t r e e t waratah jesmond d j a n e t s e t lambton …

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve

John Hunter Hospital

GeorgeMcGregor

Park

To University,Shortland and

Sandgate

To M1Pacific

Motorway

To Newcastle

To Charlestownand Bennetts

Green

All existing trafficmovements retained atMcCaffrey Drive intersection

Interchange includesa bridge overNewcastle Road

Bridge to providebushwalker access,fauna movementsand drainage

Half-interchangeprovides accessto the hospital toand from the north

Bridge takes northboundtraffic on Lookout Road over the bypass

Bypass is twolanes in eachdirection

Shared path bridgeover Newcastle Road

Hospitalinterchange

Southern interchange

Northern interchange

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WARATAHWEST

JESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

NORTHLAMBTON

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

ETRIDGEWAY ROAD

BIRCH

GROV

EDRIVEROBINSON

AVENUE

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH01_EIS004_ProjectOverview_0.mxd

0 125 250 375 50062.5

Metres

LEGEND

oData source: RMS: Project corridor, 2016; Aurecon: Design / cycleways, 2016; Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; LPI: DTDB, 2012

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

Paper Size A4

DesignPavementBridge

Earthworks cutEarthworks fillProposed road corridor

Existing on-road cyclewayExisting shared pathProposed shared pathProposed on-road cycleway

Existing footpathProposed footpath

Rankin Park to Jesmond

Project overviewFigure 1-2

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WARATAHWESTJESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

NORTHLAMBTON

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

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve


GeorgeMcGregor

Park

Construction access road 1




Constructioncompound A

Constructioncompound B

Constructioncompound C

Fill 6

Fill 5

Cut 5

Fill 4

Cut 4

Fill 3

Fill 2

Cut 3

Cut 2

Cut 1

Fill 1


DARKCRE EK

WC3

DARK CREEK

BLUE WREN CREEK

W C2

WC4

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH01_EIS071_ConstructionFacilities_0.mxd

0 125 250 375 50062.5

Metres

LEGEND

oData source: Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; Aurecon: Construction footprint/ Design / Water quality structures, 2016; LPI: DTDB, 2012.


Paper Size A4

Construction footprintConstruction compoundConstruction access tracksConstruction sedimentation basin

DesignBridgeWatercourse


Construction ancillary facilitiesFigure 1-3

Newcastle Inner City Bypass – Rankin Park to Jesmond Environmental impact statement 6

1.3 Structure of this environmental impact statement

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared to address the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) issued by the Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on 3 March 2015 and the relevant provisions of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. The EIS has also been prepared to address requirements issued by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment relating to potential impacts to matters of national environmental significance protected under the EPBC Act. To address the Commonwealth requirements, the Secretary issued supplementary requirements for the EIS on 19 November 2015. This EIS also addresses the Secretary’s supplementary requirements.

The structure and content of the EIS is presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Structure of this environmental impact statement

Title Description

Part A – Introduction

Executive summary Provides a summary of the EIS.

Chapter 1 Introduction Provides an overview of the project and identifies the purpose and structure of the EIS.

Chapter 2 Assessment process Outlines the statutory requirements and explains the steps in the assessment and approval process for the project.

Chapter 3 Strategic justification and project need

Provides the strategic context and outlines the need for and objectives of the project.

Chapter 4 Project development and alternatives

Reviews the alternatives and options considered in developing the project including the consequences of not proceeding.

Part B – The project

Chapter 5 Project description Describes the project, including features, design standards and criteria, and describes construction activities, facilities and management.

Chapter 6 Consultation Describes the community and stakeholder consultation carried out, and identifies issues raised and where they are addressed in the EIS.

Part C – Key issues

Chapter 7 Biodiversity

Chapter 8 Traffic and transport

Chapter 9 Noise and vibration

Chapter 10 Landscape character and visual impact

Identifies the environmental issues, potential environmental impacts and the proposed impact management measures.

Outlines the methods used in the assessment and summarises the key findings of the detailed technical studies carried out for these key environmental issues.


Title Description

Part D – Other issues

Chapter 11 Socio-economic, land use and property

Chapter 12 Flooding and drainage

Chapter 13 Soils, contamination and water quality

Chapter 14 Groundwater

Chapter 15 Aboriginal heritage

Chapter 16 Non-Aboriginal heritage

Chapter 17 Air quality

Chapter 18 Resource use and waste management

Chapter 19 Hazards and risk

Chapter 20 Greenhouse gas and climate change

Chapter 21 Cumulative impacts

Identifies the other environmental issues, potential environmental impacts and the proposed impact management measures.

Outlines the methods used in the assessment and summarises the key findings of the detailed technical studies carried out (as required) for these other environmental issues.

Part E – Summary and conclusion

Chapter 22 Summary of environmental management measures

Summarises all the environmental management measures identified in the impact assessment chapters.

Chapter 23 Environmental risk analysis Details the risk analysis process by which the potential environmental issues for assessment were identified.

Chapter 24 Project justification and conclusion

Presents the justification for the project, including consideration of the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the objects of the EP&A Act.

Chapter 25 References Details information sources referred to in the EIS.

Appendices

Appendix A Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements and checklist

Appendix B EP&A Regulation 2000 Part 3 of Schedule 2 and EPBC Regulations Schedule 4 checklist

Appendix C Environmental record of person proposing to take the action

Appendix D Draft Community Consultation Framework

Appendix E Technical Paper 1 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (and Biodiversity Offset Strategy)

Appendix F Technical Paper 2 – Traffic and Transport Assessment

Appendix G Technical Paper 3 – Noise and Vibration Assessment

Appendix H Technical Paper 4 – Urban Design, Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment


Title Description

Appendix I Technical Paper 5 – Socio-economic Assessment

Appendix J Technical Paper 6 – Flooding and Drainage Assessment

Appendix K Technical Paper 7 – Water Quality and Watercourse Assessment

Appendix L Technical Paper 8 – Groundwater Assessment

Appendix M Roads and Maritime Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation, Stage 1 Clearance Letter

Appendix N Technical Paper 9 – Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment


2. Assessment process

This chapter describes the planning approval process for the project as well as other relevant environmental planning and statutory approval requirements.

Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements Where addressed

The Environmental Impact Statement must include the following:

identification of whether the proposal is a scheduled activity under the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act 1997.

Section 2.2.1

2.1 Approval framework

2.1.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Roads and Maritime is seeking project approval for the proposed Rankin Park to Jesmond section (the project) of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act.

Clause 94 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the Infrastructure SEPP) applies to development for the purpose of a road or road infrastructure facilities and provides that these types of works are development which is permissible without consent. The project is appropriately classified as being for the purpose of a “road” and a “road infrastructure facility” under the Infrastructure SEPP.

Clause 14 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 declares development as State significant infrastructure (SSI) if it is permissible without consent and specified in Schedule 3.

Clause 1 of Schedule 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 specifies infrastructure or other development that (but for Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act and within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act) would be an activity for which the proponent is also the determining authority and would, in the opinion of the proponent, require an EIS to be obtained under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.

Roads and Maritime formed the opinion that the project is likely to significantly affect the environment and would require an EIS to be obtained and consequently the project is SSI under Part 5.1.

An application under section 115X of the EP&A Act to carry out the project was submitted to DP&E in December 2014. The report accompanying the application aimed to assist in the development of the SEARs under section 115Y of the EP&A Act.

The SEARs and the SSI declaration were issued on 3 March 2015. Supplementary SEARs relating to assessment of impacts on matters protected under the Commonwealth EPBC Act were issued on 19 November 2015 (Section 2.2.2). The SEARs and Supplementary SEARs are attached in Appendix A. This EIS has been prepared to address the specific matters raised in the SEARs and Supplementary SEARs.

This EIS must be publicly exhibited for at least 30 days, during which time any person (including a public authority) may make a written submission to the Secretary. Once the display period has concluded, the Secretary is to provide copies of submissions received or a report of the issues raised in the submissions to Roads and Maritime and any other public authority the Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary may then require Roads and Maritime to submit a response to the issues raised in the submissions and a preferred infrastructure report outlining any proposed changes to the project to further minimise its environmental impact or to deal with any other issues raised during the assessment of the project.


The approval process under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Further information on the assessment process is available on the DP&E website (http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/).

2.2 Other legislation

2.2.1 NSW legislation

A number of approvals are not required for a project approved under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act (s.115ZG). Those approvals not required for the project are:

The concurrence under Part 3 of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 of the Minister administering that part of the Act

Permits under sections 201, 205 and 219 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Approvals under Part 4 and excavation permits under section 139 of the Heritage Act 1977

Aboriginal heritage permits under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

Authorisations referred to in section 12 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 to clear native vegetation or State protected land

A bushfire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997

Various approvals under the Water Management Act 2000, comprising water use approvals under section 89, water management work approvals under section 90, and activity approvals (other than aquifer interference approvals) under section 91.

Part 6 (division 8) of the Heritage Act 1977 does not apply to prevent or interfere with the carrying out of approved State significant infrastructure.

Approvals under other NSW legislation that may apply to the project include:

An aquifer interference approval under the Water Management Act 2000 if construction requires intersection of a groundwater source. This is further discussed in Chapter 14

The grant of a relevant interest under the Crown Lands Act 1989 (ie licence, permit, easement or right of way) over a Crown Reserve. This is further discussed in Chapter 11

An approval under section 15 of the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961. Section 15 (2A) requires approval from the Mine Subsidence Board to alter or build a structure or subdivide land in a mine subsidence district. In accordance with section 115ZH of the EP&A Act, this approval cannot be refused for an approved project and is to be substantially consistent with the Part 5.1 approval

Consent under section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. In accordance with section 115ZH of the EP&A Act, consent cannot be refused for an approved project and is to be substantially consistent with the Part 5.1 approval.

