NICB Rankin Park to Jesmond Bypass

Item 38 states:
"Construction noise
Standard construction hours are 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 1pm on Saturdays and
no work on Sundays or public holidays. Extended construction hours for normal construction
activities of 6am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 5pm Saturday are proposed to enable a
reduced construction duration and minimise potential impacts on nearby receivers. Work
outside the proposed extended construction hours may be required at times for certain activities
that are either time sensitive or which have the potential to be disruptive if carried out during
standard or extended construction hours."

If the delivery of quarried product material is required within the early mornings of the proposed extended hours then the pick-up and transport of that product in those early hours from distant quarries such as Martins Creek and Brandy Hill for the purposes of the Project will have an adverse effect upon the health (particularly sleep disturbance, noise) and amenity of residents adjacent to the transport haul routes. The delivery of the quarried product material should be after 7.30am.

I object to the project as exhibited in the EIS.

The design of the Northern intersection significantly downgrades access from Jesmond Park to the Silver Ridge and Brickworks Park area by requiring path users to cross three sets of traffic lights. This will be slow and inconvenient for people using the path to commute to work. As one of the crossings is in the middle of an expressway on-ramp linking roads with speed limits of 70 and 90 Km per hour, it will be particularly dangerous if people cross without waiting for the lights.

A grade separated connection in the form of a flyover or underpass, allowing walkers and cyclists to continue along the south side of Newcastle Road is the only acceptable solution.

The new crossing of Newcastle Road (bridge 7) will create a useful connection to the University and Jesmond shops and should be included in the project.

While I support the final phase of the Newcastle Bypass, I object to aspects of the project as exhibited in the EIS.

At the northern end of the new section, the shared pathway between Jesmond Park and the southern Jesmond residental area is being cut, and being replaced by 3 sets of pedestrian crossing lights near high-speed and high-density traffic. This will add a detour and additional time to anyone travelling between those areas, including for those commuting to work, and add significant danger to what was previously a quiet and low-traffic access point that could be safely used by families and children.

These pedestrian crossings should not be implemented as exhibited, but rather there should be effort put in to create a solution that maintains (or improves) current travel time and safety aspects. I note that there are two proposed and rejected options in the EIS, but both of those options (a lengthy tunnel through the lowest point of the project, and an enormous overpass bridge) appear to have minimal design put in to them. It would be much simpler to create a small overpass and then a tunnel underneath the main expressway flyover.

This path is a key link in active transport for Newcastle. The stated goals of the NSW Government and the RMS are to increase participation in active transport, and the project as currently proposed acts against these goals.

In addition to the above, my main objection as it actually decreases amenity, I also object to the lack of provision for active transport in the rest of the project. The success of the shared pathway travelling the entire length of the M7 in Western Sydney should have been justification to implement similar shared pathways alongside all bypass construction.

If there were a genuine effort to increase commuting via bicycle and foot, then a shared pathway along the length of this new bypass would vastly improve active transport connectivity between Wallsend, Jesmond, Lambton, the John Hunter Hospital and Kotara areas.

I am making this submission not as a regular user of the path (only 1-2 times a month) as I only travel through for leisure, but as my children grow older and I want them to enjoy riding with me the current EIS would discourage any further use. However, I strongly believe that similar infrastructure should be provided throughout Newcastle to the Fernleigh Track Development that I occasionally use and I see benefit in routes like these being linked.

It has been repeatedly shown that investment in active transport infrastructure quickly repays its cost in reduced congestion and improved community health, and so to omit such infrastructure for the sake of a few percent of the total project cost is short-sighted.

I believe that an access ramp should be provided for traffic from McCaffrey Drive onto the bypass. Even if as claimed only 100 cars a day will be using it ,which as a long term resident I think is a gross underestimation, that is still 36,500 cars per year. I think this number justifies the inclusion of an access ramp from McCaffrey Drive. These cars will now have to navigate an alternative route through suburban streets that are very windy and steep and have the inclusion of speed bumps.
I also think that the absence of an access point for northbound traffic from the bypass is also bad design. Traffic will then be forced into using the Lookout Road intersection at the hospital making it busier than it need be instead of the seamless flow of traffic that could access the hospital from the bypass. Both of these omissions from the plan will create increased pollution , longer travel times and increased congestion at the front of the hospital. The inclusion of these changes would not add much to the overall cost but create a vastly superior end product.

