NICB Rankin Park to Jesmond Bypass

I object to the proposal to force cyclists to cross 3 sets of traffic lights in order to traverse Jesmond Park shared path. I cycle to work most weekdays and do not appreciate the thought of having to stop at 3 additional sets of lights or be forced onto the main road to bypass them.

There are alternate provisions for cyclists and pedestrians beneath the A37 (Newcastle City Inner Bypass) where it intersects the B57 (Hillsborough Road) and this route seems to carry far less traffic than the Jesmond Park shared path.

I appreciate the convenience, effectiveness and safety that the shared path currently has to offer, would be disappointed to see it be cut off and look forward to riding a similar path to work for years to come.

Sadly once again the RNS has failed to recognise the shortcomings of the design previously issued and if it proceeds as currently tabled it will short change the people of Newcastle and burden them with an ongoing traffic flow mess .

There has been no recognition of the need to provide access to the by pass from McCaffrey Drive. This will force the traffic from this road onto Grandview Road in order to gain access to the bypass. Given the existence of two school zones on this road, this is an added safety issue and given the 9 speed bumps on this stretch of road the idea of this happening is farcical to say the least. There was a claim after the previous plan release that such an access was too expensive. Given the funding allocated to the Sydney centric roads programme such a cost is trivial in the total context of providing a supposed improvement to traffic flow in this city. Without such an access all that will be achieved is a redistribution of traffic jams.

The latest plan fails to meaningfully address the bike path issue at Jesmond. The design simply truncates the best bike path in Newcastle and it would appear sentences it to traffic lights across three sections of roadway. A major section of the current parkland becomes isolated with this plan . The path should be tunnelled under the roadways, a task made easier by minor elevation of the proposed roadways. The vague reference to a shared elevated bridge across Newcastle road is fine and should be included but not at the expense of the elimination of the current pathway which was put there for the meaningful direction of bike traffic to the intersection at Bluegum Road. Please get this part right for the safety and future of cycling continuity from the city to the western parts of Newcastle.

Finally the bypass appears to be very expensive in terms of its impact with the natural landscape and bushland. Why has there not been greater use of elevated bridging which retains the natural landforms and minimises the environmental scarring? The road building technique in this model rates very poorly with the techniques employed in Europe for example and would never be allowed. The cry will be cost but the future will say well done if it does it differently. The footprint on the land will be minimised and works can be carried out without the massive earthworks and sediment impact that is inherent in the model.

The NSW Government has taken considerably from the people of Newcastle in the recent asset sale programme and given back very little. This will be the last major capital works item in this city that has a hope of alleviating the traffic congestion resulting from years of planning neglect. Lets get it right first time and not repeat such financial and operational roads and traffic disasters such as the Tourle street bridge where sensible public input was ignored

This a submission against the actions of the RMS in building the Newcastle Inner City bypass with no consideration for the cycling needs of the community. The new road with disrupt the popular Jesmond Park Cycleway creating two new points at which riders and pedestrians must stop an wait. these are dangerous to both children, who may not wait, and adults exposed to reckless drivers, I myself have come very close to an accident several times when drivers have failed to properly stop at lights. The other negative effect of taking away cycling infrastructure is it discourages people from riding. researchers agree that increased cycling is almost always beneficial to a city giving improved health reduced congestion as well as the broader environmental benefits. In order to properly serve the interests of the people of Newcastle you shouls be promoting cycling not discouraging it.

I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

The local councils spend a lot of time and effort in planning, constructing and maintaining cycling infrastructure in this city. This is an important asset that will be severely impacted with the current plan of the RMS. There are no safe alternative routes without travelling significantly longer distances.

I frequently jog to Brickworks Park and return. I often walk or ride to Jesmond shops to buy groceries. I will be discouraged to do this as there will be an additional three sets of lights to cross.

There are safety concerns for young children and families utilizing Jesmond Park and the shared pathway. Drivers will accelerate to get onto the bypass and may also be driving at high speed coming off the bypass. Patrons of the Jesmond Hotel will have additional traffic lights to deal with. This is a serious safety concern for everyone!

