NICB Rankin Park to Jesmond Bypass

I thought there was consensus on the necessity to fully integrate cycleways in Newcastle due to the benefits it brings to the city in terms of better health, stronger communities, less congestion and a lowering of our greenhouse gas emmissions. The cutting of the cycle path is a backward step and is something that will have to be reversed in the future, thus costing the tax payer more in the long term. It will also mean that cyclists will be forced to take riskier decisions when negotiating the Jesmond roundabout. Please reverse the decision.

When I see the proposed cycle routes I am dismayed and wonder why the RMS plans to cut the existing shared path through Jesmond and replace it with several sets of lights where cyclists will have to cross over extremely busy roadways.
Surely the existing pathway can be incorporated into the new bypass with a tunnel under it.

I wish to object most strongly to the Rankin Park to Jesmond - Newcastle Inner City Bypass as it relates to the integration with Jesmond Park and the associated pedestrian and cycle path.
My point of view is that it seems totally counterproductive to traffic flows because the design as it stands involves three sets of traffic lights which will both slow vehicular traffic enormously as well as create a very significant disincentive for pedestrians and cyclists to travel in this area.
To spend $280 million dollars and unnecessarily create stop start conditions is surely not good road building practice, I would suggest that the designers rethink the three sets of traffic lights and make provision for pedestrian and cycle over and underpasses, the extra money would be well spent in terms of public health and commercial efficiency for this vital piece of NSW infrastructure.

Yours Faithfully

Martin & Charmaine McGrevy
DUDLEY NSW 2290

I am so very disappointed the the level of consultation with the public and other park users and stakeholders . Seems all prior suggestions from the public domain has been totally ignored in particular the demolition of the current shared path and cycle way to Wallsend and RMS proposal to endanger lives at 3 set of traffic light over 8 lanes of heavy traffic is unacceptable.
Current thinking as a solution is to provide a free access under pass to cater for the inward and exiting city bypass cyclists.

I am requesting the the government dept responsible for the bypass reconsider the cutting of the cycle way in Jesmond park. The planned option of using 3 different sets of lights increases the risk of cyclist and pedestrian injury and death, may result in an increase in car use due to the risk of injury and inconvenience. We live in an age of increasing levels of obesity, ill health coupled with an ageing population. Your cheap and short sighted decision goes against the core principles of nsw government in creating and promoting a physically and financially healthy and sustainable nsw. Removing a safe and frequently used bike and walking path is an illconsiderd decision.

As a frequent user of the shared path behind Jesmond Park I wish to express my surprise at your organisations plans to reroute the path and bring both cycle riders and pedestrians into close contact with heavy traffic.
I would think that in the name of safety of these users of the path in conjunction with less interruptions to the flow of traffic,that the path should either go over or under the new road.
In constructing the new road why have traffic stop at lights to allow someone to cross the road,when the idea of the new road is to free up traffic flow.

As a cyclist and pedestrian who often travels from Lambton to Jesmond Stockland via the current shared pathway in Jesmond I am very concerned with the route modification described in the EIS.
Three sets of traffic lights across dual carriageway slip roads is a recipe for disaster. As a motorist I am unused to see traffic lights on slip roads therefore it is not unforseen that motorists travelling at 70kph could run one of these red lights at any time. Was this to coincide with a pedestrian or cyclist noting their light changing green and stepping/cycling out without checking that the traffic has stopped (again reasonably foreseeable), then a fatality is a very real possibility.
Your EIS states that this new bypass will reduce accidents by 32%. The relevant sections are as follows:- "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. Of the 315 crashes, 133 resulted in injuries and no fatalities" from P257. This is from "historical high incidence of congestion related, rear-end crashes"- P274.
There is no consideration in the EIS to the new hazards introduced in particular to pedestrians and cyclists as outlined above, this is a significant omission as the outcome will be of an altogether different magnitude when compared to a "rear-end crash".
P280 states the following, "Provision for cyclists to cross on and off-ramps at the interchanges would be provided for in accordance with NSW Bicycle Guidelines (Roads and Traffic Authority 2005). The provision for pedestrian and cyclist connectivity is consistent with the on-road and off-road routes through the study area proposed in the Newcastle Cycling Strategy and Action Plan (The City of Newcastle 2012)." To me this is reminiscent of the Titanic being provided with the legal requirement of lifeboats at the time it was built. It may provide a fig leaf of legal protection for the designers and folk who make the call but turning a blind eye to known hazards is exceedingly poor ethics and will be little consolation for bereaved relatives in the future who may wish to know how such an arrangement was chosen.
On a different note I am very disappointed as user of Jesmond bush land and a tax payer to see that the new route is both more environmentally destructive and likely to be significantly more expensive, (judging by the increased amount of cut and fill) than the original shown in Appendix M.

