1

LEETON SHIRE COUNCIL

2016 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

AND

MOBILITY PLAN

(PAMP)

Approved by: Leeton Shire Council

Approved date:

Minute Number:

2

Leeton Shire Council 2016 Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan Ed1/Ver1

Document Revision Schedule

Rev No

Page No.

New Issue Date

Amendment Details

Approved By

Ed1/Ver1 30/6/2015 Draft Document Council

1

0

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Scope of Study............................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Characteristics of the local government area and land use ........................................................... 3

3.1 Population and Land Use .............................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Road Hierarchy .............................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Public Transport ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.4 Future Pedestrian Needs .............................................................................................................. 4

4. Research, Review and Data Collection............................................................................................ 5

4.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Traffic and Pedestrian Data .......................................................................................................... 5

4.3 Pedestrian Crash Data ................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 Opportunities and Constraints ...................................................................................................... 6

4.5 Design Standards .......................................................................................................................... 6

5. Public Consultation ......................................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Participation .................................................................................................................................. 7

5.2 Identified Pedestrian Issues .......................................................................................................... 7

6. PAMP Routes................................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 Route Selection ............................................................................................................................. 8

7. Audits .............................................................................................................................................. 8

7.1 Route Audit Process ...................................................................................................................... 8

7.2 Work Prioritisation Methodology ................................................................................................. 9

7.3 Physical Works Identification ........................................................................................................ 9

Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX A……Map of Current Pedestrian Network ..………………………………………………………………11

APPENDIX B…..Maps of Future Pedestrian Routes…………………………………………………………………………..12

APPENDIX C…..PAMP audit – Key results and corrective actions………………………………………………………16

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Together with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), all local councils in NSW have a responsibility to provide safe, convenient and connected pedestrian routes which will encourage people to walk rather than use their cars. In 1998, the RMS (then the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)) began a new program to assist councils in their planning for pedestrians. This program is known as PAMP – Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan. A PAMP is a comprehensive strategic and action plan to develop pedestrian policies and build pedestrian facilities (RTA, 2002). As a result, Leeton Shire Council compiled its first PAMP in 2003. It has subsequently been reviewed in 2008 (adopted 2009) and has now undergone a further review in 2014/15, to revisit and evaluate the changing needs of its community with regard to pedestrian facilities and to ensure the provision of a safe road environment. In November 2014, RMS changed funding arrangements for pedestrian and cycleway funding and PAMP funding applications and allocations. The new Active Transport Funding Program now encompasses funding for both of these areas and facilitates six forms of funding streams, three for walking and three cycling: Walking Communities Council Partnership Funding Walking Communities NSW Government priority funding Pedestrian Bridges Connecting Centres Cycleways Council partnership funding Priority Cycleways NSW Government priority funding Cycling Towns Various funding models are available under this program which will help Council access funding for programs, however, all applications are dealt with on a regional basis and prioritised according to a scoring regime. Therefore, whilst funding applications may be submitted there is no assurance that applications will be successful. Leeton Shire Council does make provision for maintenance and reconstruction of existing facilities within its annual operating budget and inspections of Council facilities are undertaken on a regular basis1. Council also has provision for reactive maintenance and inspection following customer complaints. It should be acknowledged that the last PAMP and Shared Footpath/Cycleway programs have been aggressively implemented in Leeton Shire Council which has significantly increased pedestrian provisions within Leeton Shire. The challenge for Council in the coming years will be maintaining a balance between maintenance of existing infrastructure and the provision of new assets which will require maintenance and replacement in future years.

