EchucaMoama Bridge MidWest 2 Options Traffic Modelling

EchucaMoama BridgeMidWest 2 Options Traffic ModellingFINAL REPORT FOR EES REFERRAL

SB19740 MID WEST 2 TRAFFIC MODELLING REPORT V4.0A.DOCX Revision 4A PAGE 2

Echuca-Moama Bridge Mid-West 2 Options Traffic Modelling

Contents Executive summary .............................................................................. 4 1. Introduction .................................................................................... 6

1.1. Purpose ............................................................................................. 6 1.2. Background ....................................................................................... 6 1.3. The Mid-West 2 options .................................................................... 6

2. Previous traffic and economic study ............................................ 8 3. Modelling assumptions ................................................................ 10

3.1. Traffic model ................................................................................... 10 3.2. Network assumptions ...................................................................... 10 3.3. Land use and demographic assumptions ....................................... 12 3.4. Model validation .............................................................................. 16

4. Traffic modelling results .............................................................. 19 4.1. Scenarios ........................................................................................ 19 4.2. Traffic forecasts ............................................................................... 19 4.3. Intersection analysis ........................................................................ 21 4.4. Findings ........................................................................................... 22

5. Economic analysis ....................................................................... 24 6. Conclusion .................................................................................... 25 Appendix A: Echuca Housing Strategy ......................................... 26 Appendix B: Traffic volume maps ................................................. 29 Appendix C: SIDRA output summary ............................................ 39



Document History and Status Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved

1 5 Apr 2012 A. Carolan C. McPherson 5 Apr 2012

2 26 Jun 2012 J. Taylor J. Taylor 26 Jun 2012

3 11 Jul 2012 C. McPherson C. McPherson 11 Jul 2012

4 18 Sep 2012 P. Hunkin C. McPherson 18 Sep 2012

4A 24 Jan 2013 C. McPherson C. McPherson 24 Jan 2013

Distribution of Copies Revision Quantity Issued to

1 1 Andrew Milvain (VicRoads)




4A 1 Andrew Milvain (VicRoads)

Printed: 25 January 2013

Last saved: 25 January 2013 04:30 PM

File name: SB19740 Mid West 2 Traffic Modelling Report V4.0a.docx

Authors: Craig McPherson, Antony Carolan

Project manager: Craig McPherson

Name of organisation: VicRoads

Name of project: Echuca-Moama Bridge Mid-West 2 Options Traffic Modelling

Document version: Revision 4A

Project number: SB19740

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are copyright. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz’s client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and that client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.



Executive summary This report describes the traffic modelling of the Mid-West 2 options for the Echuca-Moama Bridge Planning Study. The report assesses the potential traffic demands for the Mid-West 2 scenarios and evaluates the impacts on the Echuca and Moama road networks.

Options Four option alignments were investigated for the Mid-West 2 scenario as shown in the figure below.

Assumptions The analysis used the traffic model previously developed by SKM for the 2008-2010 Echuca-Moama bridge study. The model was updated to reflect changes in network and land use assumptions that have arisen since the original study. The principal changes were:

inclusion of truck bans on several local streets in Moama; updates to the future distribution of dwellings to reflect the Shire of Campaspe’s 2011

Echuca Housing Strategy; an increase in current employment in the business park north of Moama to match

Murray Shire’s employment estimates.

The analysis was carried out for a typical winter weekday, which is representative of baseline (non-tourist) traffic flows across the river. Bridge traffic volumes during peak tourist times such as holidays and special events were found to be about 30% higher than the baseline flows. For engineering capacity evaluation, this factor of 30% was taken into account.



Findings The main findings from the study were as follows:

The four Mid-West 2 options are expected to carry virtually identical traffic volumes, as the differences in travel times and distances between options are relatively minor.

The Mid-West 2 bridge would primarily carry traffic to and from the Murray Valley and Northern Highways. Most Echuca town centre traffic will continue to use the existing bridge.

Options 2A and 2B provide direct access to the Murray Valley Highway and are more convenient for drivers who wish to travel through Echuca and Moama without stopping.

