSP September 2018

Lager Road and Proposed Access

The operating conditions with the development for each of these intersections are summarised in Table 16 and the detailed

SIDRA results are attached as Appendix A-4. These operating conditions are influenced by traffic volumes, intersection

geometry and control.



acceptable.



WSP September 2018

Table 16 - Operating Conditions with Development (Post Mitigation)






TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

VOLUMES (WITH UPGRADES)

SOUTH 0.639 30.0 C 0.726 34.8 C Good

EAST 0.423 8.5 A 0.561 6.5 A Very Good

NORTH 0.027 24.7 C 0.045 28.4 C Good

WEST 0.583 10.0 B 0.803 10.0 B Good

OVERALL 0.639 12.4 B 0.803 11.6 B Good





SOUTH 0.918 42.2 D 0.349 20.7 C Acceptable / Good

EAST 0.919 23.9 C 0.553 14.5 B Good

NORTH 0.598 20.3 C 0.763 18.6 B Good

WEST 0.935 33.0 C 0.726 24.2 C Good

OVERALL 0.935 28.6 C 0.763 18.5 B Good





SOUTH

No Mitigation Required

EAST

NORTH

WEST

OVERALL





SOUTH


EAST

NORTH

WEST

OVERALL



WSP September 2018





SOUTH


EAST

NORTH

WEST

OVERALL

LAGER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS




SOUTH 0.670 5.7 NA 0.205 4.7 NA -

EAST 0.186 9.7 A 0.788 16.2 C Very Good

NORTH 0.069 0.0 NA 0.115 0.0 NA -

WEST - - - - - - -

OVERALL 0.670 5.3 NA 0.788 9.0 NA -


28


WSP September 2018

9.2.1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (POST MITIGATION)

Using Table 17 to 20, the significance of the development has been assessed. The assessment was done for the impact of

intersections surrounding the development. Two parameters are used to assess the impact, which are the V/C ratio and the

delay of how the intersections are operating as shown on Table 16.

Table 17 - Definition and Criteria (Post Mitigation)

PART A: DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA*

Definition of SIGNIFICANCE Significance = consequence x probability

Definition of CONSEQUENCE Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration

Criteria for ranking of the

INTENSITY of

environmental impacts

VH Severe change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with severe

consequences. May result in severe illness, injury or death. Targets, limits and

thresholds of concern continually exceeded. Substantial intervention will be

required. Vigorous/widespread community mobilization against project can be

expected. May result in legal action if impact occurs.

H Prominent change, disturbance or degradation. Associated with real and

substantial consequences. May result in illness or injury. Targets, limits and

thresholds of concern regularly exceeded. Will definitely require intervention.

Threats of community action. Regular complaints can be expected when the

impact takes place.

M Moderate change, disturbance or discomfort. Associated with real but not

substantial consequences. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern may

occasionally be exceeded. Likely to require some intervention. Occasional

complaints can be expected.

L Minor (Slight) change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with minor

consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern rarely

exceeded. Require only minor interventions or clean-up actions. Sporadic

complaints could be expected.

VL Negligible change, disturbance or nuisance. Associated with very minor

consequences or deterioration. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern never

exceeded. No interventions or clean-up actions required. No complaints

anticipated.

VL+ Negligible change or improvement. Almost no benefits. Change not

measurable/will remain in the current range.

L+ Minor change or improvement. Minor benefits. Change not measurable/will

remain in the current range. Few people will experience benefits.

M+ Moderate change or improvement. Real but not substantial benefits. Will be

within or marginally better than the current conditions. Small number of people

will experience benefits.

H+ Prominent change or improvement. Real and substantial benefits. Will be better than current conditions. Many people will experience benefits. General community support.

VH+ Substantial, large-scale change or improvement. Considerable and widespread benefit. Will be much better than the current conditions. Favourable publicity and/or widespread support expected.

29


WSP September 2018


DURATION of impacts

VL Very short, always less than a year. Quickly reversible

L Short-term, occurs for more than 1 but less than 5 years. Reversible over time.

M Medium-term, 5 to 10 years.

H Long term, between 10 and 20 years. (Likely to cease at the end of the

operational life of the activity)

VH Very long, permanent, +20 years (Irreversible. Beyond closure)


EXTENT of impacts

VL A part of the site/property.

L Whole site.

M Beyond the site boundary, affecting immediate neighbours

H Local area, extending far beyond site boundary.

VH Regional/National

Table 18 - Determining Consequence (Post Mitigation)

PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE

EXTENT

A part of the

site/property

Whole site Beyond the

site, affecting

neighbours

Local area,

extending far

beyond site.

Regional/

National

VL L M H VH

INTENSITY = VL

DURATION

Very long VH Low Low Medium Medium High

Long term H Low Low Low Medium Medium

Medium term M Very Low Low Low Low Medium

Short term L Very low Very Low Low Low Low

Very short VL Very low Very Low Very Low Low Low

INTENSITY = L

DURATION

Very long VH Medium Medium Medium High High

Long term H Low Medium Medium Medium High

Medium term M Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Short term L Low Low Low Medium Medium

Very short VL Very low Low Low Low Medium

INTENSITY = M

DURATION

Very long VH Medium High High High Very High

Long term H Medium Medium Medium High High

Medium term M Medium Medium Medium High High

Short term L Low Medium Medium Medium High

Very short VL Low Low Low Medium Medium

INTENSITY = H

Very long VH High High High Very High Very High

30


WSP September 2018

DURATION

Long term H Medium High High High Very High

Medium term M Medium Medium High High High

Short term L Medium Medium Medium High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium Medium High

INTENSITY = VH

DURATION

Very long VH High High Very High Very High Very High

Long term H High High High Very High Very High

Medium term M Medium High High High Very High

Short term L Medium Medium High High High

Very short VL Low Medium Medium High High

Table 19 - Determining Significance (Post Mitigation)

PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

Definite/ Continuous VH Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Probable H Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Possible/ frequent M Very Low Very Low Low Medium High

Conceivable L Insignificant Very Low Low Medium High

Unlikely/ improbable VL Insignificant Insignificant Very Low Low Medium

VL L M H VVH

CONSEQUENCE

Table 20 - Interpretation of Significance (Post Mitigation)

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Significance Decision guideline

Very High Potential fatal flaw unless mitigated to lower significance.

High It must have an influence on the decision. Substantial mitigation will be required.

Medium It should have an influence on the decision. Mitigation will be required.

Low Unlikely that it will have a real influence on the decision. Limited mitigation is likely to be required.

Very Low It will not have an influence on the decision. Does not require any mitigation

Insignificant Inconsequential, not requiring any consideration.

*VH = very high, H = high, M= medium, L= low and VL= very low and + denotes a positive impact.

The significance is determined as Low.

9.2.2 UPGRADES REQUIRED

The roads upgrades which have been proposed for the mitigation are shown on Drawing SKC003 Rev A and discussed

below. There are no alternatives considered, the upgrades proposed must be implemented.

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Theunis Kruger Street

— Change the existing priority side stop to a traffic signal control.

— Boy Louw Street (R28) and Lager Road

— A 60m (with 60m taper) dedicated right turn lane is proposed on the eastern approach (Boy Louw Street (R28)).

31


WSP September 2018

— This is a new access proposed on Lager Road to provide access to the proposed development, as shown on Drawing

SKC003 Rev A. An additional dedicated right turning lane of 70m long (with a 30m taper) will be required on Lager

Road on the southern approach.

These proposed road upgrades must be approved by the relevant road authority being the Emfuleni Local Municipality.



WSP September 2018

9.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN PRE AND POST MITIGATION

The table below shows the operating conditions of the development for pre and post mitigation.

Table 21 - Comparing Operating Conditions (Pre and Post Mitigation)

APPROACH

AM PEAK PM PEAK

COMMENTS PRE MITIGATIO) POST MITIGATION PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION


SOUTH 0.622 34.7 D 0.639 30.0 C 0.654 34.5 D 0.726 34.8 C

Better operation post mitigation

EAST 1.351 365.7 F 0.423 8.5 A 1.702 667.8 F 0.561 6.5 A

NORTH 0.551 358.9 F 0.027 24.7 C 0.189 85.4 F 0.045 28.4 C

WEST 1.509 432.1 F 0.583 10.0 B 0.963 78.2 F 0.803 10.0 B

OVERALL 1.509 356.0 F 0.639 12.4 B 1.702 356.5 F 0.803 11.6 B


SOUTH 2.402 1022.2 F 0.918 42.2 D 0.878 39.7 D 0.349 20.7 C


EAST 3.294 957.6 F 0.919 23.9 C 0.939 24.9 C 0.553 14.5 B

NORTH 0.844 36.3 D 0.598 20.3 C 0.783 19.9 B 0.763 18.6 B

WEST 0.455 7.4 A 0.935 33.0 C 0.581 19.0 B 0.726 24.2 C

OVERALL 3.294 503.2 F 0.935 28.6 C 0.939 22.7 C 0.763 18.5 B


SOUTH 0.783 23.9 C - 0.635 19.6 B -


EAST 0.778 16.3 B - 0.918 10.1 B -

NORTH - - - - - - - -

WEST 0.732 14.6 B - 0.582 5.5 A -

OVERALL 0.783 17.2 B - 0.918 8.8 A -


SOUTH - - - - - - - -

EAST 0.609 14.0 B - 0.883 32.1 C -

NORTH 0.944 41.8 D - 0.929 43.5 D -



WSP September 2018

WEST 0.952 442.9 D - 0.656 11.1 B - No Mitigation Required

OVERALL 0.952 33.9 C - 0.929 24.9 C -


SOUTH 0.221 1.7 NA - 0.054 2.1 NA -


EAST 0.057 10.3 B - 0.054 9.3 A -

NORTH 0.069 0.3 NA - 0.125 0.1 NA -

WEST - - - - - - - -

OVERALL 0.221 2.0 NA - 0.125 1.4 NA -

LAGER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS

SOUTH - 0.670 5.7 NA - 0.205 4.7 NA

New Access Road, No operation

results pre mitigation

EAST - 0.186 9.7 A - 0.788 16.2 C

NORTH - 0.069 0.0 NA - 0.115 0.0 NA

WEST - - - - - - - -

OVERALL - 0.670 5.3 NA - 0.788 9.0 NA

By comparing the operating conditions in Table 21, it is evident that a positive impact will generally be experienced when considering the proposed development. It must be noted that

V/C ratio and delay increase post mitigation, as the roads upgrades are included for the post mitigation scenario.

34


WSP September 2018

The table below shows of the significance of the development for pre and post mitigation.

Table 22 - Comparing Significance (Pre and Post Mitigation)

IMPACT PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Intensity M H+

Duration H L

Extent H L

Consequence H M

Probability VH L

Significance H L

As shown on Table 22, it is evident that the significance of the development is high pre mitigation without mitigation. It

is therefore concluded that the proposed upgrades due to the development should be implemented as mitigation measures.

