jesmond - majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au

NEWCASTLE ROAD

MCCAFFREY DRIVE

LOOKOUT ROAD

Jesmond Park

John Hunter Hospital

Southern Interchange

NorthernInterchange

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

JESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

DARK CREEK

WC3

WC2

WC4

BLUE WREN CREEK

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS034_RouteOptionsOpt1_2_2016_0.mxd

0 90 180 270 36045

Metres

LEGEND

oRankin Park to Jesmond

2016 alignment option 1 and option 2Data source: RMS: Option 1 and Option 2, 2015; Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

Map Projection: Transverse MercatorHorizontal Datum: GDA 1994Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Paper Size A4

DesignWatercourse

Figure 4-6

NEWCASTLE ROAD

MCCAFFREY DRIVE

LOOKOUT ROAD

Jesmond Park


Southern Interchange

NorthernInterchange

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

JESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

DARK CREEK

WC3

WC2

BLUE WREN CREEK

WC4

Option 1 Option 2

Newcastle Inner City Bypass – Rankin Park to Jesmond Environmental impact statement 49

4.4.4 Description of interchange options

This section describes the interchange options considered for the:

Northern interchange (at Newcastle Road and the southern end of the Jesmond to Shortland section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass)

Hospital interchange (west of the John Hunter Hospital)

Southern interchange (at Lookout Road, south of McCaffrey Drive).

Northern interchange

Several options for the northern interchange were investigated as part of the refined strategic design. These were refined to four short-listed interchange options, as described in Table 4-2 and shown on Figure 4-7.

Table 4-2 Northern interchange options 1 to 4 (2016)

Option Description

Northern option 1 The strategic design displayed in 2007, using the existing four lanes on Newcastle Road and the two lane roundabout, with on and off-ramps to the south of Newcastle Road. A new four lane bridge over Newcastle Road connecting the new bypass with the existing Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

Northern option 2 An intersection controlled by traffic lights with six lanes on Newcastle Road, on and off-ramps with turning lanes in all directions. A new four lane bridge over Newcastle Road connects the new bypass with the existing Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

Northern option 3 A combination of traffic lights and grade separated movements. Six lanes are provided along Newcastle Road with northbound and southbound right turn lanes and two free flow on and off-ramps to and from the bypass. A new four lane bridge over Newcastle Road connects the new bypass with the existing Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

Northern option 4 A combination of traffic lights and a grade separated loop for the northbound right turn from Newcastle Road. Six lanes are provided on Newcastle Road plus on and off-ramps with turning lanes. A new four lane bridge over Newcastle Road connects the new bypass to the existing Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

NEWC

ASTL

E ROA

D

MYALL

STREET

RALPH STREET

ROBE

RT ST

REET

MICH

AEL S

TREE

TNEWCASTLE INNER CITY BYPASS

LAMBTON

JESMOND

WALLSEND

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS035_NorthernInterchange_Opt1_2_0.mxd

0 25 50 75 100

Metres

o


Paper Size A4 Rankin Park to Jesmond

2016 northern interchange options 1 to 4Figure 4-7a

RALPH STREET

WILL

IAM S

TREE

T

MICH

AEL S

TREE

T

NEWCASTLE INNER CITY BYPASS

ROBE

RT S

TREE

T

NEWC

ASTL

ERO

AD

MYALL

STREE

T

LAMBTON

JESMOND

WALLSEND

Option 2

Option 1

Data source: RMS: Northern interchange option images, 2016 ; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

NEWC

ASTL

E ROA

D

MYALL

STREET

RALPH STREET

ROBE

RT ST

REET

MICH

AEL S

TREE

TNEWCASTLE INNER CITY BYPASS

LAMBTON

JESMOND

WALLSEND

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS036_NorthernInterchange_Opt3_4_0.mxd

0 25 50 75 100

Metres

o



2016 northern interchange options 1 to 4Figure 4-7b

RALPH STREET

WILL

IAM S

TREE

T

MICH

AEL S

TREE

T


ROBE

RT S

TREE

T

NEWC

ASTL

ERO

AD

MYALL

STREE

T

LAMBTONJESMOND

WALLSEND

Option 4

Option 3



Hospital interchange

Two options were developed to assist with the assessment of the alignment options. The assessment of interchange options for John Hunter Hospital was further developed and assessed separately at a later stage in the development of the project (Section 4.4.7).

The two hospital options developed are described in Table 4-3 and shown on Figure 4-8.

Table 4-3 Hospital interchange options 1 and 2 (2016)

Option Description

Hospital option 1 The strategic design displayed in 2007, providing a left-in left-out at-grade intersection arrangement. An access road would be constructed on the northern extent of the existing hospital carpark, which would curve to the west to join the bypass at a T-intersection.

Hospital option 2 A full grade separated interchange. An access road would be constructed on the northern extent of the existing hospital carpark, which would curve to the west to join the bypass. A slip lane would be provided for the southbound on-ramp, while northbound vehicles would cross over the bypass via a bridge to a roundabout to access the northbound on-ramp. The roundabout would also connect the northbound off-ramp to the hospital access road. The southbound off-ramp would connect straight to the hospital access road. The interchange bridge would also provide a separated shared path on the northern side.

Southern interchange

Several options for the southern interchange were investigated as part of the refined strategic design. These were short-listed to two options as described in Table 4-4 and shown on Figure 4-9.

Table 4-4 Southern interchange options 1 and 2 (2016)

Option Description

Southern option 1 The strategic design displayed in 2007, consisting of a partial interchange with south-facing ramps, together with two traffic light controlled intersections for connections to McCaffrey Drive and Lookout Road. A single northbound off-ramp would provide access to McCaffrey Drive. The four lane bypass would pass under a realigned McCaffrey Drive.

Southern option 2 A half interchange with south-facing ramps. A two lane northbound off-ramp/flyover bridge over the bypass would connect to the existing signalised intersection at McCaffrey Drive. A two lane southbound on-ramp from Lookout Road joins into two lanes of the bypass and merges to three lanes. The four lane bypass would pass under a realigned McCaffrey Drive. This option includes upgrade work to increase the capacity of McCaffrey Drive with two right turn lanes and a left turn slip lane provided out of McCaffrey Drive.