Other legislation that applies to the project includes the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 in relation to the acquisition of land required for the project. This is further discussed in Chapter 11.

The project is also a scheduled activity under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. This means that an environmental protection licence for ‘road construction’ will be required under chapter 3 (clause 35, schedule 1) of that Act. In accordance with section 115ZH of the EP&A Act, such a licence cannot be refused for an approved project and is to be substantially consistent with the Part 5.1 approval.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/


Figure 2-1 Approvals process under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act


2.2.2 Commonwealth legislation

Under the EPBC Act proposed ‘actions’ that have the potential to significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance, significantly impact the environment of Commonwealth land, or are being carried out by a Commonwealth agency and would result in a significant impact on the environment, must be referred to the Australian Government. If the Australian Minister for the Environment determines that a referred project is a ‘controlled action’, the approval of that Minister would be required for the project in addition to the NSW Minister for Planning’s approval.

The project has been considered against potential EPBC Act triggers and was referred to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment on 7 September 2015.

On 15 October 2015, the Australian Minister for the Environment confirmed the project would be a controlled action. The referral decision identified that the following matters of national environmental significance were of relevance to the project:

Listed threatened species and communities (section 18 and 18A of the EPBC Act)

Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B of the EPBC Act).

In February 2015, the Australian Government and the NSW State Government signed a bi-lateral assessment agreement under section 45 of the EPBC Act. This agreement accredits the assessment process of Part 5.1 under the EP&A Act, so that the Australian Minister would need to issue a separate approval for the project to the State Minister’s approval as it is a controlled action.

Following consultation between NSW DP&E and the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, additional environmental assessment requirements (in the form of Supplementary SEARs) were issued on 19 November 2015 (Appendix A). This EIS has been prepared to address the specific matters raised in the Supplementary SEARs.


3. Strategic justification and project need

This chapter outlines the relationship of the project to the NSW and Australian strategic planning framework. It also identifies the need for the project and the project objectives. A statement of strategic need concludes the chapter.

Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements Where addressed

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared in accordance with, and meet the minimum requirements of, Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the Regulation), including:

1. The information required under clause 6 of Schedule 2 of the Regulation

2. The content listed in clause 7 of Schedule 2 of the Regulation, including but not limited to:

Certification page, Executive summary and Chapters 1 to 24

A statement of the objectives of the proposal, including a description of the strategic need, justification, objectives and outcomes for the proposal, taking into account existing and proposed transport infrastructure and services within the adjoining subregions, and as relevant the outcomes and objectives of relevant at strategic planning and transport policies, including, but not limited to:

Sections 3.1 to 3.4

NSW 2021 Section 3.1.2

NSW Government State Infrastructure Strategy Section 3.1.3

NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (December 2012) Section 3.1.4

Any other relevant plans (including the draft Regional Growth Plan for the Lower Hunter if it is placed on public exhibition prior to finalisation of the EIS).

Sections 3.1.5 to 3.1.17*

An analysis of the proposal including an assessment, with a particular focus on the requirements of the listed key issues, in accordance with clause 7(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Regulation (where relevant), including an identification of how relevant planning, land use and development matters (including relevant strategic and statutory matters) have been considered in the impact assessment (direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) and/or in developing management/mitigation measures.

Section 3.1 and Chapters 7 to 21

* Note – the proposed draft Regional Growth Plan for the Lower Hunter has been replaced by the Hunter Regional Plan

2036


3.1 NSW and Australian strategic planning and policy framework

The following sections describes the compatibility of the project with key strategic planning and policy documents.

3.1.1 State Priorities

In 2015, the NSW Government released the State Priorities to grow the economy, deliver infrastructure, and improve health, education and other services across NSW. The priorities relevant to the project are discussed in the following section.

Safer communities

This priority aims to reduce road fatalities by at least 30 per cent from 2011 levels by 2021. The project would help in reducing road crashes and potential fatalities. The local road network including Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road has high traffic volumes and experiences high levels of traffic congestion. Between 2010 and 2014 there were 315 crashes recorded on the existing route (Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road) (Aurecon 2016a).

The project would contribute to improving safety of the surrounding road network by relieving traffic congestion on the existing route. The project would also create a new travel route with fewer intersections and more consistent speed zones than current transport routes through the area.

Building infrastructure

Under this priority, the NSW Government is committed to improving road travel reliability, ensuring 90 per cent of peak travel on key roads is on time. The provision of an anticipated free-flow road would provide improved travel times between Rankin Park and Jesmond and reduce congestion on key parts of the surrounding local road network. Traffic modelling shows that under predicted future traffic volumes, travel times for peak periods would significantly improve on the Newcastle Inner City Bypass. Travel times would also improve on the existing route.

Better services

This priority recognises public transport services are crucial in ensuring customers get to their destinations, and aims to maintain or improve reliability of public transport services over the next four years. The project would improve the efficiency and reliability of existing public transport services in the area by reducing traffic congestion and improving journey travel times. The project may also enable the development of a new bus route through the John Hunter Hospital precinct, potentially improving the flow of bus services through the site.

3.1.2 NSW 2021 – A plan to make NSW number one

The NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One (NSW State Plan) (Department of Premier and Cabinet 2011) is the NSW Government’s strategic business plan, which sets the State investment priorities and guides resource allocation over the next 10 years.

The NSW State Plan includes a number of goals relevant to the project, which are summarised in Table 3-1.


Table 3-1 NSW State Plan goals and project response

NSW State Plan goal

Goal targets Relevance to the project

Goal 1: Improve the performance of the NSW economy

Grow business investment by an average of 4% per year to 2020.

Grow gross state product per capita by an average 1.5% per year to 2020.

Grow employment by an average of 1.25% per year to 2020.

The project would provide continuity of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass, an important regional road corridor linking areas south of Newcastle with areas to the north. It would improve accessibility to key regional destinations, such as John Hunter Hospital precinct, the Pacific Highway and The University of Newcastle.

The project would support the improvement of the NSW economy as it would improve road traffic efficiency for regional road users, including commercial freight movements.

Goal 7: Reduced travel times

Improve the efficiency of the road network during peak times.

Deliver improved travel time information services for motorists.

The project would improve travel times by reducing congestion and variability in traffic speeds on the Newcastle Inner City Bypass and key parts of the surrounding road network. This would include the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road which is predicted to have significant travel time increases under future traffic loads if the project is not constructed.

Goal 10: Improve road safety

Improve the safety of roads by carrying out road development, upgrading, maintenance and safety works.

Cut congestion.

Reduce fatalities to 4.3 per 100,000 population by 2016.

The surrounding road network, including Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road, has high traffic volumes and experiences high levels of traffic congestion. From 2010 to 2014 there have been 315 crashes recorded on the surrounding road network (Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road) (Aurecon 2016a).

The project would contribute to improving road safety by relieving traffic congestion on the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road. The project would also create a new travel route with fewer intersections and more consistent speed zones than current transport routes through the area. This would generally improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists along the existing route.

The project would also provide additional facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, improve safety through the provision of traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings, new pedestrian footpaths, shared path bridges, and shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists.


NSW State Plan goal

Goal targets Relevance to the project

Goal 19: Invest in critical infrastructure

Increase investment in regional infrastructure.

Major strategic infrastructure delivered as a priority.

Improve the quality of urban and rural state roads.

The project aligns with the NSW Government’s goal of investing in infrastructure that improves productivity, particularly in the context of providing major strategic infrastructure. The project has been declared to be State Significant Infrastructure and would improve the quality of the state road network in the western suburbs of Newcastle.

3.1.3 NSW State Infrastructure Strategy

The NSW Government’s State Infrastructure Strategy (the State Infrastructure Strategy) (Department of Premier and Cabinet 2012) outlines the NSW Government’s short, medium and long-term initiatives concerning infrastructure delivery and reform over the next 20 years. The State Infrastructure Strategy was developed following consideration of Infrastructure NSW’s State Infrastructure Strategy 2012-2032 (Infrastructure NSW 2012), which included 70 recommendations for reform or project priorities.

In the strategy, the NSW Government has adopted a number of infrastructure priorities for Regional NSW, including improvement of the local transport networks and improvement of access to employment and to connect people and communities.

The project aligns with the strategy, as it would provide continuity for the Newcastle Inner City Bypass and improve efficiency of traffic movements within Newcastle. This would support population growth in regional NSW, allow for increased freight movements, provide employment opportunities and a safer road network.

3.1.4 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW 2012) provides a framework to deliver an integrated, modern transport system by identifying NSW’s transport actions and investment priorities over the next 20 years.

Actions outlined in the plan include a program of work to support the Hunter region’s growth including delivery of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass. Capacity improvements would improve travel time reliability and support an expansion of bus services. A medium to long-term action would be to continue investing in the Newcastle road network to address capacity constraints which impact on travel time reliability and public transport operations. The project would deliver on this action by providing additional capacity to cater for the future growth areas, reducing travel times, and supporting expansion of bus services.

The plan also aims to support regional development by improving accessibility to jobs, services and people, improving freight connections to markets, and providing better links between clusters of business activity. The project would support this objective.

The project would strongly support and directly contribute to the delivery of the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

3.1.5 National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020

The National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 (Australian Transport Council 2011) aims to identify initiatives to improve road safety in Australia.


The strategy presents a plan to reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities on Australian roads by 30 per cent and recognises the critical need to improve road infrastructure, with a focus on road features designed to reduce run-off-road (or road departure), intersection and head-on crashes. One of the objectives of the project is to improve safety by relieving traffic congestion on the existing route where there have been 315 crashes between 2010 and 2014. Further assessment of how the project would contribute to road safety is presented in Chapter 8.

The project has been designed in accordance with current Roads and Maritime road design guidelines, and safety and traffic efficiency requirements to address existing road safety concerns along the existing route (Chapter 4).

