the point - durban · issue/revision issue 1 revision 1 revision 2 remarks draft final ... retail...

THE POINT - DURBAN

REVISED DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

June 2015

Document Control

Prepared by: Prepared for:

ILISO Consulting (Pty) Ltd Durban Point Development Company (DPDC)

11 Derby Place 9, Timeball Boulevard,

Derby Downs Office Park Point Waterfront,

Westville 4001 Durban

3629 Tel: (31) 332 7671

Contact: Seniel Pillay Contact: Bevarah Soban Baabu a/l Gangaraju

Tel: 031 266 2600 Tel: 031 332 7671

Fax: 031 2662616 Fax:

Cell: 079 507 0937 Cell:

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2

Remarks Draft Final

Date 2015-03-23 2015-06-19

Prepared by Danielle Oosthuizen /

Gordon Chetty

Danielle Oosthuizen /

Gordon Chetty

Contact 031 266 2600 031 266 2600

Signature

Checked by Seniel Pillay Seniel Pillay

Signature

Authorised by Colin Raman Colin Raman

Signature

Project number 600126 1500063

File reference 1500063-TIA

Report_Rev17_Final_201

50623

Table of Contents

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

1.1 History of The Point ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 2

3. THE STRATEGIC PLANNING APPROACH .......................................................................................... 3

3.1 Sectoral Approach ........................................................................................................................ 3

3.2 The Point Area (PA) ....................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 The Greater Point Area ............................................................................................................... 11

3.4 The City ................................................................................................................................ 13

4. DETAILED TRAFFIC EVALUATION................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Scenario Development ............................................................................................................... 15

4.1.1.1 Long Term Scenario .......................................................................................................... 17

4.1.2.1 Short Term Scenario ......................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Detailed analysis............................................................................................................................ 22

5. PARKING REQUIREMENT ............................................................................................................... 45

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 48

7. NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT (NMT) REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 49

8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 50

9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 52

APPENDIX A – LAND USE MIX SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 53

List of Figures Figure 1:Revised Development Proposal ................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2 : Sectoral Evaluation Approach ................................................................................................. 3

Figure 3: Point Area Land Holdings ......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4: Promenade Extension .............................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5: IRPTN Network Plan ................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 6: Original Screenline Capacity .................................................................................................... 9

Figure 7: Current Screenline Capacity ..................................................................................................... 9

Figure 8: Reclassified Screenline Capacity ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 9: Augmented Screenline Capacity ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 10: Transport Systems Capacity ................................................................................................. 13

Figure 11:Scenario Development .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 12: Long Term Link Volumes ...................................................................................................... 17

Figure 13: Long Term Intersection Volumes ......................................................................................... 18

Figure 14: Short Term Link Volumes .................................................................................................... 20

Figure 15 Short Term Intersection Volumes ........................................................................................ 21

Figure 16:Public Transport Routes ........................................................................................................ 48

Figure 17: Priority NMT Network Plan .................................................................................................. 49

List of Tables Table 1: SZ91 Land Use Split ................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Remainder Land Use Splits ........................................................................................................ 5

Table 3: Person Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 6

Table 4: Mixed Use and NMT Reduction Factors .................................................................................... 7

Table 5: Trip Modal Splits ....................................................................................................................... 8

Table 6: Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................................................................................ 9

Table 7: GPA Land Use and Trip Generation Characteristics ................................................................ 11

Table 8: Rutherford Screenline Capacity .............................................................................................. 12

Table 9: Combined Point and Greater Point Area Capacity Requirements .......................................... 12

Table 10: CBD Cordon Freeway Capacity .............................................................................................. 14

Table 11: Long Term Trip Generation ................................................................................................... 16

Table 12: Short Term Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 19

Table 13: Intersection 1 ........................................................................................................................ 22









Table 22: Intersection 10 ...................................................................................................................... 31













Table 35: Summary of Intersection Evaluation ..................................................................................... 44

Table 36: Proposed Change in Residential Classification ...................................................................... 45

Table 37: B1: Base Peak Parking Rates ................................................................................................. 45

Table 38 :B2: Peak Parking Rates after Adjustment ............................................................................. 46

Table 39: B3: Hourly Parking Accumulation by Percentage of Peak Hour ............................................ 47

Table 40: Public Transport Volumes ..................................................................................................... 48

The Point – Revised Development Framework Plan – Transportation Evaluation

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 History of The Point

The Durban Point Development was originally approved in early 2000, granting the developer, the

Durban Point Development Company (DPDC) approximately 303 000m2 of mixed-use

development rights, including residential, office, retail and entertainment facilities. A subsequent

scheme amendment in 2010 granted the developer additional rights of up to a maximum bulk of

575 000m2, subject to the payment of a Transport Development Contribution (TDC) in lieu of DPDC

having to provide an end state transportation solution to accommodate the traffic and

transportation solutions required to support the additional development rights.

A current review of the framework plan has identified a number of shortcomings in the existing

scheme, including inter alia that the Small Crafts Harbour was not considered viable, restricted

access to the beach, limitations of the existing road network configuration, restrictive design

controls and lack of integration with existing developments, viz Ushaka. Thus, in order to enhance

The Point development, a scheme amendment process commenced that sought to mitigate these

shortcomings and to thereby create a new more powerful vision for The Point that will attract

residents, workers and visitors alike. Critical to this new vision, is a proposed increase in bulk rights

to create a more dense and vibrant hub that anchors the southern end of the Point area.

This increase in proposed bulk rights has implications on the transportation systems of the City,

which is then the subject of this report.

1.2 Previous Studies

A number of studies have been conducted previously regarding The Point development and the

potential implications of this development on the transportation systems of the City. These

include inter alia :

• Africon Consulting – May 1998 - Traffic and Transport Appraisal to support the proposed

Point Waterfront Framework Plan

• Maxplan KZN – December 2000 - investigation of traffic and transportation issues related to

the Urban Framework Development Plan for the Durban Point Development Company

development area.

• ILISO Consulting – January 2002 - Updated the Traffic and Transportation Investigation of

the Point Precinct Urban Design Framework with particular emphasis on parking.

• Arup Africa – 2004 - Prepared a Traffic Impact Statement for the proposed development of

10 properties along Point Road south of Bell Street that do not fall within the DPDC

development area.

Due to the revised development scale, land-use mix and current vision and goals of the City in

terms of economic development, job creation, housing and revitalisation of the Inner City, of

which the Point is a critical component, it was concluded that a complete revision of the

transportation evaluations was required in order for The Point to align itself with the overall City

vision.


2

2. BACKGROUND

The revised development proposal is depicted in Figure 1 below. From a transportation perspective, the

major changes from the current plan include inter alia :

• Changes in the road network configuration to accommodate a loop road system

• An increase in bulk from the current approved bulk of 575 000m2 to 750 000m2

• A change in the land-use mix

• The extension of the Promenade from Ushaka to wrap around The Point development along the

Harbour entrance channel

Figure 1:Revised Development Proposal

The report has been structured in the following manner :

Section 1 provides the introduction and background to The Point Development

Section 2 summarises the key changes from a transportation perspective to the development plan

Section 3 details the strategic transportation approach to facilitating and accommodating The Point

Development

Section 4 details the traffic engineering evaluation and outcomes

Section 5 details the parking standards and requirements

Section 6 provides the public transport requirements

Section 7 provides the non-motorised transport (NMT) requirements

Section 8 summarises the findings of the evaluation process

Section 9 provides the conclusions of the evaluation process


3

3. THE STRATEGIC PLANNING APPROACH

3.1 Sectoral Approach

For a development of this magnitude, the study area is effectively the entire CBD cordon. For the

purposes of the evaluation, this study area was subdivided into three (3) sectors as depicted in Figure 2,

viz :

• The Point Area (PA), which is all land holding south of the Bell Street screenline, including the Durban

Point Development Company (DPDC) land (otherwise known as Special Zone 91 – SZ91), Ushaka

Marine World, land holding

south of Bell Street outside of

SZ91 and Port land south of

Bell Street.

• The Greater Point Area (GPA),

which is all land holding south

of the Rutherford/Bay Terrace

screenline – bounded by

Rutherford/Bay Terrace in the

north, Bell Street in the south,

the ocean to the east and

Shepstone Street in the west.

• The City, effectively the

Durban CBD cordon.

The Point is one of nine (9) districts in the Inner City (Urban Core), including inter alia the CBD, Warwick,

Victoria Embankment, Greater Kings Park and Beachfront. Each of these districts have tremendous

development potential, in terms of urban renewal/regeneration, densification and new developments.

Thus, due to the influence of these external factors outside of the Point Area that fall outside of the

influence of DPDC, the level of detail in the evaluation diminishes as one travels further afield. These

broader City requirements are deemed to be best evaluated as part of the current Inner City Local Area

Plan and Regeneration Plan.