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WALLSEND

NEWLAMBTONHEIGHTS

BELLINGER CLOSE

BIRCHGROVE DRIVE

John HunterHospital

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS038_HospitalInterchange_Opt1_2_0.mxd

0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

LEGEND

o



2016 hospital interchange option 1 and option 2Figure 4-8

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WALLSEND

NEWLAMBTONHEIGHTS

CAMBRI DGEDRIVE

CLAYMORE CLOSE

BELLINGER CLOSE

BIRCHGROVE DRIVE

John HunterHospital

Option 2

Option 1

DesignWatercourse

Data source: RMS: Hospital option data, 2016, Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

NEWLAMBTON

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

LOOKOUT ROAD

MCCAFFREYDRIVE

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS040_SouthernInterchange_Opt1_2_0.mxd

0 30 60 90 120

Metres

o



2016 southern interchange option 1 and option 2Figure 4-9

NEWLAMBTON

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

LOOKOUT ROAD

MCCAFFREYDRIVE

Option 2

Option 1



4.4.5 Evaluation and selection of the preferred alignment

Value management workshop

Roads and Maritime held a value management workshop on 1 April 2015 to assess the alignment options (the alignment workshop). Attendees included representatives from Newcastle City Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, NSW Health Infrastructure and Hunter New England Local Health District.

The purpose of the workshop was to review the two alignment options based on which best met the project objectives and provided an overall balance across social, environmental, economic and engineering issues. The outcome of the workshop was to recommend a preferred alignment option to progress for further design and refinement.

The alignment workshop used a multi criteria analysis process to identify key issues and assessment criteria to be used to assess each alignment option. The criteria are detailed in Table 4-5.

Issues which did not help to differentiate between alignment options were not included. As the cost of the two alignment options were considered to be of the same magnitude, cost was not considered in the assessment criteria.

Table 4-5 Assessment criteria – alignment options (2016)

Perspective Evaluation criteria Measure

Environmental Minimise bushland fragmentation and provide fauna connectivity.

Viability of remaining patches of vegetation and fauna connectivity.

Minimise impacts to threatened species and endangered communities.

Number of threatened species impacted, area of endangered ecological community (EEC) impacted and loss of habitat.

Minimise area of vegetation clearing.

Area of vegetation clearing.

Community Minimise community amenity impacts including noise.

Buffer distance to sensitive receivers (residential, hospital and recreational).

Provide connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists.

Location and form of crossing points.

Urban design Integrate the project with the surrounding landform.

Impact on ridges, valleys and watercourses.

Minimise visual impacts. Impacts of the scale, form and location of the project from key viewpoints and receivers.

Constructability Minimise constructability risks. Accessibility for construction traffic.

Construction safety on steep terrain.


Perspective Evaluation criteria Measure

Geotechnical and mine subsidence

Minimise geotechnical risks, including mine subsidence.

Complexity of remediation work required.

Road design Best meets road design and safety guidelines.

Bypass length.

Design speed (eg horizontal and vertical alignment, stopping sight distance etc.).

Maximum grades (and their lengths).

Workshop assessment

The alignment options were reviewed in detail to ensure there was a common understanding of the constraints, opportunities and risks of each option. The performance of each option was then evaluated against each of the assessment criteria to provide an overall ranking for the two alignment options.

Based on this evaluation, alignment option 2 was rated the best or equal best for all of the assessment criteria for the following key reasons:

Would result in fewer impacts to threatened flora and fauna species and less fragmentation of bushland areas

Is 200 metres shorter than alignment option 1

Is further away from a large number of sensitive receivers located to the west of the project

Has a higher design speed of 100 kilometres per hour (compared to 90 kilometres per hour) which provides a higher standard road environment

Less potential visual impacts on surrounding receivers with a larger bushland buffer maintained between the main project alignment and the residential areas to the west of the project

Has a lower maximum grade of eight per cent (compared to 10 per cent)

Is considered to be a better fit with the existing landform

Comprises easier terrain for construction.

Alignment option 2 was therefore recommended as the preferred alignment option to progress forward (Figure 4-6) due its strong environmental, community and technical advantages.

Figure 4-10 shows some of the key improvements for the preferred refined strategic design alignment. For further information, the refined strategic design report can be viewed at: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/hunter/newcastle-inner-city-bypass/project-documents.html

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/hunter/newcastle-inner-city-bypass/project-documents.html

^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂^^̂

^

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂^ ^̂

^̂̂^̂̂̂^^^̂^̂̂

^^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^̂

^^

^̂̂

^^̂̂

^̂^^̂̂

^̂

^

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^^^̂̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂

^^̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^

^^

^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^

^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂

^̂̂̂ ^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂^̂̂̂

^

^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^̂̂^

^

^̂^̂^̂

^^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^

^ ^^

^^̂̂̂

^

^̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂

^

^̂^^

^̂̂^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂

^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂^̂̂^^

^^ ^̂̂̂̂^̂

^^

^

^̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^^̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^^̂̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂^̂̂̂

^̂̂^̂^̂^̂̂^̂̂̂^̂^

^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂^^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^

^^̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂

^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^^

^̂^̂̂̂

^̂^^̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂

^^̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂^̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂^

^̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^^̂̂̂̂^

^^̂̂̂^^̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂^^

^̂^^̂̂^

^̂^ ^^

^

^̂

^̂̂

^̂^̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂ ^̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂^̂

^̂^̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂

^ ^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂^̂^^^

^̂^^̂̂^̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂^

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^^̂̂

^̂̂̂ ^̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^^̂̂^^̂̂̂̂ ^^̂̂̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^

^̂

^̂^̂

^

^

^^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^̂̂^

^̂̂̂^

^̂

^̂̂^̂̂̂^

^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂

^

^^

^

^̂̂^̂^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂^̂

^̂^̂̂^^̂̂^̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂ ^̂̂^̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂̂^^̂̂^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^̂^̂̂