Whilst I support the construction of the new road and a pedestrian bridge being built over Newcastle Road, I also believe that it is important to maintain and enhance cycleways within the city to further encourage recreational cycling and cycling as a mode transport to/from work and educational institutions. The proposed plans as exhibited will truncate the cycleway on the former tramway alignment at the western end of Jesmond park and disrupt its connectivity with the cycleway beyond this point to Wallsend and Glendale. The proposed alternative as presented by RMS will see cyclists negotiate the proposed overbridge, and the pathway on the northern side of Newcastle road and parallel to the inner city bypass, which has steeper gradients. This route will support an improved connection to the University, but not to the existing cycleway to Wallsend/Glendale, which will be disrupted and likely force cyclists to use Newcastle Road between Bluegum Road and Robinson Avenue. I believe that an alternative would be to include an underpass or overbridge for the existing pathway across the proposed alignment, south of Newcastle Road.

I am very concerned with the disruption and destruction of the east-west share path through jesmond park, with the construction of the inner-city bypass.

This path is used and enjoyed by pedestrians, cyclists, elderly on scooters, in a very beautiful and uninterrupted space through the park. This provides a safe space away from motorised vehicles like cars, trucks and buses.

It is rare to find such a space that has little interruption and intrusion from traffic. With connections to the hospital and surrounding suburbs it is paramount that safe access is maintained. Reducing the need to cross heavy traffic areas like the intersection that is being proposed over and around the current roundabout is essential.

With the opportunity now, in the present, and not in retrospect to incorporate a path tunnel that crosses below the southern side of the intersection would provide uninterrupted access for pedestrians and cyclists. I understand a bridge is the preferred option and i suuport that idea. It would reduce stoppages for vehicle traffic at street level to improve flow. It would also reduce vulnerable users from interaction with vehicles. There is a tunnel at the start of the link road in wallsend that provides great free/safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists without interrupting traffic. Another one is at hillsborough that reduces vehicle and pedestrian interaction. I would prefer a tunnel, but anything that reduces vehicle and pedestrian interaction is a must.

There have been a number of pedestrian injuries/deaths over the years around the country from people crossing the road at the right or wrong time. Vehicles not seeing pedestrians, speeding or running red lights. Vehicles mounting kerbs and colliding with pedestrians doing the right thing.

We have a growing population that will only increase in the years to come. Why would you not want safe areas/pathways for families with children and elderly?

I would think that implementing a tunnel beneath the road that isn't even in place yet, would be a cheaper and more functional option for the future. Even the current roads minister is starting to put more money into better access for all users of the sydney harbour bridge with the implementation of a ramp so cyclists, elderly on scooters can avoid stairs.

I have no issue with putting in a road bypass that i think is needed to reduce congestion and improve flow. I don't think that other users should be put out or forgotten about in the process.

Put a tunnel in so people can feel safe accessing the park and surrounding suburb. They shouldn't have to cross multiple on and off ramps to get to where they want to go. Check out other countries in europe who think ahead and remove vehicle and pedestrian interaction with bridges and tunnels. Denmark and The Netherlands are way ahead of the rest. Lets put people first, not vehicles.

This plan does not show any foresight into the future and needs of this area. The JHH is a major facility for the northern NSW and the safety of the patients is not really met by this limited proposal. In the event of a bushfire or earthquake the need to evacuate the hospital will be inadequate with the lack of a connection that would enable traffic to leave the hospital site and travel towards Charlestown or towards Newcastle except by the current entrance controlled by traffic lights on Lookout road. The cost of the additional access and egress from the hospital was stated at the exhibition as being an additional $10 million dollars. If it was added later the cost would be much greater. The hospital is currently about to add another structure to its already crowded site. It was also stated that the Hunter area hospital would have to pay for the additional access. Given that the NSW Government funds the hospital system now why does that make any sense?
I have lived in Rankin Park since 1975 and the traffic that comes up the McCaffrey Drive going to Newcastle University and the JHH produces a parking station now and it has to mesh with the traffic on the Charlestown bypass which is also at a standstill from about 8.00 am to just after 9.00 am and repeated each afternoon. The original cheaper main access to JHH was a roundabout and was eventually replaced by traffic lights and later a limited access road was constructed near the NIB private hospital to give a second but ineffective access to traffic coming from Newcastle.
I am also concerned that about my access to Rankin Park via McCaffrey drive for an undisclosed amount of time. The project is expected to take two and a half years but no time line for any closures of this road was indicated. I was told that it would always be open but limited speeds and lanes would be available but it was not written anywhere in the Impact statement given on the day.

COMMENTS
Environmental Impact Statement, Newcastle Inner City Bypass stage 5 - Rankin Park to Jesmond

Dear Consultants and departmental manager,

I have perused the above EIS and offer the following brief comments in response to the request for community input.