Thus within the Point area, detailed traffic analysis was undertaken, analysing inter alia screenline

capacity, link capacity, intersection capacity, public transport requirements and parking and defining the

mitigation measures and responses to cater for the increase in bulk. In the Greater Point Area, the

analysis was based on the screenline capacity at the Rutherford/Bay Terrace screenline (which all

accesses to the Greater Point Area cross) as well as identifying potential measures for future capacity

enhancements across this cordon. At the CBD cordon, strategic and policy interventions and responses

were considered.

3.2 The Point Area (PA)

3.2.1 Land Holdings & Extent

The Point Area (PA) consists of the following land holdings (Figure 3) :

• The DPDC land holding (SZ91), which is the subject of this report and is proposed to be

expanded from the current approved bulk rights of 575 000m2 to approximately 750 000m2.

• The Ushaka land holding, which has an approved bulk of approximately 38 000m2 in addition

to a Marine Theme Park.

• The area outside SZ91, south of Bell Street, which has a potential bulk of approximately

155 000m2. This area is zoned General Business Central with an FAR of 8, which results in high

Figure 2 : Sectoral Evaluation Approach


4

potential development rights. However, the potential rights of 155 000m2 is based on a straight

line calculation, which is

somewhat simplistic as

the actual development

does get constrained by

existing developments

(e.g. Petrol Filling

Station), requirements

to preserve historic

building acades/heritage

issues, shadows and by

the parking

requirements. For the

purposes of this study, it

has been assumed that

approximately 50% of

these bulk rights will be

taken up in the long

term, ie approximately

77 000m2. In addition, an allowance has been made for the provision of space for boat clubs,

in the form of parking and recreational facilities.

• The Port area, which has been earmarked for the development of a Cruise Terminal, ancillary

offices related to Cruise Terminal operations and specialist retail. At his stage, the exact extent

and land uses have not been confirmed, and thus an extent of approximately 22 000m2 of

development bulk has been assumed.

3.2.2 Land Use Assumptions

The current development framework for SZ91 has proposed a revision of the land use splits

previously approved (Table 1), based on current market conditions and hence anticipated

demand. The resultant change in the land use splits result in a lowering of the trip rates (trips per

100m2) due to the lowering of the retail and entertainment components. In addition, the current

split results in a relatively more balanced inbound and outbound flow, thus maximising potential

road network capacity.

Table 1: SZ91 Land Use Split

Due to the actual development mix being reliant on inter alia market conditions, a sensitivity

analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of a varying land use mix on trip generation

characteristics (Annexure A). The results of this analysis indicate that a variation of up to 20% on

Land Use Original Land Use Split Revised Land Use Split

Residential 50% 47%

Holiday Home 16%

Office 25% 16%

Retail 20% 8%

Entertainment 5%

Hotel 13%

Figure 3: Point Area Land Holdings


5

the individual land use extent (within the allowable bulk of 750 000m2) results in a 5% variation in

trip generation characteristics for the worst case scenario, which, based on the available

screenline capacity in the long term, is deemed to be an acceptable tolerance.

For the remainder of the Point Area, including Ushaka, the area outside SZ91 and the Port area,

the following land use assumptions (Table 3) have been utilised, based on the existing use,

influence of SZ91 on these developments and existing rights/zoning.

Table 2: Remainder Land Use Splits

3.2.3 Trip Generation

The South African Trip Generation Rate (SATGR) Manual has been utilised to determine the trip

generation characteristics of the land parcels in the Point Area (Table 3). However, due to lack of

information for certain land uses, viz Holiday Homes and Theme Parks, the Committee of

Transport Officials (COTO) – TMH 17 Manual has been utilised to supplement the SATGR Manual.

The trip rates are largely vehicle trips rates, and thus for the purposes of applying a public

transport modal split, the vehicle trips rates have been converted to person trips rates utilising

typical vehicle occupancy rates.

Land Use Ushaka Area Outside SZ91 Port

Residential 40%

Holiday Home 15%

Office 15% 30%

Retail 25% 5%

Entertainment

Hotel 10%

Service Industry 60%

Theme Park 45000m2

Cruise Terminal/Retail 100%


6

Table 3: Person Trip Generation

Notes :

1. Conversion from bulk to GLA based on a reduction factor of between 10% to 15% based on service areas (non

leasable areas)

2. Residential trip rate based on average between high and medium income units

3. Resiential units based on average 100m2 per unit

4. Retail development assumed to be consolidated or adjacent, and thus function as single destination “open-air

mall” type development

5. Theme Park trip rate per Ha

6. Cruise Terminal and retail component based on consolidated trip rate

7. PM peak trip generation deemed to be most critical, as per Vela VKE/MMC Report

3.2.4 Trip Rate Adjustments

The Point Development is a large mixed use development, consisting of residential, office,

commercial/retail and hotel land uses. That being the case, it can be reasonably be expected that

a proportion of the trips generated will be internal to the development (LIVE-WORK-PLAY within

the development), undertaken by means of non-motorised transport (NMT) due to the

compactness of the development. Further, it is also expected that a proportion of trips will also

be multi-purpose trips (WORK-SHOP-HOME) due to the close proximity of various activities. For

the purposes of estimating the impact of this development mix on trip making, the COTO Manual

was utilised, which provides estimates for trip reduction factors based on various land-use

categories.

Entity

Bulk

Use Ratio

GLA Trip

Rate Occupancy

Person

Trip

Rate Person

Trips

m2 m2

Per

unit/100

m2

Per 100

m2

DPDC 750 000

Residential 47% 320455 1.3 1.0 1.3 4 166

Holiday Homes 16% 109091 0.25 2.0 0.5 545

Office 16% 104348 4.0 1.5 4.0 4 174

Retail 8% 52174 5.59 2.0 11.18 5 831

Hotel 13% 84783 0.7 1.0 0.7 848

TOTAL 15 564

OUTSIDE

SZ91 77 613

Residential 40% 28 223 1.3 1.0 1.3 367

Holiday Homes 15% 10 584 0.25 2.0 0.5 53

Office 30% 20 247 4.0 1.5 4.0 810

Retail 5% 3 374 14.18 2.0 28.36 957

Hotel 10% 6 749 0.7 1.0 0.7 67

Boat Clubs 1 087 9.5 2.0 19.0 207

TOTAL 2 461

USHAKA 38 000

Retail 25% 8 261 10.46 2.0 20.91 1 728

Office 15% 4 957 4.0 1.5 4.0 198

Service Industry 60% 19 826 0.9 1.0 0.9 178

Theme Park 45 000 10 4.0 40.0 180

TOTAL 2 284

CRUISE

TERMINAL 22170

Cruise

Terminal/Retail 100% 19 278 5.05 2 10.11 1 949

TOTAL 22 259


7

In addition, a key component of the development

is the extension of the Promenade, from where it

currently ends at Ushaka to the harbour entrance

channel and around to the proposed Cruise

Terminal facility (Figure 4). This is further

expected to impact on external trips, where a

proportion of trips from areas external to the

Point Area (Greater Point Area and Beachfront)

are expected to utilise the Promenade by means

of NMT to access the Point development. For the

purposes of this study, this impact has been

limited exclusively to the retail trips, where an

estimated 10% are expected to utilise this facility.

The proposed reduction factors for mixed use developments (COTO) as well as NMT are depicted

in Table 4, and the overall reduction has been based on a combination reduction factor (to limit

the multiplier effect) as per COTO.

Table 4: Mixed Use and NMT Reduction Factors

3.2.5 Modal Split

The eThekwini Municipality is

currently in the process of rolling

out its Integrated Rapid Public

Transport Network program

(Figure 5), incorporating the

provision and upgrading of both

rail and road-based public

transport services across the

Municipality to create a ‘’WALL

TO WALL” high class public

transport system. The Durban

CBD, incorporating the Point

Area, is a key component of this

plan, being a focal point (Hub) in

this plan. The CBD, and hence the

Point development, is reliant on

this plan to stimulate and

promote growth and

development, and hence it is

expected that public transport

will play a significant role in

catering to the needs of the Point

Land Use

Mixed Use

Reduction

Factor

NMT

Reduction

Factor

Residential 15%

Holiday Home 10%

Office 20%

Retail 10% 10%

Hotel 20%

Service Industry 0%

Theme Park 0%

Cruise

Terminal/Retail 10%

Figure 4: Promenade Extension

Figure 5: IRPTN Network Plan


8

Development in the future. The Integrated Transport Plan (ITP), based on the interventions of the

IRPTN has targeted an overall public transport:private transport modal split of 55:45 in favour of

public transport.

In addition, and based on the previous development approval of 575 000m2, other means of public

transport in the form of Park and Ride facilities, potentially play a key role in fulfilling the public

transport requirements of the Point Area, particularly for the recreational and commercial/retail

land uses.