1 Leeton Shire Council Footpath Shared Cycleway Maintenance Management Plan Adopted 26.6.13

2

1.2 Objectives The aim of the Leeton Shire Council PAMP is to improve the pedestrian networks through: Coherence; Comfort; Safety; and Accessibility by providing a document that is ‘owned’ by Council staff, Councillors and the Community and is a practical guide to implementing pedestrian facilities in Leeton town area and the townships of Yanco and Whitton. The development of the PAMP will help council achieve the following objectives: 1. To continue to develop a safe network of pedestrian facilities that is logical and coherent 2. That identified conflict points are provided with safe crossing facilities 3. That the pedestrian network is equitable and accounts for disabled, aging and people with

prams 4. That policies are developed for the planning process to take into account the need for

pedestrian access and facilities for future developments. 5. Provide a network of pedestrian facilities that encourage people to walk for leisure, health and

access to facilities. 6. That minimum standard guidelines are established for designing and constructing footpaths,

pedestrian refuges and pram ramps

1.3 Methodology Overall this study consisted of five stages:

1. Survey of relevant pedestrian issues and analysis 2. Collection of relevant data including vehicle counts and a facilities audit 3. Identification of a Pedestrian Network Hierarchy 4. Prioritisation of pedestrian needs and facilities 5. Development of a Schedule of Works to be completed

2. Study Area

2.1 Scope of Study The scope of the study is pedestrian facilities provided by Council. This includes footpaths (both shared and pedestrian only), pram ramps and pedestrian crossing facilities. It does not include issues of access into buildings.

2.2 Study Area The focus of the Leeton Shire PAMP is in three areas. The first is that of Leeton town centre covering the area extended to Boronia Rd in the

3

North, Wattle Hill in the West, Petersham Rd in the East and St Francis College in the South. This area is the principle area of study due to the density of population and the vicinity to services and other pedestrian generators. The study area also addresses the townships of Whitton and Yanco as the second and third areas respectively.

3. Characteristics of the local government area and land use

3.1 Population and Land Use Leeton is located 126km west from Wagga Wagga and approximately 20km north of the Sturt Highway. Leeton LGA covers an area of 1132sq km with most of the area being irrigation farming land. Industries of Leeton Shire are agriculture, food processing and manufacturing. Within Leeton, pedestrian generators and attractors are mainly located within the CBD area, including businesses and medical centres. There are also outlying generators and attractors consisting of schools, aged facilities, parks, sporting and recreational facilities. Both Yanco and Whitton have CBD areas with fewer generators but nevertheless important to the local village infrastructure and resident access. Both villages also have primary schools. In the 2011 Census2, there were 11,037 people in Leeton (A) (Local Government Areas) of these 49.3% were male and 50.7% were female. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people made up 5.9% of the population. Table 1.Leeton Population by % % of Population

Age Leeton NSW Australia

0-24 38.2% 32.1% 32.6%

25-44 22.2% 27.7% 28.1%

45-64 24.8% 25.5% 25.3%

65+ 14.6% 14.7% 14%

The median age of people in Leeton (A) (Local Government Areas) was 36 years. Children aged 0 - 14 years made up 23.6% of the population and people aged 65 years and over made up 14.8% of the population.

In the 2011 Census, the population of the township of Whitton is quoted as 379 and Yanco has 948 residents. Since the 2006 Census this has seen a slight decrease in population for Whitton but a substantial increase in Yanco.

2 http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA14750

4

The population estimate for Leeton Shire is proposed to be 11,678 in 2013 and 13,551 in 20263. The significant growth area for this population will be in the aged 65+ year’s category. It is envisaged that by 2016 20.48% of the population within the Shire shall be over 65 years of age which is a significant increase on the reported 2011 numbers. This will therefore, provide further challenges in the provision of safe and accessible access due to the increased mobility needs of older residents.

