Grafton Bridge Upgrade

Every other town in Australia has been campaigning for years to have their urban areas by-passed for a better quality of living. Yet your bureaucracy is incessant in its resolve to build this monstrosity which will direct heavy traffic and trucking straight into the middle of our beautiful town and in the process destroy the beautiful and historic gateway to our city and ruin an uninterrupted view of the only bridge of its type in Australia. At the same time the total annihilation of a significant portion of one of Grafton's more picturesque and peaceful neighbourhoods is your only priority. There are numerous 'green-field' options which can be significantly cheaper to build and your department chooses to ignore them. A modern accessible bridge will benefit the community however it will also attract heavy trucking which will be a constant source of the associated environmental hazards forever. They will bring noise, exhaust fumes, oil and rubber residue, just to name a few of the things to expect. Not to mention the hazards to our children and the elderly just to cross roads and get around town by any means. We have to live with your lies. Wake up and listen to the people with families who can't make it to your concocted community forums!

I AM THE OWNER OF A RURAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 336 GWYDIR HIGHWAY SOUTH GRAFTON [ LOT2 DP546675 ] AND MY OBJECTION TO THE GRAFTON BRIDGE PROJECT IS AS FOLLOWS..

1. THE EIS DOCUMENTS CURRENTLY ON DISPLAY SHOW THAT DUE TO INCREASED FLOOD LEVELS CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED BRIDGE , IT IS INTENDED TO RAISE THE SOUTH GRAFTON LEVEE BY 200MM . HOWEVER THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE COWAN CREEK LEVEE , AND THE RMS STAFF ON DUTY AT THE PUBLIC EXHIBITION SEEMED TO BE UNAWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE.

2.IF THE SOUTH GRAFTON LEVEE IS RAISED , AND THE COWAN CREEK LEVEE IS NOT , MY PROPERTY WILL BE SEVERELY AFFECTED BY THE INCREASED DEPTH AND FREQUENCY OF FLOODING.

BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR OF MY PROPERTY IS PROTECTED BY THE SOUTH GRAFTON LEVEE , AND THE NORTHERN SECTOR IS PROTECTED [ INADEQUATELY ] BY THE COWAN CREEK LEVEE. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT BOTH THESE LEVEES ARE RAISED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE GRAFTON BRIDGE.

Submission: Grafton Bridge - Additional crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton

This submission is in particular reference to Appendix K - Technical Paper: Levee
works landscape and visual appraisal

There is no reference in Appendix K to variations in the current levee levels affecting residences upstream of the existing bridge.

There is a group of houses in Riverside Drive South Grafton which are on the river side of the new levee system of about 8.4 metres. Three of the houses from 9-11 Riverside Drive are protected by a levee wall with a level of around 7.6 metres at its lowest point which merges with an earth embankment wall at 15 Riverside Drive of a similar level. The residence at 7 Riverside drive has a downstairs floor level below the 7.6 metre level that has been subject to inundation on a number of occasions. Requests by this landowner for an extension of the levee wall have been rejected. Thus at present this enclave is protected by a levee level around 800mm lower than the current levee for the rest of South Grafton which will increase to a metre with the proposed 200mm increase upstream of the new bridge as stated in Appendix K.

Several houses in this enclave experienced inundation during the February 2013 flood which topped the wall in front of the houses at 9-11 Riverside Drive.

In addition access to the adjacent nursing home which presently has only one road access was impeded by water over the bottom section of Riverside Drive. At higher levels this could cause major problems with emergency evacuation of residents.

In past informal discussions with employees of Clarence Valley Council responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the town's levee system I have been informed that the decision to leave an enclave outside the new levee system was a result of historical issues including the refusal of individual landowners to allow construction of a new levee.

This submission proposes that it is no longer tenable to leave an enclave of houses at increasing risk of flooding. Reassessment of flood levels by the Clarence Valley Council in response to new risk factors including recent extreme weather events in other regions would indicate that a level of protection commensurate with the rest of the city is required.