35


WSP September 2018

10 NON-MOTORISED AND PUBLIC

TRANSPORT

10.1 BACKGROUND

In terms of the National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009, section 38, it is a requirement that an assessment of the public

transport be included in a traffic impact assessment.

10.2 EXISTING AND PLANNED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES

AND FACILITIES

The proposed development is in close proximity to public transport services. The area is currently served by the following

public transport services:

10.2.1 MINIBUS TAXIS

Classified traffic counts were conducted and minibus taxis use Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59), Boy Louw Street

(R28) and Lager Road.

10.2.2 BUSES

Classified traffic counts were conducted and buses use Sybrand Van Niekerk Freeway (R59), Boy Louw Street (R28) and

Lager Road.

10.2.3 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT

There are currently no existing paved sidewalks or bus/taxi laybys available near the vicinity of the proposed development.

10.3 PROPOSED / NEW FACILITIES

10.3.1 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT

Two taxi drop offs facilities are also proposed along Boy Louw Street (R28) on the upstream and downstream of the

intersection of Boy Louw Street (R28) and Lager Road as shown on Drawing SKC003 Rev A.

36


WSP September 2018

11 OTHER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

CONSIDERATION

11.1 ROAD SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION

During the construction phase, construction vehicles, abnormal vehicles or freight vehicles could affect and/or disrupt

current traffic flows. During this phase, possible traffic congestion or increase in congestion, temporary obstructions in the

roadway and the influence on adjacent properties must be considered. This will be the responsibility of the contractor

appointed and monitored by the supervising engineer.

11.2 ROAD SAFETY DURING OPERATIONAL

During the operational phase, the existing traffic flow patterns on the roadways adjacent to the proposed development are

expected to vary and change over time.

The following issues should be considered to minimise the possible negative impacts the proposed development might

have on the passing traffic during the operational phase:

— The detail design of the proposed access and road upgrades should adhere to the prescribed specifications (and

subsequent approval) of the applicable road authorities;

— Care should be taken pertaining to the placing of signage in the proximity of access points to the proposed

development;

— Issues pertaining to damages and poor condition of the roads in close proximity of the proposed development should

be reported to the applicable authority and custodian of the respective roads; and

— Appropriate signage, road markings and traffic calming measures (if applicable) should be implemented at the

proposed development to ensure safe and convenient access for passing traffic.

It is concluded that the impact on the existing traffic past the site will not be negatively affected by the proposed

development operations if all issues mentioned are addressed.

37


WSP September 2018

12 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS — The proposed development site is situated on the Remainder of Portion 238 (A portion of portion 149) of the farm

Leeuwkuil 596 IQ in Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. The proposed site is undeveloped and is located on the corner

of Boy Louw Street (R28) and Lager Road intersection (refer to Figure 1).

— This site will consist of the following land-use:

— Manufacturing 146 153m2 GLA

— The proposed development is proposed to be serviced by one full access from Lager Road as discussed in Chapter 4

and shown in Drawings SKC003 Rev A. An additional dedicated right turning lane of 70m long (with a 30m taper)

will be required on Lager Road on the southern approach. The access spacing from the southern intersection of Lager

Road is approximately 200m centre to centre to the proposed access.

— The proposed development will generate a maximum of 811 trips in both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as

shown on Table 3.

— By using the data collected, traffic operating conditions were determined using the SIDRA software, the three scenarios

were compared named; baseline, operating (pre mitigation) and operating (post mitigation).

— It is evident that a positive impact will generally be experienced when considering the proposed development

mitigation measures as shown on Table 21.

— As shown on Table 22, it is evident that the significance of the development is high pre mitigation without mitigation.

It is therefore concluded that the proposed upgrades due to the development should be implemented as mitigation

measures.

— Roads upgrades are required as mitigation measures as stated in Chapter 9.2.2 of this report and should be approved

by the relevant municipality.

From a traffic engineering perspective, the proposed development is supported subject to the proposed intersection

upgrades and the access being implemented, as proposed in this report.

38


WSP September 2018

13 REFERENCES — TMH 16 Volume 1, South African Traffic Impact and Site Traffic Assessment Manual, Version 1.0, Committee of

Transport Officials (COTO) August 2012

— TMH 16 Volume 2, South African Traffic Impact and Site Traffic Assessment Standards and Requirements Manual,

Version 1.0, Committee of Transport Officials (COTO) August 2012

— TMH 17 Volume 1, South African Trip Data Manual, Version 1.01, Committee of Transport Officials (COTO)

September 2013.

— TRH 26, South African Road Classification and Access Management Manual, Version 1.0, Committee of Transport

Officials (COTO) August 2012.

— Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council Washington D.C., 2010.

39


WSP September 2018

FIGURES

40


WSP September 2018

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - LOCALITY PLAN

FIGURE 2 - EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ROAD NETWORK PLAN

FIGURE 3 - GAUTENG STRATEGIC MAJOR ROAD NETWORK PLAN

FIGURE 4 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 5 - PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRIPS

FIGURE 6 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 7 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR PLUS FURURETRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 8 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 9 - PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS

FIGURE 10 - 2018 BASE PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 11 - 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Figure Description:Project: No.

Schematic layout

LOCALITY PLAN 1

LEGEND:TRAFFIC COUNT POSITIONS

NORTHNORTHNORTH

R28

R28


24738_THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ _1

PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2018 2

GENERAL LEGEND:

255 - Weekday AM Peak hour Volumes (07:00 - 08:00)(255) - Weekday PM Peak hour Volumes (16:00 - 17:00)

NORTHNORTHNORTH




Schematic layout

EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ROAD NETWORK PLAN 2

NORTHNORTHNORTH



PROJECT SITE LOCATION


Schematic layout

GAUTENG STRATEGIC MAJOR ROAD NETWORK PLAN 3

NORTHNORTHNORTH

PROJECT SITE LOCATION



Project: Figure Description: No:

2018 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:

255 - Weekday AM Peak hour Volumes - 07:00- 08:00 (255) - Weekday PM Peak hour Volumes - 16:00 - 17:00

_4


24738_THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ


2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:

255 - Weekday AM Peak hour Volumes (255) - Weekday PM Peak hour Volumes




PEAK HOUR FUTURE TRIPS 6

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


ERF 188 LEEUWKUIL EXTENSION 5 AND PORTION 237 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

24738_ERF 188 LEEUWKUIL EXTENSION 5 AND PORTION 237 (A PORTION O9F PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ _6


7

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


_7


24738_ERF 188 LEEUWKUIL EXTENSION 5 AND PORTION 237 (A PORTION O9F PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

2018 EXISTING PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES


8

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


_8


24738_ERF 188 LEEUWKUIL EXTENSION 5 AND PORTION 237 (A PORTION O9F PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES


PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS 9

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


INOUT TOTAL

649162811

162649811

AM PM

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT


_924738_ERF 188 LEEUWKUIL EXTENSION 5 AND PORTION 237 (A PORTION O9F PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

Project: Figure Description: No: 2018 EXISTING PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


INOUT TOTAL

649162811

162649811

AM PM




Project: Figure Description: No: 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR PLUS FUTURE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11

NORTH

GENERAL LEGEND:


INOUT TOTAL

649162811

162649811

AM PM




41


WSP September 2018

DRAWINGS

42


WSP September 2018

DRAWINGS

SKC003 REV A - PROPOSED SITE AND INTERSECTION UPGRADES

L

A

G

A

R

R

O

A

D

B

O

Y

L

O

U

W

S

T

R

E

E

T

R

5

9

R

5

9

O

N

-

R

A

M

P

R

5

9

O

F

F

-

R

A

M

P

R

5

9

O

F

F

-R

A

M

P

R

5

9

O

N

-

R

A

M

P

B

O

Y

L

O

U

W

S

T

R

E

E

T

T

H

E

U

N

I

S

K

R

U

G

E

R

S

T

R

E

E

T

TO BE SIGNALISED

BY PROJECT SITE

P

I

L

S

E

N

E

R

C

L

O

S

E

PROJECT SITE

BUS LAY-BY

BY PROJECT SITE

2

0

0

.

0

0

2

3

0

.

0

0

7

0

.

0

0

3

0

.

0

0

6

0

.0

0

6

0

.0

0

EXISTING SIGNALS

EXISTING SIGNALS

EXISTING SIGNALS

PROPOSED ACCESS

4

5

.

0

0

2

5

.

0

0

BUS LAY-BY

BY PROJECT SITE

LEGEND

UPGRADES BY PROJECT SITE

SCALE @ A0: CHECKED: APPROVED:

DRAWN: DATE:

PROJECT No: DRAWING No: REV:

DESIGN:

DRAWING STATUS:

TITLE:

PROJECT:CLIENT:ARCHITECT:

1:2000 B KGATLE H PHAHLANE

T JOUBERT 2018/08/27-

--

REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 569 IQ

PROPOSED ACCESS LAYOUT AND ROAD UPGRADES

24738 SKC003 A

--INITIAL ISSUE--A

APDCHKDESCRIPTIONBYDATEREV REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK APD

314 Glenwood Road, Lynnwood Park, Pretoria, 0081

PostNet Suite 287, Private Bag X025, Lynnwood Ridge, 0040

Tel: +27(0)12-762-1200 Fax: +27(0)12-762-1301 www.wsp.com

WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd

Commercial Civils

CA

D F

ILE

N

AM

E: Z

:\24000\24738 A

B-InB

ev Im

ali &

Isanti T

raffic\21 C

C\02-C

AD

D\01-C

urrent\03-D

raw

ings\S

KC

003 P

RO

PO

SE

D A

CC

ES

S LA

YO

UT

A

ND

R

OA

D U

PG

RA

DE

S revA

.dw

g

PLO

T D

AT

E: 2018/09/03 02:29:26 P

M

TEMPLATE VERSION MAY 2017

COPYRIGHT RESERVEDC

The content of this document is privileged and confidential and may not be disclosed or reproduced

without the express authorisation of the author, being "WSP GROUP AFRICA (PTY) LTD"

PR No.: ---

FOR INFORMATION

A signed version of construction drawings are available in electronic format at the WSP

office of origin as well as at the WSP office of issue

NOTE:

1. This sketch plan is based on aerial photography and not an accurate survey, and is therefore

for conceptual purposes only and should not be used for detail design or construction

purposes.

2. This sketch plan is a concept illustration for the client's benefit, and still needs to be presented

and agreed with the relevant roads authority.