Options 2C and 2D are slightly less convenient for through traffic, but provide a shorter route for traffic wishing to access the historic port area.

All intersections in the Mid-West 2 corridor are expected to operate well within capacity to at least 2038.

Maps showing forecast traffic volumes are provided in Appendix B.

An overall assessment of both traffic and economic outcomes will be completed after the option costs are confirmed.



1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose This report describes the traffic demand modelling undertaken for the Mid-West 2 options for the Echuca-Moama Bridge Planning Study. The purpose of this report is to describe the potential traffic impacts of the four Mid-West 2 bridge options. An overall assessment of both traffic and economic outcomes will be completed after the option costs are confirmed.

1.2. Background Population growth, accompanied by growth in business, tourism, jobs and personal travel, are expected to cause moderate increases to traffic volumes across the Murray River at Echuca-Moama.

The existing road bridge has operational limitations, particularly during peak tourist periods, and when wide loads or agricultural machinery need to cross the river. In these cases, traffic is often delayed because of the narrow width of the bridge. Over-dimensional vehicles are prohibited from crossing the bridge during morning, midday and evening peak periods. This is inconvenient and costly for business operations. The existing bridge also requires extensive rehabilitation which would result in partial closure of the bridge while work is being carried out.

A second Murray River crossing will provide an alternative access between Echuca and Moama, and will also provide relief for congestion on the existing bridge.

VicRoads has investigated a number of options for a second river crossing. These have been documented in previous studies (see Chapter 2). Four further options (the Mid-West 2 options) are now being considered as possible alternatives to the previously-investigated options.

1.3. The Mid-West 2 options The four options considered in this study are shown schematically in Figure 1.

The main difference between the options is the configuration of intersections on the Echuca side of the river. Options 2A and 2B connect directly to the Murray Valley Highway, whereas Options 2C and 2D connect to Warren Street

From a traffic operation perspective, Options 2A and 2B are virtually identical; only the alignment of the bridge differs in these options. Similarly, Options 2C and 2D are mostly identical, with only slight differences in the bridge alignment.

Because of the similarity between options, this study assumes that the traffic impacts of Options 2A and 2B will be the same, and can therefore be modelled as a single option. Options 2C and 2D are also modelled as a single option for traffic forecasting purposes.



Figure 1: Mid-West 2 option alignments



2. Previous traffic and economic study SKM carried out the original Echuca Bridge traffic modelling study between 2008 and 2010. Full details of the study are provided in the report Detailed Traffic Modelling for the Echuca - Moama Bridge Planning Study1.

Figure 2 illustrates the bridge locations investigated in the previous modelling study. The new Mid-West 2 options share a similar alignment to the original Mid-West option shown in Figure 2, but connect to Warren Street further to the west.

Figure 2: Bridge options investigated in previous modelling studies

1 Sinclair Knight Merz (2010), Detailed Traffic Modelling for the Echuca - Moama Bridge Planning Study, Final report, VicRoads, 29 October 2010.



Table 2.1 summarises the forecast bridge traffic volumes for 2038 and the benefit-cost ratio for each option.

Table 2.1: Summary of forecast daily two-way bridge traffic for previously-modelled options (2038) Two-way daily volumes (2038) Benefit-cost ratio* Bridge option Existing bridge New bridge Total

Base (do nothing) 25,170 – 25,170 –

Western 20,210 6,030 26,240 1.8

Mid-West 15,010 11,400 26,410 2.0

Mid-West + Heygarth St link 13,800 12,650 26,450 1.9

Central – 26,260 26,260 1.9

Eastern 22,270 3,690 25,690 0.9

* Benefit-cost ratios were calculated on the assumption that the new bridge would open in 2018 and costs were discounted to a 2008 base year. Traffic volumes were forecast on the basis of Murray and Campaspe Shire estimates of land use growth in 2008.

The new modelling undertaken for the Mid-West 2 options forecasts very similar volumes to the original Mid-West option, with only relatively small changes caused by the updates to land use and population growth assumptions. The following chapter describes the updated modelling assumptions in more detail.



