Council archive · source document
Traffic response · MCU18/0019
Attached to the e-mail Response to Info Request (Traffic Response) - MCU18/0019.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
GPO Box 1747
Brisbane QLD 4001
t 07 3166 9216
m 0417 607 242
www.qtraffic.com.au
Our Ref: 744_TPA207
Noosa Council 2 May 2018
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Attention: Glen Conforti, Development Planner
Application Number: MCU18/0019
Street Address: 52 - 62 Goodchap Street and 3 - 11 Val Crescent, Noosaville
Activity: Multiple Housing - Type 3 Retirement & Special Needs
Subject: Response to Requests for Additional Information – Traffic Matters
Dear Glen,
We refer to the development application for a Multiple Housing development (Type 3 Retirement & Special
Needs) on the site at 52 - 62 Goodchap Street and 3 - 11 Val Crescent, Noosaville.
This letter has been prepared in response to Council’s information request dated 2 March 2018 and the
Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning’s (DSDMIP’s) information
request dated 8 March 2018 in relation to the application. It addresses the traffic-related issues therein,
which are copied below for ease of reference, with responses provided following.
Reference should be made to the amended architectural plans which are included as Attachment 1, and
which are discussed further following.
Council’s Information Request
TRAFFIC
Issue - Goodchap Street porte cochere
It appears there is no traffic related need for the porte cochere. The traffic report indicates that
emergency vehicle/s (ambulance) could satisfactorily utilise the proposed loading area via the Val
Crescent driveway, and visitor drop-off could satisfactorily occur via the basement carpark.
Rather than the porte cochere, consideration should be given to the dedication of an emergency vehicle
loading bay on-street within the existing carriageway at the Goodchap Street frontage, clear of the
existing bus bay. The proposed Goodchap Street porte cochere raises the following concerns:
• Goodchap Street is a major road in the network and vehicle accesses should be minimised;
• The planning scheme requires one access driveway for the development. The proposal seeks 2
driveways from Goodchap Street and 1 driveway from Val Crescent.
Page 1
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of sections 2 to 18 (of 31)
Section 2
Information Required
1. Provide amended plans with the porte cochere removed.
2. Consideration given to the dedication of an on-street emergency vehicle parking bay clear of the bus
bay. Provide plans with the relevant details.
3. Provide sufficient justification should it be essential that emergency vehicles have onsite access (porte
cochere) from the Goodchap Street frontage.
4. Should the existing bus stop be required to be relocated the relevant approval from Translink should
be obtained and provided as part of the information response.
Response
As outlined in the Traffic Report which accompanied the development application, an entry driveway and
an exit driveway providing access to/from the porte cochere are proposed on Goodchap Street,
approximately midway along this frontage. This porte cochere is required to provide for convenient and
direct access to the development for emergency vehicles (i.e. ambulances), which is critical given the nature
of the proposed development. This is explained further in a separate submission provided by the Applicant,
which addresses the specific operational requirements of the development.
The provision of an on-street emergency vehicle parking bay as suggested by Council would require
ambulance staff using this bay to transfer patients for a distance of at least 20m – 25m between the vehicle
and the building foyer, plus the additional distance to/from the patient’s room. It would also require
loading/unloading of the patient to/from the ambulance kerbside on Goodchap Street in close proximity to
moving traffic, which is undesirable from a safety perspective, and would be likely to be distressing to
patients.
In addition, convenient and direct pedestrian access to the building for residents is essential, noting that
there is likely to be a substantial proportion of residents who are mobility impaired. The porte cochere is
required to ensure that these residents are provided with suitable access to/from the main building entrance
when being dropped off or picked up. Neither on-street nor basement drop-off and pick-up are considered
to satisfactorily accommodate the access requirements of the aged and mobility impaired residents of the
facility, hence the requirement for a porte cochere.
Whilst it is acknowledged that Goodchap Street is considered to be a major road (District Collector) in
Council’s road network, the following points are noted:
• The porte cochere would be intended to cater for emergency vehicle access, and drop-off / pick-
up only. Accordingly, the volumes of traffic entering and exiting this porte cochere would be
very low, particularly during the peak periods on the adjacent road network. As such, the
impact of traffic turning into and out of the porte cochere upon through traffic on Goodchap
Street, as well as pedestrian traffic on the Goodchap Street footpath, would be minimal.
• Goodchap Street is posted at 60km/hr. It has a two-way, two-lane undivided cross-section, and
kerbside (parallel) parking is permitted in several locations clear of bus stops, intersections, and
property access driveways. Goodchap Street has a number of basic standard local intersection
treatments along its length, and a single circulating lane roundabout at the intersection of Val
Crescent, which controls vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the site.
Individual property access is provided along Goodchap Street to a considerable number of
residential properties, as well as significant developments, including the Noosaville Medical
and Professional Centre at 90 Goodchap Street (which generates a substantially higher volume
of traffic than that which would be generated by the porte cochere at the proposed
development).
Accordingly, whilst Goodchap Street may be classified as a major road, direct vehicular access
(such as that proposed under this application) is considered to be supportable given the road
Page 2
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 3
environment and local traffic conditions, and consistent with the access arrangements to
existing properties on Goodchap Street in the vicinity of the development site.