Considering the current public transport modal split, the 2008 eThekwini Household Travel Survey

(HTS), indicated a public transport:private transport modal split of 55:45 for the Durban CBD East

(Sector 2). This area is effectively the Beachfront area, which can be considered to be comparative

to the current Point Development in terms of its land use mix.

Thus, for the purposes of this study, a similar modal split modal split of approximately 55:45 was

adopted for the Point Development, resulting in the trip characteristics as depicted in Table 5.

Table 5: Trip Modal Splits

3.2.6 Point Area Vehicle Trip Generation

The resultant vehicle trip characteristics of the Point Development are depicted in Table 6,

converting the person trip values from Table 5 into vehicle trips utilising occupancy factors as

detailed in Section 3.2.3. It is anticipated that the full Point Development as well as the

redevelopment of properties south of Bell Street will generate approximately 5900 vehicle trips

during the afternoon peak hour with a directional split of approximately 51%-49% in favour of the

inbound movement.

Entity Use

Total

Person

Trips

Internal

Trips

Public

Transport

Trips

Private

Vehicle

Trips

DPDC

Residential 4166 625 1948 1593

Holiday Homes 545 55 270 221

Office 4174 835 1837 1503

Retail 5831 1108 2598 2126

Hotel 848 170 373 305

TOTAL 15564 2792 7025 5748

OUTSIDE SZ91

Residential 367 55 172 140

Holiday Homes 53 5 26 21

Office 810 162 356 292

Retail 957 182 426 349

Hotel 67 13 30 24

Boat Clubs 207 21 102 84

TOTAL 2 461 438 1112 910

USHAKA

Retail 1 728 328 770 630

Office 198 40 87 71

Service Industry 178 0 98 80

Theme Park 180 0 99 81

TOTAL 2 284 368 1054 862

CRUISE

TERMINAL

Cruise

Terminal/Retail 1 949 376 866 708

TOTAL 22 259 3974 10 057 8228


9

Table 6: Vehicle Trip Generation

3.2.7 Screenline Capacity Evaluation

Bell Street forms a gateway (screenline) into the Point Area, across which all roads have to cross

to gain access into the Point Area. Thus the capacity across this screenline is critical to determining

the development potential from a transportation perspective. The following sections detail the

screenline capacity based on the initial transportation evaluation as well as the revisions that are

proposed based on prevailing thinking and circumstances.

3.2.7.1 Original Screenline Capacity

The original screenline capacity was based solely

on the capacity of Mahatma Gandhi and

Shepstone Streets across the Bell Street

screenline. As can be seen from Figure 6, this

indicated that SZ91 can be developed up to a

maximum of 303 000m2 (together with other

developments south of Bell Street) based on the

available road network capacity of

approximately 3000 veh/h.

Figure 6: Original Screenline Capacity

3.2.7.2 Current Screenline Capacity

The current road network configuration also

allows for Albert Terrace to cross the Bell Street

screenline, thus providing additional capacity

across this screenline. The total capacity

available is thus 3600 veh/h, based on Albert

Terrace being classified as a Class 5 road,

increasing the development yield beyond the

original 303 000m2 within SZ91 (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Current Screenline Capacity

Entity

Public

Transport

Trips

Private

Vehicle

Trips

Total Trips

(PCE) Inbound Outbound

DPDC 81 4074 4235 2270 1965

OUTSIDE SZ91 13 586 612 296 316

USHAKA 12 463 487 213 274

CRUISE TERMINAL 10 386 405 170 236

TOTAL 116 5508 5739 2949 2791


10

3.2.7.3 Impact of Road Reclassification on Screenline Capacity

The current road network classification of streets

south of Bell Street do not reflect a hierarchical

network of routes, with all streets classified as Class

5 apart from Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone which is

classified as Class 4. Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone is

classified as a Class 3 north of Bell Street, and thus

it is proposed that this classification continue south

of Bell Street, as in terms of the current

development framework, it will perform a similar

function on either side of Bell.

It is further proposed that Albert Terrace, Browns

Road, Camperdown Road and Wellington/Escombe

Terrace be reclassified from a Class 5 to a Class 4

road due to it proposed to function as a public

transport corridor as well as serving as access

routes for freight and service vehicles. It is anticipated that minor geometric improvements will

have to be implemented along these routes in order to facilitate the reclassification and

functioning thereof.

This proposed reclassification of in particular Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone and Albert Terrace will

result in additional capacity of approximately 1000 veh/h across this screenline, thus increasing

the development yield further (Figure 8).

3.2.7.4 Impact of Additional Road Capacity on Screenline Capacity

In order to achieve the proposed bulk of

750 000m2 within SZ91 as well as support the

development of other land holdings south of Bell

Street, additional capacity across the screenline is

required in the form of a new link or additional

lanes on the existing routes. The latter option is

not seen to be a viable option as current land

parcels and buildings, largely historic, are seen to

preclude widening of existing routes. The former

option, was considered in the initial development

stages, in the form of the Prince Street Extension.

However, due to land issues, particularly with

regard to the existing education institution

(Addington Primary School), this was not taken

forward. However, in light of the current

development proposals, the full development

potential of SZ91 (750 000m2) will not be realised without a new link, and thus it is deemed

imperative that this link (in the form of Prince Street extension or otherwise) be resurrected and

investigated in detail. The potential of this new link is demonstrated in Figure 9, whereby the

capacity across the Bell Street screenline is increased substantially, thus potentially catering for

the full SZ91 development as well as other land holdings south of Bell Street.

3.2.7.5 Summary of Bell Screenline Capacity Evaluation

The following conclusions can be drawn from the screenline capacity evaluation :

• The full development potential of SZ91, together with other land holdings south of Bell Street

can be realised subject to the following :

� The reclassification of Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone Streets and Albert Terrace to Class 3

and Class 4 road respectively.

Figure 8: Reclassified Screenline Capacity

Figure 9: Augmented Screenline Capacity


11

� The provision of an additional Class 4 link across the Bell Street screenline, in the form of

Prince Street or otherwise.

• The reclassification of Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone Streets and Albert Terrace to Class 3 and

Class 4 road respectively potentially allows for SZ91 to be developed beyond the current

approved 575 000m2, together with other associated development south of Bell Street. The

extent of the additional development is dealt with further in Section 4.

3.3 The Greater Point Area

3.3.1 Land Holding and Extent

The Greater Point Area is bounded by Rutherford Street / Bay Terrace in the north, Bell Street in

the south, the ocean in the east and Shepstone Road in the west. The Vela VKE/MMC report, Point

Precinct Transportation Review, 2005, undertaken for the eThekwini Transport Authority,

identified that there are approximately 193 individual properties in the Point Precinct area

(including the 10 properties along Point Road south of Bell Street) with a combined property area

of 315 000m². Based on the zoning and permissible floor areas, this area had a development

potential of approximately 1 950 000m2 of bulk. The report further assumed that potentially 50%

of this bulk could be developed in the foreseeable future, presumably due to constraints from

existing developments, historic buildings, height restrictions, shadow effects and parking

requirements. In addition, it was further assumed that approximately 20% of all trips would be

internal to the zone.

3.3.2 Land Use and Trip Generation

In the absence of any confirmed development mix, this report assumes that the development mix

would follow closely to that proposed for SZ91 and that all the assumptions for SZ91 would apply,

in terms of trip rates, adjustment factors and modal splits. Based on this, the resultant

development vehicle trip generation characteristics are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: GPA Land Use and Trip Generation Characteristics

Notes :

1. Land holding south of Bell Street excluded as included in Point Area calculations

2. 50% of total bulk utilised, as per Vela VKE/MMC report

3. 20% trip reduction across screenline due to internal trips, as per Vela VKE/MMC report

3.3.3 Rutherford Screenline Capacity Evaluation

The accessibility of the Greater Point Area (GPA) as well as the Point Area (PA) is restricted by the

capacity across the Rutherford/Bay Terrace screenline. The capacity across this screenline is

depicted in Table 8.

Land Use

Public

Transport

Trips

Private

Vehicle

Trips

Total Trips

(PCE) Inbound Outbound

Residential 28 1 987 2 042 1 532 511

Holiday Homes 4 138 145 58 87

Office 26 1 249 1 301 325 976

Retail 35 1 229 1 298 645 649

Hotel 5 381 391 275 176

TOTAL 98 4 983 5 179 2 780 2 399


12

Table 8: Rutherford Screenline Capacity

Assuming the Point Area develops fully and the Greater Point Area remains constant (as is), the

capacity of the Rutherford screenline is not exceeded. However, assuming both the Point Area as

well as the Greater Point Area develop to its full potential, the resultant trip characteristics across

the Rutherford/Bay Terrace screenline is depicted in Table 9. The results indicate that the potential

trips exceed the screenline capacity by some 17%. This would indicate that additional capacity

would have to be provided across this screenline to cater for the development potential, or

alternatively the development potential of the Greater Point area would have to be capped at

approximately 33% of its allowable bulk rights (Vela VKE/MMC indicated 50% was the realistic

potential development).