3. Modelling assumptions 3.1. Traffic model The model used for this study was the Echuca-Moama traffic model previously developed by SKM for the 2008-2010 bridge study. Details of the model can be found in the model validation report for the previous bridge planning study2.

This chapter describes the changes that were made to the model to reflect the latest planning information from Campaspe and Murray Shire councils.

3.2. Network assumptions The traffic model includes all major streets and highways in Echuca and Moama. Local streets are generally not included in the model except where they provide a connection to major traffic destinations. Figure 4 shows the road network used in the model.

In all modelling of future traffic conditions, Francis Street is assumed to be connected to Perricoota Road and trucks are banned on the streets shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Moama truck bans (shown in red)

2 Sinclair Knight Merz (2009), Detailed Traffic Modelling for the Echuca - Moama Bridge Planning Study, Validation report, VicRoads, 7 May 2009.



Figure 4: Modelled road network

Link TypesCentroid (184)Highway (34)Local (218)Main (22)MainRoad (6)Major (44)Major 4-Lane (28)Rural (76)



3.3. Land use and demographic assumptions Population Growth Echuca population forecasts in the original model were based on the Victoria in Future 2004 report, which was subsequently updated in 2008. The updated growth rate was slightly higher due to a small increase in fertility rates from 2004 to 2008.

In contrast, the NSW government has revised growth forecasts down for Murray Shire, of which the largest town is Moama. The result is that the net population forecasts for the combined Echuca-Moama region have remained similar, despite the small changes in the Victorian and NSW forecasts. The forecast populations for various years are listed in Table 3.1 to Table 3.3.

Table 3.1 Moama population forecast Year Previous Forecast Updated Forecast Change in population forecast

% change in population forecast 2006 4678 4678 – –

2008 5333 4994 -339 -6%

2023 7175 6683 -492 -7%

2038 8316 7535 -781 -9%

Table 3.2 Echuca population forecast Year Previous Forecast Updated Forecast Change in population forecast


2008 12600 12770 +170 +1%

2023 15638 16010 +372 +2%

2038 17895 18639 +744 +4%

Table 3.3 Echuca-Moama combined regional population forecast Year Previous Forecast Updated Forecast Change in population forecast


2008 17933 17765 -168 -1%

2023 22813 22694 -119 -1%

2038 26211 26174 -37 0%



Given the small changes in the forecast population growth for the region and the inherent uncertainties in long range population forecasts, it was considered appropriate to leave the overall population growth unchanged in the model. This also helped to maintain consistency with previous models.

Population Distribution Residential plans for Moama have not changed since the original model was created, with housing growth still forecast to occur in the same areas. Therefore, the population projections for each zone in Moama have been kept the same as in the original model.

Campaspe Council released a new Echuca Housing Strategy in 2011. The strategy focused on residential growth with a new objective of encouraging infill development around the town centre. Maps of the greenfields and infill precincts are included in Appendix A. By matching these precincts to the corresponding transport zones, a potential lot yield was calculated for each zone. This was also done for zone 1 in the transport model, which is a low density residential area north-west of Echuca, not covered by the housing strategy. For zone 1, it was assumed that 60% of gross area could be used for lots with an average size of 4000m2 per lot. Council staff confirmed that this was a reasonable assumption for the area’s potential lot yield.

New dwelling demand for each forecast year was allocated to each zone based on the available spare capacity in the zone. Table 3.4 summarises the assumed distribution of new dwellings to Echuca zones. A map of the Echuca model zones is shown in Figure 5.



Table 3.4: Assumed distribution of new dwellings in Echuca Zone Allocation of new dwellings Zone Allocation of new dwellings

1 4.51% 17 0.00% 2 11.94% 18 0.00% 3 20.50% 19 1.19% 4 51.46% 20 0.00% 5 0.00% 21 0.00% 6 0.00% 22 1.43% 7 0.00% 23 0.00% 8 1.69% 24 0.52% 9 0.00% 25 1.14% 10 0.00% 26 1.60% 11 0.00% 27 1.20% 12 0.00% 28 0.89% 13 0.00% 29 0.59% 14 0.00% 30 0.00% 15 0.89% 31 0.00% 16 0.45%

Most population growth occurs in the greenfields precincts west of the Northern Highway (zones 1 to 4). However, in contrast to the original model, about 10% of population growth in Echuca is forecast to come from infill development near the current town centre.