• Whilst two vehicle crossovers are proposed onto Goodchap Street, the access arrangement
involves an entry only driveway, and an exit only driveway, i.e. a single (separated) access,
providing the opportunity for pedestrians to cross the driveways in a staged manner.
• Given the vertical and horizontal alignment of Goodchap Street in the vicinity of the proposed
access driveways, sight distance to/from the access driveways would be essentially unrestricted.
Furthermore, given northbound traffic on Goodchap Street is approaching the Val Crescent
roundabout, this traffic would be decelerating, and therefore likely to be travelling at a speed
substantially lower than the posted speed of 60km/hr. Accordingly, the impact of turning traffic
upon through traffic on Goodchap Street would be further reduced, i.e. marginal.
Notwithstanding the above, in order to further reduce any impact upon through traffic on Goodchap Street,
and should Council deem it necessary, the access driveways to the porte cochere could be limited to left-in
and left-out traffic movements only. These movement restrictions could be enforced by way of appropriate
crossover geometry, signage, and/or a central median on Goodchap Street, which would physically prevent
the right turn movement into the entry driveway, and the right turn movement from the exit driveway. This
could be addressed by way of a condition of the approval, at detailed design stage.
As discussed in the Traffic Report which accompanied the development application, in order to
accommodate the access driveways for the porte cochere, the applicant proposes to reposition the bus stop
along the site frontage approximately 40m to the south of its current location, as shown in the diagram
included as Attachment 2. The proposed (repositioned) bus stop would still be located along the frontage
of the subject site, but adjacent to its southern boundary (in front of the residence which is currently at 62
Goodchap Street) rather than midway along the frontage. In the proposed location, the bus stop would not
impede property access, nor would it have a notable impact upon on-street parking, requiring the removal of
only one kerbside parking space.
The proposed relocation of the bus stop is addressed in response to the DSDMIP’s information request, in
the following sections of this report.
Overall, the proposed access driveways on Goodchap Street, which will provide access to the porte cochere
for low volumes of traffic only, are considered to be supportable given the road environment and local
traffic conditions, and consistent with the access arrangements to existing properties on Goodchap Street in
the vicinity of the development site.
Issue – Val Crescent sight lines
The proposal demonstrates sight lines from the proposed Val Crescent driveway toward the roundabout,
and shows that a sight line triangle across part of the site is required to satisfy absolute minimum
driveway sight line requirements. This satisfies the lesser Australian Standard requirement for driveway
sight lines, but does not satisfy the more desirable Austroads Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD)
requirements.
Sight lines are restricted in both directions when departing from the driveway, and exacerbated even
further by the fact that the driver of the vehicle departing from the driveway also needs to look across an
angle greater than 90 degrees from the straight ahead in each direction.
Considering the above discussion, it is recommended that a more appropriate driveway location from a
traffic safety perspective be investigated at a location further south along Val Crescent, about at the
slight bend in Val Crescent half way along the long frontage.
Staff vehicle movements
No staff shift times or staff numbers have been provided. This number would help determine the times of
day/night when most vehicle movements would occur.
Page 3
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 4
Information required
5. Investigate and provide amended plans locating the access further south along Val Crescent.
Response
The proposed driveway on Val Crescent has been positioned to:
• maximise sight distance in both directions i.e. to the right, towards traffic approaching from the
Goodchap Street roundabout, and to the left, towards traffic approaching around the horizontal
bend on Val Crescent;
• minimise impact upon residential amenity i.e. minimise the number of dwellings that traffic
associated with the development (both light and heavy vehicles) will need to travel past to access /
egress the development; and
• avoid the tree protection zone surrounding the existing gum tree to the west of the proposed access
driveway location.
In light of the above, it is not considered feasible or desirable to reposition the driveway.
6. Should the proposed Val Crescent access location be utilised, demonstrate the achieved sight lines are
in accordance with Austroads Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) requirements on a scale plan in
both directions along Val Crescent from the driveway, and justify those sight lines. The plan should
include any proposed fencing, landscaping, and retaining walls in that vicinity.
Response
The Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) recommendations in Austroads Guide to Road Design are
typically applied at intersections, as opposed to site access driveways. Furthermore, Austroads is a
guideline document only. The statutory requirement for sight distance in this instance is that stipulated in
Australian Standard AS2890.1.
As outlined in the Traffic Report which accompanied the development application, a sightline assessment
was undertaken in light of the proximity of the proposed driveway to adjacent road features.
In order to achieve adequate sight distance from the exit side of the driveway towards traffic turning left
from Goodchap Street into Val Crescent (noting that these traffic volumes are expected to be low), it was
recommended that the area as identified in Figure 1 over page be kept clear of any obstructions, including
fences or landscaping. This would provide approximately 40m – 45m of stopping sight distance (SSD)
which achieves the desirable minimum assuming a (conservatively high) vehicle approach speed of
40km/hr and a reaction time of 2 seconds, based upon the provisions of Austroads Guide to Road Design
Part 3 – Geometric Design (Table 5.4). This would also exceed the minimum SSD stipulated in Figure 3.2
of AS2890.1, assuming a (conservatively high) frontage road speed of 40km/hr, which is 35m.