Table 9: Combined Point and Greater Point Area Capacity Requirements

3.3.4 Potential Capacity Enhancement Measures

3.3.4.1 Road Capacity Enhancements

The opportunity to provide additional road capacity along existing links is deemed to be limited,

due to existing roads being developed to the maximum reasonable widths (considering practical

issues and road servitudes). New links are also limited, apart from the potential of Quayside Road,

within the Port. Should the Port activities in the Point be relocated, this opens up a vast track of

land for redevelopment, and potentially includes an additional link across the Rutherford/Bay

Terrace screenline (or as extended), providing between 3160 veh/h to 4740 veh/h additional

capacity (dependent of road configuration). This has the potential to free up a further 800 000m2

of potential bulk in the broader area.

3.3.4.2 High Capacity Public Transport System

The provision of a high capacity public transport system, in the form of BRT, LRT or Metro services,

has tremendous potential to increase screenline capacity (Figure10). By way of an example, the

existing person capacity across the Rutherford screenline is approximately 7000 persons/h per

direction (assumming occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle.).

Road Lanes Class Capacity Inbound Outbound

Shepstone 4 3 3 160 3160

Mahatma Gandhi 4 3 3 160 3160

Prince 2 4 1 500 750 750

Erskine 2 4 1 500 750 750

TOTAL 12 9 320 4 660 4 660

Area Total Trips Inbound Outbound

Existing Traffic (excl

Point Area) 1 845 781 1 064

Point Area 5 739 2 949 2 791

Greater Point Area 5 179 2 780 2 399

TOTAL 10 918 5 729 5 190

Capacity 9 320 4 660 4 660


13

The provision of an LRT system across

this screenline potentially provides

additional capacity of between 6000

and 12000 persons per hour per

direction (effectively doubling or

trebling the screenline capacity), and

thus substantially increasing the

potential developable bulk.

3.3.5 Summary of Rutherford Screenline Capacity Evaluation

The following conclusions can be drawn from the Rutherford screenline capacity evaluation :

• The full development of the Point Area (PA) and the existing traffic emanating from the

Greater Point Area (GPA) does not exceed the Rutherford screenline capacity

• The full development of the Point Area (PA) as well as the full development of the Greater

Point Area (GPA) exceeds the Rutherford screenline capacity. The screenline capacity

constraint effectively limits development of the Greater Point Area (GPA) to approximately

33% of its full potential of approximately 1 800 000m2 bulk (excluding areas south of Bell

Street).

• Additional capacity across the Rutherford screenline can be provided by potentially utilising

Quayside Road, should Port activities be relocated out of the Point area.

• Further additional capacity can be provided across the screenline by means of high capacity

public transport systems, in the form of BRT, LRT or Metro services.

3.4 The City

The Point is one of nine (9) districts in the Inner City (Urban Core), including inter alia the CBD,

Warwick, Victoria Embankment, Greater Kings Park and Beachfront. Each of these districts have

tremendous development potential, in terms of urban renewal/regeneration, densification and

new developments. Thus, due to the influence of these external factors outside of the Point Area

that fall outside of the influence of DPDC, the broader City requirements are deemed to be best

evaluated as part of the current Inner City Local Area and Regeneration Plan. Notwithstanding

this, The Point is an integral part of the Inner City and the increased development within The Point

is seen to be in direct support of several of the key strategic planning documents of the City with

regard to Inner City revitalisation, viz :

• The City’s IDP has identified the regeneration of the Inner City as a strategic focus area,

with the revitalisation of the Inner City and Point resulting in enhanced job opportunities.

• The SDF identifies the need for a compact City with a strong Urban Core.

• The ITP’s population and employment forecasts for the City allude to the need for

increased housing and job creation.

From a transport context, the ITP goals are to promote public transport over private transport and

to integrate land-use and transport development. The focus areas of the ITP include Travel

Demand Management (TDM) and the IRPTN Program. Further, the ITP promotes development in

areas where accessibility and mobility can be effectively met and densification at public transport

nodes and corridors.

The Point development, including the proposed increased bulk (and densification) is thus in

alignment with all these strategic documents and is seen to potentially be a catalyst to stimulate

further development in other parts of the Inner City.

Figure 10: Transport Systems Capacity


14

From a transport capacity perspective, the following initiatives are seen to provide additional

capacity across the CBD cordon :

• The IRPTN, being a “wall-to-wall” system of rail and road based public transport services

is seen to add significant capacity into the CBD. Apart from road based BRT services, the

upgrades by PRASA to its rail infrastructure also has a significant impact

• The promotion of Inner City housing and the creation of fully mixed-use development

within the Inner City is also seen to reduce demand across the CBD cordon

• The potential for Park and Ride facilities outside the CBD cordon would also reduce

demand across the cordon

• The potential for a rail system that links King Shaka Airport with the CBD (via Umhlanga)

has huge potential from both a tourist perspective as well as the general commuter

In addition, all around the world, big City’s are faced with transportation problems, in particular

traffic congestion. By way of an analogy, a small town typically has a peak period of less than one

hour due to limited traffic volumes. A medium sized City would have a peak period of about an

hour whilst a big City would have a peak period of in excess of one hour, stretching to two and

possibly three hours. This situation has come about as a result of changing travel patterns where

commuters have more flexible working hours and are able to choose travel times with more

freedom. Thus, if Durban is to grow and develop to keep pace with the needs of its people, the

traditional planning approach of evaluating traffic over a one hour peak has to change. This is

illustrated by the potential road network capacity available on the major freeways providing

access into and out of the CBD (Table 10). The figures indicate that whilst there is an overall 11%

spare capacity available on the road network during the one hour peak period (largely due to

directional split inefficiencies – operating at capacity in the peak direction) there is potentially 18%

spare capacity during the two hour peak period and 23% during the three hour peak period. Thus

if the existing road network is utilised to its full potential, significant growth can be accommodated

within the Inner City without substantial investment in road infrastructure. These funds can be

better utilised by investing in public transport infrastructure and services and non-motorised

transport (NMT) facilities.

Table 10: CBD Cordon Freeway Capacity

Route Description Total

1 hour 2 hours 3 hours

M4(N)

Volume 6368 11831 16639

Capacity 7200 14400 21600

Spare Capacity 832 2569 4961

Spare Capacity % 11.6% 17.8% 23.0%

M4(S)

Volume 8060 14795 20187

Capacity 10800 21600 32400


Spare Capacity % 25.4% 31.5% 37.7%

N3(W)

Volume 11078 20784 29409

Capacity 10800 21600 32400

Spare Capacity -278 816 2991

Spare Capacity % -2.6% 3.8% 9.2%

TOTAL

Volume 25506 47410 66235

Capacity 28800 57600 86400


Spare Capacity % 11.4% 17.7% 23.3%


15

4. DETAILED TRAFFIC EVALUATION

Based on the trip generation characteristics of the development determined in the preceding section, a

detailed traffic analysis of the road network was undertaken based on the following principles :

• A detailed trip distribution process was not necessary as, being a cul-de-sac, all trips effectively

originate/destined to the north of the development

• Traffic assignment was based on available spare capacity on key links and on logical routing

• Link volumes were constrained to link capacities based on the proposed road classification system

• Intersection analysis was conducted on key intersections within the development.

4.1 Scenario Development

The Bell Street screenline capacity evaluation confirmed that the capacity across this screenline dictated

the development potential of the area to the south of it. Thus two (2) scenarios arise, viz :

• A scenario based on the existing screenline capacity, with access/agress via Mahatma Gandhi,

Shepstone and Albert Terrace

• A scenario based on an augmented screenline capacity, based on the provision of an additional link

across this screenline in the form of Prince Street extension or equivalent

Due to the potential time delays in confirmation of the Prince Street extension or equivalent link, the

two (2) scenarios evolved as follows :

• Long Term Scenario : This

scenario considered the full

development potential of

SZ91, together with other

properties south of Bell Street

that fell outside of SZ91. In

addition, for this scenario, it

was assumed that the Prince

Street extension would be in

place.

• Short Term Scenario : This

scenario considered a

development scenario that

was limited to the existing

screenline capacity based on

the existing road network

configuration (Figure 11).

4.1.1 Long Term Scenario

The Long Term scenario considered SZ91 to its full potential of 750 000m2, Ushaka based on its

current development bulk of 38 000m2 (the Marine Park is excluded from the bulk total but

included in the trip total), the Cruise terminal and associated retail based on an assumed bulk of

22 000m2 and the area outside of SZ91 (including the boat clubs) based on a take up of 50% of its

potential rights due to limitations on redevelopment as a result of existing developments (e.g.

Petrol Filling Station), requirements to preserve historic building facades/heritage issues,

shadows and by the parking requirements. The resultant trip characteristics shown in Table 11

are based on the process followed in the preceding section.