3.1.6 National Land Freight Strategy discussion paper

The National Land Freight Network Strategy discussion paper (Infrastructure Australia 2011) provides priorities for a national land freight network strategy, and an indicative list of projects and programs that Infrastructure Australia has identified for inclusion in a long-term national land freight network plan.

One of the key objectives of the project is to minimise travel times for vehicles, including improving the efficiency of freight vehicles using the Newcastle Inner City Bypass to bring freight and other produce to and from Newcastle and the Hunter region. This is consistent with the intention of the National Land Freight Strategy discussion paper which aims to create an integrated freight network across Australia including the integration of road, rail, air and port services.

The project has been designed to accommodate heavy vehicles and is expected to deliver immediate benefits associated with the reduction in heavy vehicles using the existing route and increased efficiency in freight movements through Newcastle.

3.1.7 NSW Government Restart NSW program

In June 2011, the NSW Government established Restart NSW, to fund a range of high priority future infrastructure projects in NSW. The objective of Restart NSW is to improve economic growth and productivity of the State by funding essential infrastructure including:

Public transport

Roads

Infrastructure that may improve the competitiveness of the State

Local infrastructure in regional areas affected by mining operations

Health facilities

Workplaces for frontline government staff.

In June 2014, the NSW Government announced it would complete the $280 million Rankin Park to Jesmond section of the bypass, including $150 million from Restart NSW to progress the project.

3.1.8 NSW Freight and Ports Strategy

The NSW Freight and Ports Strategy (Transport for NSW 2013a) aims to create a transport network which allows goods to move efficiently to their markets. The project contributes to the following freight-specific objectives:

Delivery of a freight network which efficiently supports the projected growth of the NSW economy

Balancing of freight needs with those of the broader community and the environment.

The project would provide a more efficient freight route through Newcastle as it would provide improved travel times for regional heavy vehicle movements through the project area. The project has been designed to accommodate larger vehicles, including commonly used freight vehicles such as B-double trucks and 4.6 metre high vehicles.


3.1.9 Hunter Regional Transport Plan

The Hunter Regional Transport Plan (Transport for NSW 2014) has been prepared to support the Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW 2012) and outlines specific actions for the Hunter region. The plan looks at population changes in the Hunter region and considers the fact that it has the largest regional workforce in NSW, with more than 80 per cent of the population living in the towns and cities of the Lower Hunter. There is a focus on Newcastle and its metropolitan centres, with a range of actions.

To support these actions, the Hunter Regional Transport Plan targets opportunities to invest in the road and rail network to improve transport connections and efficiency and specifically references the Newcastle Inner City Bypass. Overall, the project would help in fulfilling these actions as it would improve transport infrastructure in Newcastle and its metropolitan centres.

The project addresses three specific actions of the plan.

Deliver road upgrades

One of the specific actions under the ‘Deliver road upgrades’ is to continue to deliver the Newcastle Inner City Bypass in the medium to longer term. Delivery of the project would meet this commitment.

Support revitalisation of Newcastle city centre

The project would support the revitalisation of Newcastle city centre by improving the efficiency of the broader Newcastle road network. The project would also contribute towards creating a connected network of off-road paths in Newcastle for use by pedestrians and cyclists.

Improve road capacity

The plan identifies the need to continue to invest in the Newcastle road network to address capacity constraints which impact travel time reliability. The project would support and contribute to this action as it would improve the capacity and travel time reliability for road transport across the western suburbs of Newcastle.

3.1.10 Hunter Strategic Infrastructure Plan 2013

The Hunter Strategic Infrastructure Plan (NSW Government 2013) aims to provide the strategic infrastructure framework to inform future urban growth of the Hunter Metropolitan Area.

The project is identified in the plan as a priority for planning in the next five years, so it can be delivered in the following six to 20 years.

The infrastructure plan notes:

“Completing this final section of a long term Newcastle Inner City Bypass validates decades of government planning and expenditure on the Hunter Metropolitan Area (HMA)’s north–south axis route. It will improve north– south traffic flow in the inner suburbs; improve connectivity and access to key regional facilities including John Hunter Hospital and Newcastle University; and reduce congestion on primary routes to major employment and retail centres in Bennetts Green, Charlestown and Jesmond. This link would increase the productivity of the HMA by reducing travel distance, time and delays and enhance the liveability of the HMA by improving the community’s access to key social, retail and educational infrastructure.”

This EIS aims to obtain planning approval for the construction of the Rankin Park to Jesmond section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass, thereby aligning with the actions identified in the infrastructure plan.


3.1.11 Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006-31

The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006-31 (Department of Planning 2006) applies to the five local government areas of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens, Maitland and Cessnock. The regional strategy represents an agreed NSW Government position on the future of the Lower Hunter. It is the primary planning document for the Lower Hunter Region and has been prepared to complement and inform other relevant State planning instruments.

The project aligns with the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy by improving traffic movement through Newcastle to facilitate the increase in traffic anticipated due to growth in housing and employment lands in the area. Traffic volume forecasts used to inform the development of the project are based on land use assumptions, forecast population and employment growth as predicted in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy.

3.1.12 Hunter Regional Plan 2036

In October 2016, the Hunter Regional Plan 2036 (Department of Planning and Environment 2016) was approved and provides a 20 year plan for the Hunter. The plan sets four goals and a number of directions to achieve the vision of ‘to create a leading regional economy in Australia, with a vibrant metropolitan city at the heart’. Direction 4 (enhance inter-regional linkages to support economic growth) specifically recognises the need to complete the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The project aligns with the plan as it would complete the fifth section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass, therefore improving inter-regional connections. The project would also support other directions in the plan by reducing congestion, improving road safety and providing additional pedestrian and cyclist facilities.

The plan recognises the proposed introduction of light rail in the Newcastle central business district. At the time of publication of this EIS, Transport for NSW had released a review of environmental factors for this section of light rail. Transport for NSW has also released a discussion paper (Transport for NSW 2016) outlining potential future light rail routes beyond the central business district including a possible route from Wickham (near Newcastle central business district) to Glendale, via John Hunter Hospital. At the time of publication of this EIS, this potential route has not been subject to any detailed studies however the discussion paper notes the likely significant costs and technical challenges with this route. As such, while the project has not been designed to specifically cater for this possible light rail route, it is not inconsistent with it and would not prevent its development in the future should it proceed.

3.1.13 NSW Bike Plan 2010

The NSW Bike Plan 2010 (Transport for NSW 2010) provides a four point action plan to encourage cycling in NSW as follows:

Improving the bike network

Making it safer to cycle

Improving personal and environmental health

Raising community awareness.

The project would facilitate cycling by providing additional pedestrian and cyclist facilities as outlined in Section 5.3.14.

3.1.14 Action for Air 2009

Action for Air: 2009 Update (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2009) consists of actions to improve air quality in our homes and local environment, to make businesses even cleaner and to reduce motor vehicle emissions.

The project would help in meeting the objectives of this action plan by reducing vehicle emissions through anticipated free-flowing traffic conditions on the bypass and alleviating traffic congestion on key parts of the surrounding road network.


3.1.15 Newcastle Cycling Strategy and Action Plan

The Newcastle Cycling Strategy and Action Plan represents Newcastle City Council’s commitment to enhancement of cycling in Newcastle (The City of Newcastle 2012). The document aligns with other government policies such as the NSW Bike Plan.

As part of the strategy, bike routes across the Newcastle local government area were mapped and potential future routes identified. Potential cyclist routes are identified in the strategy along the bypass as an on-road route, and across the bypass as off-road routes. The project would include additional off-road facilities, the on-road route on the bypass, as well as cater for the potential future routes in planned by Newcastle City Council (Section 5.3.14).

3.1.16 Newcastle Transport Strategy

The Newcastle Transport Strategy (Newcastle City Council 2014) was prepared to guide Newcastle City Council’s transport related decisions and actions. The strategy sets a number of objectives, including:

Linked networks of cycle and pedestrian paths

A transport network that encourages energy and resource efficiency.

The project would assist council in meeting these objectives and strategies as it would reduce vehicle travel times through Newcastle and improve the efficiency of regional traffic movements. The project also includes provision of on-road and off-road cyclist and pedestrian routes.

3.1.17 Local Planning Strategy

The Local Planning Strategy (Newcastle City Council 2015) is a land use strategy to guide the future growth and development of Newcastle to 2030 and beyond. The strategy implements land use directions from the Newcastle 2030 Community Strategic Plan (The City of Newcastle Future City Group 2013) through principles, strategies and actions which are based upon the core objectives from the strategic plan.

The strategy also aligns with other strategic land use strategies at the State level such as the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006-31 and complements the Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy (Department of Planning and Environment 2014) for the Newcastle city centre. One objective in the strategy identifies the need to ‘protect bushland areas in Jesmond Park and surrounds while allowing for construction of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass’.

The strategy establishes a number of principles and actions relating to economic development, transport network efficiency and infrastructure (including roads) to support growth. Local planning strategy principles relevant to the project include:

P2 – Walking and cycling would be viable options for the majority of trips by linking networks of cycle and pedestrian paths

P6 – Opportunities to enhance and connect the natural environment would be pursued

P8 – Development would protect culture, heritage and place

P10 – The urban environment would promote active and healthy communities with physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing by providing opportunities for social interaction, by encouraging physical activity and by providing access to essential services and community facilities by all people close to their homes.

The project would support the strategy by providing a safer and more efficient route for private, commercial and freight transport, and ensuring connectivity of cycle and pedestrian networks. It would also ensure bushland areas are protected as much as possible during construction of the project. In addition, the project would promote active and healthy communities through retaining bushland areas for public use.