I thoroughly approve the concept design reflecting Refined Strategic Design Report of April 2016.
In particular, the omission of on- or off- ramps at Mccaffrey Drive is a sound decision based on the refined traffic studies and economic analysis
Similarly, the inclusion of the interchange with John Hunter Hospital to and from the north (only) is a sound decision.

As Mcaffrey Drive residents, we look forward to better traffic flows to and from all our local and distant destinations as a result of this development. We have confidence that the measures taken to minimize environmental impact will be sufficient and effective.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Regards
John Pascoe

I am a regular user of the cycle way that cuts through Jesmond Park. I'm a runner and have enjoyed running through the park for a number of years now. I strongly object to the development of the off ramp that will spill out into the existing Jesmond Park area. The cycle way should not be interrupted by an off ramp. The off ramp needs to go overhead, so people can still run or cycle underneath without needing to stop or do anything. Also, the off ramp will create too much noise. The bypass will create enough noise as it is, but the off ramp being near the park will only amplify that noise. Running or cycling through the park is supposed to be a peaceful way to spend time, it's not going to fun when you have to dodge cars, listen to noise and inhale fumes. You need to build the off ramp elsewhere.

Attn: Director, Transport Assessments
Planning Service
Dept. of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2011

Dear Sir

Traffic including heavy trucks will be passing within 14m of building at the Eastern end. The vibrations have the potential to damage the structure and its contents and will seriously interfere with the ability of residents, including small children, to sleep at night.

Could you please take necessary step on that. Thanks

Regards

Dr. Mohammad Mainul Hoque

At the North intersection, the problem is for people crossing the bypass. The existing route from Jesmond park towards the Silver Ridge / Brickworks park area will be disrupted. The current design has cyclists crossing 3 sections of high speed road, probably controlled by 3 separate sets of traffic lights. This is unsafe for cyclists, and will also block traffic during busy periods. The safe solution is to build an underpass, similar to the one where the Wallsend to Glendale cycleway passes under the F3 link road. This issue is causing considerable concern in the community.

At the John Hunter Hospital intersection the problem again is for people crossing the bypass. Provision is made for a shared path that links the route from JHH to Elermore Vale. The shared path is shown as crossing the southbound exit ramp, in the middle of a curve, without lights. This is a crazy design that will lead to fatalities. The shared path on the bridge over the expressway should link to a pedestrian & cyclist bridge to the John Hunter Hospital precinct.

At the Southern intersection the problem is for people cycling along the inner city bypass. Both north bound and southbound bicycles have to cross 2 lanes of high speed traffic to continue their journey. This could be easily fixed by taking the cyclists off the main road onto a short section of cycleway and rejoining the breakdown lane beyond the intersection.

The EIS contains one good feature of a new bridge for cyclists and pedestrians across Newcastle Rd at Jesmond park, but one good feature does not excuse a collection of bad features.

The current design was exhibited in 2015, and was brought to the Newcastle City Council cycling strategy committee, of which I am a member. Feedback on these points was given at that time. I am very disappointed to see the unchanged proposal continues in the current EIS.
Two badly designed options for grade separation are presented in the EIS, but they havnt tried very hard to come up with a good solution.

I am a local resident living in New Lambton Heights and have lived in that location for over 30 years. In that time I have seen the City of Newcastle grow and the traffic problems increase with the urban sprawl. Many years ago local traffic runs were discouraged and drivers diverted to main roads - this has led to bottlenecks at Lookout Road and Jesmond. The location of the John Hunter Hospital has placed much additional stress on Lookout Road and I feel it is extremely short-sighted to have a northern access to the John Hunter Hospital only. A southern interchange from the bypass is also greatly required. Let us learn from history and not have another `Tourle' Street debacle where short-sightedness of the area's needs have led to the bridge costing a lot more than if 2 lanes were initially built. A southern interchange would reduce a lot of traffic on Lookout Road and also facilitate the passage of emergency vehicles and from the hospital. The statistics from RMS have indicated that both a northern and southern interchange would greatly relieve local traffic.

I request a continuous path be kept, in place of the existing path behind Jesmond park. I would like the cheapest solution to be utilised. If possible, a bridge could be utilised over the on/off ramp, just South of the main intersection.
This will be a very busy intersection, and surely the interaction between vehicles and path users could be engineered out, for the best possible solution of all.

