Search This Blog

Thursday, January 4, 2018

The DCSCA committee has sent the following to the The Hon Richard Wynne MP, Minister for Planning

Subject: Drysdale Bypass Western Intersection included in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C369

Whereas the Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis Association (DCSCA) is totally in favour of the construction of the bypass, DCSCA urges the minister to refuse the amendment with respect to option 3a - the signalized Western Intersection - on the grounds of the 21 concerns listed below. Also to request that VicRoads further investigate option 11 in order to provide the community with the undisputed traffic efficiency and safety and environmental benefits of this roundabout option.

DCSCA is very concerned that the blocking off of Jetty Road creates an unsafe, inefficient, ugly and unnecessary traffic bottleneck.
The effect on traffic travelling from Clifton Springs to Geelong highlights these concerns: -

Traffic delay = 74sec.
With option 11 the traffic delay is only 7sec.
(Data from VicRoads Consolidated Options Report)

Number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points passed through = 26. Of these 19 are crossing or T Bone conflicts where, should a collision occur; the risk of Fatal or Serious Injury (FSI) is 80% approx.
With option 11, vehicles pass through a total of only 8 low speed merge/diverge conflict points all of which have a risk of FSI of 5% or less.

Number of vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points passed through = 4. All of which have an FSI risk of 80% approx.
With option 11, vehicles pass through one vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict point with an FSI risk of 50% approx.

On Road Cyclists. Number of cyclist-to-vehicle conflict points passed through = 26. All of these have an FSI risk of Fatal or Serious Injury (FSI) of 90% approx.
With option 11, cyclist pass through a total of 8 merge/diverge conflict points all of which have a risk of FSI of 80% approx.

This table illustrates the difference in safety and traffic efficiency for Clifton Springs residents. With option 3a a vehicle travelling from Jetty Road to the Geelong Road will pass through 19 dangerous veh-to-veh conflict points and 4 dangerous veh-to-pedestrian conflict points and be subject to a delay of 74 seconds.
With option 11 there are zero veh-to-veh conflict points likely to result in injury, one veh-to-pedestrian conflict point and VicRoads Consolidated Options Report predicts a delay of only 7 seconds.
Jetty Road to Geelong Road
Option 3a
Option 11
No of veh-to-veh dangerous conflict points where (should a collision occur) the probability of injury exceeds 6%
19 dangerous conflict points.
Av probability
= 80% approx.
Zero dangerous conflict points above 6% probability.
No of veh-to-veh conflict points where (should a collision occur) the probability of injury is less than 6%
9 conflict points
8 conflict points
No of veh-to-pedestrian conflict points where (should a collision occur) the probability of injury exceeds 6%
4 conflict points Av probability
= 80% approx.
1 conflict point Probability = 50% approx.
Traffic delay (from VicRoads Consolidated Options Report)
74 sec
7 sec
For more information see Jurewicz C, Sobhani A, Development of an analytical method for Safe System assessment on intersection design. 27th ARRB Conference 2016, DCSCA Presentation No 2e.doc and BypassDCSCA.No2.doc.

DCSCA’s concerns are: -
1. The risk of Fatal or Serious Injury (FSI) vehicle-to-vehicle crashes will be increased approximately twenty fold.
2. The risk of FSI vehicle-to-cyclist crashes will be increased approximately two fold.
3. The risk of FSI vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes will be increased approximately two fold.
4. The response time of the Bellarine State Emergency Services Unit will be significantly increased.
5. Option 3a creates a traffic bottleneck that VicRoads data shows is a massive 10 times less traffic efficient than option 11 for Clifton Springs Drysdale traffic and a massive 5 times less traffic efficient overall.
6. It will result in increased travel times between Drysdale Clifton Springs and Geelong, which will have detrimental effect on the local economy.
7. It does not comply with Victoria’s Towards Zero Safe Roads System.
8. It does not comply with Victoria’s corporate objectives: -
            It does not incorporate a separate active transport network
            It does not support a sustainable Victoria as it is wasteful of fuel.
            It does not contribute to social wellbeing as it detrimentally effects the local environment, will discourage tourism and creates unnecessary air pollution.
            It will have a detrimental effect on the local economic prosperity.
            It does not improve safety.
9. It does not comply with any of the 4 Project Objectives as set out by VicRoads.
            It does not reduce travel times and improve the transport network for Drysdale Clifton Springs residents.
            It does not improve safety for motorists, pedestrians or cyclists.
            It does not improve the attractiveness of High Street at the important entrance to the township.
            It does not improve accessibility and connectivity to Drysdale for the community and tourists alike.
10. It has a significantly higher cost of construction.
11. It does not fit within the current Public Acquisition Overlay (POA).
12. It requires the purchase of in excess of 2 Ha of land (several items compulsory, resulting is stress to these local residents and the subject of adverse submissions) at the entrance to Drysdale that is currently zoned Rural Living Zone.
13. The pleasant ambience of Lake Lorne Reserve and the entrance to Drysdale will be spoilt.
14. There will be significant loss of established trees.
15. There will be significant detrimental impact on High Street residences and businesses.
16. There will be in excess of $1,000,000 per year cost impost on the community due to the fuel usage whilst waiting at traffic lights.
17. There will be increased pollution and carbon emissions with associated health risks.
18. It will have higher ongoing maintenance/operating costs.
19. It is inconsistent with the roundabout treatment for all other intersections on the Drysdale Bypass.
20. It is contrary to community consultation conducted by VicRoads in 2015, which, of the treatments proposed, clearly showed a roundabout to be the first preference and traffic signals to be the least preferred.
21. And finally it will be politically unpopular - in that so much money will have been spent to make the traffic conditions and ambience at the entrance to the Drysdale Clifton Springs community so much worse.