3.2 Project need

3.2.1 Project history

The Newcastle Inner City Bypass (A37, formerly known as State Highway 23 (HW23)) is part of Roads and Maritime’s long-term strategy to provide an orbital road in Newcastle’s road network. A north-south road corridor was first planned in the 1950’s and incorporated into the Northumberland County Planning Scheme in 1957. The corridor extended from Bennetts Green to the Pacific Highway at Sandgate. It was intended to accommodate the then proposed Sydney to Newcastle Freeway. However, in the 1970s the decision was made to route the freeway to the west of Lake Macquarie (F3 Freeway, now M1 Pacific Motorway). Most of the eastern corridor remained in planning schemes and has been used instead to accommodate completed sections of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The surrounding road network currently experiences high levels of traffic congestion and delays at key intersections. These issues are likely to worsen in the future as traffic volumes increase. Construction of the Rankin Park to Jesmond section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass would provide anticipated free flowing north-south travel conditions and bypass 11 sets of traffic lights along the existing route.

The project would provide continuity for the Newcastle Inner City Bypass, which provides improved traffic flows across the western suburbs of Newcastle and connects key regional destinations such as Bennetts Green, Charlestown and Jesmond shopping centres, John Hunter Hospital, The University of Newcastle and the Pacific Highway. The project would also be consistent with the aims and directions of the State Government’s strategic planning documents and council planning/transport strategies, as discussed in Section 3.1.

Sections of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass have opened progressively since the 1980s as outlined in Table 3-2 and shown on Figure 3-1.

Table 3-2 Newcastle Inner City Bypass status

Section Route Length Status

A West Charlestown Bypass 6 km Completed in 2003

B Kotara to Rankin Park 2.4 km Completed in 1983

C Rankin Park to Jesmond 3.4 km Subject to this planning approval

D Jesmond to Shortland 3.2 km Completed in 1993

E Shortland to Sandgate 2.3 km Completed in 2014


Figure 3-1 Newcastle Inner City Bypass timeline of construction

In 1985, an EIS was completed for the Rankin Park to Jesmond section (Department of Main Roads 1985). The assessment investigated various route options to connect with the then proposed John Hunter Hospital, with a preferred route selected on the western side of the hospital.

In 2006, Roads and Maritime completed a route options study for the project, which included the investigation of the feasibility of a western access to John Hunter Hospital. A preferred option and strategic design was displayed for community feedback in 2007.

After consideration of community feedback, a submissions report was issued in March 2008. The preferred option was subsequently finalised and the preferred route corridor updated in the Newcastle local environmental plan.

In 2016, Roads and Maritime developed and prepared a concept design of the project that forms the basis of this EIS. The concept design was based on a comprehensive review of the 2007 strategic design and development of a refined strategic design. To help with the development of the concept design, early community and stakeholder feedback was formally sought by Roads and Maritime during February and March 2015. After consideration of the feedback received, a refined strategic design was developed and was placed on public display for community feedback for four weeks during May and June 2016. This provided an opportunity for the community to review the refined strategic design and provide feedback (Chapter 6). After further consideration of feedback received, a concept design of the project was prepared which forms the basis for this EIS.

3.2.2 Existing road network conditions

The existing road network and major traffic routes in the project area are shown in Figure 3-2. The road network surrounding the project currently experiences high levels of traffic congestion and delays at key intersections. These issues are likely to worsen in the future as traffic volumes are predicted to increase on the existing route from about 49,400 vehicles per day in 2014 to about 63,100 vehicles per day in 2040 along Lookout Road north of McCaffrey Drive and from 60,200 vehicles per day in 2014 to about 76,200 vehicles per day in 2040 on Newcastle Road east of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

Significant road user delays are experienced in the surrounding road network, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods. The relatively high number of intersections along Croudace Street and Lookout Road resulting in congestion and traffic delays. The risk of maintaining the current configuration of the network is increased congestion and the costs to the community of that congestion.

There are a number of constraints along the existing route including:

Eleven sets of traffic lights on Lookout Road/Croudace Street/Newcastle Road from the McCaffrey Drive intersection to the Newcastle Road intersection

Sixteen uncontrolled intersections with local and regional roads

A large number of driveways to private properties


A public school located on Croudace Street with a 40 kilometre per hour school zone speed limit in place between 8am and 9:30am and 2:30pm and 4pm.

These constraints reduce the actual traffic speeds below the posted speed limit (of either 70 kilometres per hour or 60 kilometres per hour) and contribute to traffic congestion.

Traffic conditions on the existing route are discussed further in Chapter 8.

3.2.3 Projected traffic and transport

Roads and Maritime’s Lower Hunter Traffic Model (LHTM) (Arcadis 2016) identified that traffic would increase on the existing route from about 49,400 vehicles per day in 2014 to about 63,100 vehicles per day in 2040 on Lookout Road, north of McCaffrey Road and from 60,200 vehicles per day in 2014 to about 76,200 vehicles per day in 2040 on Newcastle Road east of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The traffic volume forecasts that informed the development of the project are based on land use assumptions, forecast population and employment growth as predicted in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Along the route, the predicted traffic growth rate between 2014 and 2040 is about one per cent per annum.

Based on the predicted traffic growth, the project is predicted to carry about 31,300 vehicles per day in 2020 and 34,500 vehicles per day in 2030. This is predicted to result in a corresponding reduction of traffic on the existing route by up to 36 per cent on Lookout Road and 24 per cent on Newcastle Road. Traffic modelling has also been carried out to predict the future performance of the road network with and without the project, finding that travel times would be improved along both the project and the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road (Chapter 8).

A comparison of travel times on the new bypass relative to the existing route shows that in 2020 and 2030 there would be significant travel time savings of about 70 to 80 per cent. The analysis also shows travel time improvements for east-west movements on Newcastle Road and north-south movements on the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road.

3.2.4 Road safety

The road network in the study area is subject to a high number of crashes. From 2010 to 2014 there were 315 crashes recorded on the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road. The project would contribute to improving road safety by relieving traffic congestion on the surrounding road network.

The road network surrounding the project currently experiences high levels of traffic congestion with the existing route being highly trafficked roads with volumes in the order of 40,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. There are 11 sets of traffic lights on the Lookout Road/Croudace Street/Newcastle Road section from McCaffrey Drive to Newcastle Road, as well as numerous uncontrolled intersections with local roads and a large number of driveways to private properties. This reduces traffic speed and contributes to traffic congestion.

Rear-end crashes are the most common type of crash occurring along the existing route and the frequency of these type of crashes typically increases during periods of traffic congestion. The project would reduce congestion along the existing route and therefore would substantially reduce rear-end type crashes.

At the southern interchange, improvements to the existing intersection of McCaffrey Drive and Lookout Road is predicted to reduce the number of crashes at this intersection due to improved traffic flow.

At the northern interchange, replacement of the existing roundabout at Jesmond with a traffic light controlled intersection is predicted to reduce crashes on Newcastle Road due to improved traffic management and improved traffic flow. In addition, the removal of the mid-block traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing on Newcastle Road near Hill Street would improve traffic flow on Newcastle Road and improve road safety as it would require less stopping and reduce potential for


rear-end crashes. There would also be improved pedestrian safety through the provision of a shared path bridge over Newcastle Road.

An assessment has been carried out to forecast the potential reduction in crash numbers resulting from the construction of the project, based on forecast traffic volumes. The assessment predicted that the project would reduce the annual crash rate by about 20 crashes per year which equates to about a 32 per cent reduction.

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

89:LMNO

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

RANKINPARK

LAMBTON

ELERMOREVALE

WARATAHWESTJESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

NEW LAMBTONHEIGHTS

KOTARA

NORTHLAMBTON

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve


Stockland Jesmond Shopping

Centre

GeorgeMcGregor

Park

CHAR

LEST

OWN

ROAD

(A37

)CARDIFF

ROAD

(MR 223)

KO OKABURRA CIRCUIT

NEWCASTLE ROAD (A15)

To University,Shortland and

Sandgate

To M1Pacific

Motorway

To Newcastle

To Charlestown andBennetts Green

NEW

CAST

LEIN

NERC

ITYBY

PASS

(A37

)

MCCAFFREY DRIVE

GRAN

DVIEW

ROAD

DOUG

LAS S

TREE

T

GEOR

GE ST

REET

CROU

DACE

STRE

ET(A

37)

JANET STREET

HOWE STREET (MR 188)

CARNLEY AVENUE (MR 603)

NEWCASTLE ROAD (A15)

MAIN ROAD (MR 223)

CRESSINGTON WAY

ORCH

ARDT

OWN

ROAD

THOMAS STREET

ACAC

IAAV

ENUE

LOOK

OUT RO

AD(A3

7)

CROUDACE ROAD

RUSSELL ROAD (MR 223)

ROBERT STREET

DENT

STRE

ET

BLUE

GUM

ROA

D

RIDGEWAY ROAD

BIRCH

GROV

E DRIVERO

BINSONAVENUE

STEE

L ST

REET

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH03_EIS002_Exg_RoadNetwork_0.mxd

0 140 280 420 56070

Metres

LEGEND

oRankin Park to Jesmond

Existing road networkData source: Nearmap: Aerial Imagery, 20160331; Aurecon: Construction footprint, 2016; LPI: DTDB, 2012.


Paper Size A4

ArterialRoadDistributorRoad40 km/hr school zone

89:LMNO Traffic lights

Figure 3-2


3.3 Economic benefits

An economic appraisal of the project was prepared for the project in accordance with the Transport for NSW Principles and Guidelines for Economic Appraisal of Transport Investment and Initiatives (Transport for NSW 2013b). The appraisal was prepared to determine the benefits that would occur for the project relative to the do minimum (without project) scenario. The key inputs and results of the analysis are summarised in the following section. Refer to Appendix F for further details. The project costs and benefits (present value) from the appraisal are summarised in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Project costs and benefits (present value)

Cost/benefit Item Present value ($million)

Costs Capital cost 236

Incremental maintenance cost 2

Total costs 238

Benefits Travel time savings 790

Vehicle operating cost savings 166

Crash and environmental cost savings 6

Residual value 10

Total benefits 972

Notes: Discounted to 2015/16 at seven per cent real discount rate and incremental to the do minimum (without project) base case.