My key objection to the proposal is the inappropriate preferred option displayed for the Jesmond Park off-road shared path. The preferred option is in direct conflict with recent policy and road safety positions adopted by the current NSW Government. The reduction of cycling and pedestrian safety and amenity through the conversion of a well-used and vital cycleway link, and its replacement with a pedestrian crossing across 8 lanes of traffic via 3 sets of signals, is a significant loss of off-road cycling infrastructure when the Newcastle City Council has invested significantly in improving cycling and pedestrian infrastructure across the city.
A small sample of current NSW Government policies and positions with which the current preferred option directly conflicts includes:
"By choosing cycleways, shared paths and quieter streets, cyclists can plan safer journeys. However, even experienced riders are exposed and vulnerable on roads and risk serious injury or death if involved in a crash". (Source: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/bicyclists/index.html).
"Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Andrew Constance has announced a $39 million boost to deliver new cycleways and walking upgrades across NSW in the 2016-17 financial year." (Source: http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/39-million-boost-walking-and-cycling-projects-across-nsw).
While there is no argument that the proposed bypass is a vital piece of road infrastructure, the social and environmental impacts should be mitigated if at all possible. The bypass section immediately north of the Jesmond Roundabout has at least 4 crossing points for cyclists wanting to cross the Bypass. The southern section between Hillsborough and Windale also has 4 crossing points without traffic lights. It would appear the proposed section differs significantly from the existing sections with a proposed single crossing point (for walkers only) and no defined signal-free crossing proposed for cyclists.
While road projects across NSW (including Sydney) are being designed to actually improve cycling amenity and safety, the currently preferred option for the Jesmond Park off-road shared path removes a safe and vital link in the Newcastle Cycleway plan and replaces it with a dangerous and tedious triple set of traffic lights.
The opportunity to future proof this vital link in Newcastle cycleway infrastructure is a significant one. If the current Government is serious about cyclist safety and amenity then the proposed option will be revised to provide for the continuing safe passage of cyclists and pedestrians across the expanded Newcastle Bypass.

I object to the current cycleway (which is a continuous off-road route) being severed by this development. The current path is a vital route for cyclists and it is unacceptable that the upgrades to the Newcastle Inner City bypass don't retain an uninterrupted pathway for cyclists and pedestrians. I urge this design to be reconsidered so that our valuable cycleway be preserved.

I and a number of my friends (over 30) regularly use the cycle path through Jesmond Park and onto Wallsend (often then via the Tramway Track to Glendale). At present it involves one set of lights, to cross Newcastle Road at Blue Gum Road.

I understand the proposed new route will involve three (!) sets of traffic lights.

In this climate of encouraging people to exercise it's with disbelief that I discover that a $300 million upgrade to our road system has overlooked the needs of cyclists and walkers getting from Jesmond Park to Wallsend (part of
the major cycling route between Newcastle and Lake Macquarie), making the route actually worse than it is at present.

The general trend in road making has been to cater for the needs of cyclists and walkers. Why then has this been overlooked on this occasion?

To implement a safe and convenient path from Jesmond Park to Wallsend, using tunnels or overpasses, must cost only a tiny fraction of the total cost of the new road system.

When cyclists and pedestrians are forced to use traffic lights to cross busy roads, drivers are frustrated by the holdup in their progress. One answer to this is to implement a lengthy delay before the lights change, in case (I presume) another pedestrian might come along. The consequence, and this is well known, is that many less responsible members of the public will not wait and run across the busy road. This won't help the government's aim of reducing the road toll.

Please modify the project to provide a convenient and safe connection between the Jesmond Park shared path and Wallsend.

I am very concerned about the proposed RMS Rankin Park to Jesmond Bypass and the subsequent proposed changes to Jesmond Park shared path.

I utilise the shared path running through the park on my daily commute to work on my bicycle from Merewether to Wallsend. The proposed changes would severely impact my journey to work by lengthening the time taken to travel, and jeopardise mine and others safety, due to the proposed 3 extra road crossings I would have to make. Apparently the pedestrian lights at these crossing will not be synchronised further delaying my journey to work.

If this proposal is to go ahead, please incorporate cyclists and pedestrians needs in the future plan and include a pedestrian underpass which would remove the need for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the busy bypass on 3 separate occasions.

Some extra points for consideration:

The shared path is heavily used by local families, kids, cyclists etc, removing the west end connections will make it much harder to access the park.
Maintaining the existing connections via a pedestrian underpass would be minimal cost considering the scale of the project.
The local councils are spending large amounts of money on improving cycling infrastructure, why is the RMS taking cycling infrastructure away?
The Wallsend Tramway track has a pedestrian underpass allowing easy crossing of the Link Road and takes bikes off busy lake road.
(it would be easy to provide a similar designed pedestrian underpass in Jesmond Park.)
RMS has not considered the utilisation of the Jesmond Park shared path in its design of the project. they are not aware how important the link is.
RMS has not consulted with Newcastle or LMCC or any other cycling groups on the importance of the link in the greater bike network.
Pedestrian deaths such as recent tragic incident involving Jade Frith could have been avoided if separated paths were available for major road crossings.
The current design of 3 road crossings is ridiculous and will push cyclists to ride on the road to avoid being delayed several cycles.
Future bike infrastructure such as the Richmond Vale rail trail will connect to Newcastle via Jesmond Park shared path.