^̂̂̂

^̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂^̂ ^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂

^̂^̂^^̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂^̂^^

^^̂̂̂

^̂̂^̂^̂̂

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂

^̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^^̂̂̂^̂

^̂̂̂^̂^̂̂̂̂^^̂

^̂̂ ^^^̂̂̂^̂̂^

^̂̂̂̂̂̂ ^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^̂

^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂^̂

^^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^^̂̂̂̂^^^̂̂^ ^

^̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂̂

^

^

^

^̂̂^^̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂ ^̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂̂̂^

^̂̂^̂̂ ^̂̂̂̂^̂̂^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^

^̂̂^

^^̂̂̂̂^^

^^̂̂̂^̂̂̂̂̂

^̂̂̂^

^

##########

###

#######

###

##

XX

kj

kj

kjkjkj

kj

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve


Stockland Jesmond Shopping

Centre

GeorgeMcGregor

Park

CROUDACE ROAD

MCCAFFREY DRIVE

BLUE

GUM

ROA

D

GEOR

GE ST

REET

JANET STREET

HOWE STREET

ALNWICK ROAD

CRESSINGTON WAY

ORCH

ARDT

OWN

ROAD

RUSSELL ROAD

GRANDVIEWROAD

DOUG

LAS S

TREE

T

CROU

DACE

STRE

ET

LOOKO

UT ROAD

NEWCASTLE ROAD

NEWCASTLE ROAD

ROBERT STREET

STEE

L STR

EET

DENT

STRE

ET

RIDGEWAY ROAD

BIRCH

GROV

EDRIVEROBINSON

AVENUE

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WARATAHWESTJESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

NORTHLAMBTON

Realigned to avoidGrevillea parviflora impacts

Realigned to reduceTetratheca juncea impacts


Substantially increased distanceto residential areas, minimising potential noise and visual impacts

Realigned to provide greater connectivity north-south on the western side of the project

Bridge over watercoursewhich provides connectivityand access across the bypass

Realigned to take advantage ofexisting cleared areas, and reduceimpacts to the Lower Hunter Spotted Gum Ironbark EEC

Substantially increased distance toresidential areas, minimising potentialnoise and visual impacts

Realigned to reduce impacts to the Lower Hunter Spotted Gum Ironbark EEC


Dedicated fauna culvert which provides connectivity across the bypass

Realigned to avoid loss of key Powerful Owl roosting sites

D ARKCREEK

WC3

DARK CREEK

BLUE WREN CREEK

WC2

WC4

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS105_ImpactAvoidance_0.mxd

0 100 200 300 400 50050

Metres

LEGEND

oData source: BELL: EEC 2015; Aurecon: Construction Corridor / Design, 2016; Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012; PB: Study area / Threatened Species, 2015.


Paper Size A4

Concept design2007 strategic designWatercourseDedicated fauna culvert

Endangered EcologicalCommunity (NSW TSC Act)(Lower Hunter Spotted GumIronbark Forest)

kj Powerful Owl nest treekj Powerful Owl roost tree

Threatened Flora Species# Grevillea parvifloraX Syzygium paniculatum^ Tetratheca juncea

Rankin Park to Jesmond

Impact avoidance through concept designFigure 4-10


4.4.6 Evaluation and selection of the preferred interchanges

Value management workshop

Roads and Maritime held an interchange value management workshop (the interchange workshop) on 9 July 2015 with representatives from Newcastle City Council and Lake Macquarie City Council.

Similar to the alignment workshop, the purpose of the interchange workshop was to evaluate the northern and southern interchange options. The hospital interchange had been discussed at the alignment workshop where hospital option 2 was noted as the preferred option for further design and refinement (Section 4.4.4). As such, the hospital interchange was not discussed at the interchange workshop.

The interchange workshop used a multi criteria analysis process to identify key issues and assessment criteria to be used to assess each interchange option (Table 4-6).

Issues that did not differentiate between interchange options were not included in this process. As cost and economic benefits were considered separately, they were not included in the assessment criteria.

Table 4-6 Assessment criteria – northern and southern interchange options (2016)

Option Description

Functionality (traffic efficiency and user safety)

Impacts on travel times/travel performance

Road user safety/legibility

Road/bridge maintenance safety

Community expectation of connectivity

Pedestrian/cyclist connectivity

Allows freight/oversized vehicles access.

Constructability and timing

Timeframe for constructing various elements

Ease of construction/safety in design

Impacts/disruption to traffic during construction.

Community impacts

Impact on Jesmond Park

Integration into the landform (impacts on sensitive receivers and urban design)

Visual impacts

Noise impacts.

Environmental impacts

Impact on endangered ecological community (EECs), sensitive flora and fauna, water quality and flooding.

Workshop assessment – northern interchange

The northern interchange options were reviewed in detail to ensure there was a common understanding of the constraints, opportunities and risks of each option. The workshop group reviewed and evaluated the northern interchange options against the criteria. It was agreed that northern option 1 (Figure 4-7) did not warrant further assessment as it did not meet the key functional objectives of the project and had a very poor traffic performance. This option was therefore not considered further.

The performance for the three remaining interchange options was evaluated against each of the assessment criteria to establish a relative overall ranking between the options.


Based on this assessment, the key outcomes included:

Northern option 4 rated the best in terms of functionality due to:

Grade separated right turn movement to Newcastle Inner City Bypass (northbound), thereby reducing delays to eastbound traffic on Newcastle Road

Provided free flow conditions for eastbound traffic on Newcastle Road to turn left to Newcastle Inner City Bypass (northbound)

Northern option 4 rated the best in terms of constructability

Northern option 2 and northern option 4 rated equal first for minimising environmental impacts

Road safety concerns were identified for the southbound off-ramp loop for northern option 3

Traffic functionality concerns were identified for the uncontrolled connection of the northbound off-ramp onto Newcastle Road for northern option 3

Potential road safety concerns were identified for the development of the northbound grade separated loop for northern option 3 and sight distance around the central bridge piers on Newcastle Road

Northern option 2 was rated the best in terms of minimising community impacts

Northern option 4 was rated as the best option overall when compared against the non-cost assessment criteria, followed by northern option 2.