Table 3-4 shows the results of the economic appraisal for the project compared to the base case (do minimum (without project) scenario). The results are presented in terms of five key economic indicators:

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) – measures the benefits received per dollar of project cost and is used to indicate value for money. BCR is calculated by dividing the present value of all benefits by the present value of all costs (including recurring operating and maintenance). A project with a BCR greater than one means that the present value of benefits exceeds the present value of costs and is considered to provide value for money

Net present value (NPV) – measures the difference between benefits and costs, while accounting for their varying timing. Net cash flows are discounted at a specified discount rate, reflecting the concept that future benefits and costs have less value compared to current benefits and costs. A project with a NPV greater than zero means that the present value of benefits exceeds the present value of costs and is considered economically worthwhile

Net present value per dollar of investment (NPVI) – measures the benefit received per dollar of investment or capital outlay and is used to indicate capital efficiency. NPVI is calculated by dividing the net present value by the present value of capital costs (those used to initially complete the project). A project with a NPVI greater than zero means that the net economic benefit of the project exceeds its requirement for initial capital expenditure

First year rate of return (FYRR) – measures the benefits received in the first full year of a project’s operation per dollar of capital cost. It is used to indicate the best start date for a project’s implementation. FYRR is calculated by dividing the present value of first year benefits by the present value of capital costs (those used to initially complete the project). The timing of a project which has a FYRR greater than the specified discount rate is considered to be economically appropriate. The implementation of a project which has a FYRR less than the specified discount rate should be deferred until the FYRR exceeds the discount rate


Internal rate of return (IRR) – is the discount rate at which the present value of benefits equals the present value of costs. An IRR greater than the discount rate indicates an economically worthwhile project.

Table 3-4 Project cost-benefit analysis results

Economic indicator Value

Net present value (NPV) ($ million) 733

Net present value per dollar of investment (NPVI) 3.1

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) 4.1

First year rate of return (FYRR) 36%

Internal rate of return (IRR) 26%

In reviewing the economic appraisal outputs for the project the following conclusions can be derived:

The project would provide high value for money with a benefit-cost ratio of 4.1

The project would provide strong economic benefits and generate a net present value of $733 million

The FYRR of 36 per cent is high which indicates that the proposed timing of the project is economically appropriate

The primary benefits of the project are travel time savings which provide about 81 per cent of the project benefits

The economic appraisal confirmed that the project would deliver considerable economic cost savings when compared to the do minimum (without project) scenario.

3.4 Project objectives

The key objectives of the project are to:

Provide continuity of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass between Bennetts Green and Sandgate

Reduce travel times and congestion on the Newcastle Inner City Bypass

Provide traffic relief on key parts of the surrounding road network.

In so doing, it is intended to:

Improve road safety

Minimise impacts on the natural and built environment

Provide value for money.

To support the project objectives, the concept design and EIS has been developed by:

Designing the project to consider the environmental constraints and avoid or minimise impacts to the environment

Satisfying the technical requirements for the design of the project

Optimising the concept design to ensure the project can be constructed and maintained both practically, safely and efficiently

Applying appropriate urban design, landscape and visual principles in the concept design of the project elements

Carrying out appropriate community and stakeholder consultation

Designing all connections, modifications and improvements necessary to link the project to the existing road network


Planning temporary arrangements which minimise disruption to local and through traffic and maintain access to adjacent properties during construction.

The overall project goal is to achieve the best possible result for each of these tasks, both in isolation and when considered together.

3.5 Statement of strategic need

The main function of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass is to provide improved traffic flow in the inner western suburbs of the city. The bypass would ultimately provide improved connectivity between key regional destinations such as Bennetts Green, Charlestown and Jesmond shopping centres, John Hunter Hospital, The University of Newcastle and the Pacific Highway.

Construction of the project would provide continuity for the Newcastle Inner City Bypass and provide traffic relief on key parts of the surrounding road network, in particular the existing route of Lookout Road, Croudace Street and Newcastle Road. The road network surrounding the project currently experiences high levels of traffic congestion and delays at key intersections. These issues are likely to worsen in the future as traffic volumes increase, with existing traffic volumes along this route increasing from about 49,400 in 2014 to about 63,100 in 2040 along Lookout Road north of McCaffrey Drive and from 60,200 vehicles per day in 2014 to about 76,200 vehicles per day in 2040 on Newcastle Road east of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The project would provide anticipated free-flowing north-south travel conditions and bypass up to 11 sets of traffic lights along the existing route. Interchanges at both ends of the project would reduce the number of conflict points providing a safer route. The project would reduce travel times along the route for all road users including heavy vehicles.

The project is consistent with all relevant strategic planning and policy documents by providing a safer and more efficient route and would contribute to the economic development of Newcastle, the Hunter region and NSW.

The project is needed to improve connectivity and overall performance of the road network and to deliver improved travel times and safety for road users in the project area.


4. Project development and alternatives

This chapter describes the various alternatives to the project that we considered as part of the project development process and explains how and why the project was selected as the preferred option. Design refinements for particular elements of the project are also addressed.

Secretary’s environmental assessment requirement Where addressed

An analysis of feasible alternatives to the carrying out of the proposal and proposal justification, including:

an analysis of alternatives/options considered (including interchange and intersection options for a western access to John Hunter Hospital) having regard to proposal objectives, including an assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of the proposal relative to alternatives and the consequences of not carrying out the proposal, and whether or not the proposal is in the public interest.

Sections 4.1 to 4.5

Chapter 3

Chapter 24

4.1 Previous alternatives considered

The preferred route corridor for the Rankin Park to Jesmond section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass was first identified in 1957 as part of the original plan for the Sydney to Newcastle Freeway (now the M1 Pacific Motorway) which extended from Bennetts Green to the Pacific Highway at Sandgate. In the 1970s, it was decided to move the Freeway route to the west of Lake Macquarie. At this time, most of the original eastern route remained zoned for use as road and has been used to accommodate the completed sections of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The section between Kotara Heights and Rankin Park was previously the subject of much community debate regarding the standard of road to be constructed. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the then Department of Main Roads (DMR) proposed to construct a major elevated road as part of this section, which would have required a strip acquisition of Blackbutt Reserve between Carnley Avenue and McCaffrey Drive, as shown in Figure 4-1.

Community activism against this project and its effect on the environmentally sensitive Blackbutt Reserve led to the DMR working with the community to re-evaluate the proposed corridor in this section. As a result, the route through Blackbutt Reserve was abandoned and the existing Lookout Road section was widened and constructed as a four lane arterial road instead of freeway conditions, with at-grade intersections at Carnley Avenue, Hurn Street, Cardiff Road and Grandview Road.

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS031_ProposedRoute_StateHwy23_0.mxd

0 70 140 210 28035

Metres oRankin Park to Jesmond

Proposed route of State Highway 23 through Blackbutt ReserveData source: RMS: 1985 route option image, 2016.


Paper Size A4

Figure 4-1


4.2 Route options development (1985)

In 1985, an EIS for State Highway 23: Section Lookout Road to Newcastle Road (DMR 1985) was prepared to seek approval to construct this section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass. The original alignment for the bypass was based on the route developed in 1957, but altered due to a request from the NSW Department of Health as it would impact on the planned future development of John Hunter Hospital.

The 1985 EIS assessed a number of different realignment options (Figure 4-2). The alternatives and options assessed in the 1985 EIS included:

‘Do nothing’ (base case)

Route A, the 1957 reserved corridor (Old County Road Reserve)

Routes B, C, D (new route alignments)

Route E (upgrade existing roads).

The ‘do nothing’ option was defined as the least possible upgrade to the existing road with only minor improvements and ongoing maintenance. However, this option was not considered further as additional road upgrades were required to accommodate predicted traffic growth from increased housing and employment in western areas of Newcastle and the surrounding region.

Similarly, Route A, the 1957 reserved road corridor, was discounted early as it would restrict plans to build a new teaching hospital at the then Rankin Park Hospital (now part of the John Hunter Hospital precinct).

The investigation of new route alignments and upgrade of the existing roads was therefore found to be necessary. Routes B, C, D and E were developed, as discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Description of route options

Route B

Route B started on Lookout Road, deviating north–west opposite Ridgeway Road. It followed the south-eastern extent of the 1957 alignment until just north of the hospital site, where it continued west, before curving to the north to connect with Newcastle Road.

The features of this route option included:

A total length of 2.7 kilometres

A roundabout at the southern end on Lookout Road and a grade separated interchange at Newcastle Road

Design speed of 80 kilometres per hour

Incline grades of four per cent for over 900 metres and eight per cent for 200 metres

Cuttings up to 24 metres deep and fill embankments up to 15 metres high

Construction cost of $13.9 million (in 1984).

Route C

Route C started on Lookout Road, and followed the same alignment as Route B until north of the hospital site, where it curved around to the east, before curving back to the north to connect with Newcastle Road.



A roundabout at the southern end on Lookout Road and a grade separated interchange at Newcastle Road


Incline grades of six per cent over 600 metres and eight per cent over 170 metres




Route D

Route D travelled along Lookout Road until north of the hospital site where an interchange would be established. At this interchange the northbound lanes of Lookout Road would be carried over the bypass route to north of the hospital site and the route would curve north-west and connect with Newcastle Road.