Furthermore, this would provide a 5 second gap for heavy vehicles to exit the site (which is the minimum
recommended in AS2890.2) assuming an average approach traffic speed of 30km/hr, which is considered to
be a more realistic travel speed for traffic turning left from Goodchap Street into Val Crescent.
Sight distance from the exit side of the driveway towards traffic approaching from the west (i.e. the bend in
Val Crescent) would also exceed the 35m – 40m minimum required under the provisions of Austroads
Guide to Road Design and AS2890.1, and the 42m required under the provisions of AS2890.2, assuming
that vehicles take this bend at 30km/hr or slower. Given the radius of this bend, it is considered unlikely
that traffic would travel around this corner at greater than 30km/hr.
The observation angle in both directions is approximately 110 degrees, which achieves the recommendation
in Section 3.2.3 of Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4a: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections
(notwithstanding the fact that the access is a driveway, not an intersection).
In light of the above, subject to the area identified in Figure 1 over page being kept clear of any
obstructions including fences or landscaping, the proposed access driveway location is considered to be
acceptable from a traffic engineering perspective, taking into consideration the existing site conditions and
other design requirements.
Page 4
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 5
Keep this area clear
of obstructions
Figure 1: Extract from Ground Floor Plan – Clear Sight Triangle
7. Provide the mechanism (such as dedication of sight line easements with associated easement wording)
to ensure that sight lines required across those parts of the site will be maintained into the future.
Response
It is anticipated that if necessary, an easement could be created over the area identified in Figure 1. Should
Council require this to be enforced as a condition of the approval, suggested wording of this condition is as
follows:
An easement in favour of Council is to be created over the area of land at the north-eastern corner
of the site as identified in Figure 3.1.2 of the Q Traffic Report which accompanied the development
application. This easement is to be kept clear of any obstructions over 600mm in height to ensure
that satisfactory sight distance from the Val Crescent driveway towards traffic on Goodchap Street
is maintained.
8. Please provide proposed staff numbers and shifts times and incorporate them into the traffic
assessment.
Response
The future operator of the facility advises that typical shift times at the facility will be as follows:
• Day shift: 7:00am – 3:00pm
• Afternoon / evening shift: 2:45pm – 10:30pm
• Night shift: 10:15pm – 7:00am
The operator advises that there will be a maximum of 30 – 35 staff on-site during the morning periods. The
number of staff will decrease in the afternoon / evenings, and further reduce on weekends.
Page 5
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 6
In light of the above, the predicted trip generation during the commuter peak periods on the road network
(typically 8 – 9am and 5 – 6pm) is expected to be very low, given that staff changeover does not coincide
with these periods.
This is consistent with the (conservatively high) traffic generation forecasts in the Traffic Report which
accompanied the development application, which were based upon the trip generation rate recommended in
the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments. This document suggests a rate of 0.1 - 0.2 trips per
dwelling in the evening peak hour, for housing for aged and disabled persons. Appendix 3A in TMR’s Road
Planning and Design Manual suggests that this rate is appropriate for retirement / ages homes.
It is acknowledged that this trip generation rate relates to ‘dwellings’ (e.g. independent living units) rather
than beds. However in the absence of published trip generation rates on a ‘per bed’ basis, the rate at the
higher end of the range has been applied to the proposed development (i.e. 90 beds x 0.2 trips per bed). This
is considered to be a reasonable assumption given that the staffing requirements for an aged care facility (as
opposed to independent living units) are higher, but the traffic volumes generated by visitors are likely to be
lower, and the traffic volumes generated by residents will be negligible.
The application of this trip generation rate (i.e. 0.2 trips per bed) to the 90 beds proposed suggested a peak
hour traffic generation of 18 vehicle trips in the peak hours, or one (1) vehicle trip per 3 – 4 minutes on
average, during the critical peak hours. Whilst this is considered to be a conservatively high estimate of the
site traffic generation during the road peak periods given that staff changeover does not coincide with these
periods, this level of traffic generation is clearly very low, and likely to be well within the typical
fluctuations in background traffic volumes on the local road network, therefore negligible from a traffic
engineering and transport planning perspective.
Furthermore, this does not take into consideration the existing uses (i.e. nine (9) residential dwellings) on
the subject site. These dwellings would currently generate in the order of 7 – 8 vehicle trips in the critical
peak hours (assuming 0.85 trips per dwelling as recommended in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments), therefore the net impact of the proposal would be only 10 – 11 additional vehicle trips in
the peak hours, or one (1) additional vehicle trip per 5 – 6 minutes on average, during the critical peak hour.
This level of additional traffic generation during the road network commuter peak periods is clearly very
low. As a consequence, no external roadworks are required to support the proposal, and any impacts
(however minor) would be mitigated by way of infrastructure contributions payable as part of the
redevelopment of the site.
Issue –Val Crescent Driveway Levels
The proposed RL of 4.372 on the property line at the Val Crescent driveway does not appear to match
with the existing 5.0m and 4.5m contours either side of the driveway.
