Appendix D Traffic Impact Assessment - dlgrma.qld.gov.au · Moray Power Project . Traffic Impact...

Appendix D – Traffic Impact Assessment

Moray Power Project

Traffic Impact Assessment Report

CDM Smith

Reference: 14SCT0026/02

12.11.2014

i

Moray Power Project: Traffic Impact Assessment Report

© 2014 - TTM Consulting Pty Ltd Reference No: 14SCT0026/02

© 2014 - TTM Consulting Pty Ltd ABN 65 010 868 621

Suite 9, 13 Norval Court PO Box 949 Maroochydore QLD 4558

T: (07) 5479 2455 F: (07) 5479 3651 E: [email protected]

Document Status

Rev No.

Author Reviewed / Approved

Description Date Name Signature

01 G Harris P Penman RPEQ: 12644

Final 27.06.14

02 G Harris P Penman RPEQ: 12644

Update 12.11.14

Page ii



www.ttmgroup.com.au T: (07) 5479 2455 F: (07) 5479 3651 E: [email protected]

Table of Contents

1. Background 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Scope 2

1.3 . Methodology 2

1.4 References and Data Sources 3

2. The Project 4

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Construction and Commissioning Programme 5

2.3 Project Construction and Operational Plant Workforce Details 6

2.3.1 Project Workers Accommodation and Travel Requirements 6

2.3.2 Project Operation and Maintenance Requirements 6

2.4 Project Construction and Servicing Activity and Requirements 7

2.4.1 Key Project Haulage Routes 7

2.4.2 Project Construction Material Weights 9

2.4.3 Project Oversize Vehicle Requirements 9

3. Existing Transport Infrastructure 10

3.1 Introduction 10

3.2 Key Haulage Route Road Characteristics 10

3.2.1 Moray Carmichael Road Characteristics 10

3.2.2 Gregory Development Road Characteristics 10

3.2.3 Peak Downs Highway Characteristics 11

3.3 Existing Equivalent Standard Axels 12

3.4 Future Year Traffic Growth 12

3.5 Public and Active Transport 13

3.6 Road Safety Review 13

3.6.1 Moray Carmichael Road 13

3.6.2 Gregory Development Road 13

3.6.3 Peak Downs Highway 14

3.7 Road Planning and Scheduled Road Improvements 14

3.7.1 Gregory Development Road 15

3.7.2 Peak Downs Highway 15

3.8 Moray Carmichael Road Infrastructure Proposals 15

3.8.1 CCMP Programme 16

3.9 Flooding, Disaster and Relief Review 16

Page iii




4. Project and Construction Traffic 17

4.1 Introduction 17

4.2 Project Vehicle Activity 17

4.3 Cumulative Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes 19

4.4 Predicted Project ESA's 21

5. Traffic Impact Assessment 23

5.1 Introduction 23

5.2 Assessment Requirements 23

5.3 Project Traffic and ESA Impacts 23

5.4 Road Corridor Capacity Assessment 26

5.4.1 Assessment Criteria 26

5.4.2 Study Area Operational Performance 27

5.5 Intersection Capacity Assessment 28

5.6 Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road Intersection Review 28

5.6.1 Existing Peak Hour Volumes 28

5.6.2 Turn Warrant Requirements 29

5.7 Other Intersections 31

5.8 Impacts of Decommissioning 32

6. Pavement Impact Assessment 33

7. Site Access and Parking Arrangements 34

7.1 Site Access Arrangements 34

7.2 Parking Arrangements and On-site Manoeuvring 34

8. Traffic Management and Hazard Plan 35

8.1 Traffic Management Plan 35

8.2 Hazard and Risk Assessment Plan 35

8.2.1 Hazard and Risk Identification 35

8.2.2 Mitigation and Management 35

9. Developer Contributions 36

9.1 DTMR Contributions 36

9.2 IRC Contributions 36

10. Summary 37

10.1 Existing Traffic Review 37

10.2 Project Traffic Generation and Distribution 37

10.3 Project Traffic Impacts 37

10.4 Traffic Management and Maintenance Plan 37

Page iv




10.5 Road Safety School Route, Pedestrian and Cyclist Review 37

10.6 Developer Contributions 37

10.7 Conclusion 37

Table Index Table 2.1: Heaviest Project Items Requiring Delivery 9

Table 2.2: Largest Project Items Regarding Oversize Delivery and Traffic Control 9

Table 3.1: Road Characteristics 11

Table 3.2: Existing ESAs within Study Area 12

Table 3.3: Predicted Future Year AADT and ESAs within Study Area 13

Table 3.4: Crash History – Gregory Development Road (2005-2009) 14

Table 3.5: Crash History – Peak Downs Highway (2005-2009) 14

Table 4.1: Predicted Project Vehicle Movements and Quantities 18

Table 4.2: Estimated Peak Truck Construction and Operational Traffic Volumes 19

Table 4.3: Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes 19

Table 4.4: Estimated Cumulative and Project Development Daily Traffic Volumes 20

Table 4.5: Estimated Existing (Factored) and Cumulative Daily Traffic Volumes 20

Table 4.6: Predicted Project ESA's 21

Table 4.7: Predicted Project Annual ESA's and Distributions 22

Table 5.1: Project Daily Traffic Impact (Project Only Traffic Volumes) 23

Table 5.2: Project Traffic Impact (Project and CCMP Traffic Volumes) 24

Table 5.3: Predicted Project ESA Impacts 25

Table 5.4: Two Lane Rural Road Capacity – Rolling Terrain Two-Way Flow 26

Table 5.5: Maximum AADT’s for Various LOS on Two-Lane Two-Way Rural Roads 27

Table 5.6: Haulage Route Operational Performance 27

Page v




Figure Index Figure 1.1: Project Regional Site Location 1

Figure 2.1: Project Local Site Location 4

Figure 2.2: Project Site Layout 5

Figure 2.3: Key Project Haulage Routes 8

Figure 3.1: NDRRA Work Mackay/Whitsunday Regional Locations 15

Figure 5.1: RPDM Chapter 13: Table 13.4 28

Figure 5.2: Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road Traffic Count 29

Figure 5.3: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: (2016) 30

Figure 5.4: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: (2028) 30

Figure 5.5: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: Cumulative (2016) 31

Figure 5.6: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: Cumulative (2028) 31

Appendices A Abbreviation Definitions




1. Background

1.1 Introduction

TTM Consulting Pty Ltd (TTM) has been engaged by CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd (CDM Smith) to

undertake a Traffic and Pavement Impact Assessment for a proposed 150 MW multi-fuel power

station that will provide power in the Northern Galilee Basin. The proponent for the Project is

Moray Power Pty Ltd (Moray Power). Depending on customer requirements and future

expansion, there may be capacity to service other proponents in the broader region.

The Project is proposed to be located on Moray Downs (Lot 662 on PH1419), approximately 147

km north-west of Clermont, Central Queensland as shown by Figure 1.1. The Project is proposed

to be situated directly east of the planned Carmichael Coal Mine Project (CCMP). To ensure

reliability of supply and minimal transport impacts, coal will be sourced from the adjacent mine,

and be transported via a conveyor to the power station. The Project will have an operating life of

approximately 30 years.