To consider which option provided best value for money, the workshop group was then presented with relative cost estimates and economic performance for the three interchange options.

In addition to providing the best option when compared against non-cost assessment criteria, northern option 4 was found to perform best against economic considerations and was therefore assessed as providing the best value for money when compared with the other options.

Based on this assessment, value management workshop findings for the northern interchanges were:

Northern option 4 be progressed for further consideration subject to a review and resolution of some road safety aspects

Northern option 2 rated the next best option

Northern option 3 would not proceed further.

Workshop assessment – southern interchange

The southern interchange options were reviewed in detail to ensure there was a common understanding of the constraints, opportunities and risks of each option. The workshop group reviewed the southern interchange options against the criteria. Key findings of the review included:

Traffic modelling indicated southern option 1 (Figure 4-9) would fail from a traffic performance perspective due to the lack of capacity for a variety of traffic movements at the interchange. As such, it failed to meet the functionality project objectives and was not considered a viable option

Traffic modelling indicated southern option 2 provided superior traffic performance with increased capacity for a variety of traffic movements

Southern option 2 was considered the superior option in terms of functionality and adequately satisfied the remainder of the assessment criteria.

Based on this assessment, southern option 2 was therefore recommended as the preferred option for the southern interchange for further development and refinement.

McCaffrey Drive north-facing ramps

For southern option 2, the following sub-options for the addition of McCaffrey Drive north-facing ramps were investigated during the development of the refined strategic design and reviewed in detail at the interchanges value management workshop (Figure 4-11):

Northbound on-ramp from McCaffrey Drive to the bypass

Southbound off-ramp from the bypass to McCaffrey Drive.


In the 2007 strategic design, north-facing ramps at the southern interchange were not provided due to:

The combination of steep grade of the bypass (10 per cent) and undulating topography on the northern side of McCaffrey Drive which made the design and construction of the ramps difficult and costly

Traffic modelling predicted low usage of both ramps and their inclusion could not be economically justified.

At that time, community members raised concerns relating about the lack of north-facing ramps, particularly that additional traffic may then use local roads such as Grandview Road and/or Marshall Street to enter/exit the bypass.

The development of the refined strategic design in 2016 included further review of the design and functionality of the southern interchange and the need and justification for providing north-facing ramps. This review included:

Developing designs for the on-ramp and off-ramp to estimate their cost and to assess potential environmental impacts

Assessing the predicted usage of the ramps based on updated traffic surveys and traffic modelling. This included assessing the results of two origin-destination surveys carried out in October 2014 (24 hour) and May 2015 (three hour morning peak and three hour afternoon peak)

Assessing predicted traffic impacts on the surrounding road network in particular for Grandview Road and Marshall Street, for the scenarios with and without the ramps.

Existing traffic distribution at McCaffrey Drive

Two origin-destination surveys were carried out (October 2014 and May 2015) to determine traffic patterns during a typical day for the modelled road network. Trips are defined as one-way movement, from where a trip starts (origin) to where the trip is going (destination). Video cameras were installed at multiple origin-destination survey stations in the study area. Number plates are recorded via video recognition with data between origin-destination survey locations correlated to ascertain trip patterns.

Of the 18,600 daily vehicles observed at McCaffrey Drive the traffic distribution results from the daily original destination survey (October 2014) indicate the following:

About 99 per cent of McCaffrey Drive traffic had an origin or destination such that it would not use the project and therefore would not use the north-facing ramps if they were provided:

About 52 per cent (9650 vehicles) had an origin or destination south of McCaffrey Drive via Lookout Road

About 25 per cent (4660 vehicles) had an origin or destination to the east via Russell Road

About 16 per cent (3050 vehicles) had an origin or destination at the John Hunter Hospital

About six per cent (1080 vehicles) had an origin or destination to the east via Howe Street or Newcastle Road. (It is noted that this traffic was not assumed to use the McCaffrey Drive north facing ramps, however additional sensitivity analysis was carried out following the display of the refined strategic design as detailed in Section 4.5)

About 0.5 per cent (100 daily vehicles) had an origin or destination that would use the project (north and west of Jesmond Roundabout) and therefore would use the north-facing ramps if they were provided.


Similar patterns were observed during the morning and afternoon peak origin-destination surveys (May 2015):

The morning peak distributions at McCaffrey Drive show about one per cent (13 vehicles) would use the project (north and west of Jesmond Roundabout) and therefore would use the north-facing ramps if they were provided

Similarly, the afternoon peak distributions at McCaffrey Drive show about one per cent (17 vehicles) would use the project (north and west of Jesmond Roundabout) and therefore would use the north-facing ramps if they were provided.

In summary, the existing traffic distributions indicate very low volume of traffic would use the north-facing ramps to access the project to and from McCaffrey Drive.

Predicted traffic distribution at McCaffrey Drive with the project

Using the Paramics traffic models developed for the project (Section 4.4.1), the key issues identified with the McCaffrey Drive north-facing ramps are detailed as follows.

Northbound on-ramp from McCaffrey Drive

This design option would provide an on-ramp for eastbound traffic on McCaffrey Drive to be able to enter the bypass to travel northbound (Figure 4-11).

Key points of the design are as follows:

The on-ramp would need to have a maximum down grade of nine per cent which is the maximum desirable grade in accordance with Austroads Road Design Guidelines

To not exceed the maximum grade, the ramp would need to start about 400 metres to the west of the Lookout Road/McCaffrey Drive intersection and join the bypass about 280 metres north of McCaffrey Drive

The length of the on-ramp would be about 650 metres and would require large sections of retaining walls to minimise environmental impacts including the amount of vegetation clearing required.