Note 1. Option 11 does not have any of these concerns.
Note 2. DCSCA has raised these concerns with VicRoads, but, as can be seen from VicRoads Response to questions from DCSCA, VicRoads has provided no evidence to counter any of these concerns and, in many cases, does not dispute the validity of the concerns.

DCSCA is at a loss to understand how VicRoads could assert “quote” - “After considering all aspects of the Safe System Assessment, engineering investigation and review has concluded that traffic signals are the best treatment for the GrubbRd/High Street intersection” when all evidence available to DCSCA clearly shows that option 11 is a much simpler solution and is far superior in every respect.

DCSCA can only assume that VicRoads has not correctly assessed the option 11 proposal. This proposal is for a twin roundabout system (designed to Austroads recommendations) within an active transport network (pedestrian/cycle paths).

This is a simple improvement of the existing situation where Andersons Road becomes the bypass.

The current roundabout is enlarged to two lanes, which overcomes the congestion during peak periods. The Grubb Rd/Andersons Rd and Peninsula Dr/Andersons Rd intersections are replaced by a 2-lane roundabout. Slip lanes are provided so that Geelong/Bypass traffic only has to pass through one of the roundabouts and a slip lane is provided for Geelong to Jetty Road traffic. VicRoads does not disputed that its own data shows this option is a massive five times more efficient than option 3a.
Safe pedestrian crossings are provided across Jetty Rd and High St close to the existing bus stops as shown, an appropriate distance away from the roundabout. The unused section of Grubb Road could become part of the active transport system.
Note. It would be DCSCA’s recommendation that cyclists (especially students and recreational) be encouraged to use the active transport network rather than the road network.
It should be noted that VicRoads did a lot of good work on option 11 but designed it with pedestrian underpasses under Jetty Rd and High St and with a Jetty Road roundabout of a massive 111metre overall diameter. This is 64% larger than Austroads recommendations and, unsurprisingly, this design had packaging problems. Note. The current roundabout has an overall diameter of 43m approx.
Whilst underpasses would be the optimum solution for the Jetty Rd and High St crossings, DCSCA would concur that pedestrian and off-road cyclist volumes would be probably insufficient for their justification. DCSCA recommends that the crossings be pedestrian controlled signalized platform crossings similar to the image shown below. These two crossings would have a total of 8 vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points where pedestrians cross only one stream of traffic at a time and at which the platform treatment would reduce vehicles speeds to little more than 40 kph. With option 3a there are approximately 50 vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points where pedestrians have to cross streams of traffic that are potentially coming from 3 different directions and where vehicle speeds of 60 kph are allowed.
DCSCA considers that it is obvious that option 11 will be much safer for pedestrians than option 3a and the installation of motion sensors would further improve safety and minimize the waiting period for traffic.

Unfortunately, VicRoads have asserted that “Engineering investigation has identified that well-designed pedestrian and cyclist paths are unachievable in the roundabout proposal.”

An image of the type of pedestrian controlled signalized intersection proposed by DCSCA is shown. DCSCA can see no reasons (engineering or otherwise) why crossings such as this cannot be constructed across High Street and Jetty Road close to the existing bus stops. This would provide good connectivity between the Jetty Road Growth Area and to the pedestrian underpass to the education and sporting precincts, and to the bike path that is to be constructed alongside the bypass.