Figure 1.1: Project Regional Site Location

Site Location

Gregory Development Road

Peak Downs Highway Moray

Carmichael Road




The Project will be located within the Mining Services Precinct of the Galilee Basin State

Development Area (GBSDA) and is therefore subject to the provisions of the GBSDA Development

Scheme 2014. Accordingly, the proponent will be submitting a development application to the

Queensland Coordinator-General (CG), with the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR)

as a concurrence agency.

1.2 Scope

The aim of this report is to address the requirements of a development application to the CG

under the GBSDA Development Scheme 2014. Schedule 3 of the GBSDA Development Scheme

2014 sets out the traffic assessment criteria for an application. Specifically, Table 4, Items 8-10

cover traffic and roads while Table 5, Items 7 and 12 cover engineering standards and road works.

This report investigates the transport aspects associated with the proposed Project. The scope of

the transport aspects investigation includes: Identification of key haulage routes likely to be used

during construction;

Identification of key haulage routes likely to be used during construction;

Identification of likely traffic volumes, distribution and composition from the Project;

Identification of likely traffic impact of the Project on the public road network and State

Controlled Road (SCR) network;

Identification of likely pavement impact of the Project on the public road network;

Cumulative impact assessment of likely traffic generated by the Project;

Road upgrades to be provided to mitigate the impact of the proposed Project on the

external road network, if any; and

Access configuration to provide efficient and safe manoeuvring between the site and the

public road network.

1.3 . Methodology

The contents of this report has drawn on various existing information and data resources,

including Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplementary Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS) reports that were developed for the neighbouring CCMP.

This report provides information on the expected traffic generated by the Project including a

review of the cumulative traffic generated by the CCMP.




1.4 References and Data Sources

For the purposes of this assessment various references and data sources were utilised as inputs

into the development of this traffic report, notably:

Queensland Transport and Main Roads (2006), Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts

of Development (GARID), The State of Queensland (Department of Main Roads);

Brown Consulting: Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project Traffic Impact Assessment July

2013 Ref: B12345;

Queensland Transport and Main Roads (2006), Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM);

and

Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections.




2. The Project

2.1 Introduction

The Project is for a new thermal and diesel power station with a combined generating capacity of

150 MW gross, as shown by a local site location plan in Figure 2.1.

It is anticipated that the majority of construction plant and materials will either arrive from the

northern port at Townsville or from the eastern port at Mackay and eventually route onto the

Gregory Development Road, with Moray Carmichael Road providing the local access to the Project

site.

It is intended that the Project workforce will utilise the neighbouring CCMP workers

accommodation village, as shown by Figure 2.1 with the majority of the workforce travel confined

to the Moray Carmichael Road and a new site access road that will be developed as part of the

CCMP project.

Figure 2.1: Project Local Site Location

Site Location

Workers Accommodation

Village

Airport

Moray Carmichael Road

New Site Access Road




An indicative site layout is shown by Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Project Site Layout

2.2 Construction and Commissioning Programme The nature of the traffic generated throughout construction will be dependent on the construction programme employed by the Contractor. In establishing likely construction activity, the proponent has provided an indication of the nature of the traffic generated on the basis of the greatest impact across three areas: weight, size, and quantity.

External access road

External access road

Internal access Road




It is anticipated that the Project will be constructed and commissioned by the following dates/establishment programme:

Early Works - 2015;

Construction and Commissioning - 2015 to 2017; and

Commercial Operations Date - 2018.

2.3 Project Construction and Operational Plant Workforce Details It is expected that the construction labour will peak at 400 workers midway through the construction period. TTM note that this level of activity could change as it depends on the Contractor’s construction schedule.

The construction roles anticipated to be included in this workforce are:

Engineers and managers;

Supervisors and inspectors;

Administrative personnel;

Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E) officers;

Operators (machinery, cranes, earthmoving, trucks etc.);

Unskilled labourers, semi-skilled labourers and skilled labourers; and

Chemists and non-destructive testing technicians.

2.3.1 Project Workers Accommodation and Travel Requirements

A proposed accommodation village will be constructed approximately 12 km north-east of the Project as part of a separate application. In addition, a new airport is proposed which will be located near the Project and accommodation village and will cater for fly-in fly-out (FIFO) activity. TTM also understand that a new industrial precinct is proposed, which is intended to be located to the north of the Project.

These facilities are primarily being developed to service the neighbouring CCMP, however they will also be utilised for this Project. Due to the specialised nature of the development and operations, it is anticipated that a large majority of the workforce will be contracted on a FIFO basis and utilise the neighbouring accommodation village. TTM note that a separate temporary workers camp will be developed for the construction period.

2.3.2 Project Operation and Maintenance Requirements

The Project will be operated 24 hours per day, all year round. Maintenance activities will typically be undertaken during the day time, except for breakdown maintenance of critical systems. It is estimated that the Project will have a permanent staff count of 50 employees for plant operation and supervision of maintenance activities. Any maintenance and repair requirements will typically be undertaken by subcontractors who will fly in during the scheduled maintenance period once a year.




Most overhaul or shutdown work is likely to be outsourced to specialist sub-contractors, with the majority of staff contracted on a FIFO basis. The operational and management roles anticipated to be included in this workforce include:

Plant manager;

Shift operation-in-charge;

Control room desk operators;

Boiler, turbine area and offsite area operators;

Maintenance-in-charge (overhaul, preventive, breakdown and condition basedmaintenance);

Planning and condition monitoring engineer;

Electricians, diesel mechanics, fitters, riggers, welders;

Chemists and lab technicians; and

Security personnel.

It is envisaged that major maintenance work, including major thermal plant overhauls, will be undertaken once per year and are expected to last between 1 and 2 months. The maintenance workforce during this time could potentially increase to approximately 100 workers. This estimate is provided as an indicative figure only as the exact number, duration, frequency and type of major maintenance work will be determined by the Contractor and be heavily dependent on the Contractor’s operational and management schedule.

2.4 Project Construction and Servicing Activity and Requirements

2.4.1 Key Project Haulage Routes

It is anticipated that the key haulage routes used for transportation of equipment and materials to and from the Project site will be similar to the neighbouring CCMP development routes as shown by Figure 2.3.

The key haulage corridors will comprise three transport corridor routes, with the first local corridor common to all transport routes routing from the Projects new site access road to the east along Moray Carmichael Road towards the Gregory Development Road and nominated as Transport Corridor 1 (TC01).

The main regional corridor, Transport Corridor 2 (TC02) will route north from the Moray Carmichael Road intersection with the Gregory Development Road via the Flinders Highway and route towards Townsville and finishing at the Port of Townsville. This corridor will also include the use of local roads within Townsville to gain access to the port. TTM note that TC02 is the most likely route to transport plant, equipment and materials based on distance, road asset condition and crash history.

The remaining tertiary regional haulage routes, notably, Transport Corridor 3 (TC03), will route from the Moray Carmichael Road onto the Gregory Development Road and southbound to Brisbane, with Transport Corridor 4 (TC04), routing towards Mackay and utilising the Peak Downs Highway.