Figure 11:Scenario Development


16

Table 11: Long Term Trip Generation

Entity Bulk Total Trips

Generated Inbound Outbound

SZ91 750 000 4 235 2 270 1 965

Ushaka 38 000 487 213 274

Cruise Terminal 22 000 405 170 236

Areas outside SZ91 77 613 612 296 316

TOTAL 5 739 2 949 2 791


17

4.1.1.1 Long Term Scenario

Figure 12: Long Term Link Volumes


18

Figure 13: Long Term Intersection Volumes


19

4.1.2 Short Term Scenario

The Short Term scenario limited the total development potential south of Bell Street to the

available capacity across the screenline. It was assumed that SZ91 will only develop 43% of its

additional bulk up to a maximum of 650 000m2, Ushaka was based on its current development

bulk of 38 000m2 (the Marine Park is excluded from the bulk total but included in the trip total),

the Cruise terminal and associated retail based on an assumed 67% of its total bulk up to a

maximum of 10 700m2 and the area outside of SZ91 based on an assumed 35% of its assumed full

long term potential, up to a maximum of 27 200 m2. The resultant trip characteristics shown in

Table 12 are based on the process followed in the preceding section.

Table 12: Short Term Trip Generation

The trip assignment, intersection volumes and traffic analysis for both the Long Term and Short

Term scenarios are presented and discussed in the following sections.

Entity Bulk Total Trips

Generated Inbound Outbound

SZ91 650 000 3 577 1 859 1 718

Ushaka 38 000 487 213 274

Cruise Terminal 14 700 274 137 137

Areas outside SZ91 27 200 243 212 122

TOTAL 730 000 4 581 2 330 2 252


20

4.1.2.14.1.2.14.1.2.14.1.2.1 Short Term SShort Term SShort Term SShort Term Scenariocenariocenariocenario

Figure 14: Short Term Link Volumes


21

Figure 15 Short Term Intersection Volumes


22

4.2 Detailed analysis

Table 13: Intersection 1

Intersection 1 Bay Terrace/Shepstone Short Term

Existing intersection description:

Bay Terrace: Runs N-S one way, 4 lanes single carriage

Shepstone: Runs E-W one way, 5 lanes single carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.9

v/c 0.420

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 31.7

v/c 0.416

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 17.0

v/c 0.420

Appraisal: The intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (deemed D or better)

Long Term Existing intersection description:



Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.9

v/c 0.519

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 36.2

v/c 0.516

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 17.5

v/c 0.519



23


Intersection 2 Mahatma Gandhi/Bay Terrace Short Term


Rutherford/Bay Terrace: Runs N-S one way, 3 lanes single carriage

Mahatma Gandhi: Runs W-E one way, 5 lanes single carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 26.6

v/c 0.461

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 15.2

v/c 0.460

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 17.9

v/c 0.461




Mahatma Gandhi: Runs W-E one way, 5 lanes single carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 36.6

v/c 0.527

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.7

v/c 0.528

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.1

v/c 0.528



24


Intersection 3 Rutherford/Prince Short Term


Rutherford: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage northern leg, 3 lanes single carriage southern leg

Prince: Runs E-W, 3 lanes dual carriage approach, single lane exit on eastern leg and double lane exit on

western leg

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.5

v/c 0.719

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 39.9

v/c 0.714

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 11.4

v/c 0.414

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 20.0

v/c 0.719



Rutherford: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage northern leg, 3 lanes single carriage southern leg

Prince: Runs E-W, 3 lanes dual carriage approach, single lane exit on eastern leg and double lane exit on

western leg

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 15.8

v/c 0.851

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 50.4

v/c 0.836

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 12.0

v/c 0.505

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 22.0

v/c 0.851



25


Intersection 4 Rutherford/OR Thambo/Erskine Short Term


Rutherford: Runs N-S, single lanes dual carriage

Erskine/OR Thambo: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS A

Delay (s) 4.5

v/c 0.105

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.5

v/c 0.406

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.6

v/c 0.405

Intersection

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.4

v/c 0.406



Rutherford: Runs N-S, single lanes dual carriage

Erskine/OR Thambo: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS A

Delay (s) 5.0

v/c 0.133

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.4

v/c 0.476

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.9

v/c 0.486

Intersection

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.4

v/c 0.486



26


Intersection 5 Bell/Shepstone Short Term


Bell: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage northern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.1

v/c 0.658

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 32.7

v/c 0.650

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 22.3

v/c 0.658



Bell: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage northern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 18.0

v/c 0.584

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 30.4

v/c 0.583

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 22.2

v/c 0.584



27


Intersection 6 Bell/Mahatma Gandhi Short Term


Bell: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage

Mahatma Gandhi: Runs E-W one way, 4 lanes single carriage on western leg, double lane on eastern leg

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 33.7

v/c 0.587

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 36.8

v/c 0.708

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 17.5

v/c 0.728

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.4

v/c 0.728


Long Term Upgraded intersection description:


Mahatma Gandhi: Runs E-W one way, 5 lanes single carriage on western leg, 3 lanes on eastern leg

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.8

v/c 0.147

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 31.2

v/c 0.591

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 14.4

v/c 0.589

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 18.7

v/c 0.591



28


Intersection 7 Bell/Albert Terrace Short Term



Albert: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.206

East

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.1

v/c 0.434

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.5

v/c 0.448

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.6

v/c 0.448



Bell: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage. Continuous median, forcing Left in Left out system


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.183

East

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.1

v/c 0.378

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.0

v/c 0.350

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.3

v/c 0.378



29


Intersection 8 Bell/Prince Short Term


Bell: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Prince: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.5

v/c 0.561

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.7

v/c 0.006

North

LOS B

Delay (s) 12.4

v/c 0.572

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 12.8

v/c 0.596

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.8

v/c 0.596



Bell: Runs N-S, dual lane dual carriage

Prince: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage, right turn lanes on approaches

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 33.1

v/c 0.776

East

LOS D

Delay (s) 45.2

v/c 0.786

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 28.4

v/c 0.707

West

LOS D

Delay (s) 45.1

v/c 0.779

Intersection

LOS D

Delay (s) 38.4

v/c 0.786



30


Intersection 9 Anson/Albert Terrace Short Term


Anson: Runs N-S, double lanes single carriage southern leg, double lanes dual carriage northern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.1

v/c 0.001

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.6

v/c 0.538

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.2

v/c 0.014

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 11.0

v/c 0.569

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 10.7

v/c 0.569





Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.2

v/c 0.096

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 19.1

v/c 0.712

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.2

v/c 0.010

West

LOS C

Delay (s) 18.2

v/c 0.688

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 14.8

v/c 0.712



31


Intersection 10 Southampton/Mahatma Gandhi Short Term


Southampton: Runs N-S, 4 lanes single carriage northern leg, single lane dual carriage southern leg

Mahatma Gandhi: Runs E-W, double lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS D

Delay (s) 44.4

v/c 0.017

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.6

v/c 0.504

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 48.7

v/c 0.573

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 13.1

v/c 0.638

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 15.3

v/c 0.638



Southampton: Runs N-S, 4 lanes single carriage northern leg, single lane dual carriage southern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 26.0

v/c 0.009

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 11.5

v/c 0.466

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 39.0

v/c 0.619

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 14.3

v/c 0.620

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.7

v/c 0.620



32


Intersection 11 Southampton/Albert Short Term


Southampton: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage northern leg, double lanes single carriage southern leg

Albert: Runs W-E, double lane single carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS D

Delay (s) 48.1

v/c 0.943

North

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.7

v/c 0.283

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 17.0

v/c 0.733

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 28.5

v/c 0.733



Southampton: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage northern leg, double lanes single carriage southern leg

Albert: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage, additional turning lane on eastern leg

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 18.8

v/c 0.754

North

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.6

v/c 0.339

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 21.1

v/c 0.790

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.9

v/c 0.790



33


Intersection 12 Camperdown/Mahatma Gandhi Short Term


Camperdown: Runs N-S, 3 lanes dual carriage, 1 lane going north, 2 lanes going south

Mahatma Gandhi: Runs E-W, dual lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 33.7

v/c 0.134

North

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.2

v/c 0.397

West

LOS D

Delay (s) 48.5

v/c 0.648

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 13.3

v/c 0.677



Camperdown: Runs N-S, 3 lanes dual carriage, 1 lane going north, 2 lanes going south

Mahatma Gandhi: Runs E-W, dual lane dual carriage

Approach Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS D

Delay (s) 35.8

v/c 0.246

North

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.3

v/c 0.303

West

LOS D

Delay (s) 49.2

v/c 0.595

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.1

v/c 0.594



34


Intersection 13 Camperdown/Albert Terrace Short Term


Camperdown: Runs N-S, single lanes dual carriage


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.0

v/c 0.588

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 21.5

v/c 0.553

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 33.0

v/c 0.700

West

LOS C

Delay (s) 26.0

v/c 0.709

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.7

v/c 0.709



Camperdown: Runs N-S, single lanes dual carriage


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.9

v/c 0.641

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 29.2

v/c 0.702

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 33.2

v/c 0.713

West

LOS C

Delay (s) 22.8

v/c 0.559

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 27.1

v/c 0.713



35


Intersection 14 Camperdown/Ballard Short Term


Camperdown: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Ballard: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.8

v/c 0.155

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.7

v/c 0.024

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.124

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.0

v/c 0.124



Camperdown: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Ballard: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage. New link to Prince, single lane dual carriage with right turning

lane.