The issue is such that compulsory acquisition of easements to allow construction of a new wall should be used if necessary to ensure safety of all residents.

I see the provision of only 2 lanes on the new bridge a bit of a concern. The approaches have four lanes and the bottle neck problem that is experienced now will be replicated once the existing bridge is deemed unsafe for traffic. i have not seen any preventative maintenance carried out on the existing bridge, only reactive. i cant see the bridge lasting more than another 20 years. if vehicular traffic is removed maybe it will last a bit longer for state rail. Obviously there are cost savings realised initially however I would imagine the costs of widening later will be massive especially if done under traffic. Could you please consider adding the extra lanes now and securing a future proof solution for Grafton as opposed to a future problem. Also has there been any consultation with state rail for their future?

I would also suggest upgrading the Pound St / Villiers Street roundabout to cater for the changed routes of heavy vehicles travelling the Summerland Way.

Good Luck with the project! Good to see!

Whilst Carmel disagrees with the location of the current project, and believes it should be out of town, in regards to the current location as per the EIS, the following matters should be addressed:
* A footpath connection should be provided from Bridge Street under the railway viaduct on the eastern side of the approach road to the bridge and connect up with the traffic lights at Clarence Street. This will provide good connectivity for residents in the Bridge Street area to walk through to the retail / commercial area within Grafton. Under the proposed scenario, the Bridge Street residents would have to walk down Pound Street, the left on Kent Street, then left on Clarence Street. This significantly increases the walking distance for residents in Bridge Street, taking into account some do not drive, and there is a few older people in the street, with the numbers of people who have access to a car likely to decrease over time.
* There needs to be adequate landscaping in the area between the rail viaduct, Bridge Street and the old section of Pound Street to reduce any potential glare from headlights of cars using the bridge, as well as reduce the overall appearance of the new infrastructure for residents in Bridge Street and houses on the eastern side of Pound Street.
* The noise wall should be extended down to the railway viaduct to reduce the impact of road traffic noise on residents in Bridge Street. Please note Mrs Easterbrooks husband has health issues which result in some trouble sleeping. His room is located on the side of the house closest to Pound Street and the viaduct.
* A connection should be available for residents to walk down Pound Street, across the residual land left over from the project (if it it to become parkland) and underneath viaduct near Greaves Street to connect to the shared path and walk south over the bridge.

The current bridge is over 85 years old. I understand that they're built to last 100 years. GIven its age how much longer can we expect it to continue functioning? It would make sense to make the new bridge 4 lanes instead of two to cater for a failure or major refubishment of the existing bridge.
If you build a 4 lane bridge now the costs will be far cheaper than in the future.

As the owner of 18 Clarence St, Grafton, I wish to voice my families concerns over the new bridge crossing and how it impacts my home. Firstly noise will need to be addressed as I am a shift worker and the increased traffic and construction noise will cause me a great deal of disturbance and duress.
My home will be made into a corner block and preliminary discussions with a number of insurers confirm that my home premiums will increase as a result of removing the existing corner units at Clarence St and Pound St. As a result of removing the existing buildings my security and my privacy will be compromised. As an employee of Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre, myself and my family may be identified and placed at risk from ex-detainees using the Pound St footpath. I would like further clarification as to what will happen to the front of my property as the plan shows the development of increased parking to the front of my property and as a result may have TAFE students hindering access to my property if a suitable upgrade does not identify private property. The original plan had my property identified for purchase, however due to the planned round a bout being substituted for traffic lights, and now I will have significant development around my house with no remuneration. I can simply say that traffic lights in this vicinity will encourage unacceptable driving habits (hoon factor) unless some form of compliance is considered. eg speed and red light camera operation. I would like to know what happens to the current bus route that drop my children approximately 20 metres from my house on Pound St and where the drop off will be relocated to.
As the properties to the rear and left (Pound St side) of my property will be resumed, there clearly will be a vacant area from my boundary to the new roadway/footpath , I propose that the RMS submit a re-alignment of my boundary to meet with these new boundaries. This re-alignment would bolster security for my property once the new footpath to South Grafton is established. I also propose that my home receive accoustic upgrades as discussed with the RMS office, being new insulated roofing, windows and a high privacy/accoustic wall between my property and the Pound St footpath.