A summary of key points raised with information added by the workshop group is outlined below:

Based on existing traffic volumes, traffic modelling predicts low usage of the north-facing ramps with less than one per cent of existing traffic on McCaffrey Drive forecast to use the ramps per day if they were provided

Based on existing traffic volumes, traffic modelling predicts low usage with about 75 vehicles per day forecast to use the northbound on-ramp from McCaffrey Drive. In comparison, traffic modelling predicts that the southbound on-ramp from Lookout Road would have high usage with about 14,700 vehicles per day

Strategic cost estimate of about $7 million.

Southbound off-ramp to McCaffrey Drive

This design option would provide an off-ramp for southbound traffic on the bypass to be able to exit to McCaffrey Drive to travel westbound (Figure 4-11).

Key points of the design are as follows:

The ramp would need to start about 280 metres north of McCaffrey Drive and be about 850 metres in length

The off-ramp would need to pass under McCaffrey Drive which requires the McCaffrey Drive bridge to be lengthened to accommodate the off-ramp

The off-ramp then would need to loop anti-clockwise before running westbound parallel to McCaffrey Drive. A large 16 metre high retaining wall would be required to accommodate the loop due to level differences with Lookout Road at this location

The off-ramp would then pass over the bypass via an additional bridge. The off-ramp would then be on a down grade before merging with westbound traffic on McCaffrey Drive.

A summary of key points raised with information added by the workshop group is outlined below:


Based on existing traffic volumes, traffic modelling predicts low usage with around 75 vehicles each day using a southbound off-ramp to McCaffrey Drive. In comparison, traffic modelling predicts that the northbound off-ramp to Lookout Road would have high usage with about 13,800 vehicles each day using the ramp

Complex area with steep topography resulting in difficulties in providing a feasible design for this ramp from a constructability and cost perspective. A complex retaining structure would be required with a maximum wall height of about 16 metres between the off-ramp loop and Lookout Road

Off-ramp requires McCaffrey Drive bridge to be lengthened to allow the off-ramp to pass under McCaffrey Drive

Off-ramp requires an additional bridge over the bypass to connect with McCaffrey Drive for westbound traffic

Potential road safety issues with a high speed 90 kilometres per hour road leading into a tight loop ramp to exit the bypass

Strategic cost estimate of about $18 million.

Impacts on surrounding road network

Traffic modelling carried out to assess traffic impacts on the surrounding road network indicates:

A reduction in traffic is predicted on McCaffrey Drive by about 15 to 20 per cent from about 19,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day in 2020. This is primarily due to traffic from the north-west portion of the study area (suburbs such as Wallsend, Maryland and Fletcher) being forecast to switch routes to use the new bypass for trips to and from south of McCaffrey Drive

The bypass is predicted to have a minor increase in traffic on Grandview Road by about seven per cent from 2800 to 3000 vehicles each day in 2020

The inclusion of north-facing ramps would have negligible impact on the level of traffic forecast to use the local road network compared to the bypass with no ramps in place.

Economic analysis – McCaffrey Drive ramps

Economic analysis has been carried out as part of the options assessment process to determine whether the addition of north-facing ramps at the southern interchange would provide value for money.

An economic indicator used for the options assessment is the calculation of an incremental benefit-cost ratio (IBCR) for each option. The IBCR measures the incremental benefits received per dollar of incremental costs when comparing one option to another.

An option with an IBCR greater than one means that the present value of additional benefits exceeds the present value of additional costs and is considered to provide value for money.

The economic analysis found that the extra $25 million for the addition of the McCaffrey Drive ramps offers minimal benefits and does not offer value for money with an incremental benefit-cost ratio IBCR of less than one (compared to the southern interchange option with south-facing ramps only).

Summary – McCaffrey Drive ramps

A detailed review was carried out on the need and justification for providing a northbound on-ramp from McCaffrey Drive and/or southbound off-ramp to McCaffrey Drive. The investigations found that while design and construction of the ramps is technically possible, the low forecast usage of the ramps and their high cost to build meant the ramps were not economically viable. As a result, north-facing ramps were not recommended to be included as part of the refined strategic design.

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS042_McCaffreyDrive_Option_0.mxd

0 25 50 75 100

MetresMap Projection: Transverse Mercator

Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56


2016 McCaffrey Drive north-facing rampsFigure 4-11

Northbound on-ramp

Southbound off-rampLOOKOUT ROAD

MCCAFFREYDRIVE

NEW LAMBTON

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

Data source: RMS: McCaffrey Drive option image, 2016 ; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

o


4.4.7 Further design refinements – refined strategic design

Following the interchange value management workshop, additional design refinements were carried out for the preferred northern, hospital and southern interchange options.

Northern interchange

Additional work carried out for the northern interchange options included a road safety review of northern option 4 and northern option 2, design refinement of the bridge structure across Newcastle Road and updated cost estimates.

The road safety review identified potential risks to road safety. Key findings were:

For northern option 4, risks to road safety were identified with the entry to the northbound loop ramp. Drivers heading westbound on Newcastle Road may not have enough time to get into the left lane to enter the grade separated loop for the northbound right turn from Newcastle Road onto the Newcastle Inner City Bypass. In addition, associated crash risks were identified with the speed vehicles might enter this loop

For northern options 2 and 4, weave movements were required for northbound traffic between the northern interchange at Newcastle Road and the existing University Drive interchange. This was identified as a road safety issue due to the relatively short distance between interchanges and the high volume of traffic that would exit the bypass to University Drive. Northern option 2 was found to be superior to Northern option 4 in relation to this issue as it would better manage this weave movement

For northern option 2, the main advantage was both the left and right northbound turns onto the bypass from Newcastle Road do not occur concurrently as they are controlled by traffic lights. This reduces potential conflict between traffic entering the bypass from Newcastle Road and traffic exiting to University Drive from the new bypass to the south.

Roads and Maritime held an additional interchange workshop on 28 July 2015 to reassess the two short-listed northern interchange options based on the findings of the road safety review and updated cost estimates and traffic analysis.

Both options were considered comparable in traffic performance and cost, with northern option 2 having road safety advantages. Based on this assessment, it was recommended northern option 2 be progressed for further consideration.

