Coffs Harbour Bypass

I strongly support the project but I believe there are significant errors in the traffic and noise modelling that has been undertaken. Appendix F (EIS Volume 3) provides some detail on the expected population increases and recent traffic volume increases. However, under the traffic forecasts the assumed annual growth rates are a small fraction of the predicted increases.

Having been through the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade I believe the forecast traffic annual growth is much lower than that used to justify that project. That leads to a number of questions:
- what has changed so significantly for RMS to provide significantly reduced traffic forecasts?
- doesn't the reduced traffic forecast impact the noise modelling and the required mitigation?
- if the annual growth rates are understated how will it impact the new intersection designs?
The Kororo public bus interchange is shown schematically. The bus interchange forms a major link for all schools in the region, not just Kororo. The access arrangements proposed appear to be poorly thought out. The connection back to James Small Drive does not look like it will work safely within the proposed project boundary. This essential piece of infrastructure needs to be at grade with the service road and maintain the important functions that it currently serves.

The northern connection prevents early south bound access onto the highway (as is the case at the moment). It is essential that the service road speed limit be kept at a minimum of 80km/hr to minimise the impact of the loss of this connection.

The intersection of James Small Drive and the existing Pacific Highway/new service road is shown as a single lane each way roundabout. The demand on this intersection before and after school hours appears to have been underestimated. In my opinion it appears this roundabout will be over saturated during these hours.

To Whom it may concern,

My submission is attached as a pdf document. In addition to submitting the document to the NSW Dept of Planning and Environment, it will also be submitted to the local member of NSW parliament and various other state ministers.

Regards,

Craig Golding

1. Noise walls
I object to the location of Logger #10, NCA 28 (1 Coachmans Close) as representative of the noise environment for the streets nearby (including Pine Brush Cres, Fernleigh Ave and Daintree Drive).

Using this location provides an exaggerated baseline as it does not currently enjoy any protection from the existing sound barrier. 1 Coachmans Close is located at the very southern end of the existing sound wall and alongside Opal Boulevard, which means it is perhaps the noisiest house in the vicinity and the only one not protected by the existing sound wall.

Any future readings at this location would be most significantly impacted by the installation of the new sound barrier (which will extend much further south than the existing barrier) and obscure any analysis of the true change in the noise environment caused by the project.

A reading from further north along Coachmans Close would be more representative of this neighbourhood.


2. Service road speed limit
I would support a speed limit of no more than 60km/hr along the service road in this zone (adjacent to Coachmans Close).


3. Pedestrian access
Plans appear unclear in the EIS, but I would also seek pedestrian access for the proposed local access road underpass near Fernleigh Avenue to allow pedestrians to safely cross under the highway.

I object:
1. To the quality of information gathered to determine noise levels in the vicinity of the new By Pass route. I do not think that adeqaute measurememts were taken, that reliable and relevant data were used for your deductive assessments, and I do not believe that a proper assessment of noise could have been made. I therefore ask that proper measurements be made based on actual data relevant to the area.
2. Because the EIS shows only a design, and it is not a construct only contract. The ability to further vary the project after approval is evident from the lack of detail in this respect. A proper construction contract with specifications in detail with no adjustments being capable by the contractor is needed.
3. To the lack of specificity in planning for the use of plant species in the area that are compatible with existing species. Only local species should be used.
4. To the lack of community consultation evidenced by community consultation premises not being located near the residents affected by the project and ask that the community consultation process booths be located near the residents affected.
5. To the continual lack of detail provided and the lack of professional procedure and due diligence undertaken every step of the way. I ask that proper and adequate data be gained before deductive assessments of future realities are projected.

It is important that the Kororo interchange be constructed first without delay I use it a lot and am aware of the problems it has. My mother had a serious accident there in 1982 although she survived it definatly shortned her life.
Thank you Ian Hamey Ph 66536051

Thank you for changing the concept designs to include tunnels. I hope this design will mitigate noise and visual pollution across the Coffs Harbour route.
I have a few concerns that I am not sure the design and plan mitigate (or are unclear as to how they will be mitigated).

1. England's Road intersection with Isles Drive and Sawtell/Lindsays Road turn off

Where is the access to Isles Dr from the highway for traffic from the north and the south?
Both the north and southbound exits onto Sawtell/Lindsay's Rd and entrances to the highway have issues and are dangerous. A fatality occurred there a few weeks ago. Lindsays Trucks also use the overpass to gain access to their depot on the northbound side of the highway. I understand this exit and entrance is not part of the EIS study. I feel that this area should be in the project design area due to it's proximity to the redesign of England's Rd interchange, the use of Lindsay's trucks and the proximity of Boambee Primary School in this area. All will have inputs and impacts to the new Coffs bypass design.
The current England's Rd interchange design gives Lindsay's a dedicated north-bound exit lane from their depot. Will their north-bound entry be treated the same? Will the south-bound exit from the highway to Sawtell Rd be extended as trucks will now likely be exiting from 100 or 110 km/h zones? Currently trucks barely gain 80km/h by the Sawtell Rd exit, constrained by the rise at the start of the 100km/h zone after the England's Rd roundabout.