My previous submissions still stand even though reading the full EIS. Nominated refinements seem to be ongoing to address issues on closer scrutiny. Grafton residents won't know what hit them once construction starts & the impacts are felt. This surely will entail more ongoing refinements,variation & cost blowouts. There is already growing criticism of traffic light installations.
When all is added there surely can only be a 5% variance to Options 14/15 where construction costs would even out by being mostly unrestricted in a non-fragmented construction programme. Avoiding an operational town centre & infrastructure compromises to name a few.
The nominated Option presented is virtually placing a highway through the centre of town which will be open slather for B Doubles & the like at unrestricted hours.
There was no mention of tourism & a gloss over of ambiance to the town where Options 14/15 would provide this.
The saying is ... the Grafton Commerce forced the kinks (horizontal alignment) in the existing bridge towards CBD/ Prince St thinking this would force business improvement. Seems like history is repeating itself. Please review the documentation available on the propsed Toowoomba By-Pass & historical/ current findings of all NSW Pacific Hwy towns where vast improvements have been done to these by-passed towns.
I can only advise the preferred Option is short minded, already outdated (restrictive) & choking a beautiful & rare country city. Also wait for the Grafton residents backlash when they wake up.

I require a signed document from the Minister for Roads and Maritime Services with a guarantee that there will no increase in flood heights downstream of this structure due to the increase to the height levees upstream of the stucture. My reasons for this is due to the fact that the building and any increase to the levees in the Grafton area has caused increases downstream of the Grafton Bridge,our family has been on this land at Butters Lane since the late 1950s. I wish also to submit the fact of lack of consultation to myself, family members or my elderly mother at our property as it is within 200metres approximately of the proposed structure. I questioned the hydrologist who carried out the report at a meeting on 16th Sept 2014 regarding his method of mapping and logging of the flood levee detail, and when asked about a non-existant piece of levee wall, he then informed us at the meeting that Clarence Valley Council had provided him with the information, which I can assume is incorrect, does this not indicate that the process could have shortfalls in the EIS? The next point I would like to put forward is that we will lose our flood access route due to the construction of the bridge approaches on the southern side for the reason Clarence Valley Council still has not provided flood access recomended in an earlier flood study carried out in 2005. Next point is, during construction, what affect to the downstream properties will occur if there is a significant flood event and what damages might be caused as to the presence of structures used during construction of the bridge in the water way(Clarence River)? Next point is that I questioned the Peer Reviewer and I showed him some sites in the vicinity of the proposed construction in an earlier report that his company had carried out and there appeared to be a possible discrepency in the mapping process and possible non-sanctioned structures, this is why I am questioning the validity of the studies that have been carried out. Next I would like to ask if the construction of the southern approaches will cause any more displacement of flood waters onto our family property at Butters Lane on completion and the event of a future flood? Next point I wish to put to you is, the problem of increased siltation caused further downstream of the proposed structure and the natural damming effect due to slowing of flood waters after passing under the bridge and around it`s pilons and will there be any river bank improvements( as in rock protection) to eliminate future erosionthat may occur? Next point I would be asking is the accuracy of information provided by Clarence Valley Council to the study for the RMS, as in past flood history this could possibly be flawed due innaccuracies in reported heights.

4 McClymont Place
GRAFTON NSW 2460
Tel: 02 66422450
Mob: 0488422450
Email: [email protected]
18 September 2014
Director Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning
Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

SUBMISSION EIS ADDITIONAL CROSSING OF CLARENCE RIVER, GRAFTON

Dear Director

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the EIS for this project.

Jacob Saulwick in the Sydney Morning Herald (Give transport cash to states: 13-14 September 2014) said, "No one likes to be stuck in traffic; no-one wants bridges built that aren't really needed". He could have been speaking about the Grafton Bridge project. Perhaps he was.