Incline grades up to a maximum grade of eight per cent for more than 700 metres


A grade separated overpass of Newcastle Road



Route E (upgrade existing roads)

The upgrade of the existing roads considered:

Widening Lookout Road between McCaffrey Drive and Russell Road to six lanes, with a concrete median preventing right turns except at intersections. A new roundabout would be installed on Lookout Road to provide access to the John Hunter Hospital

Widening of Croudace Street to five or six lanes, with a concrete median, traffic lights or a pedestrian overpass at Lambton Public School and a traffic light controlled intersection at Newcastle Road

Upgrade of Newcastle Road to six lanes between Croudace Street and Jesmond

The widening of Lookout Road and Croudace Street would require the construction of retaining walls, utility adjustments and substantial property acquisition and demolition (particularly in Croudace Street).


A total length of about 3.7 kilometres

Preliminary estimated cost of between $6 million and $10 million (in 1984).

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS032_RouteOptions_1985_0.mxd

0 80 160 240 32040

Metres oRankin Park to Jesmond

1985 route optionsData source: RMS: 1985 route option image, 2016.


Paper Size A4

Figure 4-2


4.2.2 Route options evaluation

An evaluation of the route options was prepared by Cameron McNamara Consultants in consultation with the then DMR as part of the 1985 EIS. The evaluation analysed the route options against the following criteria:

Road design and traffic performance

Economic benefits

Impacts to the natural and built environment

Social impacts and benefits.

The evaluation of route options was informed by the findings of the following technical studies:

Geotechnical impacts (Coffey and Partners 1984)

Drainage (DMR 1985)

Flora impacts (T.J. Fatchen and Associates Ecological Survey and Management Consultants 1984)

Fauna impacts (Mount King Ecological Surveys 1984)

Land use and zoning (DMR 1985)

Cultural and historic heritage impacts (Brayshaw and Associates 1984)

Utilities and services (DMR 1985)

Noise impacts (Peter Knowland and Associates 1984)

Air quality impacts (DMR 1985)

Vibration (DMR 1985)

Visual impacts (EBC Consultants Landscape Architects 1984)

Social impacts assessment (DMR 1985)

Economic evaluation (DMR 1985).

The evaluation of the route options as outlined in the 1985 EIS is summarised in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Evaluation of route option alignments (1985)

Constraint Comment

Road design and traffic considerations

Route B was found to be the best performing route compared to other options as it had better curve radiuses, better lengths of straight road and adequate sight distances resulting in a higher safety rating than the other options.

There were safety concerns about Route C, with curves falling in the range where drivers have difficulty judging appropriate speeds and limited sight distance for southbound traffic.

There was also a safety concern with Route D around restricted sight distances for northbound traffic in the southern portion of the alignment.

Economic evaluation

Routes B, C and D were found to provide benefits of around $3 million (in 1984). When factoring in the cost of construction for these routes, the best performing option was Route C.

Route E was the worst performing option as it provided less than $3 million in benefits.

Built and natural environment - geotechnical

Route E was found to have the least geotechnical issues, with minimal impacts from slope instability, groundwater seepage and ground (mine) subsidence.

Of the new alignments, Route B was the best performing as it only had a short length through mine workings with a high risk of subsidence.

Route D was the worst performing option due to its location over a large area of old mine workings.


Constraint Comment

Built and natural environment - drainage

While Routes B and C would have exposed large earthworks, there would have been greater run-off from Route D. This was due to the longer and greater length in valley areas which would be subject to higher erosion and sedimentation risks. Routes B and C were found to have lower erosion and sedimentation risks, with Route B having the lowest risk. Therefore, Route B was found to be the best performing option for this issue.

Built and natural environment - flora

Route E resulted in little disturbance to bushland areas. Of the new alignments, Route C was considered the better performing option as it would impact on vegetation of lower ecological significance than other new alignment options, followed by Route B.

Route D was the least preferred option as it was considered to have the highest flora impacts as it passed through an area of moderate to high local ecological significance which was planned to be developed as a botanical garden at the time of the 1985 EIS.

Built and natural environment - fauna

The best performing option was Route E as it would have the least disturbance to fauna habitat. As Route C followed the ridge line it was considered to have the lowest impact on fauna and therefore the better performing of the new alignments. Route B was found to have more impacts than Route C, as it would cross watercourses. Route D was considered to have the highest impact on fauna as it would have the highest impacts to fauna habitat.

Built and natural environment - land use and zoning

The best performing options were found to be Route E, then Route B. Route B was considered to be the best performing of the new alignments as it maintained the integrity of the bushland area (for recreational purposes) and was furthest from existing residential areas in the east. However, this route would have disturbed George McGregor Park.

Route C was considered to be the worst performing option because it would divide the bushland area into two separate sections reducing the value of the area for recreational purposes and would also have had a higher impact on the hospital than Route B.

Built and natural environment - heritage

No Aboriginal heritage sites were found on any of the alignments and therefore all options were considered to be equal for this issue.

Route D was considered to be the worst performing route for historic heritage issues due to its impact on historic buildings, as it would pass near Croudace House (on the hospital site).

Routes B, C and E were found to be equally the best performing options.

Built and natural environment - utilities

The worst performing option was found to be Route E, due to utility relocations required on/next to the existing road network. Of the new alignments, the impacts on utilities were equal, so Routes B, C and D were all best performing options.


Constraint Comment

Built and natural environment - noise

Routes B, C and D would have improved the present noise for a number of residences on Croudace Road and Lookout Road. Route E would have worsened noise at a number of receivers. As such, Route B was considered to be the best performing option as it had less of an impact on the hospital than routes C or D.

Built and natural environment - air quality

Route E was found to be the worst performing due to the close proximity of residential, commercial and education developments.

Route B was the best performing as it was the furthest from residences along Lookout Road and Croudace Street and the hospital.

Built and natural environment - visual impact

Route D was considered to be the best performing route as it would have the lowest visual impact on the landscape quality of the bushland area.

Route B would have had a moderate impact, but Route C was the worst performing as it was situated along the ridgeline and would be visible from the surrounding areas.

Social impact assessment

A range of stakeholder and major interest groups were consulted regarding the different options for the 1985 EIS. Preferred options were as follows:

Route E was preferred by the Rankin Park Hospital Interest Group, Newcastle Flora and Fauna Protection Society

Route B was preferred by the Botanic Gardens Committee, National Trust of Australia and Northern Parks and Playgrounds Movement

The upgrade of existing roads was considered the worst option by the Lookout Road/Rankin Park resident committee

NRMA preferred a new alignment, with Route D being the least desirable

Hooker Centenary preferred Route C, D or the upgrade of existing roads as they would not constrain development

Provincial Gardens preferred Route B or the upgrade of existing roads.

The key findings of the assessment included:

Route E – this option alleviated concerns about flora and fauna impacts, as it would be constructed in existing road reserves and urban areas. However, upgrading the existing road network would result in a significant impact on nearby residential properties and likely result in more accidents and delays to road users. There were a number of safety concerns with this option including: steep grades; stop-start driving conditions; conflict between local and through traffic movements; local access and intersections; pedestrian movements; and horizontal curves. This option would also have a journey time of five to nine minutes, which is substantially more than the other options. When assessed against the criteria, this option ranked as the worst option

Route C – this option was found to cost less to build than Route B and performed better against the evaluation criteria than Route D. However, this option was eliminated as it would have impacted on the expansion of the John Hunter Hospital

Route D – this option was the worst performing of the new routes due to its impact on the proposed botanic gardens and significant flora and fauna located along its alignment. There was also a heightened risk of mine subsidence and a higher cost than the other options. Therefore, this option was not considered further

Route B – this option was ranked as the preferred route alignment. This route had the greatest community support and was considered to have the most suitable road design, while overall having the least environmental impacts of the new routes investigated. The only limitation of this route was that it would cost more to build compared to Route C.


4.2.3 Preferred option

Route B was considered the preferred option as part of the 1985 EIS as it was the option which best met the evaluation criteria as detailed in Table 4-1. In particular, Route B was considered to:

Provide the best road safety performance

Result in relatively low environmental impacts

Not impact any planned expansion of the John Hunter Hospital.

In addition, Route B also had the greatest support from groups representing the community. Following the assessment and approval of the 1985 EIS, the Route B road corridor was incorporated into the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 1987.

4.3 Route options development (2006)

In 2006, Road and Maritime carried out a route selection study (Connell Wagner 2007) (the route study) to review the preferred route option identified in 1985 (as detailed in Section 4.2). The primary objectives of the route study were to:

Investigate the feasibility of a western access off the bypass to the John Hunter Hospital precinct

Review the southern connection of the bypass to Lookout Road, as the 1985 preferred route connection was no longer considered viable. This was due to further expansion of the John Hunter Hospital and the extent of traffic growth along Lookout Road at New Lambton Heights.

Four route alignments were developed and considered in the route study, which included a refinement of the 1985 preferred route option (Figure 4-3). The following design parameters were established:

Minimum design speed of 90 kilometres per hour

Maximum 10 per cent grade

Two 3.5 metre travel lanes for each carriageway, outer shoulders of 2.5 metres and inner shoulders of one metre

While median width would be variable, in general this would be four metres (not including the inner shoulder)

Cut and fill batters to be designed with a batter slope (horizontal: vertical) of 2H:1V

On-road cyclist provisions in the 2.5 metre shoulders.

Four route options were developed in consideration of environmental constraints including biodiversity, non-Aboriginal heritage and geotechnical (including mine subsidence) issues and strategic designs were prepared to establish engineering feasibility. As shown in Figure 4-3, all four options had the same alignment for the northern section which maintained the 1985 route alignment from immediately west of the John Hunter Hospital through to Newcastle Road at Jesmond. The following sections describe the four route options for the southern portion of the alignment and detail the evaluation process to identify the preferred route option.