2. Schools
There appeared to be little information regarding the mitigation measures to be put in place for the schools affected by the new Bypass. I hold concerns for our young children and the school teaching community that may be in an environment that has damaging noise and fume pollution. It is unclear what and how many (and effectiveness) of the measures that will be put in place and by whom both once constructed and by 2034.

Please refer to my comments at the attachment

I have lived across the road from the Pacific Highway since 2001. During this time there has been more than four major constructions directly opposite my residence. When I first moved here, there was only two lanes of the highway and the two lanes of Coachmans Close. By the time this iteration of the Highway is complete there will be twelve lanes directly adjacent my property! The noise, dust and disruption during each of the construction periods has been frustratingly inconvenient. There is no consolation for me and my family in the current design the following will apply:
The value of my property will decrease.
I have been informed the construction period will be four years and the works will be ongoing in my area for the full four years.
The design only shows trees as a buffer between Coachmans Close and the extension to the local road, Solitary Island Way. No fence or noise mounds have been included between the new road and my house to alleviate noise and visual annoyance of the new road. Will you consider the inclusion of a more substantial barrier between Coachmans Close and the new Solitary Islands Way?
The current design does not include levels of the new road but appears to ascend from the front of my house to the north up a hill. I am concerned the elevation change will create a raceway for people accelerating north up the hill and add to the noise problem.
I found no forecasts of expected vehicles per day along the new road at the front of my house. What is the expected VPD and what speed limit will be applicable?
I have been informed that the project has to maintain four lanes of travel north and south during construction. I suspect the highway will be moved onto the local road, adding to our inconvenience, noise and disruption. Is this the case?
There is no other part of this project that is closer to residential houses. Houses and land on the opposite (western side) side of the highway has been subject to mandatory acquisition. The disruption and inconvenience this project will cause us is unfavorable. Selling my property for a reasonable amount before, during and after construction is unlikely to reap a fair price because of this project. Will you consider compulsory acquisition for houses in Coachmans Close? If not, is there any consideration to compensate affected land owners?
I understand this is a long waited for project and one that will benefit Coffs Harbour. As a Police Forensic Investigator, I have attended and been investigated the most horrific fatal collisions up and down the Coffs Coast for the last 27 years. I have witnessed the road toll drastically decrease as a result of the improvement of the Pacific Highway to duel carriageway. I am not opposed to it’s construction and I have always been impressed with the engineering.
I think I have valid concerns and I hope reasonable consideration will be given.

Please see the attached submission for details

Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass (SSI_7666)

I am concerned about:

• I am concerned about only having another concept design and Detailed Design and a Construct Only Contract so I can have some confidence in the final product.

• I am concerned about dangerous goods vehicles still driving through Coffs Harbour and I want all dangerous goods vehicles (unless they are making a delivery into Coffs Harbour) to use the bypass.

• I am disappointed the design for the Coramba Road Interchange wasn’t done. I want to see a donut design instead.

• I am concerned about the noise part of the EIS and the future impacts of noise upon me and my family and I want to see an independent audit to be undertaken.

• I am disappointed that the Roselands Estate does not rate a mention in the EIS and I want that subdivision to be considered for post construction noise treatments.

• I am concerned about dangerous goods vehicles still driving through Coffs Harbour and I want all dangerous goods vehicles (unless they are making a delivery into Coffs Harbour) to use the bypass.

• I am concerned about having another concept design to consider when so more needs to be finalised. I want to see a Detailed Design before the bypass goes to tender, and a Construct Only Contract so I can have confidence in what’s going to be constructed.

• I made a submission to the RMS 2018 Preferred Concept Design and I can only assume because there’s no Submission Report that my submissions wasn’t ever considered. As much of what I said is still relevant, I want my previous submission to be properly considered now.

Thank you

Director – Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
SUBMISSION COFFS HARBOUR HIGHWAY BYPASS (SS1_7666)

I am writing on behalf of 46 residents of Coachmans Close and Fernleigh Ave and Pinebrush Crescent to express our disappointment and concern about the woefully inadequate design of the road carriageway alignment that runs adjacent to Coachmans Close in Korora.

Back in October 2018, the residents of Coachmans Close and Fernleigh Ave (North Korora Estate) made a formal submission (which was signed by 46 residents) relating to the RMS Preferred Concept Design.