The NSW Commission of Audit - Public Sector Management Interim report (Schott et al, 2012) considers that the RMS and other public sector road builders have a "free good perception" with regard to capital "and the attractiveness of new infrastructure, means that other potential options, such as demand management or greater utilisation of existing infrastructure, are ignored".

Taking this a little further, the RMS seems to think that the benefits of the Grafton Bridge project are self-evident and is choosing to keep the benefit cost analysis (BCA), which they say they have done, secret from the public. Most of the information they have put up as justification is really just comparing various bridge options rather than justifying the need for a new bridge in the first place.

A cart-before-the-horse approach has been adopted where a solution is proposed before the problem is defined. The problem is how do we overcome traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Grafton Bridge. A new bridge is just one solution but it needs to be justified by a robust business case.

So far this is lacking

Value for money

Providing value for money is one of the objectives of the Bridge proposal. There is also a sub-objective of achieving a good benefit-cost ratio. (Main report page 23)

Population and vehicle growth estimates
There are a number of difficulties in determining whether a new bridge will provide good value for money. Not the least of these is some confusion in the documentation. Table 8.3 page 141 in the main report and Table 6 page 38 in Appendix D are the same table. However, Table 8.3 in the main report is described as peak period traffic forecasts for the modelled network whereas Table 6 in Appendix D purports to be peak traffic forecasts for the existing bridge. Earlier discussions with RMS indicate that the descriptor for Table 8.3 is the correct one but I suspect that the forecast figures for both the network and bridge are the same. However, the documentation does not make this clear.

If either table is compared with Table 5 page 28 in Appendix D, which shows historical annual average traffic growth, some interesting observations can be made.

Table 5 shows the historical annual average traffic growth rates across the Clarence River at Grafton from 1990 to 2009. The table indicates that measured growth rates over the period averaged 0.9%/year. Growth rates were highest at the beginning of the period (1990-2004) of 1%, declining to 0.5% at the end of the period (2004-2009) and may have declined even further since.

This contrasts greatly with the forecast growth rates shown in Tables 8.3 and 6. These forecast growth rates are between 2 and 5 times the (declining) measured growth rate on the bridge in 2009, through until 2049 when the forecast growth rate declines to only 1.5 times more.

A reasonable question would be why are the forecast growth rates so much higher than the historical measured growth rates? We can only suppose that population growth and/or the proportion of people using vehicles suddenly increases greatly beyond historical norms.

However, neither of these factors seem to be true.

Depending on the year of publication, predicted annual average population growth rates of both Clarence Valley Council and the Department of Planning for the Clarence Valley LGA for 2011 - 2036 are between 0.2% - 0.4%/year.

Clarence Valley Council and the Department of Planning (2009) have also broken down the projections into sub regions: coastal, Grafton and the balance of the LGA.
Looking at Grafton (which includes Junction Hill, Clarenza and probably Waterview Heights, although this isn't clear) in more detail we discover that the predicted annual average population growth by both Council and the DoP is actually an annual average population decline of 0.2%/year. As best as can be determined from the available data this decline is predicted to commence in about 2016.

On pages 133 - 4 of the main report there is some discussion about origins and destinations of vehicles using the bridge. It appears 58% of all trips had origins and destinations within Grafton or South Grafton ie the users (drivers/passengers) mostly lived there. The Heavy Vehicle Study March 2011 on page 31 also says that 62% of vehicles heading north across the bridge have an origin in South Grafton

While population growth in Yamba accounts for the vast majority of growth in the Clarence Valley LGA, and is expected to continue, it cannot be assumed that a high proportion of Yamba residents will commute to Grafton. Appendix I page 22 indicates that the number of people aged 65 years and older in the Clarence Valley is predicted to increase by more than 65% by 2031. People over 65 years are less likely to be in full-time employment, and hence are less likely to drive across the Grafton Bridge during peak periods or use motor vehicles as much as younger people. The growth in the proportion of aged people is likely to be higher in the Lower River areas of Yamba and Maclean than for the Clarence Valley as a whole and Appendix I page 17 obliquely refers to this. The result would be a reduction in the proportion of people commuting from those areas especially during peak periods.