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.8

v/c 0.161

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 21.5

v/c 0.672

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.9

v/c 0.134

West

LOS C

Delay (s) 23.7

v/c 0.748

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 16.3

v/c 0.748



36


Intersection 15 Browns/Mahatma Gandhi Short Term


Browns: Runs N-S, 3 lanes dual carriage northern leg, 1 lane going north, 2 lanes going south, single lane

dual carriage southern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 30.3

v/c 0.119

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.5

v/c 0.257

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 38.6

v/c 0.490

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.2

v/c 0.483

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 14.3

v/c 0.490



Browns: Runs N-S, 3 lanes dual carriage northern leg, 1 lane going north, 2 lanes going south, single lane

dual carriage southern leg


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 32.1

v/c 0.212

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.9

v/c 0.197

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 37.9

v/c 0.368

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.8

v/c 0.378

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 12.9

v/c 0.378



37


Intersection 16 Browns/Albert Terrace Short Term


Browns: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage northern leg, 3 lanes dual carriage northern leg, 1 lane going

north, 2 lanes going south


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.4

v/c 0.393

East

LOS C

Delay (s) 24.7

v/c 0.455

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 26.4

v/c 0.727

West

LOS C

Delay (s) 32.1

v/c 0.716

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.7

v/c 0.727



Browns: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage northern leg, 3 lanes dual carriage northern leg, 1 lane going

north, 2 lanes going south


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS C

Delay (s) 21.1

v/c 0.280

East

LOS B

Delay (s) 16.5

v/c 0.341

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 25.0

v/c 0.470

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 18.6

v/c 0.475

Intersection

LOS B

Delay (s) 19.8

v/c 0.475



38


Intersection 17 Browns/Wellington/Escombe Short Term


Browns: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Wellington/Escombe: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.9

v/c 0.284

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.2

v/c 0.019

North

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.8

v/c 0.243

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.6

v/c 0.011

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 7.8

v/c 0.284




Wellington/Escombe: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.4

v/c 0.167

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.3

v/c 0.151

North

LOS B

Delay (s) 10.1

v/c 0.371

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 7.6

v/c 0.266

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 6.8

v/c 0.371



39


Intersection 18 Browns/Ushaka parking Short Term



Ushaka parking: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.2

v/c 0.293

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.1

v/c 0.174

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.3

v/c 0.002

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 5.8

v/c 0.136

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 5.7

v/c 0.293





Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.4

v/c 0.313

East

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.2

v/c 0.181

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.3

v/c 0.002

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 6.0

v/c 0.140

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 5.8

v/c 0.313



40


Intersection 19 Signal/Mahatma Gandhi Short Term


Signal: Runs N-S, 3 lanes dual carriage, 1 lane going north, 2 lanes going south


Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 21.0

v/c 0.698

North

LOS D

Delay (s) 32.9

v/c 0.431

West

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 17.5

v/c 0.697

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 20.1

v/c 0.698





Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

East

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.7

v/c 0.070

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 18.3

v/c 0.235

West

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.8

v/c 0.096

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 3.1

v/c 0.235



41


Intersection 20 Signal/Albert Terrace Short Term




Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.056

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.7

v/c 0.208

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.4

v/c 0.239

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.7

v/c 0.239





Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.051

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 2.6

v/c 0.182

West

LOS A

Delay (s) 8.2

v/c 0.220

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.6

v/c 0.220



42


Intersection 21 Signal/Escombe Short Term


Signal: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Escombe: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.220

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 3.0

v/c 0.201

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 14.8

v/c 0.049

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 1.7

v/c 0.220



Signal: Runs N-S, single lane dual carriage

Escombe: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 0.0

v/c 0.213

North

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.7

v/c 0.358

West

LOS B

Delay (s) 12.3

v/c 0.338

Intersection

LOS N/A

Delay (s) 4.8

v/c 0.358



43


Intersection 22 Mahatma Gandhi/Signal Short Term


Mahatma Gandhi: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage

Signal: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS B

Delay (s) 11.5

v/c 0.221

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 21.3

v/c 0.745

West

LOS D

Delay (s) 38.1

v/c 0.744

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 23.3

v/c 0.745



Mahatma Gandhi: Runs N-S, double lanes dual carriage

Signal: Runs E-W, single lane dual carriage

Approach

Performance

Criteria

Performance

Measure

South

LOS B

Delay (s) 11.5

v/c 0.221

North

LOS C

Delay (s) 21.3

v/c 0.745

West

LOS D

Delay (s) 38.1

v/c 0.744

Intersection

LOS C

Delay (s) 23.3

v/c 0.745



44

4.3 Summary of Intersection Evaluation

The results of the analysis reveal that the following changes are required to the road network to

accommodate the proposed increase in bulk, viz :

• The existing road network within the Point Area (PA) would need to be revised to

accommodate the proposed increase in bulk in the short term to 650 000m2 as follows :

� Convert Bell/Albert Terrace intersection into a left-in, left-out intersection by the

extension of the existing median along Bell Street

� For the purposes of route continuity, convert Albert Terrace from 1-way to 2-way

between Anson and Southampton Streets, as is currently the case on either side of this

section of road

� Signalise the intersections of Mahatma Gandhi/Camperdown, Mahatma

Gandhi/Browns, Mahatma Gandhi/Signal (E), Albert/Camperdown and Albert/Browns.

• The road network within the Point Area (PA) would need to be revised to accommodate the

proposed full development to 750 000m2 as follows (in addition to the short term

improvements) :

� Extension of Prince Street (or similar) from Bell to Camperdown and signalise

Prince/Bell intersection

� An additional lane on the southbound carriageway of Mahatma Gandhi Road between

Bell and Anson Street.

� Add an additional short lane on the south approach of Southampton/Albert intersection

Table 35: Summary of Intersection Evaluation

SHORT TERM

Nr Intersection Changes made 1 Albert/Bell Left in- Left out

2 Anson/Albert Changed 1 way road to 2 way road

3 Albert/Camperdown Signalized

4 Camperdown/Mahatma Gandhi Signalized, new entrance to Cruise Terminal

5 Browns/Albert Signalized

6 Browns/Mahatma Gandhi Signalized, new entrance to Cruise Terminal

7 Mahatma Gandhi/Signal Signalized

LONG TERM

Intersection Changes made 8 Bell/Prince Signalized

9 Southampton/Albert Add left turn lane on East approach

10 Camperdown/Wellington Add road trough to Prince

11 Mahatma Gandhi Add lane between Bell and Anson


45

5. PARKING REQUIREMENT

The parking requirements of the existing scheme are not proposed to be substantially amended, and thus

the current parking requirements hold true for the proposed revised scheme. The only change being

proposed is a change in the classification of the residential units and the introduction of a new residential

unit category as depicted below.

Table 36: Proposed Change in Residential Classification

Current Residential Classification Proposed Residential Classification

High Rise Apartments 1/2 Bedroom Apartment

Luxury Residential Apartment 3 Bedroom Apartment

4 or more Bedroom Apartment

For the purposes of clarity, the parking requirements, as amended, are outlined below.

5.1. Parking Standards

Where applicable, parking requirements have been based on guidelines provided by the National

Department of Transport. Where guidelines do not exist for certain land use types, the

guidelines for land uses of a similar nature used as per the Africon Engineering International

report (May 1998). The parking requirements, based on National DoT rates are given in Table B1,

prior to any adjustments being made.

Table 37: B1: Base Peak Parking Rates

Land Use

Parking Rates

Entertainment* 7.0 per 100m5 GLA

1/2 Bedroom Apartments 1.5 per unit

3 Bedroom Apartments 1.75 per unit

4 or more Bedroom Apartments 2.0 per unit

Hotel 1.0 per room

Office 4.0 per 100m5 GLA

Retail 5.0 per 100m5 GLA

* Entertainment is defined as follows:-

1. Casino and related uses, i,e. restaurants, cinemas, night clubs and places of amusements, etc.

2. Place of amusement including games arcades, indoor golf, ten-pin bowling, snooker halls, etc.

3. Place of entertainment including night clubs, cinemas, theatres, etc.

4. Restaurants, mainly a la carte, family restaurant chains but excluding fast food outlets.

5. Social halls

5.2. Shared Parking Provisions

It is important that a distinction be made between exclusive use or private parking bays and those

parking bays provided for the general public use.