HPBKACCESS AMENDEDTJ2018-08-27B

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

A-1 LEETER FROM

EMFULENI LOCAL

MUNICIPALITY

CLUSTER: BASIC SERVICES OFFICE OF THE MANAGER: ROADS AND STORMWATER

Tel: +27 016 950 5581

Cell: 082 600 2418 E-mail: [email protected]

P.O. Box 3

Vanderbijlpark 1900

Web: www.emfuleni.gov.za

Refer to: Mr J P Squirra Our Reference: LCOM034-18/jps Your Ref: 24738 7 August 2018 WSP 314 GLENWOOD RD LYNNWOOD PARK PTA 0081

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESMENT – LEEUWKUIL STANDS 188,237 AND 238 PTN 1

The Traffic Impact Assessments for above properties, ref 24738, ISANTI and IMALI dated June 2018 refers The Reports have been assessed and following is this departments comments: 1. IMALI

1.1. It is noted that the access to the Fresh produce market has not been accessed (development opposite Pilsner

close). The concern is that with additional traffic from the development the outbound traffic of this site, might be problematic. This access therefore needs to be accessed based on max possible trips in relation to the existing floor area and not only on current trips

1.2. It is noted that ISANTI has not been mentioned as a latent development in the IMALI report, as the opposite has been done in the ISANTI report.

1.3. The right turn movement at the Lager/ Stout intersection, southern approach is the same for 2018 and for

2023. Discuss

1.4. Details of the upgrades for Stout close needs to be discussed with this department at SDP stage substantiated with a Site traffic assessment (STA).

2. ISANTI

2.1. The report makes a reference to “Brentwood x 19 “in paragraph 7.3.2. Please correct.

2.2. Lager / New Access

2.2.1. The right turn movement at this intersection, southern approach is the same for 2018 and for 2023.

Discuss and address

2.2.2. The Heavy vehicle percentage shown is 0%, which can only be if this is for passenger vehicles only. The layout in the outline scheme report (OSR) however shows otherwise. Please confirm. Study needs to be rectify/amended either way.

2.2.3. Storage lane is shown at 30m while the max que is shown as 44.0m. In addition, the layout in the OSR shows access control and an access to parking area very close to the road at this access as well. (could not confirm distance). The concern is vehicles backing up into the road. Discuss and address.

2.3. Boy Louw / Lager

2.3.1. The HV% turning right is shown only as 3 %. It seems low considering the predominant developments in

the area as well as the proposed developments Please elaborate. (Eastern approach)

2.3.2. The RTL is shown as 60m only while the que is shown to be 100m. Discuss and address. (Eastern

approach)

2.3.3. The Southern approach LOS is increased from F to a D after upgrades. It is assumed that it is due to

changes to the timing plans as none of the other upgrades could facilitate an increase? Confirm and

discuss

2.3.4. As the upgrades of this timing plan is the responsibility of the developer, the details of amendments to

this timing plans needs to be stated in the recommendations.

3. GENERAL

3.1. Site traffic assessments must be done at SDP stage for both developments

3.2. Detailed design plans for all upgrades as per 7.3 must be provided at SDP stage.

3.2.1. Guarantees must be provided for Bulk services contributions (BSC) and construction cost +30% of all upgrades before SDP will be approved

3.2.2. Cost of certain of the upgrades can be deducted from BSC Payable. A Proper summary of all cost per upgrade must be provided to finalize the deductions from BSC

3.2.3. In the event of an over recovery by ELM an agreement to be entered into with the developer to facilitate reimbursement.

3.3. Prepared by: Date: J P SQUIRRA Snr Eng Technician (Planning)

APPENDIX

A-2 CURRICULUM

VITAE

HERBERT PHAHLANE, Director

Commercial Civils

CAREER SUMMARY

Mr. Phahlane is a professional engineering technologist with over 13 years’ experience

in traffic engineering and transportation planning projects as well as property

development facilitation. He has extensive experience in mixed-use development

precincts and multi-disciplinary master planning, land use and traffic impact studies,

infrastructure planning, property development planning and execution of projects.

Country of work experience is only South Africa at the current moment.

He is responsible for overall office operations at WSP’s Pretoria office. He oversees

critical aspects of projects for clients Country wide from a traffic and transportation

engineering point of view. In addition, he plays a key role in building and

maintaining new client relationships for WSP

EDUCATION

National Diploma, Civil Engineering, Technikon Northern Gauteng,

Pretoria, Gauteng

1998-2003

B-Tech, Transportation Engineering, Tshwane University ofTechnology, Pretoria, Gauteng

2004-2006r

M-Tech, Transportation Engineering, Vaal University of

Technology, Gauteng

2010-2012

Master’s in Business Administration, Tshwane University of

Technology, Pretoria, Gauteng

In Progress

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Module 1: ISO 39001 2012 Implementation, South African

Auditory and Training Certification Authority

2016

Module 2: ISO 39001 2012 Lead Auditor, South African Auditory

and Training Certification Authority

2016

Municipal Management Development Programme, University of

Pretoria

2013

Report Writing, Business Development Centre of Excellence 2010

Project Management (NQF Level 5), Southern Business School 2009

Pavement Materials III, University of Stellenbosch 2005

Pavement Materials and Design, University of Pretoria 2003

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

South African Institution of Civil Engineering (202050)

Engineering Council of South Africa (201670019)

Years with the firm

4 months

Years of experience

16 years

Areas of expertise

Traffic Engineering,Transportation Planning,Pavement and Materials

Languages

English, Tswana, Afrikaans, Zulu

FIRST NAME LAST NAME, Designations

Title, Discipline

Page 2 of 2

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Traffic and Transportation Engineering

— Rosslyn Hub, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa (2017-2018): Project Director.

Revision of Traffic Impact Assessment and a Section 7 Report. Client: Big

Cedar Trading (Pty) Ltd. Project Value: ZAR 113 000.00

— Farm Hondsrivier, Portion 20 & 27, Park City Development, Johannesburg,

Gauteng, South Africa (2018): Project Director. Traffic Impact Assessment.

Client: Black Jills Engineers. Project Value: ZAR 165 000.00

— Naauwpoort Township, Witbank, Mpumalanga, South Africa (2018): Project

Director. Traffic Impact Assessment. Client: PM de Kock. Project Value: ZAR

120 000.00

— Capital Park Ext 7 & 8, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa (2018): Project Director:

Revision of Traffic Impact Assessment and Parking Relaxation Motivation.

Client: Renico Construction (Pty) Ltd. Project Value ZAR 85 050.00

— Phillip Nel Park, Portion 1 of Erf 257. Pretoria, Gauteng (2018). Project

Director. Parking Study. Client: Arch-Neer Professionals (Pty) Ltd. Project

Value ZAR 45 000.00

— Builders Warehouse, Gezina, Pretoria, Gauteng (2018). Project Director. Traffic

Engineering Services. Client: M & F Giuricich Developments. Project Value

ZAR 65 000.00

— AB-InBev Imali & Isanti, Vereeniging, Gauteng (2018) Project Director. Traffic

Impact Assessment. Client: ABI. Project Value ZAR 165 000.00

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Publications

— Phahlane, Motsepe Herbert. “African cities for sustainable future start with

building for resilience.” Engineering News. 11th June, 2018

Presentations

— Phahlane, Motsepe Herbert. “Effect of land-use change on traffic peak hour

factor.” 25th ARRB conference, Perth, Australia. 23 – 26 September 2012

— Phahlane, Motsepe Herbert. “Computation of traffic peak hour factor per land-

use type.” The 17th International conference of Hong Kong Society for

Transportation Studies conference, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 15 to 17 December,

2012

APPENDIX

A-3 TRIP GENERATION

CALCULATIONS

SOUTH AFRICAN TRIP DATA MANUAL TMH 17 (generator peak hour) - Department of Transport

NO

Project Number: 24738 NO

NO

YES

AM PM SAT MUD LVO VLVO TNoC AM PM

100

140 292305 0.5 146153 0.6 0.6 0.3 0% 0% 0% 7.5% 0.075 811 811 649 162 162 649

811 811 649 162 162 649

Trip Rates Reduction Factor Adjustment

factor

Total Trip Generation

TOTAL

Floor Area

(m2)

Industrial

FAR

Manufacturing

GLA/No. of

Units/No. of

students

Project Name: THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 238 (A PORTION OF PORTION 149) OF THE FARM LEEUWKUIL 596 IQ

Adjustment Factors

Mixed-use-Development (MUD) =

Low Vehicle Ownership (LVO) =

Very Low Vehicle Ownership (VLVO) =

Transit Nodes or Corridors (TNoC) =Land Use

CodeLand Use

PM Splits

(In/Out)

AM Splits

(In/Out)

APPENDIX

A-4 DETAILED SIDRA

ANALYSIS

BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)

Movement Performance - Vehicles

Mov ID

OD Mov

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: THEUNIS KRUGER STREET

1 L2 120 14.0 0.451 24.6 LOS C 2.1 16.5 1.00 1.43 42.8

2 T1 1 0.0 0.451 24.5 LOS C 2.1 16.5 1.00 1.43 41.8

3 R2 121 4.0 0.519 29.7 LOS D 2.6 19.1 1.00 1.46 40.7

Approach 242 8.9 0.519 27.1 LOS D 2.6 19.1 1.00 1.44 41.7

East: BOY LOUW STREET (R28)

4 L2 113 0.0 1.083 155.6 LOS F 24.8 183.1 1.00 3.93 16.9

5 T1 583 9.0 1.083 158.9 LOS F 24.8 183.1 1.00 3.84 16.7

6 R2 1 7.0 0.003 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.91 1.23 50.4

Approach 697 7.5 1.083 158.1 LOS F 24.8 183.1 1.00 3.85 16.7

North: THEUNIS KRUGER STREET

7 L2 6 0.0 0.225 115.7 LOS F 0.9 6.1 1.00 1.28 19.1

8 T1 2 0.0 0.225 116.2 LOS F 0.9 6.1 1.00 1.28 19.1

9 R2 1 0.0 0.225 115.7 LOS F 0.9 6.1 1.00 1.28 19.1

Approach 9 0.0 0.225 115.8 LOS F 0.9 6.1 1.00 1.28 19.1

West: BOY LOUW STREET (R28)

10 L2 3 0.0 1.157 203.4 LOS F 35.2 265.5 1.00 5.01 12.6

11 T1 816 9.0 1.157 205.4 LOS F 35.2 265.5 1.00 4.90 13.7

12 R2 140 18.0 0.411 17.5 LOS C 1.8 14.7 0.97 1.41 46.7

Approach 959 10.3 1.157 178.0 LOS F 35.2 265.5 1.00 4.39 15.3

All Vehicles 1907 9.1 1.157 151.3 LOS F 35.2 265.5 1.00 3.80 17.3

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 138 3.0 0.501 25.6 LOS D 2.5 17.8 1.00 1.45 42.4