4.3.1 Description of route options

Option 1 – green option

The green option was the 1985 EIS preferred option (referred to as route B in Section 4.2) which was included in the assessment to provide a base case to compare to. There were a number of land use changes in the surrounding area which had occurred and impacted on the option, including development of the John Hunter Hospital’s main car park and Ronald McDonald House (a charity operated facility providing accommodation for the families of hospital patients). The southern connection to Lookout Road would consist of a new at-grade intersection located close to the south of the existing hospital access intersection, which had been reconstructed since the 1985 EIS.


Option 2 – blue option

The blue option connected to Lookout Road south of the McCaffrey Drive intersection, before travelling north, joining the green option south of the John Hunter Hospital and continuing to Newcastle Road. The connection to Lookout Road would involve an interchange with a realigned McCaffrey Drive. As this option passed through a deep valley south of the hospital, it would require a steep 10 per cent road grade on the approach to Lookout Road.

Option 3 – yellow option

The yellow option mostly followed the blue option alignment but had a different connection to Lookout Road. The yellow option followed part of Lookout Road before deviating north of the intersection with Grandview Road, crossing McCaffrey Drive and travelling north before joining the alignment of the green option to the west of the hospital. The southern connection point was near substantial infrastructure assets north of Grandview Road, and would require either a separate overpass or underpass to cross McCaffrey Drive. This option would also allow for the existing McCaffrey Drive and Lookout Road intersection to be retained. This option would require high fill embankments through the valley and had the longest length of the four options.

Option 4 – red option

The red option started about 200 metres south of the Lookout Road intersection with McCaffrey Drive at an at-grade intersection. It travelled west, crossing over McCaffrey Drive via an overpass and followed the alignment of McCaffrey Drive, before curving to the north and following the green option. This option would also allow for the existing McCaffrey Drive and Lookout Road intersection to be retained. This alignment would result in less bushland severance than the yellow option, but passes through a longer length of George McGregor Park.

4.3.2 Route options evaluation

The four route options developed for the route study were evaluated against the following:

Terrain and topographical - the terrain through the bushland corridor is very undulating, characterised by a series of prominent ridges and deep gullies

Mine subsidence - varying degrees of mine subsidence risk (based on depth and length of old mine workings) allocated to each route option

Local ecology impact - severance of the existing bushland area and ecological impacts

John Hunter Hospital - future expansion proposed on the southern and northern sides of the hospital site.

The evaluation of alternatives was informed by the findings of the 1985 EIS and the following technical studies:

Ecological assessment (Umwelt Environmental Consultants 2006a)

Non-Indigenous heritage (Umwelt Environmental Consultants 2006b)

Aboriginal heritage (Umwelt Environmental Consultants 2006c)

Geotechnical assessment (Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) 2006a)

Traffic modelling and economics (Connell Wagner 2007).

Connell Wagner prepared the route study in consultation with the then RTA (now Roads and Maritime), identifying the following considerations:

The green option was considered to be too close to the John Hunter Hospital as it would require a connection to Lookout Road very close to both the hospital access intersection on Lookout Road and the McCaffrey Drive/Lookout Road intersection. This would result in three traffic light controlled intersections being located close to each other on Lookout Road, which would disrupt traffic flows. As such, this option was not considered further

Of the remaining options, the alignment of the blue option was most similar to the 1985 project corridor mapped in the Newcastle local environmental plan


Although the blue option was close to the hospital, it was aligned to provide an improved connection to Lookout Road via a grade separated interchange which included a realigned and relocated McCaffrey Drive intersection

The yellow option was not considered further as it had increased severance of bushland areas, higher mine subsidence risks, higher potential impacts on Hunter Water and Telstra infrastructure, large extent of earthworks and an undesirable connection to Lookout Road closer to Grandview Road

The red option had a similar impact on bushland areas to the blue option. The red option gave design flexibility with at-grade intersection options for the connection with Lookout Road.

Based on this preliminary assessment, the red and blue options were short-listed for further investigation. This resulted in both options adopting the following common key features:

Grade separated interchange at the northern connection with the existing Jesmond to Shortland section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass

Identical route alignment from Newcastle Road at Jesmond to the western side of the hospital

Potential for a new western access to the John Hunter Hospital

Bridge structures along the route to provide for drainage, fauna movements, and pedestrian access across the bushland area.

4.3.3 Shortlisted route options evaluation

After refinement of each route option, further consideration was given to the shortlisted red and blue options including engineering, traffic, geotechnical, environmental and community issues to determine a preferred route option.

The key aspects of the red option were:

Least preferred from a traffic management perspective with capacity issues associated with the at-grade connection with Lookout Road

The at-grade connection was necessary due to difficulties in providing a grade-separated connection at the existing T-intersection

The at-grade connection would result in two intersections with Lookout Road in close proximity with potential operational traffic impacts and limitations

Major southern deviation from the existing corridor reserved in the Newcastle local environmental plan

Greater severance of the bushland corridor

High impact on George McGregor Park

Higher mine subsidence risks

Long sections of retaining walls due to steep topography

Strategic cost estimate of $164 million (in 2006)

Benefit cost ratio of 2.1.

The key aspects of the blue option were:

Most preferred from a traffic management perspective due to its grade separated interchange with Lookout Road and McCaffrey Drive, which best caters for future traffic volumes

Generally keeps in the existing corridor reserved in the Newcastle local environmental plan

Minimal severance of bushland corridor

Minimal impact on George McGregor Park

Moderate mine subsidence risks

Strategic cost estimate of $168 million (in 2006)

Benefit cost ratio of 2.5.

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS033_RouteOptions_2006_0.mxd

o Rankin Park to Jesmond

2006 route optionsData source: RMS: 1985 route option image, 2016.


Paper Size A4

Figure 4-3


Potential hospitalconnection


4.3.4 Preferred option

The blue option was identified as the preferred route option as it provided the best overall balance between functional, environmental, geotechnical, engineering and economic considerations.

The then Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) publicly displayed the strategic design for the blue option as the preferred option, between 12 February 2007 and 30 April 2007 (refer to Section 6.2.3 for further information). A total of 38 submissions were received from the community and stakeholders. The project received a number of submissions of support, while other submissions raised concerns, including:

Private property acquisition and compensation

Impacts to biodiversity

Assessment of environmental impacts

Removal of bushwalking and mountain biking tracks

Proposed interchange design at McCaffrey Drive/Lookout Road

Proposed intersection design at John Hunter Hospital.

Community and stakeholder feedback received was considered and a submissions report (RTA 2008a) published which responded to the issues raised during the public display. The blue option was subsequently finalised and the preferred route corridor incorporated into the Newcastle local environmental plan. These submissions were subsequently used to inform development of the refined strategic design (Section 4.4). The submissions report can be viewed at: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/hunter/newcastle-inner-city-bypass/project-documents.html

4.4 Refined strategic design (2016)

In June 2014, the NSW Government announced funding for Roads and Maritime to continue development and planning for the project. Roads and Maritime engaged Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd (Aurecon) and GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) in November 2014 to prepare the concept design and EIS for the project. As part of this process, Roads and Maritime carried out a comprehensive review of the 2007 strategic design for the preferred route (the blue option in Section 4.3.4). This was to ensure the project best meets the project objectives, while providing an integrated design which responds to constraints and opportunities in the study area and eliminates and/or minimises environmental impacts.

Early feedback on the 2007 strategic design was sought from stakeholders and the community in February and March 2015. The review considered issues raised by the community during early 2015 (refer to Section 6.3 for further information) and a range of environmental, engineering and traffic issues. The review also included developing and assessing alignment and interchange options. Key issues raised by stakeholders and the community included:

Impact on local residents, including potential noise, traffic and visual impacts

Impact on the bushland corridor and flora and fauna species

Impact of not providing a full interchange at the southern interchange

The need for a full interchange connection to John Hunter Hospital with the bypass

Impact to pedestrian access into and across the bushland corridor

Impact on the off-road shared path at the northern interchange.

Roads and Maritime used the outcomes of the early stages of the development of the concept design and EIS to develop a refined strategic design. This process is summarised in the Newcastle Inner City Bypass – Rankin Park to Jesmond Refined Strategic Design Report (Roads and Maritime 2016b) and discussed further in Section 4.4.2. 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




As part of this review, Roads and Maritime considered the feasibility of the ‘do minimum’ option again (rather than building the project). As outlined in Chapter 3, there are deficiencies in the existing surrounding road network with high levels of traffic congestion and this is expected to worsen due to a substantial increase in traffic in the study area over the next 20 to 25 years. As a result, the ‘do minimum’ option was not considered any further. Other alternatives, such as upgrades to other transport modes including bus or rail services were not considered as these would be unlikely to substantially reduce the traffic demand for the project.

4.4.1 Traffic modelling – options development and assessment

To assist with meeting the project objectives, traffic modelling was a key input into the options development for the project. Roads and Maritime’s Lower Hunter Traffic Model (LHTM) (Arcadis 2016) comprises a road network model of the entire Lower Hunter region. Traffic volume forecasts for the LHTM are based on land use assumptions and forecast population and employment growth as predicted in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006-31 (Department of Planning 2006).

The LHTM has been used to assess the forecast traffic redistribution with the bypass on the movement of traffic through the study area. The LHTM provides forecast traffic demand for future years while taking into account forecast traffic growth in the study area, for scenarios both with and without the project in place. The results are used in the detailed microsimulation modelling.

A microsimulation traffic model was developed for the project using Quadstone Paramics software platform. Paramics traffic models represent traffic flows in a network, by simulating individual vehicles and their interactions with other vehicles and the surrounding road environment. The traffic modelling has been carried out to meet the following objectives:

Assess operational performance and identify constraints or issues with design options

Forecast quantitative traffic statistics for comparison and evaluation of options

Provide outputs for economic analysis.

Base Model Network

All major roads in the study area have been integrated in the base model network as shown in Figure 4-4. This primarily covers the A37 route via Charlestown Road, Lookout Road, Croudace Street, Newcastle Road and the existing section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass north of Newcastle Road.