Figure 5: Transport model land use zones

101010101010101010313131313131313131

212121212121212121

232323232323232323

292929292929292929

707070707070707070

606060606060606060

626262626262626262

747474747474747474

656565656565656565 646464646464646464

111111111 131313131313131313

141414141414141414

171717171717171717121212121212121212

111111111111111111

999999999

242424242424242424444444444

222222222

333333333

666666666555555555

888888888

777777777

222222222222222222 202020202020202020

181818181818181818

191919191919191919

161616161616161616

151515151515151515252525252525252525

262626262626262626

272727272727272727

565656565656565656

535353535353535353

545454545454545454

555555555555555555595959595959595959

585858585858585858575757575757575757

686868686868686868

696969696969696969

616161616161616161

636363636363636363

676767676767676767

737373737373737373666666666666666666

727272727272727272

717171717171717171

525252525252525252515151515151515151

505050505050505050

282828282828282828

303030303030303030

102102102102102102102102102

101101101101101101101101101

108108108108108108108108108

109109109109109109109109109

103103103103103103103103103

115115115115115115115115115

110110110110110110110110110

104104104104104104104104104

105105105105105105105105105 106106106106106106106106106107107107107107107107107107

100100100100100100100100100

114114114114114114114114114

113113113113113113113113113

112112112112112112112112112

111111111111111111111111111

2008 Land Use

Undeveloped LandCommercialEducationHospital/MedicalIndustrialParklandRecreationResidentialTourist/Residential

Legend

Travel Zone



Employment Growth and Distribution The original employment forecasts assumed that employment would grow at the same rate as population, with the original data taken from the 2006 census and distributed to the various employment districts.

While reviewing the model, Murray Shire advised SKM that it believed the Moama business park had been under-represented. Recent traffic counts on the Cobb Highway south of the business park supported this observation, with 4600 vehicles per day being observed in 2010 in comparison with the 2800 vehicles per day in the original model.

For these reasons, baseline employment at the business park was increased in line with current council estimates for 2012. Future growth of the business park was maintained at the previously-assumed values (average annual growth of 6.25% from 2008 to 2023, 0.92% from 2023 to 2038). To maintain overall employment growth rates in Echuca-Moama, employment in every other zone was decreased slightly by a uniform percentage. The new employment assumptions for the business park (zone 63) are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Employment assumptions for Moama Business Park (zone 63) Year Previous Employment Forecast

(full-time equivalents) Updated Employment Forecast

(full-time equivalents) 2008 85 196

2023 211 487

2038 242 559

3.4. Model validation The traffic model was validated as part of the previous traffic study and the validation is documented in the study report (see footnote on page 10). A graph of modelled and observed traffic volumes from the previous report is reproduced in Figure 6.

The original model generally exhibited a good fit with observed 2008 traffic volumes. A further check was completed as part of the new study to determine whether traffic volumes had changed substantially since 2008 and also to determine whether tourist-related traffic would have a significant impact on forecasts.

The original model was based on traffic levels and patterns during a winter weekday. This corresponded to approximately 17,900 bridge crossings in a 24-hour period. The latest traffic counts (see Figure 7) suggest that this number is still largely representative of an average winter weekday, but slightly underestimates average conditions during the summer months.



Figure 6: Modelled and observed link traffic volumes (daily light vehicles and total vehicles, 2008)

y = 1.0207xR² = 0.9897

y = 1.02xR² = 0.9894

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Mod

elled

Observed

Counts (Total) Counts (Light)

Best Fit Line (Total) Best Fit Line (Light)



Figure 7: Two-way daily bridge volumes (2010)

Note that during April 2010 the southbound traffic counter failed, so results from that period should be ignored. Traffic levels are generally at their highest during summer holidays, long weekends and special events. During peak periods, daily traffic volumes over the bridge can exceed 25,000 vehicles per day.