2 T1 2 0.0 0.501 26.0 LOS D 2.5 17.8 1.00 1.45 41.0

3 R2 139 8.0 0.570 32.1 LOS D 3.1 23.1 1.00 1.52 39.6

Approach 279 5.5 0.570 28.9 LOS D 3.1 23.1 1.00 1.48 41.0


4 L2 164 10.0 1.321 339.3 LOS F 51.7 395.1 1.00 6.27 9.1

5 T1 654 11.0 1.321 341.3 LOS F 51.7 395.1 1.00 6.04 9.1

6 R2 2 0.0 0.007 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.92 1.23 50.6

Approach 820 10.8 1.321 340.1 LOS F 51.7 395.1 1.00 6.08 9.1


7 L2 5 0.0 0.153 74.3 LOS F 0.6 4.0 1.00 1.26 25.2

8 T1 3 0.0 0.153 74.8 LOS F 0.6 4.0 1.00 1.26 25.3

9 R2 1 0.0 0.153 74.4 LOS F 0.6 4.0 1.00 1.26 25.3

Approach 9 0.0 0.153 74.5 LOS F 0.6 4.0 1.00 1.26 25.3


10 L2 3 0.0 0.800 44.9 LOS E 7.0 56.5 1.00 2.01 32.8

11 T1 521 18.0 0.800 47.1 LOS E 7.0 56.5 1.00 2.01 33.9

12 R2 145 9.0 0.466 20.0 LOS C 2.2 16.6 0.99 1.43 45.3

Approach 669 16.0 0.800 41.2 LOS E 7.0 56.5 1.00 1.88 35.8








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 139 14.0 0.513 27.1 LOS D 2.6 20.2 1.00 1.47 41.6

2 T1 1 0.0 0.513 27.0 LOS D 2.6 20.2 1.00 1.47 40.5

3 R2 140 4.0 0.590 34.1 LOS D 3.3 23.9 1.00 1.53 38.8

Approach 280 8.9 0.590 30.6 LOS D 3.3 23.9 1.00 1.50 40.2


4 L2 131 0.0 1.254 282.5 LOS F 45.1 332.3 1.00 5.74 10.7

5 T1 676 9.0 1.254 285.2 LOS F 45.1 332.3 1.00 5.54 10.6

6 R2 1 7.0 0.003 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.91 1.23 50.4

Approach 807 7.5 1.254 284.4 LOS F 45.1 332.3 1.00 5.57 10.6


7 L2 7 0.0 0.251 119.8 LOS F 1.0 7.0 1.00 1.29 18.6

8 T1 2 0.0 0.251 120.3 LOS F 1.0 7.0 1.00 1.29 18.7

9 R2 1 0.0 0.251 119.8 LOS F 1.0 7.0 1.00 1.29 18.6

Approach 11 0.0 0.251 119.9 LOS F 1.0 7.0 1.00 1.29 18.6


10 L2 3 0.0 1.339 349.4 LOS F 60.5 456.1 1.00 7.08 8.0

11 T1 945 9.0 1.339 351.0 LOS F 60.5 456.1 1.00 6.88 8.9

12 R2 162 18.0 0.476 19.6 LOS C 2.3 18.3 0.98 1.45 45.4

Approach 1111 10.3 1.339 302.7 LOS F 60.5 456.1 1.00 6.09 10.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 160 3.0 0.567 28.8 LOS D 3.1 22.1 1.00 1.51 40.9

2 T1 2 0.0 0.567 29.1 LOS D 3.1 22.1 1.00 1.51 39.4

3 R2 161 8.0 0.646 37.8 LOS E 4.0 29.6 1.00 1.61 37.3

Approach 323 5.5 0.646 33.3 LOS D 4.0 29.6 1.00 1.56 39.0


4 L2 191 10.0 1.531 518.2 LOS F 79.0 603.1 1.00 8.02 6.3

5 T1 758 11.0 1.531 519.8 LOS F 79.0 603.1 1.00 7.70 6.3

6 R2 2 0.0 0.007 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.92 1.23 50.6

Approach 951 10.8 1.531 518.3 LOS F 79.0 603.1 1.00 7.75 6.3


7 L2 6 0.0 0.170 75.9 LOS F 0.6 4.5 1.00 1.27 24.9

8 T1 3 0.0 0.170 76.4 LOS F 0.6 4.5 1.00 1.27 25.0

9 R2 1 0.0 0.170 76.0 LOS F 0.6 4.5 1.00 1.27 25.0

Approach 11 0.0 0.170 76.1 LOS F 0.6 4.5 1.00 1.27 25.0


10 L2 3 0.0 0.926 75.8 LOS F 12.2 98.6 1.00 2.65 25.0

11 T1 604 18.0 0.926 78.7 LOS F 12.2 98.6 1.00 2.62 26.2

12 R2 168 9.0 0.540 23.2 LOS C 2.8 21.2 1.00 1.49 43.6

Approach 776 16.0 0.926 66.7 LOS F 12.2 98.6 1.00 2.38 28.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01v [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 139 14.0 0.594 34.9 LOS D 3.3 26.2 1.00 1.56 38.2

2 T1 1 0.0 0.594 34.4 LOS D 3.3 26.2 1.00 1.56 36.8

3 R2 168 14.0 0.622 34.6 LOS D 3.7 28.7 1.00 1.60 38.6

Approach 308 14.0 0.622 34.7 LOS D 3.7 28.7 1.00 1.58 38.4


4 L2 138 0.0 1.351 364.3 LOS F 55.9 412.1 1.00 6.49 8.6

5 T1 697 9.0 1.351 366.5 LOS F 55.9 412.1 1.00 6.25 8.5

6 R2 1 7.0 0.004 10.1 LOS B 0.0 0.1 0.92 1.23 50.3

Approach 836 7.5 1.351 365.7 LOS F 55.9 412.1 1.00 6.28 8.6


7 L2 7 0.0 0.551 358.8 LOS F 2.5 17.3 1.00 1.36 7.8

8 T1 2 0.0 0.551 358.9 LOS F 2.5 17.3 1.00 1.36 7.8

9 R2 1 0.0 0.551 358.9 LOS F 2.5 17.3 1.00 1.36 7.8

Approach 11 0.0 0.551 358.9 LOS F 2.5 17.3 1.00 1.36 7.8


10 L2 3 0.0 1.509 495.6 LOS F 83.0 625.4 1.00 8.46 5.9

11 T1 1029 9.0 1.509 496.7 LOS F 83.0 625.4 1.00 8.21 6.5

12 R2 162 18.0 0.492 20.7 LOS C 2.4 19.4 0.99 1.47 44.8

Approach 1195 10.2 1.509 432.1 LOS F 83.0 625.4 1.00 7.29 7.4








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01v [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Stop (All-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 160 3.0 0.654 38.2 LOS E 4.1 29.1 1.00 1.61 37.0

2 T1 2 0.0 0.654 38.2 LOS E 4.1 29.1 1.00 1.61 35.3

3 R2 168 8.0 0.592 30.9 LOS D 3.3 24.9 1.00 1.55 40.2

Approach 331 5.5 0.654 34.5 LOS D 4.1 29.1 1.00 1.58 38.5


4 L2 219 10.0 1.702 668.3 LOS F 102.2 780.6 1.00 9.21 5.0

5 T1 842 11.0 1.702 669.3 LOS F 102.2 780.6 1.00 8.85 5.0

6 R2 2 0.0 0.007 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.92 1.23 50.6

Approach 1063 10.8 1.702 667.8 LOS F 102.2 780.6 1.00 8.91 5.0


7 L2 6 0.0 0.189 85.3 LOS F 0.7 5.0 1.00 1.27 23.2

8 T1 3 0.0 0.189 85.4 LOS F 0.7 5.0 1.00 1.27 23.3

9 R2 1 0.0 0.189 85.4 LOS F 0.7 5.0 1.00 1.27 23.3

Approach 11 0.0 0.189 85.4 LOS F 0.7 5.0 1.00 1.27 23.3


10 L2 3 0.0 0.963 90.0 LOS F 14.5 117.2 1.00 2.92 22.5

11 T1 625 18.0 0.963 92.9 LOS F 14.5 117.2 1.00 2.88 23.7

12 R2 168 9.0 0.543 23.5 LOS C 2.8 21.4 1.00 1.50 43.4

Approach 797 16.0 0.963 78.2 LOS F 14.5 117.2 1.00 2.59 26.3








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES_UPGRADES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMESINTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 139 14.0 0.367 28.4 LOS C 3.9 30.2 0.87 0.78 39.9

2 T1 2 0.0 0.367 22.7 LOS C 3.9 30.2 0.87 0.78 39.4

3 R2 235 14.0 0.639 31.0 LOS C 7.1 55.7 0.95 0.84 39.0

Approach 376 13.9 0.639 30.0 LOS C 7.1 55.7 0.92 0.82 39.3


4 L2 154 0.0 0.423 13.1 LOS B 7.4 54.4 0.57 0.59 50.6

5 T1 747 9.0 0.423 7.5 LOS A 8.0 60.1 0.57 0.54 52.8

6 R2 1 7.0 0.006 20.8 LOS C 0.0 0.2 0.66 0.62 41.9

Approach 902 7.5 0.423 8.5 LOS A 8.0 60.1 0.57 0.55 52.4


7 L2 7 0.0 0.027 25.8 LOS C 0.3 1.8 0.78 0.64 40.2

8 T1 2 0.0 0.027 20.3 LOS C 0.3 1.8 0.78 0.64 41.1

9 R2 1 0.0 0.027 25.8 LOS C 0.3 1.8 0.78 0.64 40.3

Approach 11 0.0 0.027 24.7 LOS C 0.3 1.8 0.78 0.64 40.4


10 L2 3 0.0 0.579 14.2 LOS B 11.6 87.3 0.66 0.59 50.3

11 T1 1228 9.0 0.579 8.6 LOS A 12.5 94.3 0.66 0.59 52.6

12 R2 162 18.0 0.583 20.5 LOS C 4.1 33.0 0.77 0.81 43.6

Approach 1394 10.0 0.583 10.0 LOS B 12.5 94.3 0.67 0.62 51.3

All Vehicles 2682 9.7 0.639 12.4 LOS B 12.5 94.3 0.67 0.62 49.5







MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PPEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES_UPGRADES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 160 3.0 0.643 34.0 LOS C 4.9 35.1 0.99 0.84 37.8

2 T1 2 0.0 0.643 28.4 LOS C 4.9 35.1 0.99 0.84 36.8

3 R2 184 8.0 0.726 35.5 LOS D 5.8 43.2 1.00 0.90 37.3

Approach 346 5.6 0.726 34.8 LOS C 5.8 43.2 0.99 0.87 37.5


4 L2 285 10.0 0.561 10.9 LOS B 9.5 72.7 0.55 0.62 51.5

5 T1 1041 11.0 0.561 5.3 LOS A 10.5 80.5 0.55 0.54 54.5

6 R2 2 0.0 0.004 10.3 LOS B 0.0 0.2 0.39 0.61 48.8

Approach 1328 10.8 0.561 6.5 LOS A 10.5 80.5 0.55 0.56 53.8


7 L2 6 0.0 0.045 30.1 LOS C 0.3 1.9 0.88 0.65 38.5

8 T1 3 0.0 0.045 24.5 LOS C 0.3 1.9 0.88 0.65 39.3

9 R2 1 0.0 0.045 30.1 LOS C 0.3 1.9 0.88 0.65 38.5

Approach 11 0.0 0.045 28.4 LOS C 0.3 1.9 0.88 0.65 38.7


10 L2 3 0.0 0.295 9.6 LOS A 3.8 30.6 0.42 0.37 54.1

11 T1 675 18.0 0.295 4.1 LOS A 4.1 33.1 0.42 0.37 56.2

12 R2 168 9.0 0.803 33.9 LOS C 6.1 45.8 0.89 1.04 37.7

Approach 846 16.1 0.803 10.0 LOS B 6.1 45.8 0.52 0.50 51.2








PHASING SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Opposed Turns Reference Phase: Phase B Input Phase Sequence: B, A Output Phase Sequence: B, A Phase Timing Results

Phase B A

Phase Change Time (sec) 0 44

Green Time (sec) 38 15

Phase Time (sec) 44 21

Phase Split 68% 32%

See the Phase Information section in the Detailed Output report for more detailed information including input values of Yellow Time and All-Red Time, and information on any adjustments to Intergreen Time, Phase Time and Green Time values in cases of Pedestrian Actuation, Phase Actuation and Phase Frequency values (user-specified or implied) less than 100%.