46

Private parking has been considered for the residential and hotel uses and would generally not be

available for use by others even when the bay is not in use.

Public parking would normally be provided at on site public areas or off site parking garages and

are available for use by the general public. Land uses for which this is applicable include offices,

retail and entertainment. Some level of access control would be employed for these areas for

commercial and/or security reasons. These parking areas are considered as shared parking which

is defined by the Urban Land Institute as follows;

• Shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual

land uses without conflict or encroachment. The opportunity to implement shared parking is

the result of two conditions :

� Variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles as result of different activity

patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season);

� Relationships among land use activities that result in peoples= attraction to two or more

land uses on a single auto trip to a given area or development.

The Urban Design Framework is based on creating an environment that is pedestrian friendly and

contributes towards the precinct operating as true mixed land use development. The base peak

parking rates contained in Table B1 have largely been drawn from the National DoT guidelines and

were confirmed at a meeting held between Africon Engineering International and the erstwhile

Durban City Council in November 1998.

The presence of a large residential component and a largely mixed use nature of the development

envisaged for the Point encourages multi purpose trips and work trips. This creates the presence

of a captive market which intuitively should lead to a reduction in the overall parking requirement

but is difficult to quantify. However based on surveys conducted at the V & A Waterfront, Africon

Engineering International proposed that a 15% reduction be applied to the base peak parking

factors as follows.

Table 38 :B2: Peak Parking Rates after Adjustment

Use Base Parking Rates Adjustment Parking Rates

Entertainment* 7.0 per 100m5 GLA 5.95 per 100m5 GLA

Office 4.0 per 100m5 GLA 3.4 per 100m5 GLA

Retail 5.0 per 100m5 GLA 4.25 per 100m5 GLA

In additional to the captive market allowance recommended above, it is common cause that mixed

use developments result in the effective use of infrastructure, including parking, due to the varying

peaking characteristics of individual land uses within the mixed use areas. Studies done by the

Urban Land Institute in Washington have attempted to quantify the accumulation characteristics

of the three main uses contained in mixed use developments namely office, retail and

entertainment (including restaurants). These are shown in the table below.


47

Table 39: B3: Hourly Parking Accumulation by Percentage of Peak Hour

HOUR OF

DAY OFFICE % RETAIL % ENTERTAINMENT %

WEEKDAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY

06:00 3 - - - - -

07:00 20 20 8 3 2 -

08:00 63 60 18 10 5 -

09:00 93 80 42 30 10 -

10:00 100 80 68 45 20 -

11:00 100 100 87 73 30 -

12:00 90 100 97 85 50 30

13:00 90 80 100 95 70 70

14:00 97 60 97 100 60 70

15:00 93 40 95 100 60 70

16:00 77 40 87 90 50 70

17:00 47 20 79 75 70 70

18:00 23 20 82 65 90 80

19:00 7 20 89 60 100 90

20:00 7 20 87 55 100 100

21:00 3 - 61 40 100 100

22:00 3 - 32 38 90 100

23:00 - - 13 13 70 80

24:00 - - - - 50 70

Source: ULI - African Engineering International (1998)

In order to determine the parking requirement for the mixed use areas the hourly parking demands for

the individual land uses are overlayed to determine the total parking requirement for each hour and

hence the peak parking requirement.

The resulting composite parking ratios are largely dependent on the Aland-use@ mix within mixed use

developments. Based on the land use schedule developed from the Urban Design Framework, the peak

parking ratios vary between 1.33 and 3.71 bays per 100m5 / GLA with an overall ratio of 2.57 bays per

100m5 / GLA. It is reiterated that this rate will vary with each development and the following

methodology should be applied to determine parking provision for individual developments.

• Determine the actual floor areas and unit numbers for each individual land use type within each

mixed use area.

• Separate the exclusive use parking areas (residential and hotel) and shared use parking areas

(retail office, entertainment, etc).

• Apply the initial reduction factor to the base peak parking rates as per table B2 for the shared

parking areas only.

• Apply the time related percentage accumulation factors as per table B3 to each land use type

for both weekend and weekday scenarios.

• Sum the individual land-use parking bay numbers for each time period to establish the peak

parking requirement


48

Based on this procedure, the overall maximum number of parking bays required for the amended sites

as per this revised scheme is approximately 11 860 bays. Due to the separation of exclusive use and

general use based on the land-use categorisation, the exact parking per site will only be known once the

exact land-use mix per site is determined.

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS

The proposed development is heavily reliant on public transport in order to meet the transportation

requirements of the development. Based on the analysis conducted together with the underlying assumptions,

it is anticipated that the demand for public transport services would be approximately 9700 person trips in the

peak hour, both directions. Based on the IRPTN study, which recommends a capacity of approximately 87

persons per vehicle, this translates into approximately 59 vehicles per direction in the peak hour (Table 62).

These public transport services can take the form of conventional services, or alternatively can be linked to Park

and Ride facilities.

Table 40: Public Transport Volumes

Based on the anticipated public transport vehicle volumes, it would be deemed to be prudent that these services

operate on multiple routes to mitigate potential service capacity constraints (unless operating on dedicated right

of way infrastructure). The potential routing of public transport vehicles is depicted in Figure 59. It is further

anticipated that stops would be provided along the proposed routes, ideally in close proximity to large trip

generators and at set intervals to limit walking distances to a maximum of approximately 400m-500m.

A public transport terminal has been

proposed on Lot 6.2, adjacent to the

potentially large trip generators of

the proposed retail complex and

Ushaka Marine World. The

requirements for this terminal are

based on inter alia the type of

services provided, vehicle

specifications, service frequencies,

destinations served as well as the

potential passenger demand at

these locations. Indicatively, based

on a conservative total dwell time of

approximately eight minutes, to

accommodate all services at the

proposed terminal would require

approximately eight bays to be

provided.

Figure 16:Public Transport Routes

Total

Person

Trips

Public

Transport

Trips

Inbound Outbound Vehicles -

Inbound

Vehicles -

Outbound

22 259 10 057 4917 5140 56 59


49

7. NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT (NMT) REQUIREMENTS

The provision of adequate NMT facilities are integral to the success of the development. It is anticipated that

approximately 4000 peak hour NMT trips would be made, consisting of internal trips and external retail related

trips. It is thus essential that adequate NMT facilities are provided on all roads, in terms of sidewalks and/or

cycle ways, to link through the zone and to connect with the broader City NMT network. Further, the extension

of the Promenade is a critical component of the NMT infrastructure, providing the backbone for the NMT

network within The Point to link into the broader City.

Figure 60 below details the key priority NMT network that addresses the issues of accessibility with The Point as

well as connectivity to the broader City network.

Figure 17: Priority NMT Network Plan


50

8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The evaluation of the transportation requirements for The Point Revised Development Framework Plan, based

on an increase in bulk to 750 000m2 has revealed the following :

Point Area

• The development potential of the Point Area, effectively the entire area south of Bell Street, is limited

by inter alia the capacity across the Bell Street screenline. The full development potential of this area,

including developing SZ91 to a maximum bulk of 750 000m2, Ushaka, areas outside SZ91 and the

proposed Cruise Terminal can be realised subject to the following :

� The reclassification of Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone Streets and Albert Terrace to Class 3 and

Class 4 roads respectively.

� The provision of an additional Class 4 link across the Bell Street screenline, in the form of

Prince Street extension or other similar link.

• The reclassification of Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone Streets and Albert Terrace to Class 3 and Class 4

roads respectively potentially allows for SZ91 to be developed up to a maximum threshold of

650 000m2, together with other associated development south of Bell Street.

Greater Point Area

• The full development of the Point Area (PA) and the existing traffic emanating from the Greater Point

Area (GPA) does not exceed the Rutherford screenline capacity

• The full development of the Point Area (PA) as well as the full development of the Greater Point Area

(GPA) exceeds the Rutherford screenline capacity. The screenline capacity constraint effectively limits

development of the Greater Point Area (GPA) to approximately 33% of its full potential of

approximately 1 800 000m2 bulk (excluding areas south of Bell Street).

• Additional capacity across the Rutherford screenline can be provided by potentially utilising Quayside

Road, should Port activities be relocated out of the Point area. Further additional capacity can be

provided across the screenline by means of high capacity public transport systems, in the form of BRT,

LRT or Metro services.

City

• The existing City road network capacity is constrained by the peak hour capacity of the major freeways

and arterials entering the CBD cordon. In terms of achieving the City’s IDP goals of regeneration,

redevelopment and revitalisation of the CBD, of which The Point is a part, these capacity constraints

can be mitigated by the following as per the ITP :

� Promotion of public transport over private transport by inter alia developing a high class

public transport

� Integration of land-use and transport development

� Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures including densification along public transport

nodes and corridors as well as integrated/mixed use developments

� Provision and upgrade of non-motorised transport facilities to stimulate and facilitate this

mode of transport


51

• The current travel patterns along major freeways and arterials entering the CBD cordon indicate that

whilst there is limited spare capacity available in the traditional peak one hour, there is considerable

spare capacity available within the peak two hours and even more so in the peak three hours.