Holiday periods are also likely to have significantly different travel patterns, with more trips being generated at tourist attractions and accommodation precincts such as caravan parks and the historic port.

Given the relatively large daily and seasonal variation in traffic volumes, the present calibration of the model to a winter weekday is considered to be appropriate for economic evaluation purposes. However, for engineering design purposes, we have assumed that peak traffic volumes will be approximately 30% higher than the winter weekday average.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

21‐Dec‐09

28‐Dec‐09

4‐Jan‐10

11‐Jan

‐10

18‐Jan

‐10

25‐Jan

‐10

1‐Feb‐10

8‐Feb‐10

15‐Feb

‐10

22‐Feb

‐10

1‐Mar‐10

8‐Mar‐10

15‐M

ar‐10

22‐M

ar‐10

29‐M

ar‐10

5‐Apr‐10

12‐Apr‐10

19‐Apr‐10

26‐Apr‐10

3‐May‐10

10‐M

ay‐10

17‐M

ay‐10

24‐M

ay‐10

31‐M

ay‐10

7‐Jun‐10

14‐Jun

‐10

21‐Jun

‐10

28‐Jun

‐10

Daily bi‐directional bridge volume

Sum of Bi Directional Total Average of winter weekday



4. Traffic modelling results 4.1. Scenarios Four road network configurations were modelled using the Echuca traffic model:

Base case – the existing road network with no new bridge; Options 2A/2B - with the new bridge connecting directly to the roundabout at the Murray

Valley Highway; Options 2C/2D - with the new bridge connecting to a new roundabout in Warren Street; Warren Street flooding scenario – with Warren Street assumed to be closed at the

Campaspe River, causing bridge traffic to be diverted to the Murray Valley Highway.

Each network case was modelled with future growth assumptions to determine the potential traffic impacts of the new bridge. Table 4.1 summarises the scenarios modelled in this study.

Table 4.1: Modelled scenarios

Network configuration 2008

2011

2023

2038

Base case (do nothing)

Options 2A/2B

Options 2C/2D

Warren Street flooding

2008 was used as the base year for the modelling, with travel costs calculated in 2008 dollars. This was done so that later economic analysis would be broadly comparable with the previous economic study (which also used a base year of 2008).

4.2. Traffic forecasts Appendix B contains a full set of network plots for each scenario with modelled daily traffic volumes. Table 4.2 provides a comparison of traffic volumes on key links in the network for each scenario. Table 4.3 provides a similar comparison for heavy vehicle flows.



Table 4.2: Forecast bi-directional traffic volumes on key links (total vehicles) Road 2008 Base 2011 Base 2023 Base 2023 Opt2A/B 2023 Opt2C/D 2023 flooding 2038 Base 2038 Opt2A/B 2038 Opt2C/D 2038 flooding Old Bridge 17936 19423 22882 15147 15142 15140 25160 16777 16781 16823

New Bridge – – – 8353 8357 8361 – 10096 10088 10072

Warren Street at Campaspe River 6020 6601 8200 4787 4777 – 9474 5474 5465 –

High Street south of Heygarth Street 9247 9836 11016 6163 6163 9099 11749 6717 6718 9464

High Street north of Heygarth Street 10398 11155 12422 9099 9089 11185 13763 10005 9995 12524

Ogilvie Avenue at Campaspe River 18121 19473 24071 19447 19450 24235 28189 22698 22710 28227

Meninya Street south of Regent Street 13284 13569 16385 11483 11493 11613 20400 12756 12763 13930

MVH, south of Warren Street 6857 7484 9582 14302 14297 12725 11125 17107 17091 15223

Table 4.3: Forecast bi-directional traffic volumes on key links (heavy vehicles) Road 2008 Base 2011 Base 2023 Base 2023 Opt2A/B 2023 Opt2C/D 2023 flooding 2038 Base 2038 Opt2A/B 2038 Opt2C/D 2038 flooding Old Bridge 1380 1503 1806 1025 1026 1026 2027 1163 1163 1167