REF: Reference Phase VAR: Variable Phase

Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed

Slip/Bypass-Lane Movement

Opposed Slip/Bypass-Lane

Stopped Movement

Turn On Red

Other Movement Class (MC) Running

Undetected Movement

Mixed Running & Stopped MCs

Continuous Movement

Other Movement Class (MC) Stopped

Phase Transition Applied

PHASING SUMMARY

Site: 01 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PPEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES_UPGRADES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & THEUNIS KRUGER STREET Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Opposed Turns Reference Phase: Phase B Input Phase Sequence: B, A Output Phase Sequence: B, A Phase Timing Results

Phase B A




Phase Split 77% 23%



Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD

MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 1 0.0 0.041 20.3 LOS C 0.4 3.3 0.70 0.52 48.2

2 T1 21 10.0 0.041 14.7 LOS B 0.4 3.3 0.70 0.52 46.1

3 R2 237 2.0 0.586 26.5 LOS C 6.3 44.5 0.91 0.81 41.3

Approach 259 2.6 0.586 25.5 LOS C 6.3 44.5 0.89 0.79 41.6


4 L2 133 2.0 0.096 6.1 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.19 0.60 53.5

5 T1 619 13.0 0.333 9.2 LOS A 5.3 41.5 0.62 0.53 52.2

6 R2 166 15.0 0.625 24.5 LOS C 4.5 35.2 0.86 0.85 39.0

Approach 918 11.8 0.625 11.5 LOS B 5.3 41.5 0.60 0.60 49.8

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 99 12.0 0.198 22.2 LOS C 2.2 16.7 0.77 0.74 40.0

8 T1 7 0.0 0.012 15.1 LOS B 0.1 1.0 0.71 0.48 46.0

9 R2 47 4.0 0.100 21.6 LOS C 1.0 7.2 0.74 0.71 41.0

Approach 154 9.0 0.198 21.7 LOS C 2.2 16.7 0.75 0.72 40.6


10 L2 85 9.0 0.102 13.6 LOS B 1.3 9.6 0.54 0.69 45.4

11 T1 811 9.0 0.426 9.8 LOS A 7.4 55.9 0.66 0.57 51.7

12 R2 7 29.0 0.023 17.3 LOS B 0.1 1.1 0.61 0.65 45.2

Approach 903 9.2 0.426 10.2 LOS B 7.4 55.9 0.65 0.59 51.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 14 31.0 0.015 8.8 LOS A 0.1 1.2 0.31 0.53 52.1

2 T1 1 100.0 0.015 2.9 LOS A 0.1 1.2 0.31 0.53 51.7

3 R2 157 8.0 0.400 25.2 LOS C 3.9 29.0 0.85 0.78 41.7

Approach 172 10.4 0.400 23.8 LOS C 3.9 29.0 0.81 0.76 42.4


4 L2 179 6.0 0.132 6.2 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.20 0.60 53.3

5 T1 746 11.0 0.397 9.6 LOS A 6.7 51.3 0.65 0.56 51.9

6 R2 37 17.0 0.110 17.8 LOS B 0.7 5.5 0.64 0.70 42.7

Approach 962 10.3 0.397 9.3 LOS A 6.7 51.3 0.56 0.57 51.8

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 85 41.0 0.203 22.7 LOS C 1.9 17.9 0.77 0.74 39.1

8 T1 5 0.0 0.009 15.0 LOS B 0.1 0.7 0.70 0.47 46.1

9 R2 36 21.0 0.078 21.6 LOS C 0.8 6.2 0.73 0.70 40.6

Approach 126 33.6 0.203 22.1 LOS C 1.9 17.9 0.75 0.72 39.8


10 L2 19 17.0 0.024 13.3 LOS B 0.3 2.2 0.51 0.65 45.4

11 T1 616 18.0 0.341 9.2 LOS A 5.3 43.2 0.62 0.54 52.1

12 R2 13 25.0 0.045 18.2 LOS B 0.2 2.0 0.63 0.67 44.8

Approach 647 18.1 0.341 9.5 LOS A 5.3 43.2 0.62 0.54 51.8








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 1 0.0 0.050 21.1 LOS C 0.5 3.9 0.72 0.53 47.7

2 T1 24 10.0 0.050 15.5 LOS B 0.5 3.9 0.72 0.53 45.5

3 R2 275 2.0 0.747 31.8 LOS C 8.4 59.9 0.98 0.92 38.9

Approach 300 2.6 0.747 30.5 LOS C 8.4 59.9 0.96 0.89 39.3


4 L2 154 2.0 0.111 6.1 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.19 0.60 53.5

5 T1 718 13.0 0.374 8.9 LOS A 6.2 48.1 0.62 0.54 52.4

6 R2 193 3.0 0.750 29.9 LOS C 6.1 43.8 0.92 0.96 36.6

Approach 1064 9.6 0.750 12.3 LOS B 6.2 48.1 0.61 0.62 49.4

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 115 12.0 0.242 23.3 LOS C 2.6 20.2 0.79 0.75 39.5

8 T1 8 0.0 0.014 15.9 LOS B 0.2 1.2 0.72 0.49 45.5

9 R2 55 4.0 0.122 22.5 LOS C 1.2 8.7 0.76 0.72 40.5

Approach 178 9.0 0.242 22.7 LOS C 2.6 20.2 0.78 0.73 40.0


10 L2 99 9.0 0.115 13.2 LOS B 1.4 10.9 0.52 0.69 45.7

11 T1 940 9.0 0.478 9.5 LOS A 8.7 65.6 0.67 0.59 51.9

12 R2 8 29.0 0.029 16.8 LOS B 0.1 1.3 0.59 0.65 45.5

Approach 1047 9.2 0.478 9.9 LOS A 8.7 65.6 0.66 0.60 51.3








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 16 31.0 0.017 8.2 LOS A 0.1 1.2 0.28 0.53 52.5

2 T1 1 100.0 0.017 2.3 LOS A 0.1 1.2 0.28 0.53 52.2

3 R2 182 8.0 0.459 25.6 LOS C 4.6 34.4 0.87 0.79 41.5

Approach 199 10.3 0.459 24.1 LOS C 4.6 34.4 0.82 0.77 42.3


4 L2 207 6.0 0.153 6.2 LOS A 0.6 4.4 0.20 0.60 53.3

5 T1 865 11.0 0.460 10.0 LOS A 8.1 62.2 0.68 0.59 51.6

6 R2 43 17.0 0.146 18.8 LOS B 0.8 6.8 0.67 0.71 42.1

Approach 1116 10.3 0.460 9.6 LOS A 8.1 62.2 0.59 0.60 51.5

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 99 4.0 0.187 22.0 LOS C 2.2 15.6 0.76 0.74 40.3

8 T1 6 0.0 0.010 15.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.70 0.47 46.0

9 R2 41 21.0 0.090 21.7 LOS C 0.9 7.1 0.73 0.70 40.6

Approach 146 8.6 0.187 21.6 LOS C 2.2 15.6 0.75 0.72 40.6


10 L2 22 17.0 0.028 13.4 LOS B 0.3 2.5 0.51 0.66 45.4

11 T1 714 18.0 0.396 9.6 LOS A 6.4 51.8 0.65 0.56 51.9

12 R2 15 25.0 0.061 19.8 LOS B 0.3 2.5 0.67 0.68 44.0

Approach 751 18.1 0.396 9.9 LOS A 6.4 51.8 0.64 0.56 51.5








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 1 0.0 0.234 28.4 LOS C 1.9 14.2 0.88 0.68 43.7

2 T1 72 10.0 0.234 22.7 LOS C 1.9 14.2 0.88 0.68 41.1

3 R2 275 2.0 2.402 1286.4 LOS F 74.8 532.3 1.00 3.51 2.7

Approach 347 3.6 2.402 1022.2 LOS F 74.8 532.3 0.97 2.92 3.2


4 L2 154 2.0 0.112 6.1 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.19 0.60 53.5

5 T1 718 13.0 0.307 4.9 LOS A 4.6 35.8 0.47 0.41 55.5

6 R2 712 15.0 3.294 2124.2 LOS F 231.1 1825.4 1.00 5.37 1.3

Approach 1583 12.8 3.294 957.6 LOS F 231.1 1825.4 0.68 2.65 3.3

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 244 12.0 0.844 39.2 LOS D 8.4 64.9 1.00 1.00 32.5

8 T1 20 0.0 0.056 22.3 LOS C 0.5 3.5 0.85 0.60 41.4

9 R2 149 4.0 0.598 33.5 LOS C 4.4 32.1 0.98 0.82 35.2

Approach 414 8.5 0.844 36.3 LOS D 8.4 64.9 0.99 0.92 33.8


10 L2 477 9.0 0.455 11.3 LOS B 7.0 52.7 0.53 0.74 47.1

11 T1 940 9.0 0.393 5.3 LOS A 6.5 48.8 0.50 0.44 55.2

12 R2 8 29.0 0.024 12.2 LOS B 0.1 1.0 0.45 0.63 48.3

Approach 1425 9.1 0.455 7.4 LOS A 7.0 52.7 0.51 0.54 52.6








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 16 0.0 0.031 12.2 LOS B 0.4 2.7 0.48 0.51 51.7