Extra unnecessary stop traffic signals for drivers will frustrate them and is not environmentally friendly, as there will be additional deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. People will be less encouraged to commute on bike or foot to work and Jesmond shops.

I hope that the RMS listen to the concerns of the community and make safe and environmentally sensible decisions.

I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

i live on Tocal Rd Bolwarra Heights. I and other residents here and in neighbouring suburbs have been subjected to increases in truck movements and the resulting noise, pedestrians safety, dust and other issues caused by Daracon and their Martins Creek Quarry operations expanding over recent years.
On Page 6 on Technical Paper 3 - Noise and Vibration Assessment. I object on the grounds that extended construction hours will place additional pressure on myself and other residents already impacted by the as yet unregulated activities of Martins Creek Quarry, should they win any of the supply contracts.
This project I'm sure is necessary for the development of Newcastle. But Daracon, the operators and owners of the MCQ, have shown time and time again of their total disregard for residents on their haulage routes by operating trucks outside their approved operating hours to fulfil 'critical contracts' such as the Hexham rail improvement project in 2014. The difference here would with this inner city bypass project, if Daracon are awarded contracts, is even earlier operations and for a much longer period.

Should Martins Creek Quarry win any supply contracts this will impact my household and surrounding residents due to an increase in noise and vibration along with the already unregulated activities of the quarry. As stated on P6, technical paper 3

It is a retrograde step to remove the valuable bicycle link which currently exists in Jesmond. Active transport, such as cycling and walking, has known and measurable benefits to public health and the environment. The future of transport is different to the proposal, especially as we are on the cusp of a major technological revolution with automated vehicles which will fundamentally alter the designs and capacities of road infrastructure. This expensive intersection risks becoming a white elephant.
The emphasis of the last 40 years of planning and urban design has been to reverse the damaging impacts that motorised personal transport has had on the health and amenity of our cities. Why is the NSW government so insistent on repeating the mistakes of the past; the discredited shibboleths of 1950s road engineers? The most progressive and liveable cities in the world encourage cycling and walking, they don't actively seek to discourage it.

I am suprised and disapointed that the Planners have ignored the traffic flow from McCaffrey Dve N towards the University by refusing to provide access to the Bypass to the North.The plan as presented is virtually the same whicjh created public anger when it was first released nearly 18 months ago. There is no significant difference.
During an early public consultation session which I attended, the planners expressed suprise at how much traffic heading North from McCaffrey Dve. Those of us who have worked at the University were not suprised by this observation, given the number of staff who live in the Rankin Park/Elermore Vale area who use McCaffrey/Lookout to get to the University.
As I indicated in my earlier submission, the provision of two lanes to the top of McCaffrey Dve (E end) is not new - motorists make that happen right now by using the no-parking lane. The new proposal merely replicates that which is already existing - thus there can be no reasonable expectation that this will improve traffic flow out of McCaffrey Dve.
The statement that these changes will improve traffic flow is a difficult case to accept, when there is no real improvement in traffic flow out of McCaffrey Dve. Perhaps the design engineers should visit McCaffrey Dve any day of the working week between 7.30 am and 9.30 pm. to see how resourceful motorists can be!

Those heading to the University (one of the largest employers in the area) from the Rankin Park area will still have to travel along Lookout Rd/Croudace St/Newcastle Rd!

In providing access to/from John Hunter Hospital from the N is at least parital recognition of the importance of providing rapid access to the Hospital. Why then is there no direct access to/from the South?

There are a number of serious failues in logic with the plan which leads to the reasonable conclusion that the "plan" is being driven by dollar costs - not really addressing the underlying issues which create the traffic flow problems.

From the innnumerable protests which have been lodged both by individuals and bodies such as Newcastle and Lake Macquarie City Councils, it is obvious that the concept of "community Involvement" is meaningless in the true sense of the term and certainly as required under the Land and Environment Court.

Again, at the risk of repeating my earlier submission, why not do it "right" first time!

Yours sincerely,
Dr Steve Beveridge

I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

I wish to object to the decision to cut the continuous off-road cycleway and pedestrian path at the northern interchange with Newcastle Road as part of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass.

