DTMR Correspondance

From: Hamed Nabiollahi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 26 October 2020 7:31 AM
To: Anthony Wright <[email protected]>
Subject: TMR16‐018981 & TMR16‐018591 footpath separation

Anthony
I’ve contacted a few in TMR and they confirmed there is nothing stopping them from shifting the footpath as per the
attached plan away from the road to give separation and provide a better level of safety for active users whom
would use the pathway. I realise that council may have had something written in their conditions, however these
trees that would be affected would be within TMR road corridor and are not of significant value. We see more
benefit in providing separation for safety and ease (flatter longitudinal gradients) for pedestrian traffic.

Please let me know if you require any further information.


Kind Regards,

Hamed Nabiollahi
Senior Engineer (Civil) | North Coast District | Maroochydore Office
Program Delivery & Operations | Department of Transport and Main Roads
First Floor, Building 2 | 131 Sugar Road | Maroochydore Qld 4558
P: (07) 5459 1713 F: (07) 5451 7098 M: 0428 104 519
E: [email protected]
W: www.tmr.qld.gov.au




From: Anthony Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2020 5:02 PM
To: Hamed Nabiollahi <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Design Services Project Management ‐ Elm Street & Pearsons Rd Intersection has been assigned to you

Hi Hamed,

Please see the below responses to the attached items:

Item 1
     The alignment was shifted from the property boundary as per Noosa Shire Councils request to reduce the
       impact on existing vegetation.
     The distance from edge of path to proposed light poles is 500mm which is the minimum allowable distance to
       an obstruction.
     The batter from edge of road shoulder to inside edge of path is already approx. 1:4, so any raising of heights
       to improve path grades would push the batter steeper than 1:4 which is not acceptable for batter
       maintenance.
     Grades and landings of the path are in accordance with AS 1428.1.
     The path already has 2.0m separation from the traffic lane due to the cycle lane.

                                                          3