Figure 2.3: Key Project Haulage Routes

Legend

Transport Corridor TC01




Site

Moray Carmichael

Road (TC01)

Gregory Development

Road (TC02)

Peak Downs Highway

(TC04)

Gregory Development

Road (TC03)




2.4.2 Project Construction Material Weights

It is anticipated that neighbouring planned projects, notably the CCMP, will transport machinery and plant with sizable component weights which would be similar to the Project. Components required for the Project will have a maximum single component weight of approximately 150 tonnes (t). As such, it is not anticipated that any major infrastructure requirements will be required along the nominated haulage routes, specifically for this Project. As part of the Project construction it is expected that the heaviest items to be transported via road will be the generators. Table 2.1 provides a summary of how many generators are required for the Project and approximate weights. In relation to all other equipment, it is anticipated that the material and equipment will weigh less than the generators for the purpose of transportation.

Table 2.1: Heaviest Project Items Requiring Delivery

Item Quantity Approximate Weight to

Transport (per item)

Diesel Generator Sets 3 - 4 150 t maximum

Generators 4 80 t to 100 t

2.4.3 Project Oversize Vehicle Requirements

In addition to the generators, the Project will require other plant and equipment that may trigger oversize vehicle requirements. Specifically, the Project's key items will comprise the plant's mechanical and electrical equipment including the boiler components. The quantity of these items, including transportation requirements, is shown in Table 2.2 and it is anticipated that these components are anticipated to be the largest items requiring transport. It is further anticipated that police escort and traffic management will be required to transport the equipment safely.

Table 2.2: Largest Project Items Regarding Oversize Delivery and Traffic Control

Item Quantity Number of Sections

Separated For Transportation

Total Oversize Vehicles Required

(Quantity x Sections)

Air Cooled Condensers

4 3 to 4 12 to 16

Boiler Components 4 6 to 8 24 to 32




3. Existing Transport Infrastructure

3.1 Introduction

As noted in Chapter 2 the key haulage corridors intend to predominately follow the Moray

Carmichael Road, Gregory Development Road and Peak Downs Highway with plant and materials

delivered from both the northern and eastern port locations. The local roads are under the

jurisdiction of the Isaac Regional Council (IRC), with DTMR responsible for the SCR.

The SCR will provide the major longer distance access function for the Project for construction

materials and equipment including future operational and maintenance phases of the Project.

3.2 Key Haulage Route Road Characteristics

The following provides a review of the existing transport infrastructure within the proximity of the

Project site.

3.2.1 Moray Carmichael Road Characteristics

At present, the local Council controlled roads in the vicinity of the Project do not have a posted

speed limit and therefore a 80 kilometres per hour (kph) has been adopted as the maximum

speed permitted. The road varies in carriageway width from 6 m to 10 m, however it is generally

around 8 m wide.

The daily traffic volume is estimated to be 60 vehicles per day (vpd) leading from the Peak Downs

Highway, including a heavy vehicle proportion (HV) of 36%.

Low traffic growth is anticipated on Moray Carmichael Road except for the Project and proposed

resource development in the area, with a 2% per annum growth assumed.

3.2.2 Gregory Development Road Characteristics

The Gregory Development Road (DTMR road designation 98A and 98B) routes generally in a

north-south direction and is approximately 350 km in length. The road links Charters Towers in

the north with Clermont in the south.

The Gregory Development Road intersects with the Flinders Highway at a priority controlled T-

intersection immediately south-west of Charters Towers, and ends at a priority controlled T-

intersection with the Peak Downs Highway about 15 km north of Clermont.

The Gregory Development Road is sealed along its entirety and provides a north-south connection

between the Galilee Basin, Townsville, Charters Towers and the Peak Downs Highway.

The 2013 daily traffic volume is approximately 510 vehicles per day (vpd) leading from the Peak

Downs Highway, with a heavy vehicle proportion (HV) being 32%.

The traffic growth rate over the past 10 years on the corridor is around 6% to 7% per annum.




3.2.3 Peak Downs Highway Characteristics

The Peak Downs Highway (DTMR designation 33A and 33B) links Mackay to the hinterland and

western regions, including the townships of Moranbah and Clermont and the Gregory

Development Road.

The Peak Downs Highway alignment travels through undulating terrain for a distance of

approximately 265 km with steep grades to the south of Eton.

The Peak Downs Highway has a generally good quality sealed pavement over its entire length and

is used heavily by the mining industry to access the Bowen Basin around Moranbah, Nebo, Dysart,

Clermont and Middlemount.

The 2013 daily traffic volume ranges from a low of approximately 650 vpd, including 31% HV

between Clermont and Moranbah to a high of approximately 4,330 vpd including 13% HV further

north of Moranbah. This volume further increases north of Nebo towards Mackay to

approximately 4,100 vpd.

The traffic growth rates range from approximately 5% per annum near Clermont up to 11% per

annum further north along the corridor over the last 10 years.

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the key road characteristics.

Table 3.1: Road Characteristics

Road Posted Speed

Limit (kph) Road

Characteristics

Average Annual Daily

Traffic (AADT)

Road Authority and

Status

Moray Carmichael Road 80 Gravel, 8 m with 2 Lanes

60 Typical

IRC controlled, Local Road

(To be upgraded by

others)


110 Sealed, 8 m with 2 lanes

500 Typical

DTMR controlled,

State Strategic Road

Peak Downs Highway 110 Sealed, 8 m with 2 lanes

Varies

650

to 7,460

DTMR controlled,

State Strategic Road

TTM note that for ease of reference it is assumed that Moray Carmichael Road corridor routes

from the Gregory Development Road to the Project site, with 2013 traffic data used for this

assessment.




3.3 Existing Equivalent Standard Axels

TTM intend to adopt an Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) value of 3.2 per heavy vehicle, which is

standard value for the calculation of ESA's on the key haulage routes.

Table 3.2 provides the existing levels of ESAs on the key haulage routes, with the level of ESA’s

based on existing traffic data as noted in Table 3.1, including HV composition.

Table 3.2: Existing ESAs within Study Area

Road Vehicles per Day and Class ESA Total

Daily Annual

Gregory Development

Road

Typical 510 vpd

with 32% HV @ 3.2 ESA 522 190,530

Peak Downs Highway

Clermont to Moranbah

650 vpd with 28% HV @ 3.2 ESA

Moranbah to Nebo

3,205 vpd with 21.2% HV @ 3.2 ESA

Nebo northwards

4,109 vpd with 20.7% HV @ 3.2 ESA

582

2,174

2,722

212,430

793,510

993,530

Moray Carmichael Road Typical 60vpd

with 36% HV @ 3.2 ESA 69 25,185

3.4 Future Year Traffic Growth

The future design horizon year for the purposes of the network assessment will be 2028, which is

10 years from the Projects opening year in 2018 and is consistent with GARID.

TTM have assumed the following background traffic growth rates which have been adopted for

the future design year traffic network assessments:

State Controlled Roads: 5% per annum (over the design horizon year). This level of

growth has been adopted as it is consistent with other planning and assessment work

undertaken in the vicinity of the Project site and is considered a reasonable estimate

given the regional nature of the road network. The 5% per annum background growth will

also allow for the potential impact of other developments in the area except from the

CCMP cumulative traffic impacts.