Information requested
9. Please provide section plans of the proposed Val Crescent driveway demonstrating how the driveway
satisfactorily interacts with the existing kerb level, complies with the relevant Australian Standards and
the pedestrian sight splay recommended in the QTraffic report.
Response
The drawings included in Attachment 1 include sections along the eastern and western sides of the
driveway, and the updated ground floor plan shows a minimum 2.5m x 2.0m sight triangle adjacent to the
exit side of the driveway, as required under the provisions of AS2890.1.
The sections included in Attachment 1 indicate that the verge along the northern frontage of the site will
need to be regraded in the vicinity of the driveway, in order to achieve the proposed driveway levels. This
regrading, which it is anticipated would be undertaken in conjunction with frontage works on Val Crescent,
would reduce the gradient across the verge to approximately 1:40 - 1:24 along the western and eastern sides
of the driveway respectively.
Page 6
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 7
The drawings included as Attachment 3 show the results of a vertical clearance assessment for a 12.5m
Heavy Rigid Vehicle as defined in AS2890.2, demonstrating that no underside scraping is expected to occur
on the driveway, or within the site, based upon the levels and gradients as shown in these sections.
Notwithstanding this, it is anticipated that the grading of the driveway and the crossover detail would be
refined at detailed design stage, prior to construction.
Issue –Driveway layout and basement gate
The parking layout plan does not include dimensions.
There is potential for conflict between vehicles entering the basement and service vehicles using the
delivery/loading area.
The basement access shows a gate which may restrict visitor access.
Information requested
10. Please provide:
10.1. a dimensioned parking layout plan demonstrating the details outlined in Section 3.3 of the QTraffic
report;
Response
The amended basement plan included in Attachment 1 includes dimensions of parking spaces and aisles,
which are designed in accordance the relevant Australian Standards, as summarised following:
• Standard parking spaces are 2.6m wide and 5.4m long, exceeding the minimum dimensional
requirements for employee parking or car parking areas with low turnover rates as outlined in
AS2890.1;
• The parking aisle is 6.2m wide (minimum), exceeding the minimum dimensional requirement for
low turnover parking stipulated in AS2890.1 (i.e. 5.8m);
• The parking space for people with disabilities (PWD) is 2.4m wide with a 2.4m wide adjacent
shared area, in accordance with requirements of AS2890.6. This parking space and shared area will
necessarily have a fall not exceeding 1:33 in any direction, and a minimum height clearance of
2.5m;
• Columns are positioned within the zone which is 750mm to 1,750mm from the open end of the
parking space for manoeuvring to/from the space and pedestrian access to/from the vehicle, as
required under the provisions of AS2890.1; and
• A terminated aisle extension of greater than 1m has been allowed for, to accommodate vehicle
manoeuvring to/from the end parking spaces.
In summary, the carpark layout is efficient and legible, and designed generally in accordance with the
relevant Australian Standards.
10.2. a modified driveway layout that ensures that the swept path of the design vehicle (including
clearances) remains within the proposed driveway area (refer to QTraffic plan 755_KNG03 SK.02 A);
Response
The basement drawing included in Attachment 1 shows a modified driveway configuration, which would
be adequate to accommodate the entry and exit manoeuvres of a Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV) and a Refuse
Collection Vehicle (RCV), as shown in the drawings included as Attachment 4.
10.3. a plan with the clear delineation of the access to the basement carpark clear of the loading area, so
that all users are able to distinguish how that area will operate in an obvious manner; and
Page 7
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 8
Response
Upon entry to the site via the Val Crescent driveway, it would be obvious to drivers that there would be two
potential routes:
• straight ahead for access to the basement car park (with the entry / roller shutter directly ahead of
an entering vehicle); or
• to the right for access to the servicing area (which would be a large open hardstand area, which
would clearly be a ‘back of house’ area).
Notwithstanding the above, the following points should be noted:
• Those accessing the facility via the Val Crescent driveway would typically be frequent and/or
familiar drivers (e.g. staff, visitors of residents, or regular delivery drivers); and
• Whilst not considered to be necessary, signage could be installed to clearly distinguish the car park
access and/or servicing area.
10.4. details of the hours of operation of the basement gate (open all hours, only open during day light
hours, or closed at all times and only opened when required?). If the gate is to remain closed for any
part of the day or night identify how users, including visitors, will satisfactorily gain access at those
times. Investigate moving the gate to allow unrestricted access to some car parks and a disabled space on
entry to the basement.
Response
It is understood that the roller shutter at the entry to the car park will typically be left open during the day,
and closed at night.
Staff access to/from the basement car park will be required at all times, therefore islands will be required to
accommodate a proximity car reader in advance of the roller shutter for the entry and exit, as shown
indicatively in Figure 2 below.
In relation to visitor access, it is expected that this would typically occur during the day, when the roller
shutter is open and unimpeded access to the car park is available. For occasional visitor access during the
evening / night, an intercom (positioned on the island shown indicatively in Figure 2 below) would allow
visitors to contact reception staff for access to / egress from the car park.