New Bridge – – – 798 798 798 – 916 916 913

Warren Street at Campaspe River 362 388 449 193 193 – 497 209 209 –

High Street south of Heygarth Street 660 704 790 269 269 309 888 302 302 344

High Street north of Heygarth Street 484 517 551 297 297 260 608 322 322 281

Ogilvie Avenue at Campaspe River 1744 1842 2262 1732 1732 1925 2601 1994 1995 2207

Meninya Street south of Regent Street 977 1072 1372 960 961 961 1573 1084 1085 1083

MVH, south of Warren Street 697 737 903 1289 1288 1336 848 1517 1517 1659



Some of the key aspects of the traffic forecasts are as follows:

Without a second crossing of the Murray River, average weekday traffic on the existing bridge is expected to increase from about 17,900 vehicles per day in 2008 to 25,200 by 2038. This represents total growth of about 40% over the 30-year period.

With the construction of a second bridge, traffic volumes on the existing bridge are forecast to reach about 16,800 vehicles per day at 2038. This represents a reduction of about one-third of the traffic that would have otherwise used the bridge if a second river crossing was not available.

The section of High Street north of Heygarth Street (near the historic port) presently carries over 11,000 vehicles on a typical weekday. This volume is forecast to grow to about 14,000 vehicles per day in 2038. Construction of a second bridge is forecast to remove about 25% of through traffic from this section of High Street.

4.3. Intersection analysis The performance of several key intersections in Echuca and Moama was assessed using the SIDRA intersection analysis software package. The analysis was carried out using forecast 2038 traffic volumes, with daily volumes factored by 8.4% to represent a typical peak hour3.

Detailed SIDRA outputs are provided in Appendix C, and the main queue and level-of-service indicators4 are summarised in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Summary of intersection performance indicators (2038 peak hour) Option Intersection Longest Queue (veh) Level of Service

Option 2A/2B

Murray Valley Highway / Warren Street / New bridge (roundabout) 1.7 B

Cobb Highway / New bridge / Meninya Street (signal) 8.7 B

Cobb Highway / Perricoota Road / Francis Street (signal) 10.6 B

Option 2C/2D

Murray Valley Highway / Warren Street (roundabout) 1.8 B

New bridge / Warren Street (roundabout) 2.3 B

Cobb Highway / New bridge / Meninya Street (signal) 8.7 B

Cobb Highway / Perricoota Road / Francis Street (signal) 10.6 B

3 The conversion from daily to peak hourly volumes was derived from observed hourly traffic counts in the area and is consistent with the method applied in the original 2008-2010 study. Note that a peak factor of 0.95 was also applied in the SIDRA analysis to allow for a 5% higher flow rate in the busiest part of the peak period. 4 Level of service is measured on a six-point scale from A (free-flowing conditions) to F (extremely congested). Levels A to C would generally be considered acceptable for most intersections.



All intersections operate well within their capacity under forecast 2038 conditions.

4.4. Findings Comparison of Options 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D The four Mid-West 2 options are expected to carry virtually identical traffic volumes, as the differences in travel times and distances between options are relatively minor.

Options 2A and 2B provide direct access to the Murray Valley Highway and are more convenient for drivers who wish to travel through Echuca and Moama without stopping. The intersection analysis indicates that the proposed roundabout on the Murray Valley Highway will operate well within its capacity. Queues and delays on each approach are not expected to be unreasonable within the evaluation period to 2038.

Options 2C and 2D are slightly less convenient for through traffic, but provide a shorter route for traffic wishing to access the historic port area. The modelling indicates that very little traffic will use the eastern section of Warren Street, as most traffic travelling between Moama and the Echuca town centre will prefer the more direct route provided by the existing bridge. The intersection analysis indicates that both roundabouts on Warren Street will operate well within capacity to 2038.

Comparison of Mid-West and Mid-West 2 options The Mid-West 2 options are each expected to carry about 10%-15% less traffic than the Mid-West option assessed in the previous study. This suggests that the realignment of the proposed bridge further westwards will be marginally less attractive, but in most respects very similar to the original Mid-West option.

Figure 8 illustrates this situation in more detail. The diagrams show the modelled routes of traffic using the original Mid-West bridge, the new Mid-West 2 bridge and the existing bridge under forecast 2038 conditions. In these diagrams, only bridge traffic is shown (all other non-bridge traffic has been removed).