Local (Council) Roads: 2% per annum over the 10 year design horizon (Moray Carmichael

Road).

Table 3.3 provides predictive future year AADT and ESAs in 2016, 2018 and 2028 respectively

based on the above traffic growth assumptions.




Table 3.3: Predicted Future Year AADT and ESAs within Study Area

Road 2016 2018 2028

AADT ESA AADT ESA AADT ESA

Gregory

Development

Road

590 220,562 651 243,170 1,060 396,098

Peak Downs

Highway

Clermont

to

Moranbah

752

Moranbah

to Nebo

3,710

Nebo

northwards

4,757

Clermont

to

Moranbah

245,914

Moranbah

to Nebo

918,587

Nebo

northwards

1,150,135

Clermont

to

Moranbah

830

Moranbah

to Nebo

4.090

Nebo

northwards

5,244

Clermont

to

Moranbah

271,120

Moranbah

to Nebo

1,012,742

Nebo

northwards

1,268,024

Clermont

to

Moranbah

1,351

Moranbah

to Nebo

6,663

Nebo

northwards

8,542

Clermont

to

Moranbah

441,627

Moranbah

to Nebo

1,649,650

Nebo

northwards

2,065,478

Moray

Carmichael

Road

65 27,331 66 27,752 79 33,218

3.5 Public and Active Transport

School bus routes may utilise roads particularly on both the Gregory Development Road and Peak

Downs Highway. TTM note that there is no evidence of any school bus routes or stops on the local

Council roads, with no dedicated foot or cycle paths in proximity to the Project site.

3.6 Road Safety Review

TTM has undertaken a review of the available crash data along the key haulage routes and note

the following in relation to the key haulage routes:

3.6.1 Moray Carmichael Road

TTM has reviewed the available data for Moray Carmichael Road which has experienced three

single vehicle accidents over a three year period (2006 to 2008), resulting in hospitalisations. No

other vehicle accidents were recorded on the local road network in the proximity to the Project.

3.6.2 Gregory Development Road

A review of crash data was undertaken for the section of Gregory Development Road from

Clermont covering a length of approximately 158 km. A summary of this data is shown in Table

3.4.




Table 3.4: Crash History – Gregory Development Road (2005-2009)

Year Non-Injury Injury Fatal Total

2005 6 6 0 12

2006 11 5 0 8

2007 9 7 1 10

2008 - 8 2 18

2009 4 10 0 17

Total 30 36 3 65

3.6.3 Peak Downs Highway

Crash data from DTMR, for a five year period from (2005 to 2009) for the Peak Downs Highway,

between the Gregory Development Road and Bruce Highway (approximately 270 km in length), is

shown below in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Crash History – Peak Downs Highway (2005-2009)

Year Non-Injury Injury Fatal Total

2005 27 34 2 63

2006 22 32 3 57

2007 24 25 2 51

2008 28 40 2 70

2009 23 37 4 64

Total 124 168 13 305

3.7 Road Planning and Scheduled Road Improvements

TTM have reviewed the Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program (QTRIP) 2013-14 to

2016-17 for the Mackay / Whitsunday region, with various works on-going and planned for the

region as shown by Figure 3.1.




Figure 3.1: NDRRA Work Mackay/Whitsunday Regional Locations

3.7.1 Gregory Development Road

It is understood that the Gregory Development Road is planned to be rehabilitated from 6 km

north of the Twin Hills Road intersection for a distance of approximately 71 km in a southerly

direction.

3.7.2 Peak Downs Highway

The Peak Downs Highway between Clermont and Mackay has been identified as a priority route

within Queensland and is the primary access for the agricultural and Bowen Basin coal mining

industries.

Design works are currently underway to upgrade four timber bridges on the Peak Downs

Highway. Rehabilitation works are being carried out on these bridges as required until funding is

secured for the replacement. Further works on the Peak Downs Highway are being planned with

the design of a new alignment for the Eton Range crossing. At present, field work is being

undertaken to provide design inputs including survey, geotechnical, environmental and

archaeological investigations.

3.8 Moray Carmichael Road Infrastructure Proposals

It is understood that Moray Carmichael Road will be upgraded, realigned and maintained as part

of the neighbouring CCMP. This upgrade will also include the provision of Rural Channelised T-

junction – Short Lane Type CHR(S) and a Rural Auxiliary Left-turn Treatment – Short Turn Lane

[AUL(S)] turn treatments at the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road

intersection.




3.8.1 CCMP Programme

The proponent for the neighbouring CCMP intends that the construction will be staggered over various years with some stages overlapping subsequent stages as follows:

Stage 1: 2013 and early 2014: Existing site operations - 12 months; not construction rather preparation / planning investigations;

Stage 2: 2014: Bridge, road, airport and camp construction and quarry development - 6 months;

Stage 3: Late 2014 – late 2016: Bulk earthworks and fixed infrastructure - 24 months;

Stage 4: Early 2015 – early 2016: Level I mining plant and equipment - 12 months; and

Stage 5: Early 2016 – early 2017: Level II (Ultra-class) mining plant and equipment - 12 months.

3.9 Flooding, Disaster and Relief Review

The Gregory Development Road crosses numerous floodplains and floodways, with instances of

flooding close to the road at multiple locations for significant periods, which have caused multiple

road closures. TTM understand that during significant rain events DTMR may restrict load limits

on this road to protect the road pavements.




4. Project and Construction Traffic

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides predicted Project construction and operational parameters which have

been adopted for the traffic and pavement impact assessments.

The main factor influencing traffic generation will be the self-contained nature of the site, and the proximity of the workforce accommodation village to the site (approximately 12 km), which will allow the majority of employees to stay within the proximity of the Project at most times. This will help limit the level of Project traffic on the SCR. The following provides an overview of the likely construction and operational traffic activities associated with the Project.

4.2 Project Vehicle Activity The quantity of trucks required during construction is heavily dependent on the Contractor’s construction methodology and the specific equipment and design of the power plant. Table 4.1 provides an outline of the nature and extent of transportation activities anticipated for the Project, which will help in understanding the traffic implications during construction. The vehicle movements shown in the following Table 4.1 are limited to those on the state and local road networks. As previously noted, it is anticipated that the Project will be constructed and commissioned by the following dates/establishment programme:

Early Works - 2015;

Construction and Commissioning - 2015 to 2017; and

Commercial Operations Date - 2018.

TTM anticipate that the maximum on-site construction activity will occur in 2016, with typical Project operations including servicing requirements occurring in 2028 (10 year post commercial opening), with Table 4.2 showing the predicted Project generated truck traffic volumes along the key access/haulage routes. As noted, it is assumed that the majority of traffic activity will be from Townsville (approximately 70%), with secondary activity from Mackay (approximately 20%) and to the south from Brisbane (approximately 10%). Daily bus activity will occur between the adjacent worker camp and the site, with on average eight two-way bus trips per day and potentially peaking at 16 two-way bus trips due to on-site activity. TTM note that Table 4.2 provides average figures on the various routes for two-way traffic movements.