Whilst the design of the development makes provision for satisfactory access / security arrangements, it is
anticipated that these arrangements would be refined at detailed design stage, prior to construction.
Central islands
for proximity card
reader / intercom
Figure 2: Possible Island Locations for Basement Access / Egress
Page 8
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 9
DSDMIP’s Information Request
Information requested— Bus stop relocation and pedestrian safety
1. The development proposal includes relocating the existing bus stop, ‘Goodchap St near Val Cr,
Noosaville’ (TransLink #: 700484, Hastus ID: 302120) to a new location south of the existing Goodchap
Street pedestrian crossing refuge because of conflicts between the proposed aged care facility’s driveways
and the location of the existing bus stop.
The architectural plans prepared by Elevation Architecture illustrate the proposed bus stop is
approximately 10m from the pedestrian crossing. The proposed location and separation distance may
result in stopped buses compromising sight lines for pedestrians. Ensuring adequate sight lines for
pedestrians is especially important at this location because the crossing provides pedestrian movement
between the bus stop, the proposed aged care facility and the Noosa Hospital on the northern side of
Goodchap Street.
The applicant is requested to provide further information demonstrating how the proposed development
complies with Performance Outcomes PO10 and PO19 of State Code 6: Protection of state transport
networks of the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP).
In particular, the applicant has not demonstrated how the relocated bus stop meets the design
requirements of the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) and TransLink Public Transport
Infrastructure Manual 2015.
In responding to State code 6 of SDAP, the applicant should address the following:
(i) Provide information on whether an alternative location or design can be achieved for the proposed
Goodchap Street access driveways. DTMR has advised their preference is for the existing bus stop
location to be maintained.
Response
As outlined in the Traffic Report which accompanied the development application, an entry driveway and
an exit driveway providing access to/from the porte cochere are proposed on Goodchap Street,
approximately midway along this frontage (i.e. on either side of the existing bus stop). This porte cochere is
required to provide for convenient and direct access to the development for emergency vehicles (i.e.
ambulances), which is critical given the nature of the proposed development. This is explained further in a
separate submission provided by the Applicant, which addresses the specific operational requirements of
the development.
In addition, convenient and direct pedestrian access to the building for residents is essential, noting that
there is likely to be a substantial proportion of residents who are mobility impaired. The porte cochere is
required in a central location (i.e. midway along the site frontage) to ensure that these residents are provided
with suitable access to/from the main building entrance when being dropped off or picked up. Neither on-
street nor basement drop-off and pick-up are considered to satisfactorily accommodate the access
requirements of the aged and mobility impaired residents of the facility, hence the requirement for a porte
cochere.
In light of the above, the Goodchap Street access driveways (as positioned in the plans included as
Attachment 1) are considered to be required from an accessibility perspective.
In order to accommodate these driveways, the applicant proposes to reposition the bus stop along the site
frontage approximately 40m to the south of its current location, as shown in the diagram included as
Attachment 2. The proposed (repositioned) bus stop would still be located along the frontage of the subject
site, but adjacent to its southern boundary (in front of the residence which is currently at 62 Goodchap
Street) rather than midway along the frontage.
In the proposed location, the bus stop would not impede property access, nor would it have a notable impact
upon on-street parking, requiring the removal of only one kerbside parking space.
Page 9
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 10
(ii) If the proposed design cannot be altered, demonstrate how safe pedestrian access will be provided
between the bus stop pair in Goodchap Street. In particular, sight lines for pedestrians at the existing
refuge must not be obstructed by a stopped bus in either the northbound or southbound direction. The
applicant should consult with the Noosa Council regarding any modifications required to the design and
location of the pedestrian crossing and refuge with the proposed relocation.
Response
In order to determine adequacy of sightlines for pedestrians at the existing refuge island on Goodchap Street
located to the north of the proposed bus stop location, reference has been made to the Queensland Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 10: Pedestrian control and protection, November 2017, which
specifically addresses No Stopping requirements in proximity to pedestrian crossing refuges with kerb
extension blisters.
As shown in the extract provided as Figure 3 below, this document stipulates a requirement for ‘No
Stopping Any Time’ for a distance of 10m from the pedestrian crossing, where the blister island is 2m wide
(which is the approximate width of the existing blister island, measured to the kerbline).
The proposed bus stop location (as shown in the diagram included as Attachment 2) provides in excess of
14.5m separation from the crossing to the bus stop, and is therefore considered adequate under the
provisions of the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Figure 3: Extract from the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Part 10: Pedestrian control and protection, November 2017
Page 10
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 11
Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed bus stop location would provide substantially more separation
from the existing crossing than the existing bus stop on Goodchap Street located approximately 430m to the
south (Stop ID: 302118), which is positioned only approximately 4m in advance of a pedestrian crossing
(was only relatively recently installed in mid-2016), as shown in Figure 4 below.
Whilst it is acknowledged that this bus stop is partially indented, it is noted that there is no kerb blister
provided at the pedestrian crossing.