3.2 Road Hierarchy4 Leeton town area mostly consists of local roads with the State road MR80 running through the CBD. A heavy vehicle bypass route removes a significant amount of heavy vehicle traffic from the town centre, however some heavy vehicles still travel through the CBD and residential areas. The design of Leeton township is unique when compared to other rural towns. It was designed by Walter Burley Griffin and as a result has a geometrical design rather than the traditional grid layout. This has resulted in some unusual intersection configurations. The residential streets within the CBD are relatively narrow which leads to well managed speeds due to width and so does not pose high risk to pedestrians. However, as some of the intersections are particularly wide this increases the time of crossing for pedestrians and causes some stress particularly to the elderly or infirm when encountering wide expanses of road to cross. The town has an extensive network of bicycle/walking tracks that extends from Wattle Hill to Yanco. This has provided an excellent pedestrian facility that has tied in well to this study. As a result the identified need for footpaths has been reduced. The aim has been to use these tracks as a collector network that feeds into the Leeton town centre at selected points. As a result, a number of crossing points have been identified. Both Yanco and Whitton townships experience extensive heavy vehicle movements. Yanco is located on MR80, which is a State Road. Whitton township is dissected by MR539 which provides access for heavy vehicles to the Sturt Highway, Kidman Way, Irrigation Way and Burley Griffin Way.

3.3 Public Transport There are no public transport facilities available in Leeton, Yanco or Whitton. However, there are taxis, a community transport service, school bus drop off /pick up points and club patron buses.

3.4 Future Pedestrian Needs With the increase of people choosing to walk, ride bikes and utilise recreational toys, as well as an ageing population and the increase of special mobility vehicles, pedestrian facilities need to cater for all needs. (see Section 3.1).

3 Leeton Shire Council “Ageing Well” Strategy 2014-2024 4 Leeton Shire Council Road Maintenance Management Policy

5

As part of this PAMP, Leeton Shire Council envisages providing a network of pedestrian facilities to enable people to access the CBD via the main pedestrian routes. On the completion of this PAMP the ideal would be to extend these pedestrian routes to provide access for all pedestrians in Leeton. However, as discussed there are issues with increasing networks and the balance of maintenance and replacement of existing assets. (see Section 1.1). Within the area covered by this plan three aged care facilities currently exist. There has also been a change in the pedestrian movements within the CBD of Leeton, with increased pedestrian movements in the area of Woolworths, the Market Plaza and McDonald’s restaurant. Schools within the Leeton town area are also reporting increasing numbers of student registrations which impacts on local traffic and Council is seeking to promote walking and cycling to school to alleviate this common issue. This will also promote children’s’ health which is a key agenda item for Federal, State and Local Government. The townships of Yanco and Whitton also require pedestrian access to localised services such as the Post Office, schools, local grocery stores, service clubs and hotels which offer vital social networks for residents. Both townships also have parks and museums. Whitton has a swimming pool complex. Maps of current pedestrian routes and future pedestrian routes can be found at Appendix A and B respectively.

4. Research, Review and Data Collection

4.1 Literature Review The following plans and policies have been used and/or referenced in the formation of this plan: National Road Safety Strategy 2011 – 2020 NSW Road Safety Strategy 2012-2021 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan 2012 Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths Leeton Shire Council Bicycle Plan 2012 Other documents referenced and/or considered include customer service requests from the community regarding requests for footpaths, crossings and access points and relevant Council plans and policies relating to footpaths.

4.2 Traffic and Pedestrian Data Traffic and pedestrian data was collected in key locations in the study area. Vehicle movements and speeds were monitored on a number of routes throughout the study area. All of this data assisted in prioritisation of PAMP Routes and the identification of works needed to improve pedestrian facilities. ‘Pedestrian Route Audits’ were also undertaken to assess the current status of pedestrian facilities, including footpaths and ramps. When auditing footpaths the condition of the footpath was assessed and any trip hazards identified. Pram ramps were audited for compliance with current Australian Standards, with non-compliant ramps being recorded. Unfortunately, there are several identified ramps within the CBD area which are non-compliant with current standards and no work can be undertaken due to utilities locations.