Table 4.1: Predicted Project Vehicle Movements and Quantities

Phase Activity Duration and

Timing of Activity

Typical Vehicle Type

Total Anticipated Quantity

Civil and Earthworks

(2015 - 2017)

Delivery of large

earthmoving equipment to and from the

site

6 month duration at the start of

the construction

period

Oversize prime mover with single

machine float

Between 15 to 20 deliveries Assume higher quantity

20 + 20 (AV) = 40

Construction Delivery of Equipment, Materials,

Machinery etc (2015 - 2018)

Delivery of bulk materials

(steel, concrete etc)


the construction

period

Prime mover with 2 trailers 50t average

payload

Between 150 to 200 deliveries

Assume higher quantity 200 + 200 = 400 (B-double)

Delivery of major plant

and equipment


the construction

period

Prime mover with 2 trailers 50t average

payload

Between 150 to 200 deliveries

Assume higher quantity 100 + 100 =200 (AV)

90 + 90 = 180 (B-double) 10 + 10 = 20 (Road Train)

Assorted light goods

deliveries

18 months occurs during the majority

of construction

period

Standard light good vehicles 10t average

payload

Between 300 to 400

Assume higher quantity 200 + 200 = 400 Van/SRV

100 + 100 = 200 MRV 100 + 100 = 200 HRV

Construction and

Commissioning (2015 - 2018)

Delivery of chemicals

3 months at the end of the construction

period

Standard chemical

transporter Intermediate

Bulk Container AV type

Nominally 5 + 5 = 10 AV. These are standard road vehicles and are not anticipated to have any significant impact on the local infrastructure

Delivery of diesel and

filling diesel tanks

3 months at the end of the construction

period

B-double

Nominally 5 + 5 = 10 B-double These are standard road vehicles

and are not anticipated to have any significant impact on the local

infrastructure

Operational (2018)

Delivery of servicing materials

All year AV/ HRV/ SRV/Van

30 + 30 = 60 AV per month 10 + 10 = 20 HRV per month

20 + 20 = 40 Van/SRV per month

Staff/Visitors All year Car/Ute

Staff transported by bus 200 + 200 = 400 Bus per month

Visitors 20 + 20 = 40 Car/Ute per month




Table 4.2: Estimated Peak Truck Construction and Operational Traffic Volumes

Year Moray Carmichael Road

(TC01)

Gregory Development Road (TC02)


Peak Downs Highway

(TC04)

Average vehicles

per day (two-way)

Average vehicles per day

(two-way)


(two-way)


(two-way)

2016

30 20

6

(4 further to South) 6

2028

18 12

4

(2 further to south) 4

4.3 Cumulative Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes The estimated daily traffic volumes arising from the anticipated traffic demands during the construction and operational phases of the CCMP is shown by Table 4.3 (Source CCMP SEIS). It is anticipated that 2015 will be the peak year for the expected impacts from the Project due to the level of on-site construction related activities. From 2015 the impacts reduce to those primarily associated with the operational phase rather than the combined construction and operational effects. This cumulative assessment has been based on publically available CCMP information and information available from other projects. It is noted that apart from the CCMP there are no further developments in the North Galilee Basin within the advance approval stage and in the public arena. The proposed CCMP is anticipated to result in a peak contribution in 2016 of up to a maximum of 264 vehicles per day along the Moray Carmichael Road, with the Gregory Development Road carrying 226 vehicles per day. In ensuring for a robust assessment, TTM has adopted the higher order traffic volumes for each yearly scenario.

Table 4.3: Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes


(TC01)



Peak Downs Highway

(TC04)

vehicles per day

(two-way) vehicles per day



(two-way)

2014 88 to 169 5 to 19 20 to 81 11 to 22

2015 179 to 260 18 to 63 5 to 142 16 to 55

2016 177 to 264 15 to 50 5 to 128 8 to 47

2017 92 to 123 7 to 23 1 to 69 2 to 21

2018 92 to 123 7 to 23 1 to 69 2 to 21

2024 120 to 152 19 to 35 2 to 85 7 to 35

2028 120 to 152 19 to 35 2 to 85 7 to 35 *Source: GHD Traffic Report, 2012

Table 4.4 on the following page shows the estimated cumulative and the Project generated traffic volumes on each haulage route.




Table 4.4: Estimated Cumulative and Project Development Daily Traffic Volumes


(TC01)


(TC02)


Peak Downs Highway

(TC04)

vehicles per day




(two-way)

2016 264# + (30*)

= 294 50# + (20*)

= 70 128# +(6*)

= 134 47# + (6*)

= 53

2018 123# + (18*)

= 141 23# + (12*)

= 35 69# +(4*)

= 73 21# + (4*)

= 25

2028 152# + (18*)

= 170 35# + (12*)

= 47 85# + (4*)

= 89 35# +(4*)

= 39 #Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes. Highest value adopted *(Project development volumes)

Table 4.5 shows the overall estimated traffic volumes on the key haulage routes during the peak construction period (2016), 2018 Project opening and 10 years post Project opening (2028).

Table 4.5: Estimated Existing (Factored) and Cumulative Daily Traffic Volumes

Year Moray Carmichael

Road (TC01)



Peak Downs Highway (TC04)

vehicles per

day (two-way)

vehicles per day

(two-way)

vehicles per day (two-way)

vehicles per day (two-way)

2016 65 + 294*

= 359 590 + 70*

= 660 590 +134*

= 724

Clermont to Moranbah 752 +53* = 805

Moranbah to Nebo 3,710 + 53* = 3,763

Nebo northwards 4,757 + 53* = 4,810

2018 66 + 141*

= 207 651 + 35*

= 686 651 +73*

= 724

Clermont to Moranbah 830 +25* = 855

Moranbah to Nebo 4,090 + 25* = 4,115


2028 79 + 170*

= 249 1,060 + 47*

= 1,107 1,060 + 89*

= 1,149

Clermont to Moranbah 1,351 +53* = 1,404

Moranbah to Nebo 6,663 + 53* =6,716


*Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes + Project development volumes




4.4 Predicted Project ESA's

It is considered that various trucks and light vehicles will be used in the construction,

commissioning and ultimately the operation of the Project, with the various ESA's calculations and

numbers shown in Table 4.6. TTM note that an average (loaded/unloaded) ESA value has been

used for two-way truck movements, with the minor number of oversize vehicle types factored

into the overall typical vehicle type numbers for the delivery of equipment phase.