2 T1 13 10.0 0.031 6.6 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.48 0.51 50.1

3 R2 182 2.0 0.878 44.4 LOS D 6.9 48.9 1.00 1.08 34.3

Approach 211 2.3 0.878 39.7 LOS D 6.9 48.9 0.93 1.01 35.8


4 L2 207 2.0 0.152 6.2 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.60 53.5

5 T1 865 13.0 0.781 23.0 LOS C 13.9 108.5 0.94 0.91 43.6

6 R2 173 15.0 0.939 56.7 LOS E 7.6 60.2 1.00 1.22 27.3

Approach 1245 11.4 0.939 24.9 LOS C 13.9 108.5 0.82 0.90 42.1

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 618 12.0 0.783 22.7 LOS C 17.0 131.2 0.88 0.90 39.8

8 T1 53 0.0 0.054 8.2 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.54 0.41 51.4

9 R2 419 4.0 0.575 17.2 LOS B 8.8 63.7 0.75 0.80 43.7

Approach 1089 8.3 0.783 19.9 LOS B 17.0 131.2 0.82 0.84 41.7


10 L2 117 9.0 0.218 21.5 LOS C 2.5 19.0 0.76 0.75 40.5

11 T1 714 9.0 0.581 18.3 LOS B 8.9 66.9 0.88 0.75 46.2

12 R2 15 29.0 0.101 32.5 LOS C 0.4 3.6 0.91 0.69 38.1

Approach 845 9.3 0.581 19.0 LOS B 8.9 66.9 0.86 0.75 45.3

All Vehicles 3391 9.4 0.939 22.7 LOS C 17.0 131.2 0.84 0.85 42.3







MOVEMENT SUMMARY




Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 1 0.0 0.234 28.4 LOS C 1.9 14.2 0.88 0.68 43.7

2 T1 72 10.0 0.234 22.7 LOS C 1.9 14.2 0.88 0.68 41.1

3 R2 275 2.0 0.918 47.3 LOS D 10.8 76.7 1.00 1.16 33.6

Approach 347 3.6 0.918 42.2 LOS D 10.8 76.7 0.97 1.06 34.7


4 L2 154 2.0 0.108 6.1 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.19 0.60 53.5

5 T1 718 13.0 0.307 4.9 LOS A 4.6 35.8 0.47 0.41 55.5

6 R2 712 15.0 0.919 46.9 LOS D 14.3 113.0 1.00 1.13 30.1

Approach 1583 12.8 0.919 23.9 LOS C 14.3 113.0 0.68 0.75 41.5

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 244 12.0 0.337 12.0 LOS B 2.9 22.3 0.68 0.73 47.3

8 T1 20 0.0 0.056 22.3 LOS C 0.5 3.5 0.85 0.60 41.4

9 R2 149 4.0 0.598 33.5 LOS C 4.4 32.1 0.98 0.82 35.2

Approach 414 8.5 0.598 20.3 LOS C 4.4 32.1 0.79 0.76 41.8


10 L2 477 9.0 0.935 48.7 LOS D 20.3 153.0 1.00 1.14 29.4

11 T1 940 9.0 0.806 25.1 LOS C 14.6 110.0 0.98 0.97 42.5

12 R2 8 29.0 0.035 21.8 LOS C 0.2 1.6 0.71 0.66 42.8

Approach 1425 9.1 0.935 33.0 LOS C 20.3 153.0 0.98 1.02 37.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES_UPGRADES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

1 L2 16 0.0 0.041 16.8 LOS B 0.5 3.6 0.62 0.57 48.6

2 T1 13 10.0 0.041 11.2 LOS B 0.5 3.6 0.62 0.57 46.5

3 R2 182 2.0 0.349 21.7 LOS C 4.1 29.0 0.78 0.77 43.8

Approach 211 2.3 0.349 20.7 LOS C 4.1 29.0 0.76 0.74 44.3


4 L2 207 2.0 0.153 6.3 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.22 0.61 53.4

5 T1 928 13.0 0.553 12.6 LOS B 9.9 77.2 0.77 0.67 49.8

6 R2 173 15.0 0.478 34.8 LOS C 2.6 20.3 0.98 0.77 34.3

Approach 1308 11.5 0.553 14.5 LOS B 9.9 77.2 0.71 0.68 48.0

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 618 12.0 0.710 13.0 LOS B 8.2 63.2 0.74 0.84 46.5

8 T1 53 0.0 0.074 13.4 LOS B 1.0 7.0 0.68 0.52 47.3

9 R2 419 4.0 0.763 27.4 LOS C 12.3 88.8 0.94 0.92 38.0

Approach 1089 8.3 0.763 18.6 LOS B 12.3 88.8 0.82 0.85 42.8


10 L2 117 9.0 0.272 25.0 LOS C 2.8 21.1 0.83 0.76 38.6

11 T1 714 9.0 0.726 24.0 LOS C 10.4 78.2 0.97 0.88 43.1

12 R2 15 29.0 0.078 24.9 LOS C 0.3 3.0 0.78 0.69 41.4

Approach 845 9.3 0.726 24.2 LOS C 10.4 78.2 0.94 0.86 42.5








PHASING SUMMARY



Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B, C Output Phase Sequence: A, B, C Phase Timing Results

Phase A B C

Phase Change Time (sec) 0 16 36

Green Time (sec) 10 14 18

Phase Time (sec) 16 20 24

Phase Split 27% 33% 40%



Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



PHASING SUMMARY

Site: 02 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES_UPGRADES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & LAGER ROAD Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B, C Output Phase Sequence: A, B, C Phase Timing Results

Phase A B C







Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL

MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL

1 L2 141 26.0 0.177 8.1 LOS A 1.2 9.9 0.37 0.65 51.5

3 R2 361 2.0 0.610 23.4 LOS C 9.0 64.1 0.88 0.83 39.5

Approach 502 8.7 0.610 19.1 LOS B 9.0 64.1 0.74 0.78 42.8


5 T1 801 7.0 0.460 11.1 LOS B 8.2 60.6 0.70 0.61 48.8

6 R2 84 30.0 0.471 27.0 LOS C 2.3 19.8 0.87 0.79 36.9

Approach 885 9.2 0.471 12.6 LOS B 8.2 60.6 0.72 0.63 47.4


10 L2 212 20.0 0.608 18.2 LOS B 10.4 80.4 0.78 0.75 46.6

11 T1 821 5.0 0.608 12.4 LOS B 12.0 87.9 0.78 0.71 47.3

Approach 1033 8.1 0.608 13.6 LOS B 12.0 87.9 0.78 0.72 47.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 114 6.0 0.161 7.3 LOS A 0.7 5.5 0.32 0.64 52.7

3 R2 108 5.0 0.393 31.0 LOS C 3.0 21.9 0.93 0.77 35.8

Approach 222 5.5 0.393 18.9 LOS B 3.0 21.9 0.62 0.70 43.8


5 T1 885 10.0 0.363 4.7 LOS A 5.7 43.3 0.47 0.41 54.7

6 R2 129 14.0 0.387 13.9 LOS B 2.2 17.6 0.59 0.75 44.6

Approach 1015 10.5 0.387 5.9 LOS A 5.7 43.3 0.49 0.46 53.1


10 L2 272 29.0 0.384 10.7 LOS B 5.0 42.5 0.48 0.64 50.2

11 T1 579 10.0 0.384 4.8 LOS A 6.2 46.8 0.48 0.46 53.9

Approach 851 16.1 0.384 6.7 LOS A 6.2 46.8 0.48 0.52 52.5

All Vehicles 2087 12.2 0.393 7.6 LOS A 6.2 46.8 0.50 0.51 51.6







MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 163 26.0 0.219 9.3 LOS A 1.7 14.9 0.45 0.67 50.7

3 R2 419 2.0 0.708 25.5 LOS C 11.4 81.1 0.92 0.87 38.5

Approach 582 8.7 0.708 20.9 LOS C 11.4 81.1 0.79 0.82 41.8


5 T1 928 7.0 0.575 11.7 LOS B 11.0 81.7 0.74 0.65 48.4

6 R2 98 30.0 0.644 33.3 LOS C 3.1 26.9 0.96 0.88 34.1

Approach 1026 9.2 0.644 13.8 LOS B 11.0 81.7 0.76 0.67 46.5


10 L2 245 20.0 0.704 19.8 LOS B 13.3 102.7 0.84 0.81 45.7

11 T1 952 5.0 0.704 13.7 LOS B 15.1 110.5 0.84 0.77 46.3

Approach 1197 8.1 0.704 15.0 LOS B 15.1 110.5 0.84 0.78 46.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 70 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 132 6.0 0.213 7.4 LOS A 1.0 7.5 0.31 0.64 52.6

3 R2 125 5.0 0.530 37.4 LOS D 4.2 30.8 0.97 0.79 33.2

Approach 257 5.5 0.530 22.0 LOS C 4.2 30.8 0.63 0.71 42.0


5 T1 1026 10.0 0.394 4.2 LOS A 7.0 52.9 0.43 0.38 55.2

6 R2 151 14.0 0.524 15.0 LOS B 3.2 25.1 0.62 0.77 43.9

Approach 1177 10.5 0.524 5.6 LOS A 7.0 52.9 0.45 0.43 53.4


10 L2 315 29.0 0.416 10.3 LOS B 6.2 51.7 0.44 0.62 50.6

11 T1 672 10.0 0.416 4.4 LOS A 7.5 57.1 0.44 0.43 54.4

Approach 986 16.1 0.416 6.2 LOS A 7.5 57.1 0.44 0.49 52.9








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 03 [2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 282 26.0 0.434 13.2 LOS B 5.1 43.8 0.70 0.76 48.1

3 R2 361 2.0 0.675 26.1 LOS C 9.7 69.4 0.92 0.85 38.2

Approach 643 12.5 0.675 20.4 LOS C 9.7 69.4 0.83 0.81 42.5


5 T1 1178 7.0 0.697 11.6 LOS B 15.0 111.5 0.77 0.69 48.4

6 R2 84 30.0 0.505 27.5 LOS C 2.3 20.3 0.88 0.80 36.6

Approach 1262 8.5 0.697 12.7 LOS B 15.0 111.5 0.78 0.70 47.4


10 L2 258 20.0 0.642 17.3 LOS B 11.6 89.3 0.78 0.75 47.1

11 T1 904 5.0 0.642 11.4 LOS B 13.4 97.8 0.78 0.71 48.0

Approach 1162 8.3 0.642 12.7 LOS B 13.4 97.8 0.78 0.72 47.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 03 [2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 148 26.0 0.282 7.6 LOS A 1.1 9.7 0.33 0.64 51.9