The diagrams confirm that most traffic travelling between Moama and the Echuca town centre will continue to use the original bridge. The new bridge will be used mainly by traffic on the Northern and Murray Valley Highways. The model suggests that the original Mid-West alignment may carry some traffic that is bound for the historic port area, but the new Mid-West 2 alignment is less likely to carry port traffic.



Figure 8: Routes of vehicles using the original Mid-West alignment, the new Mid-West 2 alignment and existing bridge (2038)

NEW BRIDGE EXISTING BRIDGE

ORIGIN

AL MID

WEST

MIDWE

ST 2

4.424.51

26.0225.52

58.76

57.9

6.1

6.21

1.61

1.64

5.55

5.48

2.86

2.8

2.79

2.727.43

7.47

23.2

4

22. 6

814.62

14.97

4.444.54 3.715.39

15.77

43.55

42.51

9.35

9.59

27.2226.613.92

24

2.272.21

47.9

3

43.6

5

0.98

0.73

0.280.25

0.160.

1350.87

49.64

50.87

49.64

15.5

0.160.13

0.160.13

15.39

15.77

74.9

3

71.4

9

1.27

0.97

81.5983.35

443.39

460.94

49.75

54.14112.92.78

2.828.09

9.721.46

8.09

1.469.72

17.42

22.8239

.36

39.2

5

36.6

8

41.4

6

40.5

2

15.7

7

15.3

9

110.43118.06

58.57

64.92

58.57

64.92

1.67

1.72

1.67

1.72

63.4466.69

101.08

108.47

64.9

7

61.7

7

42.1

41.1

5

460.94

443.39

10.86

8.9

25.53

23.29

6.95

12.11

21.46

16.53

6.94

15.27

6.9 4

1 5. 27

6.9415.27

359.46

352.06

4.44

4.2

0.44

0.47

0.8

0.8

2.76

2.71

28.1

127.5

8

12.01

12.23

12.9113.15

92

57.77

58.83

2.983.04

39.28

38.44

30.22

29.626

.19

2 5.8

816.67

16.87

5.055.12

28.6

17.53

17.75

49.07

48.45

10.6

6

10. 7

7

30.6430.26

15.84

04

2.542.5

3.383.01

25 .2 3

23 .8 9

8 .2 7

7 .3 2

25.44

30.32

1.25

1.37

3.39

3.65

7.5

8.25

5.36

4.32

1.521.51

0.920.

83

3

11.3

1

10. 3

57.44

56.79

36.2235.82

17.53

17.75

74.6

3

71.5

4

0.920.83

6.87

5.84

15.415.13

68.35

67.324.9424.65

597.

23

581.

51

25.23

23.89

48.45

49.38

7.5

8.25

36.9943

40.38

46.65

65.61

70.54

20.41

21.4

236.76

244.81

31.28

32.47

106

68.2

10.01

9.83

39.7

39

3.45

3.85

7.65

8.29

10.14

10.57

2.87

2.426.59

6.110.57

10.14

11.19

10.72

18.2

0.420.06

18.2

16.88

18.2

16.88

18.96

24.07

34.31

34.4

7

31.8

9

46.6

8

46.1

17.7

5

17.5

3

124.91131.34

65.8

71.5

65.8

71.5

1.88

1.92

1.88

1.92

62.3765.36

124.

3

114.25

120.57

63.4

4

60.4

9

47.4

3

46.8

4

0.8

0.8

0.42

0.06

4.5

4.59

26.1325.66

63.48

62.36

79

6.6

6.72

7.29

7.42

2.742.68

14.83

14.34

15.8415

.3318.2

1

17. 6

611.38

11.74

3.443.55

20.2

12

12.37

34.18

33.16

7.27

7.5 1

21.4220.78

10.87

11.21

1.781.72

50.9

5

46.3

4

2.32

1.85

0.670.64

0.410.