Point Area Road Network Upgrades

• The existing road network within the Point Area (PA) would need to be revised to accommodate the

proposed in in bulk in the short term to 650 000m2 as follows :

� Convert Bell/Albert Terrace intersection into a left-in, left-out intersection by the extension

of the existing median along Bell Street

� For the purposes of route continuity, convert Albert Terrace from 1-way to 2-way between

Anson and Southampton Streets, as is currently the case on either side of this section of road

� Signalise the intersections of Mahatma Gandhi/Camperdown, Mahatma Gandhi/Browns,

Mahatma Gandhi/Signal (E), Albert/Camperdown and Albert/Browns.

• The road network within the Point Area (PA) would need to be revised to accommodate the proposed

full development to 750 000m2 as follows (in addition to the short term improvements) :

� Extension of Prince Street (or similar) from Bell to Camperdown and signalise Prince/Bell

intersection

� An additional lane on the southbound carriageway of Mahatma Gandhi Road between Bell

and Anson Streets

� Add an additional short lane on the south approach of Southampton/Albert intersection

Parking Requirements

• The existing scheme parking requirements are to remain in place.

• A total of approximately 11 860 parking bays are required for the Lots under review as part of this

revised development framework plan.

• All other lots are to meet parking requirements in terms of the existing scheme parking requirements.

Public Transport Requirements

• As take-up and occupation increases, additional public transport services would have to be provided

to the Point Area to accommodate the anticipated number of public transport passengers.

• A public transport terminal is to be provided on Lot 6.2 to accommodate passenger demand

requirements

• Public transport stops are to be provided at regular intervals along public transport routes to

accommodate passenger demand requirements


52

Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) Requirements

• The extension of the Promenade is deemed to be integral to this development to facilitate broader

NMT accessibility.

• Adequate NMT facilities on all roads are to be provided, in terms of sidewalks and/or cycle ways, to

link through the zone and to connect with the broader City NMT network.

9. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis undertaken for the proposed Revised Development Framework Plan for the Point (SZ91),

the following conclusions can be drawn :

• The proposed increase in bulk for SZ91, from current approved 575 000m2 to the proposed 750 000m2,

is possible subject to the following :

i. The reclassification of Mahatma Gandhi/Shepstone Streets and Albert Terrace to Class 3 and

Class 4 roads respectively.

ii. The provision of an additional Class 4 link across the Bell Street screenline, in the form of

Prince Street extension or other similar link.

iii. Intersection upgrades to the Bell/Albert Terrace, Mahatma Gandhi/Camperdown, Mahatma

Gandhi/Browns, Mahatma Gandhi/Signal (E), Albert/Camperdown, Albert/Browns and

Southampton/Albert intersections

iv. The conversion of Albert Terrace from 1-way to 2-way between Anson and Southampton

Streets, as is currently the case on either side of this section of road

v. An additional lane on the southbound carriageway of Mahatma Gandhi Road between Bell

and Anson Streets

vi. The Lots under consideration as part of the revised development framework plan meeting the

parking requirements in terms of the existing scheme requirements

vii. The provision of a public transport terminal on Lot 6.2, stops along the proposed public

transport routes and the enhancement of public transport services over time as demand

increases with development occupation.

viii. The extension of the Promenade to facilitate NMT accessibility to the proposed development

as well as the provision of adequate NMT facilities along all streets.

• In the interim, and until such time that the Prince Street Extension (or equivalent) is confirmed, a lower

development threshold of 650 000m2 is possible subject to all of the requirements detailed above being

met, apart from (ii) and (v).


53

APPENDIX A – LAND USE MIX SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS


54

1. LAND USE RANGE TESTED

Two land use ranges were tested, viz 10% variation and 20% variation as depicted below.

2. SCENARIO EVALUATION

Four scenarios evaluated, viz :

• Scenario 1 : 10% Change in individual land use, and a proportional increase or decrease in

other land uses. Eg, if residential was increased by 10%, the other land uses were decreased

proportional to their existing extent.

• Scenario 2 : 20% Change in individual land use, and a proportional increase or decrease in

other land uses. Eg, if residential was increased by 20%, the other land uses were decreased

proportional to their existing extent.

• Scenario 3 : 10% Change in individual land use, and the other land uses were

increased/decreased in priority order of lowest/highest trip generators. Eg, if residential was

increased by 10%, then the order of priority of decrease started with lowest trip generator to

highest trip generator.

• Scenario 4 : 20% Change in individual land use, and the other land uses were

increased/decreased in priority order of lowest/highest trip generators. Eg, if residential was

increased by 20%, then the order of priority of decrease started with lowest trip generator to

highest trip generator.

Effectively Scenario 1 & 2 are the median scenarios where the trip variations are spread across all land uses,

whereas Scenario 3 & 4 are the worst case scenarios where the trip variations are assigned to the highest or

lowest trip generators to give the maximum variance.

Table 1 : LU Range @ 10% Variation

MIN MAX352500 317250 387750120000 108000 132000120000 108000 13200060000 54000 6600097500 87750 107250

750000

Table 2 : LU Range @ 20% Variation

MIN MAX352500 282000 423000120000 96000 144000120000 96000 14400060000 48000 7200097500 78000 117000

750000

Holiday Homes OfficeRetailHotel

ResidentialHoliday Homes OfficeRetailHotel

LU EXTENTRANGE

LU EXTENTRANGE

Residential


55

Scenario 1 : 10% Change in Individual LU, Proportional Reduction/Increase in Others

Table 3 : % Change in Total Trips Table 4 : Change in Total Trips

+10% -10% +10% -10%-0.79% 0.75% -33 32-1.41% 1.40% -60 591.20% -1.20% 51 -511.08% -1.14% 46 -48

-0.51% 0.51% -22 221.20% 1.40% 51 59

Scenario 2 : 20% Change in Individual LU, Proportional Reduction/Increase in Others


+20% -20% +20% -20%-1.64% 1.45% -69 61-2.81% 2.81% -119 1192.40% -2.41% 102 -1022.11% -2.35% 89 -100

-1.02% 1.01% -43 432.40% 2.81% 102 119MAX INCREASE MAX INCREASE

Residential ResidentialHoliday Homes Holiday Homes Office OfficeRetail RetailHotel Hotel

LAND USE


MAX INCREASE

% Change in Individual LULAND USE

% Change in Individual LU


MAX INCREASE

LAND USE% Change in Individual LU


Scenario 3 : 10% Change in Individual LU, Priority Increase/Reduction in Highest/Low est Trip Generators


+10% -10% +10% -10%-0.05% 1.23% -2 52-0.71% 2.68% -30 1132.19% -0.09% 93 -41.58% -0.55% 67 -230.52% 1.75% 22 742.19% 2.68% 93 113

Scenario 4 : 20% Change in Individual LU, Priority Increase/Reduction in Highest/Low est Trip Generators


+20% -20% +20% -20%-0.11% 2.41% -5 102-1.42% 5.30% -60 2254.38% -0.22% 185 -93.11% -1.16% 132 -491.03% 3.45% 44 1464.38% 5.30% 185 225

Holiday Homes Holiday Homes Office OfficeRetail RetailHotel Hotel

MAX INCREASE MAX INCREASE



Residential ResidentialHoliday Homes Holiday Homes Office OfficeRetail RetailHotel Hotel

MAX INCREASE MAX INCREASE



Residential Residential


56

3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Table 11 provides a summary of the scenario evaluation, indicating that the max variation in traffic volumes is

anticipated at 5.3% for the worst case scenario, Scenario 4. This equates to approximately 225 trips in the peak

hour.

Analysis of the potential spare capacity on the network (Table 12) indicates that the potential spare capacity is

approximately 421 trips in the peak hour for the long term scenario (with the additional link across the Bell

screenline in place). Thus all scenarios fall within this limit and thus the maximum variation of 20% in land use is

deemed to be acceptable from a screenline capacity perspective.

Table 11 : Summary of Scenario Evaluation

1.40%2.80%2.70%5.30%

MAX CHANGE %

MAX CHANGE TRIPS

59119113225

Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4

DESCRIPTION

10% variation, even distribution20% variation, even distribution

10% variation, priority trip reduction/increase20% variation, priority trip reduction/increase

SCENARIO

Table 12 : Road Network Volume/Capacity

Spare Capacity 421

SCREENLINE CAPACITY DESCRIPTION

Long Term Capacity 6160Ex Long Term Volume 5739

the point - durban · issue/revision issue 1 revision 1 revision 2 remarks draft final ... retail...

Documents