The path is a very popular route for cyclists and pedestrians for recreation, exercise and transport currently separated from Newcastle Road. This provides a safe, convenient and enjoyable route for walkers and cyclists to go between their homes, place of work or the local shopping centre without having to opt to get in a car. The three traffic crossings proposed as part of this plan will drastically alter the amenity of this area in a negative way.

Having to wait at three separate crossings and then go across 8 lanes of traffic is going to deter people from using the proposed route because it's going to take longer, make people have to interact with traffic they previously happily avoided and tempt people not to wait and instead cross against the lights. Some may choose rather to use a car in order to get to the shops or to work.

If the time between pressing the button to cross is too long then people may cross against the lights and increase the chance of an accident. Make the delay too short, and it will frustrate motorists who will have to frequently stop on a bypass designed to speed up the flow of traffic.

An alternative option such as a flyover or underpass (or combination of the two) would be much easier to incorporate into the design now rather than realising in the future the error of not adequately considering an off road solution. It would also be much less expensive to do as part of the existing construction project than trying to retrofit a solution in the future.

In summary the current plan will
i) decrease people from using the path
ii) increase the chance of an accident
iii) increase the number of cars on the road
iv) decrease the amenity of the local area
v) increase the cost of any future solution

For the sake of current and future residents (and visitors) wishing to safely and enjoyably live, work and traverse in the area, please reconsider the solution proposed for pedestrians and cyclists at the Newcastle Road interchange.

I object to the EIS for the following two reasons:
(1) the rejection of the community desire for McCaffrey Drive on/off ramps. There must be some absurd assumptions in the modelling to produce those figures of 75 vehicles per day, which do not pass the community's "common sense test". No account is taken of local residents like me who now don't use McCaffrey eastbound in daylight hours because of Lookout/Croudace congestion, but would use the desired McCaffrey Drive ramps 8-10 times per week to access destinations north of Newcastle Rd (univ, wetlands, Hexham, Raymond Terrace). No ramps at McCaffrey will mean increased use of small local streets as "rat-runs" as drivers seek other ways to reach access to the NICB.

(2) There is an absence of commitment to provide noise abatement (walls) for residents of Sygna Close, Dangerfield Drive and Birchgrove Drive localities. The two elevated roadway sections, immediately south of the Hospital interchange, and adjacent to the bridge providing bushwalker access, need noise abatement treatment from the outset and should not have to wait for the outcome of the proposed wishy-washy process of "having a bit of a look after the road is built."

In this submission I seek to highlight the importance of considering the health of the whole community, not just vehicle flow.

In the past transport, planning and health sector links have not been strong however the impact on the health of Australians of sedentary lifestyles is increasingly apparent and best practice city and transport planning for pedestrian and cycling friendly cities is needed to improve the health of Newcastle residents. Benefits of prioritising pedestrians and cyclists are not restricted to the pedestrians and cyclists concerned with reductions in congestion, and improvements in air quality benefiting others when more people use active transport. Initial costs incurred are recouped in later health expenditure saving from increased physical activity and reduced accidents.

This medical journal article published in the Lancet 10 December 2016 by and Australian author articulates the challenges for city planning and population health.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30066-6/abstract

The current plans for the Northern Jesmond end of the Newcastle Inner City Bypass (Rankin Park - Jesmond) are a step backward for pedestrians and cyclists with the disruption of the current off-road shared path by 3 crossing lights. It would be detrimental to the health of Newcastle residents if less people used active travel between Wallsend and Lambton and Jesmond because the crossing became more time consuming.

I have previously used the East-West route which will be affected by the three crossing lights to commute to work and still use it for shopping and recreation. Due to a job change I now commute via the North-South off-road path along the existing bypass and use the current crossing at Newcastle Road. The planned overpass at Newcastle Road is applaudable. When I use this crossing regularly there are between 1-3 people crossing with many more motorists stopped at the lights so I may cross. Having 3 crossings across the bypass will also slow motorists stopping for pedestrians and cyclists.