Existing Pedestrian
Crossing (Goodchap
Street, south of site)
Existing Bus Stop
Figure 4: Existing Bus Stop (302118) / Pedestrian Crossing – Goodchap Street (south of site)
In summary, the location of the proposed (repositioned) bus stop relative to the existing pedestrian crossing,
as shown in the diagram included as Attachment 2, is considered to meet the requirements of the
Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and importantly, is considered to be superior to
the arrangements at the existing bus stop on Goodchap Street located approximately 430m to the south
(Stop ID: 302118).
(iii) If the proposed bus stop location cannot meet the requirements of the Public Transport
Infrastructure Manual, investigate an alternative location and/or design for a relocated bus stop:
• In proposing an alternative location, the applicant should give due consideration to the
operational considerations for the planning and design of bus stops in Section 5.5 Bus Stop
Environment within Chapter 5 Bus Stop Infrastructure of the Public Transport Infrastructure
Manual 2015, as well as to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules)
Regulation 2009, in particular stopping at intersections and pedestrian crossings, and the bus
stop pair on the opposite side of Goodchap Street.
Response
Consideration has been given to the recommendations within Chapter 5 Bus Stop Infrastructure of
the Public Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015.
The relevant considerations, and responses (addressing the proposed relocation of the bus stop
approximately 40m to the south of the existing location) are provided in Table 1 over page.
Page 11
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 12
Table 1: Consideration of Recommendations - Section 5.5 Bus Stop Environment within
Chapter 5 Bus Stop Infrastructure of the Public Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015
What to Consider Response (Proposed Relocation)
Stop spacing is ideally 400-800m in an urban The proposed bus stop relocation reduces the spacing from
environment (approx. 5-10 minute walk and approximately 430m to 390m to the bus stop to the south
average walking speed 5km/h). on Goodchap Street, and from approximately 320m to
Inner city and densely built up areas may warrant 360m to the bus stop to the north on Goodchap Street,
a spacing of less than 400 metres. which is considered preferable to the existing spacing
arrangement based upon the recommended stop spacing.
Ensure safe sightlines for vehicles, bus operators The proposed bus stop location provides in excess of
and passengers. Keep stops away from tight 14.5m separation from the crossing to the bus stop, and is
horizontal curves or vertical curves (road crests or therefore considered adequate under the provisions of the
sags) that create ‘blind spots’. It is the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
responsibility of the provider to check and confirm (which requires a 10m No Stopping distance in advance of
sight lines are adequate and meet the relevant a pedestrian refuge crossing).
standards. There are no tight horizontal curves or significant vertical
curves (road crests or sags) on Goodchap Street that would
create ‘blind spots’.
Ensure bus drivers and waiting passengers are Given the horizontal and vertical alignment of Goodchap
clearly visible to each other. Street, bus drivers and waiting passengers should be
clearly visible to each other.
Ensure buses can pull up safely on-road and have The proposal (which relocates the bus stop only 40m to the
ease of manoeuvrability. south) would not notably alter the access / manoeuvring
provisions at the bus stop.
Choose sites where there is sufficient pavement The proposal (which relocates the bus stop only 40m to the
area for pedestrians to safely walk past the bus south) would not notably alter the pedestrian access
stop area (and shelter, if required). arrangements or the ability for pedestrians to safely walk
past the bus stop area.
Provide convenient boarding and alighting for The proposal (which relocates the bus stop only 40m to the
passengers by locating stops: south) would not notably alter the convenience of access to
– close to community facilities and services that community facilities and services that attract a high
attract a high proportion of people with a proportion of people with a disability, significant
disability attractors, or other stops.
– close to significant attractors (for example,
shopping centres, commercial premises, places of
employment, educational facilities)
– close to other stops (and in some cases stations)
to minimise walking if transferring between
services.
Provide safe access for passengers by locating The proposed bus stop will remain within convenient
stops: proximity of the existing pedestrian crossing on Goodchap
– Close to dedicated pedestrian road crossings Street, and away from facilities with high parking
away from facilities with high parking turnover turnover.
– away from dense foliage and other objects that Proximity to foliage, lighting etc would be addressed as
hinder direct sightlines part of the detailed design of the proposed bus stop
– in well-lit areas or where access to power for relocation.
future lighting is possible.
Bus stops should be located in pairs so that The proposal (which relocates the northbound bus stop
boarding and alighting happens in close proximity, only 40m to the south) would ensure that clear visibility is
with the opposite stop clearly visible. retained between the northbound and southbound stop.
When locating mid-block, paired bus stops should Whilst the proposal will stagger the bus stop pair in a nose
ideally be staggered in a tail-to-tail arrangement to tail arrangement, there will be sufficient space between
with sufficient space between stops to ensure stops to ensure vehicles can pass.
vehicles can pass and passengers can safely cross
behind the buses at the stops.
Page 12
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 13
It is preferable that a bus stop is located: Whilst the proposal will position the stop upstream of the
– near existing pedestrian crossing facilities (for existing pedestrian crossing, it will be in convenient
example, dropped kerbs, refuge islands, signals) proximity to this crossing. The proposed bus stop location
– downstream of a pedestrian crossing facility provides in excess of 14.5m separation from the crossing
to the bus stop, and is therefore considered adequate under
– where there is minimal conflict with parking
the provisions of the Queensland Manual of Uniform
areas and other potential traffic hindrances
Traffic Control Devices (which requires a 10m No
– to provide sufficient sight distance so buses can Stopping distance in advance of a pedestrian refuge
safely re-enter/merge with the traffic lane. crossing).