6

4.3 Pedestrian Crash Data For the period 2009-2013 there have been 188 crashes within Leeton Shire of which one involved a pedestrian. This crash resulted in injuries. Whilst pedestrian crashes may make up a low % of crashes in Leeton Shire the fragility of this vulnerable road user group and increasing user groups of under 14 years and over 65 years requires the need and use of pedestrian facilities to remain a priority. Whilst incidences of crashes are low, there are a number of reports of near misses or safety concerns reported in some CBD streets due to the width of road crossing and the amount of traffic in those streets.

4.4 Opportunities and Constraints The study area presents a number of opportunities for improving and encouraging pedestrian movements. Leeton Shire Council rebuilt the main street from 1997-1999 which has accommodated for pedestrians. It also has an ongoing program of identifying and replacing non- standard ramps. The implementation of both the PAMP and Bicycle Plan over the last 10 years has resulted in an extensive and well utilised network for pedestrian and cycle use. Leeton Shire Council currently has 35.2kms of footpath including shared cycleways, which is either sealed or concreted providing all weather access. The study area has several constraints upon it for the provision of pedestrian facilities, principally narrow pedestrian bridges, railway corridors and Telstra pits appear to be the significant issues. Other constraints include lack of kerb and guttering and the flat relief of the area which leads to drainage issues. Constraints which may become more important over time are funding opportunities for the building and maintenance of infrastructure either from existing Council budgets or external funding sources. No audit was able to be undertaken at night to assess lighting issues due to lack of resources.

4.5 Design Standards All facilities will be built in accordance with current Australian Standards and the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths. Construction will also be in compliance with current RMS guidelines and technical specifications. All designs will be submitted via the Leeton Local Area Traffic Committee for technical review.

5. Public Consultation

7

5.1 Participation

In January 2015 Community consultation was carried out through a general survey delivered to every household and business within the Leeton, Whitton and Yanco townships. Participants were given the opportunity to complete the survey in hard copy or via a Survey Monkey internet based questionnaire. The survey was advertised in The Irrigator and on Council’s website and was covered by the media through WIN TV, ABC Riverina and The Irrigator. Copies of the survey were also left at Council offices, the Library and Yanco and Whitton Post Offices with collection points. One hundred and fifty eight (158) submissions were received and one hundred and six (106) left feedback providing very useful information. In January 2016, the draft plan was placed on public exhibition again, however only four (4) written submissions were received. From these submissions engineering staff modified the Draft PAMP. Significant changes were to the original Draft PAMP document and it the new 2016 Leeton Shire Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) be placed back on public display. Changes to the new document include the inclusion of a prioritisation table for new footpath and pram ramps. In May 2016 the modified draft Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan was placed on councils “Have your Say Leeton” website for further community feedback. One hundred and thirty seven (137) people visited the site, twenty nine (29) people downloaded the document to read and fourteen (14) people left feedback. Following a Disability Interagency meeting in May 2016, staff from the Kurrajong Waratah organisation created a short 3 question survey and asked local people with a disability and their families to complete in regards to Councils’ access and mobility plan. They also asked their support staff that supported people with a disability in the Leeton community every day to complete one as well. Thirteen (13) submissions were received and are linked to this report. Within these surveys 2 questions relate to the PAMP and the third to disability parking.

5.2 Identified Pedestrian Issues Through one hundred and twenty one (121) detailed survey comments locations and issues were identified which respondents felt were hazardous or provided difficulty for pedestrians. A summary of issues identified is listed below, included are submissions to the draft PAMP: - Pedestrian concerns with speeding on some residential streets eg. Karri Road, Almond Road - Pedestrian concerns on lack of crossing facilities eg. Woolworths to McDonald’s, Wade Ave and

Mountford Park to Jarrah Mall - Current maintenance of footpaths eg. Sycamore St, - Lighting - Missing links of footpath network eg. Maple St, Cedar St, Yanco Ave - Lack of footpath access around schools eg. Parkview, St Josephs, St Francis (Maiden Ave),