Table 4.6: Predicted Project ESA's

Phase Duration of Activity

Typical Vehicle Type ESA per vehicle Assumptions


6 month Oversize prime

mover 20 + 20 (AV) =40

40 x 3.6 = 144 ESA

Construction Delivery of Equipment, Materials,

Machinery etc

6 month Prime mover with 2

trailers 50t 200 + 200 =400 (B-double)

400 x 3.6 = 1,440 ESA

6 month Prime mover with 2

trailers 50t

100 + 100 =200 (AV), 200 x 3.0 = 600 ESA 90 + 90 = 180 (B-double)

180 x 3.6 = 648 ESA 10 + 10 = 20 (Road Train), 20 x 4 = 80 ESA

18 months Standard light good

vehicles 10t

200 + 200 = 400 Van/SRV (Negligible Impact)

100 + 100 = 200 MRV (Negligible Impact)

100 + 100 = 200 HRV, 200 x 1.3 = 260 ESA

Construction and

Commissioning

3 months

Standard chemical transporter

Intermediate Bulk Container AV type

5 + 5 = 10 AV

10 x 3.0 = 30 ESA

3 months B-double 5 + 5 = 10 B-double , 10 x 3.6 = 36 ESA

Workforce and Visitors

2 Years Bus, car/ute

(Bus on local road only)

Staff transported by bus 200 + 200 = 400 Bus per month 400 x 1.3 x 12 = 6,240 ESA p/a

Visitors 20 + 20 = 40 Car/Ute per month (Negligible Impact)

Sub Totals 15,718 ESA (Local Road) , 3,238 ESA (SCR)

Operational

All year AV/ HRV/ SRV/Van

30 + 30 =60 AV p/m, 60 x 3.6 x 12 = 2,592 ESA p/a 10 + 10 = 20 HRV per month 20 x 1.3 x 12 = 312 ESA p/a

20 + 20 = 40 Van/SRV per month (Negligible Impact)

All year Car/Ute

Staff transported by bus 120 + 120 = 240 Bus per month 240 x 1.3 x 12 = 3,744 ESA p/a

Visitors 20 + 20 = 40 Car/Ute per month (Negligible Impact)

Sub Totals 6,648 ESA (Local Road), 2,904 ESA (SCR) p/a




TTM note that the ESA per vehicle value provided as approximately one third of fully loaded ESA’s

for lower order vehicles (2 axle truck to 4 axle articulate) and half fully loaded ESA’s for higher

order vehicles. This allows for an average across unloaded, partially loaded and fully loaded

vehicles. Fully loaded ESA’s provided from Table 5.16, Chapter 5 of DTMR's Road Planning and

Design Manual (RPDM).

Table 4.7 shows the predicted distribution of Project generated ESA's across the key haulage

routes. TTM note that a 2 year period has been assumed for the civil and construction phases,

which should provide for a worst case scenario as the predicted work program is envisaged to be

between 2 to 3 years (2015 to 2018).

Table 4.7: Predicted Project Annual ESA's and Distributions

Activity Phase

Duration and ESA Activity

ESA Activity Key Haulage Routes

(Percentage Distribution)

Duration and

Timing of Activity

Total ESA's

(2 year)

ESA per Annum

TC01 (100%)

TC02 (70%)

TC03 (10%)

TC04 (20%)


Construction Delivery of, Materials,

Machinery etc And

Construction and

Commissioning

3 years 2015 to

2018

15,718

7,859

7,859

2,267

324

647

Operational 2018

2028

- -

6,648

6,648

6,648

6,648

2,033

2,033

291

291

580

580




5. Traffic Impact Assessment

5.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the traffic operation and capacity performance within the study area.

5.2 Assessment Requirements

In a review of the GARID Guidelines Criteria 3: Traffic Operation Assessment, traffic operation

impacts need to be considered for any section of a State Controlled Road (SCR) where the

construction or operational traffic generated by the development equals or exceeds 5% of the

existing AADT on the road section, intersection movements or turning movements.

5.3 Project Traffic and ESA Impacts

Table 5.1 provides details on the predicted Project traffic impacts. As shown, the level of Project

traffic impact on the SCR covering all yearly scenarios is below the 5% impact threshold for

assessment. However, there will be a greater impact on the local roads (Moray Carmichael Road)

due to the activity between the workforce accommodation camp and the Project site.

Table 5.1: Project Daily Traffic Impact (Project Only Traffic Volumes)


(TC01)




vehicles per day




(two-way)

2016 65 + (30*) = 46.2%

590 + (20*) = <5%

590 +(6*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 752 + (6*) = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo 3,710 + (6*) = <5%

Nebo northwards 4,757 + (6*) = <5%

2018 66 + (16*) = 24.2%

651 + (10*) = <5%

651 + (4*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 830 + (4*) = <5%



2028 79 + (18*) = 20.8%

1,060 + (12*) = <5%

1,060 + (4*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 1,351 + (4*) = <5%



*(Project development volumes)




Table 5.2 provides details on the predicted Project traffic including the addition of the CCMP.

impacts. Again as shown, the level of Project traffic impact on the SCR covering all yearly

scenarios is below the 5% impact threshold for assessment.

Table 5.2: Project Traffic Impact (Project and CCMP Traffic Volumes)


(TC01)




vehicles per day




(two-way)

2016 65 + 264# + (30*)

= 9.1%

590 + 50# + (20*) = <5%

590 + 128# +(6*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 752 + 47# + (6*) = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo 3,710 + 47# + (6*) = <5%

Nebo northwards 4,757 + 47# + (6*) = <5%

2018 66 + 123# + (18*)

= 9.5%

651 + 23# + (12*) = <5%

651 + 69# +(4*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 830 + 21# + (4*) = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo 4,090 + 21# + (4*) = <5%

Nebo northwards 5,244 + 21# + (4*) = <5%

2028 79 + 152# + (18*)

= 7.8%

1,060 + 35# + (12*) = <5%

1,060 + 85# + (4*) = <5%

Clermont to Moranbah 1,351 + 35# +(4*) = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo 6,663 + 35# + (4*) = <5%

Nebo northwards 8,542 + 35# + (4*) = <5%

#Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes. *(Project development volumes)

In a review of both Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 and in accordance with the GARID guideline criteria

only the local road network requires to be reviewed. However, TTM will undertake a review of the

existing road corridor conditions in 2016 (highest peak Project and CCMP traffic impact) including

a further review of the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road Intersection.




Table 5.3 provides details on the predicted Project ESA impacts. The level of Project ESA impact

on the SCR covering all yearly scenarios is below the 5% impact threshold for assessment.

Table 5.3: Predicted Project ESA Impacts

Year

Project ESA per

Annum

ESA Impacts Key Haulage Routes

(Percentage Distribution)

TC01 (100%)

TC02 (70%)

TC03 (10%)

TC04 (20%)

2016

(7,859)*

27,331 (7,859)* = 28.8%

220,562 (2,267)* = <5%

220,562 (324)* = <5%


245,914

(647)* = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo

918,587

(647)*= <5%

Nebo northwards 1,150,135

(647)* = <5%

2018

(6,648)*

27,752

(6,638)*

= 23.9%

243,170

(2,033)*

= <5%

243,170

(291)*

= <5%


271,120

(590)* = <5%

Moranbah to Nebo

1,012,742

(580)* = <5%

Nebo northwards

1,268,024

(580)* = <5%

2028

(6,648)*

33,218

(6,648)*

= 20.0%

396,098

(2,033)*

= <5%

396,098

(291)*

= <5%


441,627

(580)*= <5%

Moranbah to Nebo

1,649,650

(580)* = <5%

Nebo northwards

2,065,478

(580)* = <5%

(Project ESA's)*




5.4 Road Corridor Capacity Assessment

5.4.1 Assessment Criteria

The AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Management indicates that two-lane rural highways have a

capacity of 2,800 passenger cars per hour total for both directions of flow, under ideal conditions

where there are no restrictive roadway, terrain or traffic conditions.