It would be better to build an optimally designed:
* more efficient bypass for motorists - unrestricted by traffic lights as a pedestrian, cycle crossing
and
* safer, more efficient route for persons choosing active travel with an off-road shared path with an East-West underpass or overpass over the bypass

While initially this may appear more costly than the current proposed plan, future savings should be considered across sectors including reduced health costs from pedestrian and cycling friendly design.

I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

The local councils spend a lot of time and effort in planning, constructing and maintaining cycling infrastructure in this city. This is an important asset that will be severely impacted with the current plan of the RMS. There are no safe alternative routes without travelling significantly longer distances.

I ride my bike too University along this shared path everyday. I will be discourage to do this with an additional three sets of lights.

There are safety concerns for young children and families utilizing Jesmond Park and the shared pathway. Drivers will accelerate to get onto the bypass and may also be driving at high speed coming off the bypass. Patrons of the Jesmond Hotel will have additional traffic lights to deal with. This is a serious safety concern for everyone!

Extra unnecessary stop traffic signals for drivers will frustrate them and is not environmentally friendly, as there will be additional deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. People will be less encouraged to commute on bike or foot to work and Jesmond shops.

I hope that the RMS listen to the concerns of the community and make safe and environmentally sensible decisions.

* I object to the plan to remove the shared path between Jesmond Park and Jesmond and replace it with three traffic crossings. The path should be retained as a continuous off-road path.

To whom it may concern,
Whilst I do not object to the project itself, I do object to the extended hours of operation for trucking and quarrying activities. My family and I and our historic home are already subject to excessive noise and vibration from the trucks passing through Paterson. To approve the extra truck movement times will allow Daracon to effectively do whatever they want whenever they want. Please refarain from allowing these extra activities at least until a decision has been made in the court proceedings between Dungog Council and Daracon.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

I have been using the Jesmond cycleway since its beginning for commuting and pleasure cycling. It is an integral part of the cycleway system in Newcastle which serves several purposes.
1. A safe place for folk to ride their bicycles for commuting and pleasure
2. To reduce the traffic load on our busy roads. Roads cost far more to build than cycleways do
3. Allowing children to have the independence to cycle in a safe environment
4. Encouraging all people to cycle. As we should all be well aware, Australia is in the grips of an obesity epidemic, and quality safe cycleways encourage the physical activity which is desperately needed.
5. Cycleways encourage social cohesion. This is a huge issue in Australian society.

The proposed cycleway with 3 sets of traffic lights to cross the new road will lead to a significant reduction in use of the Jesmond cycleway. It will also encourage cyclists (and pedestrians) to cross when the pedestrian lights are red due to the frustration of having to deal with 3 sets of lights, which will probably lead to deaths.

RMS has a tradition asking for submissions as part of the protocol for a new project, but then not listening to them. The Newcastle community hopes that RMS will actually listen to submissions like mine about the importance of the Jesmond cycleway and replace the proposed 3 sets of traffic lights with an over or underpass.

Dr Robyn Fried

The submission does not sway well to the plight of cyclists, who are the most vulnerable road users yet help ease congestion and pollution.
The removal of the path at jesmond and replacement with more crossings is a negative and also the lack of a dedicated cyclist lane alongside the major bypass. Look at great paths such as that along the M7 in Sydney and the M5 in Brisbane, so successful and great for people.

Please re-asses the submission and make it more people/cyclist friendly.

I object to the proposed plans to cut a existing cycleway and replacing it with multiple road crossings that are all separately controlled. Considering the push all around the country and the world to provide safe, efficient cycle ways to encourage more people to cycle providing environmentally friendly transport, reduce congestion and fitness. This proposal has not considered these benefits and clearly hasn't been thought about. Cutting the bike path and installing multiple independent traffic signals will cause multiple delays for both the traffic and riders especially during peak times. No engineer should view this as a plausible option as its just a cost cutting option that should be rectified. Now is the time to get it right as its always too hard and too expensive to change once the problems are proven after its built. Remember both cars and bike numbers will only increase in the years to come. Be wise and build for the future.