Leeton High (Wilga St) - Pedestrian Access to MIA club and Jockey Club - Disability access to the Yanco Hall site. The following items were identified in the previous PAMP - Access into Woolworths/Target – private car park access - Access from Woolworths to McDonald’s and Market Plaza - Additional facilities in Pine Ave and Kurrajong Ave for pedestrians

8

- Almond Road/Petersham Road - Whitton – no safe crossing of main road or for access to school, park or museum - Yanco – crossing of MR80 for school children - Access from Brobenah Road to cycle/footpath network across irrigation channels particularly

with new developments and aged care housing - Access from Parkview area to CBD limited for pedestrian traffic - Wider Irrigation channel crossing at Palm Ave/Brobenah Road

6. PAMP Routes

6.1 Route Selection Pedestrian routes were selected based on attractors and generators, central business district, community consultation, identified hazardous locations and existing pedestrian facilities. Within Leeton town, the CBD being the initial priority, feeder routes to the CBD were identified then extended to outlying areas. The asset audit also identified areas of paved footpaths which showed signs of stress and wear, indicating high pedestrian usage. A number of pedestrian generators and attractors are located within the study area. Pedestrian attractors include schools and TAFE, child care and aged care centres, community centres, hospitals and medical centres, business zones, and recreational facilities (eg pools, sporting facilities and parks). Existing footpaths and pedestrian facilities were reviewed as a part of the PAMP. Part of the audit also identified well worn pedestrian movement areas in some verges. These have also been added to the PAMP list for consideration as they are obviously being widely used by the community. Off road paths present opportunities for safer walking as they eliminate conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and can provide a more appealing environment for walking. They often also present short cuts between areas, therefore making them more appealing to pedestrians. Existing footpaths are also shown in Appendix A.

7. Audits

7.1 Route Audit Process On site physical audits were conducted along all high, medium and low priority identified pedestrian routes. The key focus of the route audits was any identified access barriers for pedestrians with specific focus on access for less mobile pedestrians such as the elderly and people with disabilities. The identified barriers found in a number of locations were: - Poor kerb ramp design - Lack of kerb ramps at pedestrian crossing points - Lack of pedestrian refuges in areas of wide road crossing near pedestrian generators - Lack of footpaths - Lack of adequate lighting

9

- Cracking and raised paving in path of travel - Overgrown footpaths and obstruction on footpaths

The audit was conducted using the following documents or sections thereof:

o How To Prepare A Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan - RTA

o Austroads guidelines 2002 and in accordance with RTA Technical Direction TD2003 / RS03

Ver. 2 (August 2005) A qualified road safety auditor was used to conduct the audit using Austroads Road Safety Audit guidelines and templates. Other reference manuals utilised during the course of the audit were:

o Manual of uniform traffic control devices Australian Standard 1742.10 Part 10: Pedestrian control and protection

o Manual of uniform traffic control devices Australian Standard 1742.10 Part 7: Rail crossings o Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths o Designing for Bicycle Riders and Pedestrians – Urban Arc 2007

The audit results are attached at Appendix C.

7.2 Work Prioritisation Methodology The Weighted Criteria Scoring System for PAMP Works Prioritisation was developed utilising the RTA PAMP Guidelines, and through community consultation. Each identified pedestrian crossing point was scored using this system. These criteria are not intended to exclude works all together, but rather to provide a means of determining the priority of works.

7.3 Physical Works Identification All crossing points along the identified pedestrian routes were examined as a part of this PAMP. New footpaths have also been identified and can be seen in Appendix B. Some of the footpaths are to complete links and some are extensions of the existing network. Some areas have been identified as possible locations from shared pedestrian/cycleways identified within the Leeton Bicycle Plan 2012. The works identification has been generated based on the priority scoring system. All works are ranked according to the total score as either High, Medium or Low priority.