In broader terms the Institute for Sustainable Futures reports that per capita vehicle use in Australia is declining. Total traffic volumes in the City of Sydney peaked in 2002 despite there being considerable growth in population and jobs since.

Congestion assumptions
We believe that the RMS has greatly exaggerated the level and cost of congestion associated with the Grafton Bridge. It would seem that in their deliberations they have assumed that there is congestion on the Grafton Bridge during peak periods on 335 days per year. This is reflected in an annualising factor of 335 found on page 33 of Route Options Development Report Technical Paper - Economic Evaluation, 2012, but for some unknown reason does not form part of the EIS report.

We have had a number of discussions with RMS and ARUP staff about what this factor means, how it was derived, and the assumptions used in its derivation, without success. We don' think the officers involved really knew. The written explanation we have received is that because the same factor was used for comparing each bridge option it doesn't really matter.

But it does matter if you are truly going to assess the cost of congestion which is the main cost associated with the existing Bridge and the greatest benefit to be achieved by a new one.

The annualising factor seems to be a way of expressing peak periods where there is congestion, over a year. Given that 104 days each year are weekends where there is no congestion and there is no congestion during the 60 weekdays of school holidays either so I would have thought that there were 200 peak periods with congestion, not 335. So an annualising factor of something like 200 would be more appropriate, which suggests that the cost of congestion is about 40% less than what was probably used by the RMS in its secret BCA. But we don't really know because it is secret.

Summary
There seems to be a serious mismatch between the traffic growth figures predicted by the RMS and predicted population figures for the Clarence Valley and in particular Grafton. There is nothing in the EIS that provides any clues as to why this should be.

Predicted population growth is the major input into any model for predicting traffic growth. Between ½ and 2/3 of the traffic crossing the Bridge has its origin and destination in Grafton and South Grafton and importantly Grafton and South Grafton population predictions are about to go into long-term decline.

The demographic composition of the Clarence Valley is also changing, especially so in the Lower River, with there being fewer and fewer people of working age and hence much less likely to be crossing the Grafton Bridge during peak periods.

Yet we have even on the most optimistic population growth figures, RMS predicting traffic growth at 2 to 5 times population growth of the whole Clarence Valley without any explanation. If we used population growth (decline) figures for the broader Grafton area the disparity would be even greater.

Not only does this have serious implications for any financial justification for the project it also compromises the validity of other population and traffic prediction dependent matters in the RMS response to the Director General's Environmental Assessment Requirements.

The congestion assumptions also seem to lack validity and overstate what is the most significant cost associated with the existing Bridge and the potential benefits to be gained from any new one.

Despite this being a project sub objective there is no benefit cost ratio provided. According to the Department of Planning's Director-General's Requirements, an environment benefit cost analysis should be carried out. This has not been done, and we will leave it to the Department of Planning to decide whether that is a problem. That aside, a rigorous, quantified economic benefit cost analysis is the only way to demonstrate value for money - a key project objective. This seems a serious omission. It is not good enough for the RMS to keep this secret.

We suspect that the Grafton Bridge project is not alone with these problems. Faulty traffic growth projections and overstating of benefits have bedevilled road projects across the country. Financial disasters associated with the Brisbane tunnels, the Lane Cover and Cross City tunnels in Sydney and secrecy and lack of transparency with Sydney's Westconnex and the Melbourne's East West Link point to a systemic problem for road builders and governments. This is to the detriment of the public interest.

Demand management
`Consider demand management strategies to minimise delays to local and through traffic' is a sub objective of the proposal

Whilst it is pleasing that at least some attention has been given to demand management, on the whole what has been provided is inadequate and devoid of imagination and innovation. There are no bright ideas and some that appear to be deliberately stupid notions.