The submission outlined with diagrams how the residents wanted the October 2018 road alignment altered by shifting its southbound carriageway slighty (approx 10m to the northwest) so that it was further away from Coachmans Close and the North Korora Residents houses.

This would achieve two aims, namely

1)Retaining a treed reserve adjacent to Coachmans Close
AND
2)Slightly shifting the southbound freeway carriageway further away from the North Korora Estates residents houses to improve amenity and reduce noise levels to residences.

Therefore, it was with alarm that on release of the recent EIS in October 2019, the residents find that the RMS has ammended its 2018 design to have the Southbound carriageway sited approx 18m CLOSER to Coachmans Close and North Korora Estate Residences.

One would think the purpose for the RMS in calling the public submission process back in 2018 would be for the RMS to use it as an opportunity to improve their designs for community acceptance and change their poor reputation. The RMS however have treated North Korora Estate residents with contempt by altering their design to locate the Southbound roadway closer to residences, against and in direct opposition to what the estate residents had called for in their submission. Their altered design increases traffic noise and reduces amenity for residents.

The lack of community consultation by the RMS with residents or resident representatives of the October 2018 submission has been non-existant and disgraceful. For your consideration I have outlined further details concerning their lack of meaningful consultation in an appendix to this letter.

As the submission previously made by North Korora residents relating to the RMS 2018 Preferred Concept Design has not been addressed adequately, it is still relevant and we want it properly considered now.

Secondly, we want it made a condition of approval that the RMS initiate meaningful engagement with the North Korora Estate community and provide the opportunity for a onsite consultation meeting to be held with the residents, resident representatives, with experienced and skilled technical designers in order to identify possible design alternatives that can satisfy the concerns of the residents and also places the freeways southbound roadway further away to the northwest than the October 2018 preferred concept design.
Regards

Paul Sparke

On behalf of residents of North Korora Estate
C/O Paul Sparke
22 Fernleigh Ave
KORORA NSW 2450
24 October 2019

APPENDIX A
PAST SUBMISSION
Refer to an attached electronic file 'AppendixAPastOct2018SubmnNKEstate' which is the original submission made by the North Korora residents on the RMS preferred concept design.

APPENDIX B
FURTHER DETAILS CONCERNING LACK OF CONSULTATION BY RMS
The RMS made no attempt to contact the North Korora Residents about our submission and engage with us to enable a revised concept design to be developed that addresses the residents concerns.

The only feeble communication attempt made by RMS was to email a generic form response (possibly automated) to us that is outlined below;

"Dear Ms Powell
Thank you for your submission on the preferred concept design for the Coffs Harbour bypass project.
Your feedback is important and has been passes to the project team to be considered as we develop the design of the project.
We will be preparing a submission report which will include responses to the submissions received during the display period for the preferred concept design. Submissions will remain anonymous in the report and the report will be made available to the community after the display.
Thankyou for your interest in the Coffs Harbour bypass project and we appreciate your feedback.
Regards
Coffs Harbour Bypass Project team
Pacific Highway Upgrade Program"

We suspect the RMS put little thought into how to best improve the design near the North Korora Estate, given that just days prior to the release of the September 2019 Project Update - Environmental Impact Statement, a survey crew was only first seen working for the RMS in the North Korora Estate Area to capture survey data. (confirmed during discussion with crew member).

Secondly in the area around the Big Banana just prior to the release of the September Coffs Harbour bypass EIS project update, their commissioned survey crews were blatently working dangerously close to moving traffic, without appropriate delination cones and Traffic Control Plan signage on a 30,000 vehicle per day highway, which suggests the RMS appeared to be conducting a last minute rush job to collect survey data and pump out an EIS as quickly as possible, at the expense of proper consultation with North Korora Estate residents.

Thirdly the RMS indicated in their proforma response that they would provide a formal response to the North Korora residents via a submission report. We dont see a submissions report within the EIS addressing our concerns. This failure to deliver on what they say they will do, although not suprising, shows a complete lack of respect to the 42 residents of the North Korora Estate that signed the submission.
Hopefully the RMS can initiate some meaningful engagement with the North Korora Estate Residents in the future to come up with a better design, and put their past track record of lip service consultation behind them.

I believe that the interchange designs proposed in the EIS can be improved.
In particular:
* Englands Road interchange provides poor access to Isles Drive Industrial Estate, and no direct access to the identified future growth area of North Boambee Valley.
* The Coramba Road interchange would perform better with one large roudabout instead of two small roundabouts.
* The Korora Hill interchange fails to provide free flow access in and out of Coffs Harbour as originally intended, and is unnecessarily complex.
* The service road proposed to run alongside the bypass in Korora serves no properties, and could be removed from the design.
Specific suggestions and maps are attached.

See attached.