Conclusions and Recommendations

A large amount of infrastructure has been constructed over the last six years to provide pedestrian facilities within Leeton Shire and all assets are subject to regular inspection, and maintenance programs are in place. As such remaining works under Council’s previous PAMP are limited and in some areas current infrastructure does not enable the installation of pedestrian access ramps to

10

current standards and guidelines. Other works have remained unconstructed due to lack of resources or that works has formed part of a larger project eg. CBD beautification project.

Council shall continue to align a number internal policies and plans to ensure the capture of the changing needs of the community such as Leeton Shire Council “Ageing Well” Strategy 2014-2024 and the Leeton Shire Council Footpath and Cycleway Asset Management Plan.

From the works identified in Appendix B, Council shall identify prioritised works and plan within the given resources available for the financial year.

The following recommendations are made as part of this Plan:

Increased inclusive mobility

• Council provide access on foot for as many places as possible, particularly to public buildings and health services.

• Ensure walking and mobility needs are considered in all future Master Plans and redevelopment opportunities

• Ensure walking and mobility needs are considered in all future development applications and planning processes

• Ensure that as far as practical the construction and maintenance of paths provide acceptable cross fall, grades and other design standards to suit disability requirements.

Well designed and managed spaces and places for people

• Ensure pedestrian needs are promoted as part of future road reconstructions • Community events coordinated by Council will provide access for pedestrians and people

with reduced accessibility • Ensure vegetation on road verges is managed so as not to inhibit the safe and accessible use

of these areas by pedestrians

Increased safety for pedestrians

• Ensure pedestrian safety is prioritised in high pedestrian areas and in areas of vulnerable road users eg schools, aged care, CBD

• Review lighting along paths and trial new technologies to improve delineation • Promote a healthy community • Encourage the use of footpath and shared footpath/cycleway network for health and

recreational use

11

APPENDIX A – Map of Current Pedestrian Network

Figure 1: Current Pedestrian Network

12

APPENDIX B – Maps of Future Pedestrian Routes

Figure 2: Future Footpaths

13

Figure 3: Future Shared Paths

14

Figure 4: Future Footpath Upgrades

15

Figure 5: Future Crossing

16

Appendix C - PAMP AUDIT – KEY RESULTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS -

1. Non-standard Ramps - replace

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priori

ty of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommended

works

L1 Local Acacia Ave East

Maiden Ave/Golf Club

152 High Y Y N Replace 1

L2 Local Chelmsford Pl Grevillia St 271 High Y Y N Replace 2 Excessive grade

L3

Local Chelmsford Pl Sycamore St

269 High Y Y N Replace 1

Pedestrian refuge

Excessive grade

L4 Local Cherry St Locquat St Low Y Y N Replace 2 Footpath extension

L5 Local Drummond St Wallowa St None Y Y N Replace 1

L6 Local Jarrah St Mountford Pk High Y Y N Replace 1 Blisters

L7 State Kurrajong Ave Conservation Ln 194 High Y Y N Replace 1

L8 State Kurrajong Ave Conservation Ln 193 High Y Y N Replace 2

L9 State Kurrajong Ave Wattle St 198 High Y Y N Replace 1

L10 State Kurrajong Ave Wandoo St

199&198 Med High Y Y N Replace 2

L11 State Kurrajong Ave Cypress St 202 High Y Y N Replace 2

L12 Local Lanham Ln Cedar St 002 None Y Y N Replace 1

17

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priori

ty of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommended

works

L13 Local Melaleuca Ave Teak St Med Y Y N Replace 2 2m footpath pls new ramps planned for 2015/16 construction

L14 Local Melaleuca Ave Sassafras St Med Y Y N Replace 2

L15 Local Palm Ave Grevillia St 188 Med Y Y N Replace 2

L16 Local Palm Ave West

Tindle Lane/Cassia Rd

134 Med Y Y N Replace 1

L17 Local Palm Ave West Mulga/Muntenpen 129 Med Y Y N Replace 2 2m footpath pls new ramps planned for 2015/16 construction