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.

With regard to the pedestrian and cycle traffic heading west from Jesmond park to Stockland shopping centre or Glendale Tafe ,the three sets of traffic lights that will have to be negotiated seems quite dangerous and also ridiculous in this planning submission. You could look at the tunnel that was constructed for the cycleway that passes under the link road at Wallsend which has created a very safe passage for people to use. I don't understand why the same can't be built at Jesmond to provide the same safe passageway. What is proposed to be constructed can only be described as very dangerous.
I would also like you to look at providing one other bush walking / mountain biking passageway on the southern side of the new bypass linking Sygna Close with the hospital which in turn links the cycleway for ease of commuting. At this point you have shown an area that will be filled , an under pass like the link road construction should not be difficult to achieve in this area. The Rankin Park and Elermore Vale residents use the existing bush track in this exact location regularly. The Silver Stream Estate is being catered for with the proposed pedestrian path and bridge. The under pass suggestions in this submission are needed to encourage more people to ride or walk in a safe environment , for a healthier lifestyle and to ease the traffic on our roads . Thanks Craig

The proposed southern interchange fails to address the congestion on McCaffrey Rd.
Addition of ramps connecting McCaffrey with the bypass seems like an obvious modification to the proposal, which would make a significant improvement.

1. I believe that insufficient consideration has been made to accommodate those who use the informal walking and cycling tracks throughout the designated construction/road zone. Insufficient bridges and or underpasses to transit from one side of the highway to the other along the full duration of the road.
2. The disconnection of the formal bike path to Jesmond Park is not acceptable. The recommmedation to install an underpass or bridge in lieu of four (?) sets of traffic lights near the Jesmond Park roundabout for cyclists and walkers to transit along Newcastle road is greatly preferred for ease of use and efficiency.

Dear Sir or Madam,

A wise woman once said "Good design is sustainable, functional, socially beneficial, and most of all it is future proof".

I strongly support the proposed Inner Newcastle road bypass EXCEPT that it is bad for cyclists and recreational walkers.

The proposed design cuts the existing cycle way at the western end of Jesmond Park, with the direction of cyclists and pedestrians to mix with traffic, breathe exhaust, fumes, be assaulted by traffic noise, negotiate 3 sets of traffick lights and be delayed by increased travel times.

I consider this design to fail cyclists and walkers, is not sustainable, not socially beneficial, not functional and represents a pathway to the past and not the future I want nor deserve.

The road design must be modified to allow the east - west movement of cyclists and walkers on a pathway that is completely separated from noisy, nasty traffic and benefits my health and well-being - NOT reduces my enjoyment of walking in the outdoors away from cars and trucks.

Thank you

Ramps from McCaffery Drive have been eliminated based on traffic modelling, which I would take to mean that there isn't "sufficient" potential traffic moving through that area to justify the cost. I disagree for two main reasons:

1) traffic that moves from those areas through to Jesmond take a wide range of back roads through the suburbs to do so. I question whether traffic volume has been calculated based on all of these routes, or just the standard ones following the main arteries.

2) should the construction go ahead as planned, a lack of on-ramp to the bypass at McCaffery Drive will not deter drivers from using the bypass. Even without a bypass onramp, it would still be quicker to get to Jesmond from the top of Rankin Park by taking one of two routes:
a) From McCaffery Drive, through Elbrook, up to Grandview and back out onto Lookout Road to take the offramp there. This would push traffic through roads not built to be major arteries, that already have issues during rush hour, as well as issues with speeding.
b) From McCaffery Drive, onto Lookout road as intended, and then cutting through the hospital grounds to access the onramp from the Hospital's access points. The hospital grounds are not built for this kind of traffic, already face issues at shift-changing times, and the Emergency receiving area is quite far back on the property. Additionally, in a congested state, even with sirens, there isn't much an Ambulance can do in that area to get to the Emergency room if the area is congested. This puts lives at risk.