AUSTROADS defines Level of Service (LOS) as a qualitative measure describing operational

conditions within a traffic stream. The term LOS and its characteristics for rural roads is defined in

Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Two Lane Rural Road Capacity – Rolling Terrain Two-Way Flow

LOS Description Rating

A Free, unrestrictive flow Very Good

B Mostly free flow, few disruptions Very Good

C Stable flow Good

D Mostly stable flow, some delays Acceptable

E Congested flow, delays common Bad

F Forced flow Bad

The volume and composition of traffic on a given road determines the level of interaction

between vehicles and is measured as its LOS. LOS decreases with increasing traffic volumes. LOS

‘A’, LOS B’, LOS ‘C’ in a rural context are satisfactory, with a LOS ‘D’ satisfactory in some

circumstances.

In cases where traffic, terrain or geometric data may not be precisely known, the AUSTROADS

Guide provides planning guidance on maximum AADT values that two-lane, two-way rural roads

can accommodate under various terrain conditions.

TTM have assumed that a 0.11 design hour volume to AADT ratio would be sufficient for the

assessment and from a review of past surveys in the locality.

Table 5.5 shows the values for various LOS for a rural road in rolling terrain with varying ratios of

design hour volume to AADT.




Table 5.5: Maximum AADT’s for Various LOS on Two-Lane Two-Way Rural Roads

Level of Service

Design Hour Volume to AADT

Ratio

A B C D E

0.10 1,100 2,800 5,200 8,000 14,800

0.11 1,000 2,500 4,700 7,200 13,500

0.12 900 2,300 4,400 6,600 12,300

0.13 900 2,100 4,000 6,100 11,400

0.14 800 1,480 3,700 5,700 10,600

0.15 700 1,800 3,500 5,300 9,900

5.4.2 Study Area Operational Performance

As noted in Chapter 3, the Gregory Development Road presently carries 450vpd. This volume is

significantly less than the AADT threshold for a Level of Service ‘A’.

The generated Project traffic assumptions as shown in Chapter 4 provide an indication on future

year volumes with the addition of Project and cumulative CCMP traffic volumes. Table 5.6 shows

the predicted LOS on each haulage route during the Project's peak construction activity and in

2016, with the addition of the CCMP traffic. Roads operating at a LOS ‘A to 'C’ should have no

significant road capacity issues with the predicted level of Project traffic having a negligible impact

on overall road corridor performances.

Table 5.6: Haulage Route Operational Performance

Year Moray Carmichael

Road (TC01)




Total vehicles

per day (two-way)

Total vehicles per day

(two-way)


(two-way)


(two-way)

2016 (Construction)

65 + 264# + (30*) = 359

LOS 'A'

590 + 50# + (20*) = 660

LOS 'A'

590 + 128# +(6*) = 724

LOS 'A'

Clermont to Moranbah 752 + 47# + (6*) = 805

LOS 'A'

Moranbah to Nebo 3,710 + 47# + (6*) = 3,763

LOS 'B'

Nebo to Mackay 4,757 + 47# + (6*) = 4,810

LOS 'C'

#Estimated Daily CCMP Infrastructure Development Traffic Volumes. *(Project development volumes)




5.5 Intersection Capacity Assessment

TTM considers that the majority of local intersections along the key haulage routes will operate

under uninterrupted flow conditions (low existing traffic volumes), which is based on guidance

from the DTMR's (RPDM) Chapter 13: Intersections at Grade: 13.5.4 Unsignalised Minor Road

Intersections as shown by Figure 5.1.

The level of daily traffic generated by the Project (both construction/operational) is low as shown

by Table 5.3 and TTM have assumed that uninterrupted flow conditions will occur, with the site

access and local intersections operating adequately with nominal delays and queuing.

Figure 5.1: RPDM Chapter 13: Table 13.4

5.6 Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road Intersection Review

5.6.1 Existing Peak Hour Volumes

TTM conducted 24 hour intersection movement surveys at the Gregory Development Road /

Moray Carmichael Road Intersection on Tuesday 5th March 2013.

The peak hours were generally found to be 9:15 - 10:15 am and 3:30 - 4:30 pm. The level of

through intersection traffic is very low with only 11 vehicles northbound, nine vehicles

southbound during the morning peak period. Similar results were recorded in the evening peak

with only seven vehicles northbound, 23 vehicles southbound.

Traffic entering and exiting Moray Carmichael Road corridor was also low with only 13 vehicles

entering from Gregory Development Road and 13 exiting during the morning peak. Similar results

were recorded in the evening peak with only one vehicle exiting Gregory Development Road from

the south as shown by Figure 5.2.




Figure 5.2: Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road Traffic Count

5.6.2 Turn Warrant Requirements

TTM has reviewed the turn warrant requirements as part of the overall intersection review, with

reference made to the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised

Intersection warrants for turn treatments on roads with a Design Speed >100kph Figure 4.9(a) as

represented in Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.3 identifies required turn treatments at this intersection based on base and peak project

movement volumes for the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road intersection

(2016). Figure 5.4 shows the required turn treatments in 2028. For a conservative assessment, it

has been assumed that all daily vehicles will arrive in a single peak hour.

1 0 2 2

10 0 7 7

11 0 0 9 9

Heavy Light Total

1 0 1 22%

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 100% 0

0

0 0 0 0

Moray Carmichael Road Corridor 9%

11 0 11 0 10

10 0 10 7

1 0 1 3

© TTM Consulting Pty Ltd

Light

Heavy

Gregory Development Rd

Total


Heavy

Light

Total

3 0 3 3

4 0 20 20

7 0 0 23 23

Heavy Light Total

0 0 0 13%

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0

0 1 1 0

Moray Carmichael Road Corridor 0% 43%

8 1 7 0 23

5 1 4 20

3 0 3 3

© TTM Consulting Pty Ltd


Heavy

Light

Total

Light

Heavy


Total

AM Peak

PM Peak




Figure 5.3: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: (2016)

Figure 5.4: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road: (2028)

This analysis identifies that basic left (BAL) and basic right (BAR) turn treatment are required at

the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road intersection prior to construction

operations.

A cumulative assessment has been undertaken from the estimated daily traffic volumes arising

from the predicted traffic demands during the construction and operational phases of the mine

(Source CCMP SEIS), with Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 showing the treatments required. As noted,

TTM understand that the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road intersection will

be upgraded as part of the neighbouring CCMP.

Legend (2016 Assessment)

Left turn impact

Right turn impact


Left turn impact

Right turn impact




Figure 5.5: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road:

Cumulative (2016)

Figure 5.6: Turn Requirements - Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road:

Cumulative (2028)

5.7 Other Intersections

Other intersections along the access route are predicted to carry lower through volumes than the

Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road intersection. As such, basic BAL and BAR

treatments should be suitable treatments for any other minor intersections.