On the existing Grafton Bridge, when one way vehicle flows exceed about 1200 vehicles per hour, there is congestion. For most 2-lane roads you don't get congestion until flow rates are about 1300 - 1400 vehicles per hour but it's less for the Bridge probably because of the kinks.

Appendix D in the Heavy Vehicle Study, February 2011 (not found in the EIS report) contains a series of tables showing vehicle flow rates for the Grafton Bridge as well as for other parts of Grafton over one week in August 2010. If you cared to look you will see from these tables that for more than 90% of the time, vehicle flows on the Grafton Bridge are less than 1200 vehicles per hour including on non-school holiday weekdays - hence no congestion.

If the Bridge was privately owned the owners would recognise that their infrastructure was underutilsed 90% of the time. Rather than irrationally duplicating it at great cost, (so that combined the infrastructure would be underutilised 100% of the time), they would be thinking about how to get more out of it. Perhaps they would consider "peak spreading" or similar which seems to have the most low cost potential to resolve Bridge congestion. After all, based on the RMS's own figures, you only have to convince the operators of about 200 vehicles each hour during the peak to either not travel or travel at a different time. It can't be that hard.

Alas, since the Bridge is owned/controlled by the RMS and to paraphrase Kerry Schott et al, the RMS has a "free good perception" in relation to capital, we end up with irrational behaviour, hence this EIS proposal, potentially at great cost to the people of NSW.

Not surprisingly the lure of concrete and steel is too strong and the RMS only sees problems with peak spreading and with all other demand management ideas for that matter. Why don't they propose a toll for peak periods or incentives to travel outside peak periods? Neither of these ideas are contrary to Government Policy and after all as public servants they should be providing frank and fearless advice to their political masters. Or are they taking the easy road and trying to second guess the politicians knowing that they can easily use the power of the State to bulldose, in some cases literally, anyone who gets in their way.

The section on demand management is inadequate and the RMS needs to have another go at it. It is madness to want to duplicate something that is under utilised more than 90% of the time.

Impact of property acquisitation
This section (Appendix I page 48-9) contains a large part of what is mostly generic information.

An additional point needs to be added. Approximately 20% of the population of Grafton is aged 65 years and older (Appendix I page 17) which is much higher than for NSW as a whole. If the project proceeds approximately 60 people will lose their homes. Of these about 15 will be 65 years or older. One affected resident is aged more than 100 years. What will happen to him?

There needs to be some discussion in the document about the specific issues associated with compelling aged people to move from their homes. There is research about this particularly moving to nursing homes where on average people only live for an additional 12 months.

It is clear that the RMS as little idea of the value of "home" for people in our culture and the impact of loss of "home" on aged people in particular.

Bicycles
Much is made in the EIS of the many advantages for cyclists to be gained through building a new bridge. Much of this is nonsence.

There is very little benefit to be gained by cyclists and pedestrians for that matter from the proposed new bridge. For instance, a shopping journey from say the Grafton Post Office to Farmer Lou's in centre of South Grafton via the new bridge involves a distance of 3.7 km versus the same journey via the existing bridge of only 2.8 km. A pedestrian/cyclist using the new bridge route would have to navigate 2 sets of traffic lights, 4 roundabouts, cross unaided the busy Bent Street near BILO (Coles), the pedestrian/cyclist unfriendly bulky goods precinct near Bunnings as well as the cyclist unfriendly section of Villiers Street between Pound and Fitzroy Streets.

Using the existing bridge route only involves one roundabout. It should be remembered that roundabouts are particularly dangerous for cyclists.

Very few pedestrians/cyclists are likely to use the new bridge. It has no distance or safety advantages over the existing route. In fact it's the reverse and for the most part the cycleway doesn't take people where they want to go.