Either way, those who want to use that bypass who live near McCaffery Drive will, as the route to Jesmond and the university through the back roads is a pain, as is the current major artery.

Additionally, there is a highly used walking/cycle track that joins the Sygna Close to the gap between the first car park and the forensics building (path in pink on attached document). While a bridge at the proposed location is beneficial, an additional one should be considered to allow foot and cycle traffic access. Presently, Walking from Sygna Cl via roads takes about 30 minutes. Using this path takes ten, and the hospital is a key area for public transport. The corridor also provides transport options for Hospital Staff.

section 4.5.4 of the EIS report addresses community concerns for maintaining the Jesmond park shared path at the proposed northern interchange.

I understand the RMS received significant community objection to its proposed modifications to the shared path.

2 options are shown in the report, a $3M underpass and a $30M overpass, both are rejected.

please see attached PDF document for an improved overpass option that would address all concerns raised in the report at a much lower cost of $2M.

I have an engineering background and work on major civil construction projects.

I have genuine concerns for the proposed 3 sets of traffic light road crossings - kids on bikes, local residents with prams and dogs, commuting cyclists simply will not fit on the traffic islands or will be tempted into risk taking behaviour, an accident is inevitable.

I believe the RMS has greatly underestimated the utilisation of the Jesmond park shared path and the impact of its loss of connections on the community.

Please refer to the attached document

I am willing to personally be present if that is made available to me.

Dear Sir/Madam
I am deeply worried that the RMS are installing a road and cutting the bike path in Jesmond park. They plan to install three sets of traffic lights and sever the path. This bike pathway is a main community link for the suburbs of Newcastle. I thought these works were meant to improve facility not degrade it

This bike path is frequented by commuters and other users who utilise the recreational facilities, including myself and my family. I utilise this facility to commute, fitness and recreation. My wife and children utilise it for similar purposes. They often ride their bikes to the Jesmond shops.

The Newcastle city council goes to great lengths to develop bike paths and it appears that the council were ignored or not even consulted. This is an important community facility and the RMS are ignoring the community.

What concerns me even more is that the response to our concerns from the RMS was just a tick in the box and they hope that the community will go away. Our concerns were ignored. They came back with only two options. One the most expensive, and the second the most problematic. ie they proposed unfeasible solutions. I have seen a couple of suggested alternative proposals which could be constructed at a fraction of the cost and without the flooding and security concerns.

Most important I am concerned about the safety of young children who use this facility. These are dangerous roads for young children. Three sets of traffic lights will endanger their lives as drivers accelerate onto the on ramp, or travel at speed from the off ramp.

Drivers would be annoyed if they have to stop more often for traffic signals. This also means higher fuel consumption and increased emissions. Surely there must be a much safer and economical alternative.

I have attached a simple layout of how to maintain continuity of this facility.

Yours sincerely,

Donald Zeman

The inclusion of a shared foot cycle bridge is a good improvement over the current traffic light crossing. However, the removal of the dedicated path through Jesmond park is a degradation to the existing infrastructure. This connection should be maintained via an overpass or underpass on the southern end of the intersection. Additional thought should be given to implementing a dedicated shared path connection on the western end of intersection to give pedestrian and bike access to the existing northbound shared path via the William St and Michael St footbridge when approaching from the western side in Jesmond. Please see the PDF attached with the changes in light blue.

Please see attachment

Refer attached letter.

To whom it may cocern ,
We travel as a commuter on this bike track every day of the week . I am a business owner in new lambton nsw . I have travelled this cycle way for the last 20 years , it's extremely safe and very efficient with the connection of Wallsend to lambton . The proposal you are offering for the cycle way is actually very disappointing . This new plan is going to add 3 sets of traffic lights which at times is very unsafe as people dodge with the annoyance of waiting for the lights .I was always under assumption that you'd provide a tunnel of some sort .. This was one of the first cycleways of newcastle .. Seems so disappointing we are going backwards with cycleways in my area ... Dissapointed local , Daniel Aglio

See attached document

Please see response attached