Further design development was carried out after the additional interchange workshop for northern option 2 to investigate options to refine and reduce the size of the northern intersection. This resulted in the development of northern option 5 as shown in Figure 4-12 and identified in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7 Northern interchange option 5 (2016)

Option Description

Northern option 5 Refinement of northern option 2, which primarily involved relocating the planned traffic light controlled intersection below the bypass further to the east. This resulted in reducing the size of the intersection to improve traffic flows, reducing the size of the bypass bridge to reduce cost and improve constructability, and increasing the distance to the nearby Blue Gum Road intersection to improve traffic flows at the interchange particularly along Newcastle Road.


Northern option 5 was considered to provide the following key benefits:

Reduced size of the intersection, improving traffic flow

Reduced size of the bridge on the bypass road over Newcastle Road, providing cost savings and improving constructability by using a less complex bridge type

Increased distance to the nearby Blue Gum Road intersection, improving traffic flow along Newcastle Road.

Roads and Maritime determined northern option 5 provided the best value for money while providing substantial benefits for traffic flow on the surrounding road network, with improved constructability and functionality over northern option 2.

As such, northern option 5 was selected as the preferred option for the northern interchange, and included as part of the refined strategic design.

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS037_NorthernInterchange_Opt5_0.mxd

0 25 50 75 100




2016 northern interchange option 5Figure 4-12

NEWC

ASTL

E ROA

D

RALPH STREET

WILL

IAM S

TREE

T

MICH

AEL S

TREE

T


ROBE

RT S

TREE

T

MYALL

STREET

LAMBTON

JESMOND

WALLSEND

Option 5


o


Hospital interchange

A refinement of hospital option 2 was carried out after the alignment value management workshop to address road safety concerns by increasing the distance between the northbound on-ramp from the hospital and the northbound off-ramp to Newcastle Road. This reduced potential merge and diverge weaving issues between traffic which would use these ramps. This produced hospital option 3 as shown in Figure 4-13 and described in Table 4-8.

The hospital option 3 interchange refinements included:

Replacing the northbound on-ramp with a loop taking the ramp to the south and under the interchange bridge before connecting with the bypass

Eliminating the need for the shared path on the northern side of the interchange bridge to cross the northbound on-ramp, therefore improving pedestrian and cyclist safety.

For hospital option 3, traffic modelling results based on existing traffic volumes (2014/15) predicted that:

About 2200 vehicles per day would use the south-facing ramps. This compares with about 7300 vehicles per day that would use the north-facing ramps

A further 3800 vehicles per day from the south would continue to use the existing eastern main hospital access off Lookout Road, which provides a shorter travel distance (one kilometre versus 2.5 kilometres) although motorists would need to pass through two sets of traffic lights on the existing route

In contrast, the provision of north-facing ramps at the hospital interchange would substantially reduce travel times and travel distance (1.5 kilometres versus four kilometres) for hospital trips to and from the north with eight sets of traffic lights bypassed on the existing route.

Subsequently, hospital option 4 was developed, consisting of a half-interchange with north-facing ramps only. Traffic modelling results predicted that:

Given the lower volumes of traffic forecast to use the south-facing ramps, the modelling indicates the omission of south-facing ramps from the hospital interchange would have a low impact on traffic flow on the short section of Lookout Road between McCaffrey Drive and the existing eastern main hospital entrance

The shorter alternative route (via the existing eastern main hospital entrance) with the high forecast reduction of traffic along Lookout Road north of McCaffrey Drive (35 per cent reduction), would make the existing eastern main hospital entrance a viable alternative route

A forecast traffic split of about 50/50 between the new western hospital interchange and the existing eastern main hospital entrance.

Hospital option 4 is shown in Figure 4-13 and described in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8 Hospital interchange options 3 and 4 (2016)

Option Description

Hospital option 3 Refinement of hospital option 2, replacing the northbound on-ramp with a loop taking the ramp to the south and under the interchange bridge before connecting with the bypass.

Hospital option 4 Refinement of hospital option 3, in the form of a half interchange with north facing ramps only. This provides a southbound off-ramp from the bypass to access the hospital, and a northbound on-ramp to access the bypass from the hospital.


In comparison to hospital option 3, the half-interchange would still provide considerable benefits to emergency services particularly ambulance services via:

Improved connectivity for ambulance services to/from the John Hunter Hospital precinct. This would provide direct hospital access off the bypass to/from the north

Reduced congestion levels at the existing eastern hospital access off Lookout Road for ambulance services to/from the south, and to/from the east from roads that connect with Lookout Road and Croudace Street.

In developing the refined strategic design, Roads and Maritime determined hospital option 4 provided the best value for money while providing substantial benefits for traffic flow on the surrounding road network and substantial reduction in traffic using the existing main hospital entrance on Lookout Road.

As such, hospital option 4 was selected as the preferred option for the hospital interchange and included as part of the refined strategic design.

It is noted the adoption of hospital option 4 does not prevent south-facing ramps from being added at a future stage. In the future, should the John Hunter Hospital precinct expand its facilities and/or change its internal configuration (eg relocation of facilities and/or parking) there may be additional traffic which would switch from using the existing eastern main hospital access to the new western access, which would increase the use of the south-facing ramps if they were installed. This would require further assessment by NSW Health Infrastructure and Hunter New England Local Area Health District at that time.

Southern interchange

While southern option 2 was identified in the interchanges value management workshop as the preferred option, further assessment was carried out to review road safety concerns around the connection of the two southbound lanes on the bypass with the two southbound lanes on Lookout Road. Southern option 2 provided a central zip merge which requires the southbound left lane on the bypass and the southbound right lane on Lookout Road to merge into a single lane, resulting in three southbound lanes. Potential conflicts could emerge between two high volume traffic streams, in particular for those travelling south on Lookout Road needing to cross multiple lanes in a short distance to access right turn lanes at Grandview Road or Cardiff Road.

To address the road safety risks, traffic lights were proposed for controlling southbound traffic where the bypass connects to Lookout Road.