L18 Local Pine Ave Lanham Ln 34 High Y Y N Replace 1

L19 Local Pine Ave Ashton Ln 41 High Y Y N Replace 1

L20 Local Pine Ave Cedar St 223 High Y Y N Replace 2 Non conforming ramp limited by Telstra pit

L21 Local Pine Ave Belah St 303 High Y Y N Replace 2 Pedestrian refuge

L22 Local Pine Ave Church St High Y Y N Replace 2 Non standard ramps due to Telstra pit

18

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priori

ty of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommended

works

L23 Local Pine Ave Yarran St High Y Y N Replace 2 Non standard ramps due to Telstra pit

L28 Local Yarran St Lanham Ln 219 None Y Y N Replace 2 Replace 1 install 1

2. Non-standard pram ramps – not for replacement

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priority

of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommende

d works

L29 Local Beech St West None Y N N No action 1

L30 Local Birch St Cross St None Y N N No action 2

L31 Local Birch St Beech St West None Y N N No action 1

L32 Local Calrose St Packham St None Y N N No action 1

L33 Local Cherry St Coral St Med Y Y N No action 1

L34 Local Currawang St Gidgee St Low Y N N No action 1

L35 Local Currawang St Telopea St Low Y N N No action 1

W1 Local Drummond St Mitchell St None Y N N No action 2

19

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priority

of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommende

d works

W2 Local Drummond St Merrell St None Y N N No action 3

W3 Local Drummond St Wallowa St None Y N N No action 1

W4 Local Drummond St Mitchell St None Y N N No action 2

L36 Local Jacaranda St Beech St West None Y N N No action 2

L37 Local Jacaranda St Beech St West None Y N N No action 2

W5 Local Lightwood St Washington Dr None Y N N No action 1

W6 Local Lightwood St Pendula St None Y N N No action 2

L38 Local Lilac Ave Park Ave None Y N N No action 1

W7 Local Merrell St Lane None Y N N No action 2

W8 Local Mimosa St Blackwood St None Y N N No action 2

W9 Local Mitchell St Lane None Y N N No action 2

L39 Local Park Ave Cross St None Y N N No action 2

W10 Local Pendula St Blackwood St None Y N N No action 1

L40 Local Railway Ave Beech St East None Y N N No action 2

L41 Local Railway Ave Beech St East None Y N N No action 2

W11 Local Wallowa St Pendula St None Y N N No action 2

20

Audit identifier

code Road

Classif’n Street Name Intersection

Defect number Priority

of route

Is there a ramp?

Is one req’d?

*

Does it meet the Standard

?

Proposed Works

No. ramps req’d

Other recommende

d works

W12 Local Wallowa St Mitchell St None Y N N No action 2

W13 Local Wallowa St Drummond St None Y N N No action 1

W14 Local Wirilda St Gossamer St None Y N N No action 2

W15 Local Wirilda St Lightwood St None Y N N No action 2

W16 Local Wirilda St Gossamer St None Y N N No action 2

W17 Local Wirilda St Drummond St None Y N N No action 2

W18 Local Wirilda St Mimosa St None Y N N No action 2

W19 Local Wirilda St Mimosa St None Y N N No action 1

W20 Local Wirilda St Merrell St None Y N N No action 2

W21 Local Wirilda St Mitchell St None Y N N No action 2

W22 Local Wirilda St Pendula St None Y N N No action 1

21

3. New ramps for existing footpath

Audit identifier coded

Road Classification Street Name Intersection Defect

number Priority of

route Is there a ramp?

Is one required?*

Proposed Works

Number ramps

required Other recommended works

L43 Local Karri Rd Brobenah Rd 328 High Y Y Build 1 On north side non standard ramp

Local Main Ave High N Y Build 1

L44 Local Sycamore St Maple St Med N Y Build 2