Calibration/validation

An integral part of the traffic modelling related to the development of a base model representing existing traffic conditions in the two hour morning (7am to 9am) and two hour afternoon (4pm to 6pm) peak periods. Calibration/validation of the base model was necessary to ensure that the two peak traffic models accurately represented existing traffic conditions. The base model can therefore be used with confidence to test options for future years with traffic growth applied to the modelled road network.

An extensive range of traffic survey data of existing traffic conditions was collected to assist with the developing the base traffic models to replicate existing traffic conditions. The model was calibrated/validated to 2014/15 traffic survey data by comparing observed and modelled traffic data consisting of:

Intersection turning movement counts

Travel time data along two routes in the study area.

Origin-destination surveys to ascertain trip distribution in the study area

Classified mid-block traffic counts

Traffic signal data.

The model was calibrated/validated in accordance with Roads and Maritime Traffic Modelling Guidelines, Version 1.0, February 2013, with the model providing good replication of existing traffic conditions against network calibration criteria and observed journey times. It was therefore considered that the Paramics microsimulation base models for the project was fit for purpose and provided robust models for carrying out options development and assessment.

The development of the base models is detailed in the Traffic and Transport Assessment (Aurecon 2016a) (Appendix F).

Jesmond Park

Blackbutt Reserve

The Universityof Newcastle


GeorgeMcGregor

Park

Northern interchange

Southerninterchange

CARDIFF ROAD

DO

UG

LA

S S

TR

EE

T

CARDIFFHEIGHTS

GARDENSUBURB

RANKINPARK

CALLAGHAN

LAMBTON

WARATAH

CARDIFFSOUTH

KOTARASOUTH

ADAMSTOWN

ELERMOREVALE

MARYLAND SHORTLAND

WARATAHWEST

MEREWETHER

ADAMSTOWNHEIGHTS

GLENDALE

BIRMINGHAMGARDENS

JESMOND

NEWLAMBTON

WALLSEND

CARDIFF

NEWLAMBTONHEIGHTS

KOTARA

MAYFIELDWEST

NORTHLAMBTON

WARABROOK

BI R

CH

GR

OV E

DR

IVE

CARNLEYAVENUE

TU

RT

ON

RO

AD

CROUDACE ROAD

BR

UN

KE

RRO

AD

LAMBTON ROAD

MC

CA

FFREY DRIVE

HIGH STREET

PARK AVENUE

PRINCE

STREET

COW

PERSTREET

BR

IDG

ES

ROAD

GRIFFITHS

RO

AD

MYALL ROAD

BLU

E G

UM

RO

AD

GLEBE ROAD

MIN

MI R

OAD

JO

SLIN

STREET

ED

ITH

ST

RE

ET

JANET STREET

DURHAM ROAD

MA

ITL

AN

D

ROAD

WILKINSON AVENUE

ST

JAM

ES

RO

AD

HOWE STREET

PRIN

CETO

NAV

EN

U

E

MAU

D S

TR

EET

WAL

LS

EN

DR

OA

D

MA

CQ

UA

RIE

ST

RE

ET

RE

S

ERVOIR ROAD

INDUSTRIALDRIVE

RUSSELL ROAD

UNIVERSITY DRIVE

NO

RT

HC

OT

TD

RIV

E

CH

AR

LE

ST

OW

NR

OA

D

GRANDVIE W RO

AD

CA

RD

IFF

RO

AD

LA

KE

RO

AD

LO

OKO

UT

ROAD

MARYLAND

DR

IVE

SAN

DG

ATE

ROAD

© Land and Property Information 2015

G:\22\17656\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\EIS\2217656_CH04_EIS112_TrafficStudyArea_0.mxd

0 250 500 750 1,000125

Metres

LEGEND

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

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator

Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994

Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Paper Size A4

Study area

Design


Traffic model study area

Figure 4-4


4.4.2 Development of options

In developing the refined strategic design, Roads and Maritime sought to better meet the project objectives and improve the traffic performance and project functionality.

The options development and assessment process for the project involved field investigations, engineering designs, key stakeholder consultation and technical workshops. This process enabled the identification of potential design refinements based on a combination of engineering, environmental, geotechnical, social, economic, constructability and functional considerations.

The process for developing the refined strategic design broadly involved:

Reviewing the 2007 strategic design against current standards

Confirming the design criteria

Reviewing and updating the mapping of constraints and opportunities

Completing geotechnical and mine subsidence investigations to determine ground conditions and potential engineering constraints

Carrying out biodiversity surveys of both flora and fauna species for inclusion in constraints and opportunities mapping

Preliminary assessment of temporary ancillary facilities including identification of potential areas required for construction (site compounds, batching plant sites, sedimentation basins, construction access tracks, materials storage areas and temporary stockpile areas)

Completing a traffic study, including traffic modelling to review the 2007 strategic design, identify design modifications, particularly the layout of interchanges and to provide data to carry out economic analysis

Preparing strategic cost estimates and economic analysis on the refined strategic design options

Carrying out community and stakeholder consultation to identify issues to be considered in the design refinement process

Identifying potential design modifications based on engineering, environmental, geotechnical, social, economic, constructability and functional considerations

Completing value management workshops to assist with refinement and selection of a refined strategic design

Carrying out additional design refinement to allow the recommendation of a preferred option for the refined strategic design.

Figure 4-5 provides an outline of the options development and evaluation process.

The key considerations for the development of the refined strategic design and subsequent concept design included:

Proximity of residents including potential noise and visual impacts

Access and connectivity across the corridor for both people and animals

Access options for John Hunter Hospital

Local ecology and environmental impacts

Traffic performance of the interchanges and the surrounding road network

Design layout of the southern interchange with Lookout Road, including a review of the need for a northbound on-ramp and/or southbound off-ramp with McCaffrey Drive

Design layout of the northern interchange at Newcastle Road and existing Jesmond to Sandgate section of the Newcastle inner City Bypass

Provision for pedestrians and cyclists

Steep, undulating terrain and designing the project to fit into the landform

Geotechnical risks including mine subsidence

Design features such as grades and design speed

Constructability and future maintenance requirements.


Alignment options and interchange options were considered separately in the development of the refined strategic design. The options investigated and the assessment process used are as follows:

Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 – describes the alignment and interchange options short-listed for assessment at the value management workshops

Section 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 – describes the evaluation process and outcomes of the value management workshops

Section 4.4.7 – describes the additional design refinement carried out for the preferred northern, hospital and southern interchange options, after the value management workshops

Section 4.5 – describes the additional design refinement carried out for the preferred northern and southern interchange options, after the public display of the refined strategic design

Section 4.6 – describes the preferred option developed into the concept design for the project.


Figure 4-5 Project development and implementation process


4.4.3 Description of alignment options

Several alternatives to the existing 2007 strategic design alignment were investigated in an iterative process as part of the development of the refined strategic design. Alignment 1 (2007 strategic design alignment) and Alignment 2 were short-listed for further investigation (Figure 4-6). For alignment comparison purposes only, the hospital connection with left-in and left-out configuration from the 2007 strategic design was replaced with a full interchange (Figure 4-6). This was to allow any potential impacts due to the larger construction footprint (associated with the full interchange option) to be included in the assessment of the two short-listed 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 4.4.4).

Alignment option 1

Alignment option 1 generally refers to the 2007 strategic design alignment as described in Section 4.3.4 (the blue option). It consisted of a four lane divided road (two lanes in each direction) between Lookout Road, south of the McCaffrey Drive intersection and the existing Jesmond to Shortland section of Newcastle Inner City Bypass. The alignment deviates from Lookout Road, south of McCaffrey Drive before passing under McCaffrey Drive on a steep 10 per cent down grade. A short 30 metre bridge would be provided about 350 metres north of McCaffrey Drive over a large gully and associated creek line, to allow fauna access under the bypass. The alignment then curves north-west traversing a series of steep gullies and creek lines, running parallel to the hospital’s southern car park with the alignment being relatively flat in grading through this section.

The alignment then curves to the right with a 100 metre long bridge provided over a gully and associated creek line. While the bridge allows for access under the bypass for fauna, the area on the eastern side is land locked by the hospital and the connection road from the hospital interchange. The interchange with the John Hunter Hospital would be provided on the east-west ridgeline to the west of the hospital. North of the ridgeline the alignment is on a down grade of about six per cent, around 20 to 100 metres east of residential properties. At around 250 metres south of Newcastle Road the grading eases to about two per cent before crossing Newcastle Road via an overpass to connect to the southern end of the existing Jesmond to Shortland section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

Alignment option 2

Alignment option 2 deviates from Lookout Road, south of McCaffrey Drive before passing under McCaffrey Drive on an eight per cent down grade. A dedicated fauna culvert is provided about 300 metres north of McCaffrey Drive to allow access under the bypass for fauna. The alignment curves to the left, moving further west of alignment option 1. The alignment then curves to the right close to the western extent of the hospital precinct, with a relatively flat grade through this section.

The alignment is substantially further to the east then alignment option 1, retaining a bushland buffer of between 50 and 250 metres to residential properties to the west. The alignment then crosses and cuts into the east-west ridgeline with the hospital interchange located closer to the hospital than alignment option 1. This resulted in a reduction in the length of road required to connect to the hospital’s internal road network.

North of the hospital interchange, a 79 metre bridge (Bridge 4) is provided over a gully and associated creek line about 700 metres south of Newcastle Road. The bridge would reduce vegetation clearing and allow for access under the bypass for both fauna and recreational users of the bushland area. The alignment is on a down grade of about five per cent before easing to about two per cent about 200 metres south of Newcastle Road. The alignment crosses Newcastle Road via an overpass to connect to the southern end of the existing Jesmond to Shortland section of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

t r e e t waratah jesmond d j a n e t s e t lambton …

Documents