This produced southern option 3 as shown in Figure 4-14 and described in Table 4-9.

In developing the refined strategic design, Roads and Maritime determined that southern option 3 provided the best value for money while providing substantial benefits for traffic flow on the surrounding road network. Southern option 3 provided a safer connection for southbound traffic on the bypass and Lookout Road over southern option 2.

As such, southern option 3 was selected as the preferred option for the southern interchange, and included as part of the refined strategic design.

Table 4-9 Southern interchange option 3 (2016)

Option Description

Southern option 3 Refinement of southern option 2, with the addition of traffic lights to safely connect the two southbound lanes on the bypass with the two southbound lanes on Lookout Road.

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WALLSEND

NEWLAMBTONHEIGHTS

BELLINGER CLOSE

BIRCHGROVE DRIVE

John HunterHospital

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS039_HospitalInterchange_Opt3_4_0.mxd

0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

LEGEND

o



2016 hospital interchange option 3 and option 4Figure 4-13

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WALLSEND

NEWLAMBTONHEIGHTS

CAMBRI DGEDRIVE

CLAYMORE CLOSE

BELLINGER CLOSE

BIRCHGROVE DRIVE

John HunterHospital

Option 4

Option 3

DesignWatercourse

Data source: RMS: Hospital option data, 2016, Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS041_SouthernInterchange_Opt3_0.mxd

0 30 60 90 120




2016 southern interchange option 3Figure 4-14

LOOKOUTROAD

MCCAFFREYDRIVE

NEW LAMBTON

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

Data source: RMS: Southern interchange option image, 2016 ; LPI: DTDB, 2012.

oOption 3

Traffic lights


4.5 Further design refinements – concept design (2016)

Feedback received during the public display of the refined strategic design was considered and used as input to help further refine and develop the project’s concept design.

4.5.1 Interchanges

The development of the concept design included carrying out sensitivity analysis on traffic volumes for key movements in the study area. This was carried out to examine the impact on the functionality of the northern and southern interchanges should more traffic use the bypass then was predicted in the traffic analysis carried out as part of the refined strategic design development (Section 4.4).

This sensitivity analysis included re-examining the need and justification for providing the McCaffrey Drive north facing ramps at the southern interchange, and also finalising the design layout for the northern interchange.

The key movements investigated for both the northern and southern interchanges were trips where drivers have two route choices in order to reach their destination. As shown in Figure 4-15, this consists of Route A or Route B for trips in both directions between the:

Eastern Zone and Western Zone

Eastern Zone and Southern Zone.

For traffic modelling carried out for the project it is assumed that Route B would be used for all trips in both directions between the:

Northern Zone and Southern Zone

Northern Zone and Western Zone, in scenarios with McCaffrey Drive ramps.

The key features of the two route choices are described in the following section.

Route A – Existing route

Route length of 3.4 kilometres

For northbound trips on Lookout Road (Southern Zone), traffic would take the northbound off-ramp bridge to continue on Lookout Road and then Croudace Street, before making a right turn at the Newcastle Road/Croudace Street/Dent Street intersection (and the reverse for southbound trips)

For northbound trips on McCaffrey Drive (Western Zone), traffic would turn left at the Lookout Road/McCaffrey Drive intersection before continuing on Lookout Road and then Croudace Street, before making a right turn at the Newcastle Road/Croudace Street/Dent Street intersection (and the reverse for southbound trips)

Traffic volumes on the existing route are forecast to reduce by about 33 to 43 per cent with the project

With the project, traffic volumes on the Croudace Street section are forecast to reduce to 25,000 vehicles per day in 2020, increasing to 28,000 vehicles per day in 2030. With the project, traffic volumes on the Lookout Road section are forecast to reduce to 34,000 vehicles per day in 2020, increasing to 38,000 vehicles per day in 2030. These reductions would substantially reduce existing levels of congestion and improve travel times on Lookout Road and Croudace Street

With the project, in 2030 traffic volumes through the Croudace Street/Newcastle Road/Dent Street intersection in the morning and afternoon peaks are forecast to reduce from about 6400 vehicles per hour, to 5400 vehicles per hour

Due to the redistribution of traffic in the study area with the project, the traffic movements between the Southern and Eastern zones are predicted to reduce to about 4000 vehicles per day in 2030 compared to the existing 9270 vehicles per day

From a traffic management perspective, Route A would be the signposted route for trips to and from the Southern and Eastern zones, and therefore would generally be used by drivers unfamiliar with the surrounding road network


From a traffic management perspective, Route A would be the signposted route for trips to and from the Western and Eastern zones, and therefore would generally be used by drivers unfamiliar with the surrounding road network.

Route B – Bypass route

Route length of 4.6 kilometres

For northbound trips on Lookout Road (Southern Zone), traffic would continue down onto the bypass before taking the northbound off-ramp, making a right turn at the Newcastle Road/Newcastle Inner City Bypass intersection to travel eastbound on Newcastle Road before passing through the Newcastle Road/Croudace Street/Dent Street intersection (and the reverse for southbound trips)

For northbound trips on McCaffrey Drive (Western Zone) with the inclusion of McCaffrey Drive ramps, traffic would use the McCaffrey Drive northbound on-ramp to join the bypass before taking the Rankin Park to Jesmond northbound off-ramp. Motorists then make a right turn at the Newcastle Road/Newcastle Inner City Bypass intersection to travel eastbound on Newcastle Road before passing through the Newcastle Road/Croudace Street/Dent Street intersection. The reverse for southbound trips, with the McCaffrey Drive southbound off-ramp being used to turn right to head westbound on McCaffrey Drive

With the project, while traffic on the bypass section is anticipated to be free flowing they would need to pass through the Newcastle Road/Newcastle Inner City Bypass intersection which is subject to the highest traffic volumes of any intersection in the study area

With the project, in 2030 traffic volumes through the Newcastle Road/Newcastle Inner City Bypass intersection in the morning and afternoon peaks are forecast to be about 6250 vehicles per hour which is the highest in the study area

In addition, traffic would need to pass through the high traffic volume section of Newcastle Road between the northern interchange and Newcastle Road/Croudace Street/Dent Street intersection

With the project, traffic volumes on this section of Newcastle Road are forecast to be 50,000 vehicles per day in 2020, increasing to 58,000 vehicles per day by 2030. These are substantially higher traffic volumes then those predicted for Lookout Road and Croudace Street (Route A) with the project

To cater for the high traffic volumes at the northern interchange, the dominant green time at the traffic lights would be for the east-west movements on Newcastle Road.