37

33.7

4

31.7

39.86

38.65

39.86

38.65

15.7 15.722

12

12.37

61.7

6

58.8

4

2.99

2.5

52.94

57.68

115.3

3.57

3.64 11.0

2

10.8

2

10.82

11.02

14.13

18.36

33.7

4

31.7

133

.74

31.7

1

32.6

3

31.6

5

12.3

7

12

86.793.18

86.7

46.27

51.49

46.27

51.49

1.31

1.36

1.31

1.36

55.4

52.5855.3

79.43

85.67

53.9

4

51.2

7

33.1

3

32.1

4

86.7

394.24

377.17

10.86

8.9

25.55

23.3

95

12.11

21.54

16.61

2.682.74

391.5

374.48 394.

24

377.

17

0.45

0.44

0.05

0.05

0.16

0.16

3.55

3.48

2.76

2.71

28.0

327.5

2

11.9

11.95

12.17

12.8713.11

57.66

58.77

2.973.04

31.93

31.62

29.8729

.5831.2

6

30. 9

419.94

20.16

6.056.1220.98

21.19

58.54

57.94

12.7

3

1 2.8

4

36.5736.17

18.93

19.13

3.022.99

0.360.32

2 5.2 3

2 3. 89

8 .27

7.32

25.44

30.32

1.25

1.37

3.39

3.65

7.5

8.25

4.02

3.2

1.131.12

0.670.

59

39.9

8

36.8

11. 3

1

10. 2

9

68.57

67.88

38.5338.13

20.98

21.19

87.9

4

84.3

1

2222

0.670.59

5.15

4.31

13.1712.96

73.9573.2232.35

32.02

664.

89

648.

62

25.23

23.89

49.24

50.16

7.5

8.25

36.9843

40.37

46.65

65.6 65.6

70.54

222.5

11.920.37

21.36

234.45

242.48

31.21

32.4

0.160.16

0.160.16

112

10

9.82

39.6

0.37

0.4

0.81

0.86 1.38

1.333.21

3.120.41

0.4

3.62

3.52

3.62

3.52

3.62

3.52

22.25

28.52

39.9

8

36.8

639

.98

36.8

6

55.755.1

21.1

9

20.9

8

148.91156.5

78.24

85.12

78.24

85.12

2.25

2.29

2.25

2.29

73.3276.85

136.18

143.66

74.5

6

71.0

7

56.6

55.9

9



5. Economic analysis An economic assessment will be undertaken to assess the financial viability of each bypass option. The methodology will be undertaken in accordance with VicRoads’ requirements with the appropriate sensitivity tests performed.

VicRoads has advised that the total estimates are currently being finalised in consideration of mitigation measures proposed by other specialist studies. Accordingly, the full economic assessment will be undertaken on final cost estimates.



6. Conclusion This report has described the traffic assessment for the proposed Echuca-Moama Mid-West 2 bridge alignments. The main findings from the analysis are as follows:

The four Mid-West 2 options are expected to carry virtually identical traffic volumes, as the differences in travel times and distances between options are relatively minor.

The Mid-West 2 bridge would primarily carry traffic to and from the Murray Valley and Northern Highways. Most Echuca town centre traffic will continue to use the existing bridge.

Options 2A and 2B provide direct access to the Murray Valley Highway and are more convenient for drivers who wish to travel through Echuca and Moama without stopping.

Options 2C and 2D are slightly less convenient for through traffic, but provide a shorter route for traffic wishing to access the historic port area.

All intersections in the Mid-West 2 corridor are expected to operate well within capacity to at least 2038.

An overall assessment of both traffic and economic outcomes will be completed after the option costs are confirmed.



Appendix A: Echuca Housing Strategy This appendix provides excerpt maps from the Echuca Housing Strategy (2011) that show the assumed distribution of housing growth in and around the Echuca township.

Beca // 17 March 2011// Page 244521668 // AU1-264739-26 2.17

Figure 4 - Echuca West Framework Plan

Beca // 17 March 2011// Page 344521668 // AU1-264739-26 2.17

Figure 8 - Framework Plan for Infill Development

EchucaMoama Bridge MidWest 2 Options Traffic Modelling

Documents

Transcript of EchucaMoama Bridge MidWest 2 Options Traffic Modelling