3 R2 108 2.0 0.596 38.2 LOS D 3.6 25.6 1.00 0.81 33.0

Approach 257 15.9 0.596 20.5 LOS C 3.6 25.6 0.61 0.71 42.9


5 T1 979 7.0 0.355 3.2 LOS A 5.5 40.6 0.38 0.34 56.3

6 R2 129 30.0 0.739 28.2 LOS C 4.3 38.2 0.79 0.95 36.3

Approach 1108 9.7 0.739 6.1 LOS A 5.5 40.6 0.43 0.41 52.9


10 L2 460 20.0 0.538 9.8 LOS A 8.5 68.0 0.47 0.65 51.0

11 T1 908 5.0 0.538 4.0 LOS A 10.3 75.1 0.47 0.47 54.8

Approach 1368 10.0 0.538 5.9 LOS A 10.3 75.1 0.47 0.53 53.2








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 305 26.0 0.488 15.7 LOS B 6.1 51.9 0.76 0.81 46.6

3 R2 419 2.0 0.783 29.8 LOS C 12.7 90.6 0.97 0.93 36.4

Approach 724 12.1 0.783 23.9 LOS C 12.7 90.6 0.88 0.87 40.6


5 T1 1305 7.0 0.778 15.0 LOS B 19.6 145.2 0.81 0.80 45.9

6 R2 98 30.0 0.677 33.8 LOS C 3.1 27.6 0.96 0.91 33.9

Approach 1403 8.6 0.778 16.3 LOS B 19.6 145.2 0.82 0.80 44.8


10 L2 292 20.0 0.732 19.4 LOS B 14.9 115.4 0.84 0.82 45.8

11 T1 1035 5.0 0.732 13.2 LOS B 17.0 123.9 0.84 0.79 46.6

Approach 1326 8.3 0.732 14.6 LOS B 17.0 123.9 0.84 0.80 46.4








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




1 L2 167 26.0 0.336 7.5 LOS A 1.3 11.2 0.34 0.65 51.9

3 R2 125 2.0 0.635 35.8 LOS D 3.9 27.6 1.00 0.83 33.9

Approach 293 15.7 0.635 19.6 LOS B 3.9 27.6 0.62 0.73 43.3


5 T1 1120 7.0 0.400 2.9 LOS A 5.8 43.3 0.38 0.34 56.6

6 R2 151 30.0 0.918 64.0 LOS E 8.2 71.8 0.96 1.28 25.1

Approach 1271 9.7 0.918 10.1 LOS B 8.2 71.8 0.45 0.45 49.3


10 L2 503 20.0 0.582 9.4 LOS A 8.9 70.8 0.48 0.66 51.3

11 T1 1001 5.0 0.582 3.6 LOS A 10.7 78.2 0.48 0.48 55.2

Approach 1504 10.0 0.582 5.5 LOS A 10.7 78.2 0.48 0.54 53.6








PHASING SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B Output Phase Sequence: A, B Phase Timing Results

Phase A B




Phase Split 40% 60%



Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



PHASING SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - WEST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B Output Phase Sequence: A, B Phase Timing Results

Phase A B




Phase Split 18% 82%



Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL

MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 146 4.0 0.373 14.5 LOS B 5.8 42.7 0.62 0.63 49.3

5 T1 562 7.0 0.373 8.8 LOS A 6.4 47.2 0.62 0.57 50.0

Approach 708 6.4 0.373 10.0 LOS B 6.4 47.2 0.62 0.58 49.9

North: SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL

7 L2 161 8.0 0.225 10.4 LOS B 2.1 15.5 0.52 0.70 50.3

9 R2 306 13.0 0.651 26.7 LOS C 8.3 64.4 0.92 0.85 37.6

Approach 467 11.3 0.651 21.1 LOS C 8.3 64.4 0.79 0.79 41.8


11 T1 1201 4.0 0.649 10.4 LOS B 13.9 100.5 0.74 0.65 49.4

12 R2 111 11.0 0.329 18.4 LOS B 2.3 17.3 0.70 0.76 41.8

Approach 1312 4.6 0.649 11.1 LOS B 13.9 100.5 0.73 0.66 48.6








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 317 2.0 0.550 15.1 LOS B 9.9 71.2 0.69 0.72 48.3

5 T1 767 6.0 0.550 9.5 LOS A 10.8 79.6 0.69 0.64 49.5

Approach 1084 4.8 0.550 11.1 LOS B 10.8 79.6 0.69 0.67 49.1


7 L2 60 28.0 0.073 7.1 LOS A 0.3 2.8 0.28 0.61 52.1

9 R2 212 30.0 0.529 26.3 LOS C 5.5 48.2 0.89 0.81 37.5

Approach 272 29.6 0.529 22.1 LOS C 5.5 48.2 0.76 0.76 40.4


11 T1 602 6.0 0.292 7.8 LOS A 4.7 34.9 0.57 0.49 51.7

12 R2 114 22.0 0.550 24.0 LOS C 2.9 24.5 0.84 0.81 38.5

Approach 716 8.5 0.550 10.4 LOS B 4.7 34.9 0.61 0.54 49.0








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 169 4.0 0.416 14.7 LOS B 7.2 53.2 0.62 0.64 49.1

5 T1 652 7.0 0.416 9.1 LOS A 7.9 58.8 0.62 0.57 49.8

Approach 821 6.4 0.416 10.2 LOS B 7.9 58.8 0.62 0.59 49.7


7 L2 186 8.0 0.285 13.6 LOS B 3.4 25.3 0.64 0.74 48.2

9 R2 355 13.0 0.774 32.6 LOS C 11.7 90.7 0.97 0.92 35.0

Approach 541 11.3 0.774 26.1 LOS C 11.7 90.7 0.86 0.86 39.3


11 T1 1393 4.0 0.758 13.0 LOS B 20.4 147.8 0.77 0.73 47.4

12 R2 128 11.0 0.433 20.4 LOS C 3.0 23.2 0.74 0.78 40.7

Approach 1521 4.6 0.758 13.6 LOS B 20.4 147.8 0.77 0.73 46.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 04 [2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 367 2.0 0.601 14.3 LOS B 11.4 82.0 0.69 0.73 48.8

5 T1 889 6.0 0.601 8.7 LOS A 12.5 91.7 0.69 0.65 50.1

Approach 1257 4.8 0.601 10.3 LOS B 12.5 91.7 0.69 0.67 49.6


7 L2 69 28.0 0.092 7.2 LOS A 0.4 3.4 0.28 0.61 52.1

9 R2 245 30.0 0.695 30.6 LOS C 7.2 63.4 0.96 0.88 35.5

Approach 315 29.6 0.695 25.4 LOS C 7.2 63.4 0.81 0.82 38.7


11 T1 698 6.0 0.319 6.9 LOS A 5.2 38.6 0.55 0.47 52.5

12 R2 132 22.0 0.719 30.4 LOS C 4.2 34.8 0.91 0.94 35.5

Approach 829 8.5 0.719 10.6 LOS B 5.2 38.6 0.60 0.55 48.8








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 04 [2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 146 4.0 0.559 18.9 LOS B 9.4 69.1 0.79 0.73 46.8

5 T1 751 7.0 0.559 13.3 LOS B 10.2 76.0 0.79 0.70 46.6

Approach 897 6.5 0.559 14.2 LOS B 10.2 76.0 0.79 0.71 46.6


7 L2 161 8.0 0.205 13.0 LOS B 2.5 18.4 0.59 0.70 48.7

9 R2 495 13.0 0.823 30.2 LOS C 15.8 122.6 0.96 0.96 36.0

Approach 656 11.8 0.823 26.0 LOS C 15.8 122.6 0.87 0.90 38.9


11 T1 1247 4.0 0.847 22.7 LOS C 23.0 166.3 0.90 0.95 40.9

12 R2 145 11.0 0.664 30.5 LOS C 4.4 33.4 0.94 0.88 35.7

Approach 1393 4.7 0.847 23.5 LOS C 23.0 166.3 0.90 0.95 40.3








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 317 4.0 0.763 24.7 LOS C 15.0 109.6 0.92 0.90 42.8

5 T1 814 7.0 0.763 18.8 LOS B 16.3 121.1 0.92 0.88 42.7

Approach 1131 6.2 0.763 20.4 LOS C 16.3 121.1 0.92 0.88 42.8


7 L2 60 8.0 0.075 7.1 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.30 0.62 52.7

9 R2 258 13.0 0.759 33.6 LOS C 8.1 62.6 0.99 0.92 34.6

Approach 318 12.1 0.759 28.6 LOS C 8.1 62.6 0.86 0.86 37.5


11 T1 791 4.0 0.337 6.0 LOS A 5.6 40.6 0.52 0.45 53.4

12 R2 255 11.0 0.750 30.7 LOS C 7.4 56.4 0.99 0.98 35.6

Approach 1045 5.7 0.750 12.0 LOS B 7.4 56.4 0.63 0.58 47.6








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 169 4.0 0.606 18.6 LOS B 10.7 78.6 0.80 0.74 46.9

5 T1 840 7.0 0.606 13.0 LOS B 11.7 86.6 0.80 0.72 46.8

Approach 1009 6.5 0.606 14.0 LOS B 11.7 86.6 0.80 0.72 46.8


7 L2 186 8.0 0.252 15.5 LOS B 3.2 24.3 0.66 0.70 47.1

9 R2 543 13.0 0.944 50.9 LOS D 24.2 188.4 1.00 1.15 28.7

Approach 729 11.7 0.944 41.8 LOS D 24.2 188.4 0.91 1.04 32.5


11 T1 1439 4.0 0.952 43.4 LOS D 38.0 274.9 0.93 1.26 31.7

12 R2 163 11.0 0.816 38.6 LOS D 5.9 44.8 0.99 1.02 32.5

Approach 1602 4.7 0.952 42.9 LOS D 38.0 274.9 0.94 1.23 31.8








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate




4 L2 367 4.0 0.883 36.7 LOS D 23.8 174.3 0.99 1.07 37.6

5 T1 937 7.0 0.883 30.4 LOS C 25.9 191.9 0.99 1.09 36.5

Approach 1304 6.2 0.883 32.1 LOS C 25.9 191.9 0.99 1.08 36.9


7 L2 69 8.0 0.093 6.9 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.26 0.61 53.0

9 R2 292 13.0 0.929 52.2 LOS D 12.7 98.8 1.00 1.13 28.3

Approach 361 12.0 0.929 43.5 LOS D 12.7 98.8 0.86 1.03 31.7


11 T1 886 4.0 0.352 5.2 LOS A 6.2 44.8 0.47 0.42 54.2

12 R2 274 11.0 0.656 30.0 LOS C 7.6 58.2 0.94 0.93 35.9

Approach 1160 5.7 0.656 11.1 LOS B 7.6 58.2 0.58 0.54 48.4








PHASING SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B Output Phase Sequence: A, B Phase Timing Results

Phase A B




Phase Split 45% 55%



Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



PHASING SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: BOY LOUW STREET (R28) & SYBRAND VAN NIEKERK FREEWAY (R59) - EAST TERMINAL Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 65 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay) Phase Times determined by the program Phase Sequence: Two-Phase Reference Phase: Phase A Input Phase Sequence: A, B, C Output Phase Sequence: A, B, C Phase Timing Results

Phase A B C







Normal Movement

Permitted/Opposed



Stopped Movement

Turn On Red


Undetected Movement


Continuous Movement



LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 191 50.0 0.108 0.2 LOS A 0.5 4.9 0.05 0.07 59.1

3 R2 82 50.0 0.108 7.1 LOS A 0.5 4.9 0.29 0.41 51.8

Approach 273 50.0 0.108 2.2 NA 0.5 4.9 0.12 0.17 56.7

East: PILSENER CLOSE

4 L2 46 50.0 0.047 6.5 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.17 0.51 51.8

6 R2 5 50.0 0.015 17.4 LOS C 0.1 0.5 0.58 0.93 45.7

Approach 52 50.0 0.047 7.6 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.21 0.55 51.1

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 7 50.0 0.040 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 55.3

8 T1 109 50.0 0.040 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.7

Approach 117 50.0 0.040 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 59.4

All Vehicles 441 50.0 0.108 2.4 NA 0.5 4.9 0.10 0.18 56.7



Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.




MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 05 [2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 40 50.0 0.022 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.04 0.07 59.1

3 R2 17 50.0 0.022 6.8 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.24 0.38 52.1

Approach 57 50.0 0.022 2.1 NA 0.1 0.9 0.10 0.16 56.8


4 L2 38 50.0 0.038 6.4 LOS A 0.1 1.4 0.15 0.50 51.9

6 R2 5 50.0 0.009 12.0 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.37 0.89 48.8

Approach 43 50.0 0.038 7.1 LOS A 0.1 1.4 0.17 0.55 51.5

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 5 50.0 0.032 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 55.4

8 T1 88 50.0 0.032 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.7

Approach 94 50.0 0.032 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.4

All Vehicles 194 50.0 0.038 2.4 NA 0.1 1.4 0.07 0.19 56.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 05 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 221 50.0 0.126 0.2 LOS A 0.6 5.8 0.05 0.07 59.1

3 R2 95 50.0 0.126 7.2 LOS A 0.6 5.8 0.32 0.43 51.7

Approach 316 50.0 0.126 2.3 NA 0.6 5.8 0.13 0.18 56.7


4 L2 54 50.0 0.055 6.6 LOS A 0.2 2.0 0.18 0.51 51.8

6 R2 6 50.0 0.022 19.6 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.64 0.96 44.6

Approach 60 50.0 0.055 7.9 LOS A 0.2 2.0 0.23 0.56 50.9

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 8 50.0 0.046 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 55.3

8 T1 127 50.0 0.046 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.7

Approach 136 50.0 0.046 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.04 59.4

All Vehicles 512 50.0 0.126 2.5 NA 0.6 5.8 0.11 0.18 56.6








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 46 50.0 0.026 0.1 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.05 0.07 59.2

3 R2 20 50.0 0.026 6.9 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.26 0.39 51.9

Approach 66 50.0 0.026 2.2 NA 0.1 1.1 0.11 0.17 56.8


4 L2 44 50.0 0.044 6.5 LOS A 0.2 1.6 0.16 0.51 51.8

6 R2 6 50.0 0.011 12.4 LOS B 0.0 0.4 0.40 0.89 48.5

Approach 51 50.0 0.044 7.2 LOS A 0.2 1.6 0.19 0.55 51.4

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 6 50.0 0.037 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 55.4

8 T1 102 50.0 0.037 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.7

Approach 108 50.0 0.037 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 59.4

All Vehicles 225 50.0 0.044 2.4 NA 0.2 1.6 0.08 0.19 56.6








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 05 [2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 451 50.0 0.201 0.4 LOS A 0.9 8.8 0.10 0.07 58.9

3 R2 82 50.0 0.201 7.9 LOS A 0.9 8.8 0.30 0.22 53.2

Approach 533 50.0 0.201 1.5 NA 0.9 8.8 0.13 0.10 57.9


4 L2 46 50.0 0.049 6.8 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.22 0.52 51.6

6 R2 5 50.0 0.038 34.2 LOS D 0.1 1.2 0.83 1.01 38.0

Approach 52 50.0 0.049 9.6 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.29 0.57 49.8

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 7 50.0 0.062 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 55.5

8 T1 175 50.0 0.062 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8

Approach 182 50.0 0.062 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.6

All Vehicles 766 50.0 0.201 1.8 NA 0.9 8.8 0.11 0.11 57.7








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 105 50.0 0.049 0.6 LOS A 0.2 2.2 0.12 0.07 58.7

3 R2 17 50.0 0.049 9.4 LOS A 0.2 2.2 0.38 0.22 52.4

Approach 122 50.0 0.049 1.9 NA 0.2 2.2 0.16 0.09 57.7


4 L2 38 50.0 0.046 7.5 LOS A 0.2 1.6 0.34 0.56 51.3

6 R2 5 50.0 0.019 20.4 LOS C 0.1 0.7 0.66 0.96 44.2

Approach 43 50.0 0.046 9.1 LOS A 0.2 1.6 0.38 0.61 50.3

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 5 50.0 0.120 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 55.8

8 T1 348 50.0 0.120 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9

Approach 354 50.0 0.120 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 519 50.0 0.120 1.3 NA 0.2 2.2 0.07 0.08 58.4








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 481 50.0 0.221 0.4 LOS A 1.0 10.3 0.11 0.08 58.8

3 R2 95 50.0 0.221 8.1 LOS A 1.0 10.3 0.34 0.24 52.9

Approach 576 50.0 0.221 1.7 NA 1.0 10.3 0.15 0.10 57.8


4 L2 54 50.0 0.057 6.8 LOS A 0.2 2.1 0.24 0.52 51.6

6 R2 6 50.0 0.055 40.0 LOS E 0.2 1.7 0.86 1.01 35.8

Approach 60 50.0 0.057 10.3 LOS B 0.2 2.1 0.30 0.58 49.3

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 8 50.0 0.069 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 55.5

8 T1 193 50.0 0.069 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8

Approach 201 50.0 0.069 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.6

All Vehicles 837 50.0 0.221 2.0 NA 1.0 10.3 0.12 0.12 57.5








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PILSENER CLOSE Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 112 50.0 0.054 0.7 LOS A 0.3 2.5 0.12 0.08 58.6

3 R2 20 50.0 0.054 9.6 LOS A 0.3 2.5 0.42 0.26 52.0

Approach 132 50.0 0.054 2.1 NA 0.3 2.5 0.17 0.10 57.5


4 L2 44 50.0 0.054 7.6 LOS A 0.2 1.9 0.35 0.57 51.2

6 R2 6 50.0 0.025 21.4 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.68 0.98 43.7

Approach 51 50.0 0.054 9.3 LOS A 0.2 1.9 0.39 0.62 50.1

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 6 50.0 0.125 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 55.7

8 T1 362 50.0 0.125 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9

Approach 368 50.0 0.125 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8

All Vehicles 551 50.0 0.125 1.4 NA 0.3 2.5 0.08 0.09 58.2








LAGER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 06 [2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 533 15.0 0.165 0.2 LOS A 0.8 6.6 0.14 0.00 59.4

3 R2 683 15.0 0.651 9.7 LOS A 7.9 62.7 0.61 0.81 49.8

Approach 1216 15.0 0.651 5.5 NA 7.9 62.7 0.40 0.45 53.6

East: PROPOSED ACCESS

4 L2 171 15.0 0.182 9.4 LOS A 0.7 5.7 0.26 0.90 50.9

6 R2 1 0.0 0.182 37.4 LOS E 0.7 5.7 0.26 0.90 51.3

Approach 172 14.9 0.182 9.6 LOS A 0.7 5.7 0.26 0.90 50.9

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 1 0.0 0.062 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.3

8 T1 219 15.0 0.062 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 220 14.9 0.062 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

All Vehicles 1607 15.0 0.651 5.2 NA 7.9 62.7 0.33 0.44 54.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2018 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 122 15.0 0.034 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

3 R2 171 15.0 0.200 8.2 LOS A 0.8 6.6 0.50 0.72 50.9

Approach 293 15.0 0.200 4.8 NA 0.8 6.6 0.29 0.42 54.3


4 L2 683 15.0 0.777 15.6 LOS C 12.9 102.0 0.73 1.08 47.5

6 R2 1 0.0 0.777 23.8 LOS C 12.9 102.0 0.73 1.08 47.8

Approach 684 15.0 0.777 15.6 LOS C 12.9 102.0 0.73 1.08 47.5

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 1 0.0 0.109 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 58.3

8 T1 386 15.0 0.109 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 387 15.0 0.109 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

All Vehicles 1364 15.0 0.777 8.9 NA 12.9 102.0 0.43 0.63 52.0








MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 06 [2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ]

SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 576 15.0 0.180 0.2 LOS A 0.9 7.2 0.14 0.00 59.4

3 R2 683 15.0 0.670 10.3 LOS B 8.4 66.5 0.65 0.86 49.4

Approach 1259 15.0 0.670 5.7 NA 8.4 66.5 0.42 0.47 53.5


4 L2 171 15.0 0.186 9.5 LOS A 0.7 5.8 0.28 0.90 50.8

6 R2 1 0.0 0.186 41.5 LOS E 0.7 5.8 0.28 0.90 51.2

Approach 172 14.9 0.186 9.7 LOS A 0.7 5.8 0.28 0.90 50.8

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 1 0.0 0.069 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.3

8 T1 243 15.0 0.069 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 244 14.9 0.069 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

All Vehicles 1675 15.0 0.670 5.3 NA 8.4 66.5 0.34 0.45 54.1








MOVEMENT SUMMARY


SCENARIO: 2023 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION: LAGER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS Stop (Two-Way)


Mov ID

OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate



South: LAGER ROAD

2 T1 132 15.0 0.037 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

3 R2 171 15.0 0.205 8.3 LOS A 0.9 6.8 0.51 0.73 50.8

Approach 302 15.0 0.205 4.7 NA 0.9 6.8 0.29 0.41 54.4


4 L2 683 15.0 0.788 16.2 LOS C 13.3 105.4 0.75 1.12 47.2

6 R2 1 0.0 0.788 25.1 LOS D 13.3 105.4 0.75 1.12 47.5

Approach 684 15.0 0.788 16.2 LOS C 13.3 105.4 0.75 1.12 47.2

North: LAGER ROAD

7 L2 1 0.0 0.115 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 58.3

8 T1 406 15.0 0.115 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 407 15.0 0.115 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

All Vehicles 1394 15.0 0.788 9.0 NA 13.3 105.4 0.43 0.64 51.9








APPENDIX 5.10: Traffic Impact Assessment€¦ · Local Municipality for Traffic Impact Assessment....

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX 5.10: Traffic Impact Assessment€¦ · Local Municipality for Traffic Impact Assessment....