There is also a secondary detrimental disadvantage for pedestrians and cyclists. The selection of new bridge option has, at least in part, resulted in the cessation of work on the cycleway along Crisp Avenue south of the railway station that was ultimately to lead to the Pacific Highway and then to Clarenza. Construction on this cycleway ceased more than 12 months ago leaving cyclists and pedestrians in a dangerous no-man's-land and presumably awaiting the completion of the new bridge (5-10 years) for any relief. It is going to be a very long time, if ever, before pedestrians and cyclists get anywhere near Clarenza.

We never thought we would be saying this, but we think the pedestrian/cycle path on the new bridge south of "Pedestrian/cycle connection to the Dovedale area" will be a waste of taxpayers' money and shouldn't proceed. The funds saved should be used to assist Clarence Valley Council with its Bike and Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plans including the completion of the Clarenza cycleway from where construction ceased in Crisp Avenue. At least then there would be something useful to show for all this folly.

The forgotten Rogans Bridge
It is unclear how familiar the authors of the EIS are with the Grafton area but they seem to have their bridges mixed up. Hopefully, this is not indicative of their competence in other areas.

The existing Grafton Bridge is not the only crossing of the Clarence River in the Grafton area. Rogans Bridge is the closest alternative bridge crossing and is located about 16 km upstream of Grafton and when we last looked a few days ago it was still there and remains a satisfactory crossing of the Clarence River.

Page 1 of the main report seems to think that the Maclean Bridge 41 km east is the nearest alternative crossing while page 32 seems to think that it is the bridge at Ashby Heights (?) 60 km north.

They are wrong on both counts. What else are they wrong about?

It is sloppy work to get such a basic but important matter wrong.

Conclusion
We consider that the proposal in its present form should be rejected on the following grounds:
· Traffic forecasts seem implausibly high versus population growth and the benefits in terms of congestion relieved greatly exaggerated.
· All responses by the proponent to the Director General's Environmental Assessment Requirements that are dependent on population and/or traffic predictions are compromised by the lack of clarity in the relationship between population and traffic prediction. This needs to be resolved.
· There is no environmental benefit cost analysis as required by the Director General.
· Alternative options, particularly demand management, have not been fully analysed or justified. It makes no sense to duplicate a piece of infrastructure that is not fully utilised more than 90% of the time.
· Adverse social impacts on elderly people directly impacted by the bridge are not fully appreciated or explored.
· The benefits for bicycles are greatly exaggerated and the project should be reworked to fully accommodate bicycle issues.
· The project is not in the public interest. The big beneficiaries here are the "big end of town". The occupiers of the bulky goods precinct in South Grafton. The likes of Bunnings, BCF, Supercheap etc. and the big construction companies. The organisations whose CEOs regularly meet with Ministers of Government. The losers are the taxpayers of NSW along with businesses in the CBDs of Grafton and South Grafton. The sort of people who rarely get in the ear or are taken seriously by anyone from Government.

Yours sincerely



ALEX PURVIS CLAIRE PURVIS

Alan is concerned about loss of onstreet parking for businesses on the corner of Pound and Clarence Streets - both during construction and when new bridge is open to traffic. In this regard, it is requested the following aspects are explored during detailed design to avoid any loss of parking:

* investigate opportunities to provide parallel on-street parking on Pound Street just before the signals with Clarence Street heading south (north-western side of lights, northern side of Pound Street)

* investigate opportunity to replicate centre parking on Clarence Street between Craig and Pound Streets, to the other side of Clarence Street (between Pound Street and the railway viaduct). This is based on current designs for Preliminary Concept Design plan released in November 2013 where proposed parking has been shown to service the TAFE - the business owners on Pound Street noted there are a lot of TAFE students who take up valuable on-street parking spaces, so if the same could be placed on the other side, there should be no loss of on-street parks.

* Retain same number of on-street parking on Clarence Street between Pound Street and the viaduct, preferably on both sides of Clarence Street. This is important for clients of Al's Mechanical to access business, and park cars for servicing.

* During construction - ensure on-street parking is kept for businesses and client parking rather than construction workers. This is particularly important on Clarence Street between Pound Street and the railway viaduct.