The proposal (which relocates the bus stop only 40m to the
south) would not notably alter the access / manoeuvring
provisions at the bus stop.
It is noted that Chapter 5 Bus Stop Infrastructure of the Public Transport Infrastructure Manual
2015 recommends that 20m separation be provided on approach to a non-signalised pedestrian
crossing (as shown in the extracts below), however given the existing crossing includes kerb
extension blisters, the provisions of the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
Part 10: Pedestrian control and protection, November 2017, which specifically addresses No
Stopping requirements in proximity to pedestrian crossing refuges with kerb extension blisters, are
considered to be more relevant in this instance.
As previously discussed, the proposed bus stop location provides in excess of 14.5m separation
from the existing pedestrian crossing refuge to the bus stop, and is therefore considered adequate
under the provisions of the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (which
requires a 10m No Stopping distance in advance of a pedestrian refuge crossing).
Extracts from Chapter 5 Bus Stop Infrastructure of the Public Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015
Page 13
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 14
The proposed bus stop location is adjacent to an existing power pole. Adequate consideration
should be given to potential constraints such as stormwater drainage infrastructure, power
poles, driveways and the like as well as traffic hindrances and safety issues in locating the bus
stop, for example, ingress/egress points, queuing/deceleration of traffic, turn lanes, sight
lines/distances and blind spots affecting potential bus drivers and pedestrians.
Response
The proposal (which relocates the bus stop only 40m to the south of its existing location) would
not have any notable impact upon traffic hindrances and safety issues, including
queuing/deceleration of traffic, turn lanes, sight lines/distances and blind spots affecting potential
bus drivers. As shown in the diagram included as Attachment 2, the proposal replicates the
existing bus stop arrangements, with the 20m bus zone to be clear of the driveway to the property
to the south at 64 Goodchap Street.
As previously discussed, the proposed bus stop location provides in excess of 14.5m separation
from the existing pedestrian crossing refuge to the bus stop, and is therefore considered adequate
under the provisions of the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (which
requires a 10m No Stopping distance in advance of a pedestrian refuge crossing).
It is anticipated that the detail of the bus stop relocation (e.g. proximity to the power pole,
proximity to foliage, lighting etc) would be addressed as part of the detailed design of the proposed
bus stop, which would be submitted to DTMR for approval prior to construction.
• The relocated bus stop should be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements
for an Intermediate stop in Chapter 5 Bus stop Infrastructure of the Public Transport
Infrastructure Manual and relevant components should be reinstated, where possible. A scaled
and labelled proposal plan should clearly show the positioning and design of the relocated bus
stop. In particular, refer to Section 5.3.5 Intermediate Stop, Section 5.6.3.1 and Table 5.7 Bus
Stop Length Requirements, Section 5.7 Bus Stop Components and Appendix 5-B Layout and
Technical Drawings.
The DTMR and TransLink Public Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015 is available online at
www.translink.com.au/about-translink/reports-and-publications.
Response
The proposal will reinstate the components of the existing bus stop, where possible.
A scaled and labelled proposal plan showing the positioning and design of the relocated bus stop
would be prepared in response to a condition of the approval, and submitted to DTMR for approval
prior to construction.
Conclusion
In my capacity as a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland, I am satisfied that the proposed
vehicular access, parking and servicing arrangements represent suitable performance-based solutions which
are acceptable from a traffic engineering perspective, considering the specific site conditions and the nature
of the use.
On this basis, it is recommended that the development application be approved from a traffic engineering
perspective.
Should you have any queries regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Page 14
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 15
Regards
Richard Quinn
BECivil, MIEAust, RPEQ (08565)
Director – Q Traffic
Page 15
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
Section 16
ATTACHMENT 1
Updated Architectural Plans
Page 16
Our Ref: 290_KNG01 2 May 2018
[OCR of page images]
ATTACHMENT 1
Updated Architectural Plans
Page 16
Our Ref: 290_KNGOI 2 May 2018
Section 17
p 0 7 3 2 5 1 6 9 0 0 f 0 7 3 8 5 2 2 0 8 2 ● w w w . e l e v a t i o n a r c h i t e c t u r e .c o m . a u ● i n f o @ e l e v a t i o n a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m . a u
5.00
4.96
VAL CRESCENT
4.77
4.97 5.01
4 4.93 5.01
Elevation Architecture. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
4.90
3.80 4.05 4.20 4.47 .9
4 0
3.69 4.91 5.04
4.95 5.00 5.05
S
LL WP 3.94 4.38 4.66
3.64 4.06
3. 4.76
4.62
5
38
3.52 3.59 3.89 4.18 4.33 9 4.92
3.55 3.73 4.02
SW 4.5 8
4.84 4.86
3.48 4.02 4.02 4.13 4.48 LL P 4.7 S
W
3.62 P
Elevation Architecture Pty Ltd ACN 606 170 807 © Copyright reserved this document is and shall remain the property of
4. .9
83 4.89 4 9 5.11 5.07
3.43 4.71 4.94
3.39 5.03 5.10 5.06
3.53 5.20
5.00 5.10 5.23
4.13
H 5.24 5.34
300
4.02 Gu 52°00'00"
97
m
°0
0"
0'
25052°
35
3.31 5.45
ØR
3.36 4.08
0'
3.45 3.61 WM 4.98 5.33 5.38 5.39
CP
3.77 4.53 35.25
4.57 4.35
5.