Left turn cumulative impact

Right turn cumulative impact


Left turn cumulative impact

Right turn cumulative impact




5.8 Impacts of Decommissioning It is assumed that the Project will have a long operational life span (>30 years) after which it may be decommissioned. As part of the decommissioning process, it is expected that there will be some minor impact on the road network. Decommissioning of the Project will require several operations which may have an impact on the local and state controlled network, including:

Removal of any hazardous material;

Decommissioning of buildings and structures on site;

Removal of waste material;

Potential environmental actions; and

Removal of plant and machinery from site.

It is assumed that during the decommissioning the expected operations mentioned above will produce an increase in traffic generation over a period of approximately one year.




6. Pavement Impact Assessment

DTMR has produced GARID, which aids in the assessment of impacts on the SCR.

In general terms, DTMR considers that an impact on a road is insignificant if there is a less than 5%

increase in traffic, measured either as annual average daily traffic or equivalent standard axles.

As shown in Chapter 5, Table 5.3, the predicted Project generated ESA's will have a less than 5%

impact on the SCR and therefore no further assessment is required. TTM note that TC01 is part of

the local road network and will be upgraded as part of the separate CCMP project.




7. Site Access and Parking Arrangements

7.1 Site Access Arrangements

TTM understand that the site access arrangements will be designed in accordance with both

Council and AUSTROAD’s requirements and submitted as part of an Operational Works

Application.

In developing a new site access intersection layout into the site from Moray Carmichael Road,

TTM recommend the following access layout characteristics:

A posted speed limit of 70 kph with suitable site distances to approaching vehicles;

A minimum 7.5 m wide carriageway with shoulder provisions;

Lane flares at the access to allow larger articulated trucks and haul vehicles to enter and

exit simultaneously without conflict; and

Basic right/left lane treatments with shoulder provisions.

TTM note that it is recommended that the new access road, including any drainage structures, be

designed to accommodate the weight of heavy plant equipment.

7.2 Parking Arrangements and On-site Manoeuvring

TTM recommend that a formal parking area is provided for vehicles that are required to wait on-

site. This area will also include designated parking provisions for buses, limited private vehicles

and service vehicles on site at any given time.

TTM note that the formal parking area should be kept clear of any haul vehicle manoeuvring with

a preference to segregate haul vehicle routes from other vehicle movements within the site.

CDM Smith have undertaken an analysis of the on-site haul vehicle swept paths, which has

demonstrated adequate internal access for the largest design vehicle which may have to access

the site.

Further project planning and design will be required as to ensure for adequate clearance zones

between any pedestrian, operational, parking and emergency area requirements.




8. Traffic Management and Hazard Plan

8.1 Traffic Management Plan

TTM recommend that a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be developed and implemented for the

duration of the construction activities, which should be in place prior to any operational works

activity.

This plan will be developed in conjunction with both Council and DTMR and will consider any

other planned infrastructure works in the area.

8.2 Hazard and Risk Assessment Plan

It is further recommended that the potential road traffic hazards and risks related to the Projects

construction and operation should be reviewed and identified. The following sections provide a

summary on the likely form of review and risk identification.

8.2.1 Hazard and Risk Identification

Transport of hazardous substances for on and off site Project activities, will form part of the risk

assessment undertaken for the Project.

TTM note that diesel and specialist chemical trucks will be utilised during the construction,

commissioning and operation phases. The transportation of any hazardous substances will have

to comply with the Australian Code for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail 7th

edition (ADG Code).

Increased heavy vehicle traffic generated from the Project along public and school transport

corridors presents a potential safety risk and will be further reviewed as part of the TMP.

8.2.2 Mitigation and Management

As noted above, any significant traffic management issues will be addressed through the

preparation and implementation of construction and operational TMP's including any escort or

vehicle over dimension requirements. It is intended that these plans will be further developed

during the detailed design and operational works application.




9. Developer Contributions

9.1 DTMR Contributions

As shown in Chapter 5 the level of impact associated with the generated Project traffic

(construction, commissioning and operations) is anticipated to be insignificant. As such, no further

assessment of contributions is required.

TTM understand that the Gregory Development Road / Moray Carmichael Road intersection is to

be upgraded by others and will incorporate higher order turn treatments than noted in this

report.

9.2 IRC Contributions

It is understood the proponent will be responsible for all costs associated with the upgrade and

maintenance of the new access route from Moray Carmichael Road to the Project.




10. Summary

The predicted Project traffic has been reviewed, with capacity and pavement assessments

undertaken, with the main assessment conclusions as summarised below.

10.1 Existing Traffic Review

The existing background traffic data has been reviewed, with existing peak hour and ESA values

calculated.

10.2 Project Traffic Generation and Distribution

TTM has undertaken a detailed estimate of the likely Project traffic generation and distribution,

including a review of the potential cumulative traffic impacts from potential projects in the area.

10.3 Project Traffic Impacts

A detailed assessment of the Project traffic impacts in accordance with the GARID guidelines has

established that the proposed Project will not have a significant or assessable impact on the SCR.

A minimum of BAR / BAL treatment should be provided at the Gregory Development Road /

Moray Carmichael Road intersection prior to the commencement of construction operations.

However, TTM understand that this intersection is planned to be provided with higher order

treatments as part of a separate application.

10.4 Traffic Management and Maintenance Plan

It is recommended for a TMP to be developed and implemented for the duration of the

construction activities, which should be in place prior to any Project construction activity.

10.5 Road Safety School Route, Pedestrian and Cyclist Review

TTM considers that there will be negligible school route, pedestrian or cyclist impacts associated

with the Project proposal, however, this should be further reviewed during the TMP process.

10.6 Developer Contributions

Due to the low traffic impact generated by the Project no monetary contributions are required.

10.7 Conclusion

Based on the assessment provided in this report, TTM are of the view that there are no traffic

planning or engineering reasons why the proposed Project should not proceed as planned.




Appendix A ABBREVIATION DEFINITIONS




Abbreviation Definitions:

AADT: Average Annual Daily Traffic

Austroads: The national association of road transport and traffic

CCMP: Carmichael Coal Mine Project

CG: Queensland Coordinator-General

CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd (CDM Smith)

DTMR: Department of Transport and Main Roads

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

ESA: Equivalent Standard Axles

GARID: DTMR's Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Developments

GBSDA: The Mining Services Precinct of the Galilee Basin State Development Area

HV: Heavy Vehicle

Kph: Kilometres per hour

LOS: Level of Service

MCU: Material Change of Use

MW: Megawatt

Project: Moray Power Project

Proponent: Moray Power Pty Ltd (Moray Power)

SCR: State Controlled Road Network

SEIS: Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement

Traffic Management Plan (TMP)

TC: Transport Corridor

TIA: Traffic Impact Assessment

TTM: TTM Consulting Pty Ltd (TTM)

veh/h: Vehicles per hour

vpd: Vehicles per day

Appendix D Traffic Impact Assessment - dlgrma.qld.gov.au · Moray Power Project . Traffic Impact...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix D Traffic Impact Assessment - dlgrma.qld.gov.au · Moray Power Project . Traffic Impact...