I believe that the Coffs Harbour Bypass is being constructed in the wrong location but I am aware that this aspect of the project is not negotiable. Therefore I am using this opportunity to share my major concerns.
*I am concerned about having a concept design and want to see a Detailed Design and Construct Only Contract to avoid changes being made during the construction of the project, particularly to the inclusion of tunnels, noise management strategies and road surface.
*Managing noise is an important part of the project for the hundreds of households impacted by the Bypass, including my own. Some areas appear to be unprotected by noise barriers. I am concerned that we will be unable to use our outdoor areas during summer and leave windows open due to noise.
*I am worried that my house, and those of my neighbours, will be damaged by blasting and other construction methods.
* I am pleased that the current design has tunnels, a lower gradeline and quiet, open cut asphalt. Please ensure that only local native species are used during revegetation to ensure the least disturbance to our flora and fauna and that fauna are provided with effective ways to cross over and under the road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Coramba road interchange can be redesigned to reduce the impact level on some homes.
The traffic noise will be substantially higher with more use to access/leave Coffs via Coramba rd. This has not been considered if using current noise level.
The estimated noise impact on the quiet area of west Coffs is far greater than the average sound measures used by RMS. Train noises and birds at 5-7am are the loudest reading but quiet outside this.
The EIS policy only looks at remediation where impact decided for private homes to 600m. Given the quietness of west coffs with the hwy hemmed in By the mountain side, the noise is trapped. Are there exceptions outside 600m? Shouldn't the highest noise barriers be used along the majority of the area bordering residential location. Shouldn't by now with all the hwy work done and discussion groups a set standard for new roads encroaching residential - Ie, the best sound reducing road cover,the best sound barriers and air ventilation, low gradients Not trying to keep the budget under..
I live in Coriedale Drive so will have noise surrounding me.It is so quiet you can hear music concerts at Park Beach reserve (5km) away, plane propellars startIng at the airport early morning which clearly demonstrates how quiet it is currently within the basin. It would be appreciated that all sound proofing options even if costly are applied. Just because this is the most complex part of the hwy, the people should still be looked after.
Thanks and good luck.

Please refer to the Written Attachment and Maps' PDF

I object to the proposed Coffs Harbour Bypass proposal as I do not believe it will deliver a satisfactory outcome for the people of Coffs Harbour because of the following issues.

1. The existing Coffs Harbour Sawtell management facility will be closed because it is in the proposed corridor of the Coffs Harbour by pass and it is proposed that our waste will be transported to Grafton Waste Management Centre 85km away. This will make waste management entirely inefficient for the local community as well as causing problems for the disposal of domestic bulky goods for which there is currently no collection.
2. Traffic delivering to the Isles Drive industrial area just not of the beginning of the new section will not have direct access to the freeway and will have to travel south to join the freeway or will carry on leaving the area and head north through the city as they always have.
3.There is no provision for access to the freeway for residents of the Nth Boambee Valley. With several thousand residential blocks set to open in this area in the coming yeas this will force more traffic onto local roads increasing existing congestion which will not be relieved by the construction of this bypass.
4. The traversing of this 110km freeway through the Coffs Harbour basin will destroy the amenity of the Coffs harbour Basin which is a major area of residential growth in the Coffs Harbour LGA.
5. Noise pollution and visual pollution will affects the overall quality of life of people who are living in the vicinity of the proposed route of the Coffs Harbour bypass.
6. The value of residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed route of the Coffs Harbour bypass will be compromised by this bypass as well as the appeal of the location for people considering moving into the area.
7. The proposed interchange in the Kororo Basin will have serious implications for one of the Coffs Harbour LGA's most iconic geographic landmarks. A location where the Great Dividing Range actually connects to the Pacific Ocean.
8. The Kororo Basin interchange will impact the and destroy the visual amenity of the Korora Basin.
9.Noise pollution and visual pollution will affects the overall quality of life of people who are living in the vicinity of Korora Interchange.
10. The desirability of the tourist accommodations in the vicinity of the Korora Basin will be adversely impacted by the Korora interchange.
11. The Coffs Harbour community will be best served if a true western bypass of the city of Coffs Harbour were to be implemented.

Please find the Department of Primary Industries comments in the attached letter.

The attached feedback is provided as a result of a Coffs Harbour City Council technical review in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coffs Harbour Bypass, September 2019. Coffs Harbour City Council is highly supportive of the construction of the Coffs Harbour Bypass in its proposed location and in its general terms, and we commend the RMS on the obvious effort which has been applied to the EIS. It is in that context the Council raises a number of specific issues and areas of concern which are encompassed by this submission.

The attached feedback is a supplementary document provided as a result of a Coffs Harbour City Council review in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coffs Harbour Bypass, September 2019.