* With regards to the proposed car park on the corner of Clarence Street and Pound Street - investigate opportunity to have both entry and exit points off Clarence Street, as well as providing an entry on Pound Street

* Also - consider undertaking construction along Pound Street outside of normal business hours to minimise impacts on business and clients accessing businesses on Pound and Clarence Street.

Jenna is concerned about loss of onstreet parking for her business on the corner of Pound and Clarence Streets - both during construction and when new bridge is open to traffic. In this regard, it is requested the following aspects are explored during detailed design to avoid any loss of parking:

* investigate opportunities to provide parallel on-street parking on Pound Street just before the signals with Clarence Street heading south (north-western side of lights, northern side of Pound Street)

* investigate opportunity to replicate centre parking on Clarence Street between Craig and Pound Streets, to the other side of Clarence Street (between Pound Street and the railway viaduct). This is based on current designs for Preliminary Concept Design plan released in November 2013 where proposed parking has been shown to service the TAFE - the business owners on Pound Street noted there are a lot of TAFE students who take up valuable on-street parking spaces, so if the same could be placed on the other side, there should be no loss of on-street parks.

* Retain same number of on-street parking on Clarence Street between Pound Street and the viaduct, preferably on both sides of Clarence Street. This is important for clients of Jenna's Hair to access business, particularly some elderly clients who need to park close to business to avoid walking too far (note there is no formal footpaths along that section of Clarence Street).

* During construction - ensure on-street parking is kept for businesses and client parking rather than construction workers. This is particularly important on Clarence Street between Pound Street and the railway viaduct.

* Also - consider undertaking construction along Pound Street outside of normal business hours to minimise impacts on business and clients accessing businesses on Pound and Clarence Street.

I am pleased with the amount of effort put into designing pedestrian and cycle access to the new Grafton Bridge and its approaches.

I agree with the inclusion of the shared user path link between the old and new bridge on the south side of the river. This link will be vital in providing pedestrian and cycle access to the new bridge from a large part of South Grafton.

The inclusion of the shared pathway connection to Dovedale is also appreciated.

I wish to draw your attention to the section of Existing Pacific Highway on the southern side of Bunnings.
On your Concept Design dated November 2013, this section of road will no longer take vehicular traffic due to diversion of the Existing Pacific Highway but there is shown a possible left-in left-out access to be investigated.
I suggest that you don't include this access for these reasons:
Any inconvenience to vehicular traffic caused by using Iolanthe Street and the new roundabout to access the highway would be minimal and would not justify the expense of constructing the left-in left-out access.
The unused section of road south of Bunnings has implications for Clarence Valley Council's proposed Clarenza Cycleway.
Council's Options Study for this cycleway showed several proposals for the cycleway to cross the highway:
A tunnel costing $992,000
A bridge costing $2,115,000
Traffic signals costing $681,000
If this section of road no longer carries vehicular traffic, there would be a huge cost saving because there would not be a need for any of these crossings and the cycleway could cross the levee along the road, saving more money
Please include this email in the submissions.
Yours faithfully
Mr. Eric Wheeler
85 Washpool Rd
Clarenza

P.O. Box 706
Grafton
N.S.W. 2460

Concerns about access to his land once the project is complete.
It is noted there are five lots in total which have access either from Kent Street, or off Pound Street. The access off Pound Street will not be available after project completion due to safety of vehicles stopping to enter the property - with the potential for a rear end collision greatly increased (It is noted RMS intends to have no private access points along the project from the Through Street roundabout in South Grafton to the Clarence and Pound intersection in Grafton). As a result, Mike's preferred solution is to have access off Clarence Street where the acquisitions are occurring (residences along Pound Street north of the viaduct and 18A Clarence Street). It is suggested that an 6m access easement be created from Clarence Street to join with the existing paper road off Pound Street as per the attached plan. Mike wants this to be resolved prior to detailed design being finalised by RMS.

Submission attached as owners of 8 Greaves street Grafton

See attachment

See two attached files.

See attached file.

See attached file.

See attached file.