3.47 5.47
69
0"
0'
69097°
5
0"
45'
96014°
7
4.44 4.44 5.57 5.47
3.25
3.29
4.88 5.62
3.40
IL 2
SW 4.81 5.62 5.63
.60
Gr P
at
e 3.50 ' 4.31
45 5.60 5.64
4°9 5.00
31.5 5.68
6
3.29 7.9 5.67
3.23
3.30 4.91 Si
3.25 3.39
gn 5.83
4.69 5.68
P:\Data 1\0662-34 Arcare Noosa\5.2 Development Application\5.2.1 ArchiCAD\0662-34_DA_Goodchap Street_RFI.pln
5.81
5.10
5.32
5.89
3.84 5.89 5.77
4.95 5.93 5.89 5.93
5.81
4.28 5.83
5.92 5.95
5.97
3.45 5.92
5.92
4.83 El
B 3.33 3.43 Pi ectr
t ici
337
RL M: N 3.29 ty 6.04
: 3 ai 5.89
°30'
.4 l in
7 Ke 6.05
rb 3.81
44.4
96
4.66 5.68
5.27
6.07 6.06
4.30 Te
ls
6
Pi tra
t 6.15
3.52 4.95 4.99 5.23 5.69 6.12 6.16 6.01
5.90
6.00 6.14
3.34
N 3.47 4.98 6.16
3.38 5.22 6.22
3.58 6.18
6.08
S 6.22
LL WP 3.84
3. 6.25 6.33
51 6.25 SW 6.29
BM 6.25 P
30 RL : N Op Section 18
6.12
0"
30'
496337°
44
4.30 tu 6.35
0Ø
3.37
: 6 ail
.3 in Pi s
t 6.30
RC 3.41 3.60 6 6.10
P Co
6.29
3.49 3.88 5.05 nc 6.33
5.33 6.28
IL
2.6 3.43 6.34
6 3.36
5.10 6.09 6.20
3.45 3.36 5.48
142°00'00"
116.68
4.27
VAL
Plotted from Unitywater Records
6.39
4.72 6.25
GOODCHAP
3.90 5.04
WM
M
3.62 4.12 LL H 6.41
6.27
IL 2.93
3.58 4.
4.18
18
3.50 3.54
4.29
3.45 IL 2.9
2
WM
3.73 4.30
STREET
3.87 .4
4 3
4.06 4.44 4.92
IL 2.91
3.48 3.70 6.51 6.50
3.53 6.53
By Unity Water
5.28 5.66
IL 3.40
3.63 3.61 4.04 6.14
4.38 6.33 6.53
4.10 5.41 5.77
IL 3.3 M
8 LL H
4.20 5.
58
4.61 4.65 6.54
3.94 6.56
4.09 6.42
IL 4.05
6.40
Knowles Group
Goodchap St,
Noosaville
6.58 6.56 6.57
By Unity Water
3.98 4.61
4.20
3.76 5.28
4.66 6.63
329°45'
3.61 3.57 6.65
3.71 5.51 6.50
6.42 6.64
19.817
6.63 6.65 6.64
5.82
scale:
6.39
To
3.80 tal 6.72
3.64 3.59 4.41
Ar
ea
3.74 6.74
1:200@A1
1:400@A3
4.11
67
41
m 6.82
² 6.81 6.76
0"
45'
817329°
19
Bi
n Si
3.83 5.27 gn
3.87 6.78
3.86 3.79 4.07
WM
6.81
4.83 6.84
3.70 6.70
3.65 3.77 4.10 6.85 6.82
7.91 6.68
6.19
S 5.63
LL WP
IL 3.
3.71
2 73 .95 4.13
3.67
H3
Bus Shelter
30 .81
0Ø 3.79
RC 3.88
P 3.82 6.93 7.92
IL 3.96
B 2.
9 3.83 6.92
30 6.94 6.91
r line plotted from RL M: N 0Ø 1 3.68
WM
: 3 ai
Water records. .8 l in RC 6.94
8 P 3.72
3.68
IL 2.56
Ke
rb
3.71 IL 2.49 M
3.82 LL H
IL 3.69 4.
3 3.66 54
30 .04 6.86
0Ø 3.69 3.63 5.36 6.36
IL 2.56
RC 4.25
P 4.64 5.78
7.02
7.07 6.88
3.91 7.06
3.78 3.73
3.88
B
RL M: N
WM
5.34 : 7 The text continues on section 19.
Used in these records
Traffic response.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 9.2 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.