For motorists wishing to travel between zones with two route choices, the projects Paramics traffic model takes into account both travel time and travel distance when calculating the most attractive route to take, with travel time weighted higher than travel distance. The concept is that a driver perceives each route to have a total cost based on its travel time and travel distance, and can therefore rank each route from most attractive to least attractive. As a result, vehicles in the Paramics traffic model uses both routes (Routes A and B) depending primarily on the level of congestion on each route.

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WARATAHWEST

JESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

NORTHLAMBTON

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve


GeorgeMcGregor

Park

Route B

Route A

Western Zone

Northern Zone

Eastern Zone

Southern Zone

ROBERT STREET

ELBR

OOK DR

IVE

MORE

HEAD

STRE

ET

STEE

L STR

EET

DENT

STRE

ET

RIDGEWAY ROAD

BIRCHGROVEDR

IVE

MCCAFFREY DRIVE

GRANDVIEWROAD

NEWCASTLE ROAD

NEWCASTLE ROAD

BLUE

GUM

ROA

D

GEOR

GE ST

REET

JANET STREET

HOWE STREET

ALNWICK ROAD

CRESSINGTON WAY

ORCH

ARDT

OWN

ROAD

LOOKO

UTROAD

RUSSELL ROAD

ACAC

IA AV

ENUE

DOUG

LAS S

TREE

T

CROU

DACE

STRE

ET

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS098_Routes_McCaffRamps_0.mxd

0 125 250 375 50062.5

Metres

LEGEND

oData source: Aurecon: Design, 2016; Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012


Paper Size A4

DesignPavementBridgeEarthworks cutEarthworks fill

Route A: Existing route (3.4 km)Route B: Bypass route (4.6 km)Route B: Bypass route (4.6 km)(with McCaffrey Drive ramps)

Rankin Park to Jesmond

Travel routes - with McCaffrey Drive rampsFigure 4-15


Further traffic modelling analysis was carried out to:

Assess the two route choice options with respect to travel time and travel distance

Carry out a sensitivity analysis to assess the potential impacts on the functionality of the northern and southern interchange layouts if more traffic used the bypass (Route B) than was previously forecast in the refined strategic design traffic study.

The results of this traffic analysis for 2030 are shown in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10 Travel time analysis - 2030

Zones Route Average travel time (min:sec) Morning peak

Average travel time (min:sec) Afternoon peak

From Western Zone to Eastern Zone (and vice versa)

Northbound via the Bypass (Route B)

5:45 4:44

Northbound via the Existing (Route A)

5:19 5:59

Southbound via the Bypass (Route B)

4:24 4:35

Southbound via the Existing (Route A)

5:06 5:27

From Southern Zone to Eastern Zone (and vice versa)

Northbound via the Bypass (Route B)

5:57 4:56

Northbound via the Existing (Route A)

4:46 5:21

Southbound via the Bypass (Route B)

4:48 5:48

Southbound via the Existing (Route A)

5:40 7:18

The key findings for the two route choice options are as follows:

Route B is 35 per cent longer than Route A (4.6 kilometres compared with 3.4 kilometres)

Route A is on average faster than Route B for the northbound direction in the morning peak for trips from both the Western and Southern zones

Route B is on average faster than Route A for the northbound direction in the afternoon peak for trips from both the Western and Southern zones

Route B is on average faster than Route A for the southbound direction in both the morning and afternoon peaks for trips to both the Western and Southern zones.

The traffic analysis results are discussed in more detail in the following sections.


4.5.2 Northern interchange

In the refined strategic design, the northbound off-ramp connection to Newcastle Road for northern interchange option 5 provided:

Three left turn lanes heading westbound on Newcastle Road

One right turn lane heading eastbound on Newcastle Road.

Based on the analysis in Table 4-10, the existing route (Route A) in the northbound direction is both a shorter and faster route in the morning peak due to the substantial reduction in existing traffic volumes and the residual capacity of the four lane road (Lookout Road and Croudace Street) when the bypass is in operation. Conversely the bypass route (Route B) in the northbound direction is a faster route in the afternoon peak although a longer distance.

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the capacity of the single eastbound right turn at the northern interchange if more traffic was to choose the bypass route (Route B) over the existing route (Route A) than previously forecast for trips to the Eastern Zone.

Based on this analysis, to provide additional capacity for this potentially stronger movement, the intersection design was modified with an additional eastbound right turn lane. This provides additional capacity to store vehicles turning right in two lanes, to ensure they do not queue back and block traffic trying to get into the left turn lanes to head westbound on Newcastle Road.

A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to test the capacity of the three left turn lanes heading westbound on Newcastle Road. The analysis showed that two left turn lanes provided sufficient capacity for this movement in both the morning and afternoon peaks.

As such this lead to the development of northern option 6 (Table 4-11 and Figure 4-16) which provides a refinement of northern option 5 with:

Two left turn lanes westbound on Newcastle Road

Two right turn lanes eastbound on Newcastle Road.

Table 4-11 Northern interchange option 6 (2016)

Option Description

Northern option 6 A refinement of northern option 5, which changes the northbound off-ramp from the bypass to having two left turn lanes and two right turn lanes onto Newcastle Road.

Preferred option

Northern option 6 was considered to maximise the future functionality of the interchange and provide the best value for money with substantial benefits for traffic flow both on the bypass and Newcastle Road.

As such, northern option 6 was selected as the preferred northern interchange option and included as part of the concept design.

jesmond - majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au

Documents