Neil McGuinness
For the DCSCA committee

Thursday, November 30, 2017

The Drysdale Bypass Western Intersection

DCSCA has been a major campaigner for the Drysdale Bypass, but we are concerned that the current proposal by Vic Roads is fundamentally flawed. The proposal - "Option 3a" - involves blocking off Jetty Road and building two signalized intersections and one roundabout.
We believe that this will create a congested, unsafe, inefficient and unattractive bottleneck where none existed previously. Virtually all of the traffic entering or exiting Drysdale & Clifton Springs will have to pass through the section of High Street between Reserve Road and the bypass and the two associated signalized intersections. Therefore, when a crash occurs, it will virtually paralyse the traffic flow into and out of Drysdale and Clifton Springs and compromise the operation of emergency services vehicles. Further, the bottleneck includes an excessively high number of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian conflicts points that could result in serious injury. It will create an unbalanced and inefficient traffic flow and increased travel times. Finally, the bottleneck will encroach into and spoil the ambience of Lake Lorne Reserve and adjacent properties.

VicRoads Consolidated Options Report shows that option 11 (twin 2-lane roundabouts) which maintains the current separation between Jetty Road and High Street traffic, not only provides significantly more efficient traffic flow for Drysdale Clifton Springs residents (delays are reduced from in excess of 60 seconds to less than 10 seconds) but provides reduced delays for all routes compared to option 3a.
DCSCA has requested the Victorian Ombudsman’s assistance in this matter.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Drysdale Bypass

Prior to the closure date on June 7th, DCSCA lodged the following submissions to David Fary of VicRoads who is performing the role of Planning Authority in the Planning Process -
  1. VicRoads have not completed the promised comparative safety and “travel times” evaluation of the two alternative Jetty Road intersections that have been shown to accommodate 2046 traffic volumes. (See May Messenger)
  2. Safety Concern - Jetty Road Signalized Intersections (VicRoads Option 3A) – VicRoads have not determined predicted vehicle and pedestrian crash data. VicRoads have not assigned Safety as “Top Priority” in the intersection selection process. This is not consistent with Victoria's “Towards Zero Vision” for a future free of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. There are an excessive and unnecessary number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points where the signalized intersection allows vehicles to travel along conflicting paths at impact speeds higher than those regarded as thresholds of severe injury. Similarly, there are an unnecessary and excessive number of vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points where an impact will be at speeds significantly higher than those regarded as thresholds of severe injury.
  3. Safety Concern – Ingress and egress to the service station – The service station ingress and egress proposed in VicRoads Option 3A creates unnecessary vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points that allow vehicles to travel along conflicting paths at impact speeds higher than those regarded as thresholds of severe injury. VicRoads have not determined crash data of vehicles executing these U-turns and lane crossing maneuvers.
  4. Increased Travel Times - Upon completion of the bypass there will be significantly increased travel times for Drysdale Clifton Springs residents, especially at off peak periods.
  5. Environmental Impact Concern – VicRoads Option 3A – VicRoads have not determined the cost of fuel usage, the carbon footprint and the volumes of harmful emissions associated with vehicles waiting at red lights.
  6. The Pedestrian Underpass is too narrow to accommodate the anticipated growth in traffic volume anticipated for this essential “Active Transport” connection.
  7. An Active Transport Plan is required for the Drysdale area to ensure the bypass is safely compatible with local pedestrian and bicycle movements. This to provide active transport routes with minimal interaction with road traffic and specifically to address the safety of all ingress/egress, parking and student drop-off for the education and sporting precincts.
  8. The roundabouts along the bypass are unnecessarily large. VicRoads have designed roundabouts that are significantly larger (and hence more costly and more disruptive to local residents) than are required in Ausroads recommendations.
  9. Loss of Ambience - The Jetty Road Signalized Intersection will significantly spoil the ambience of Lake Lorne Reserve and the entrance to our community.
  10. Signalization of the Jetty Road Intersection is not consistent with local preference as determined by VicRoads community consultation conducted in 2015.
  11. Belchers Road Connection - To avoid unnecessary traffic disruption: the connection from Belchers Road through to the education precinct must be completed prior to commencement of construction of the Jetty Road intersection. 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Drysdale Bypass update at public meeting

Andrew Westcot, Team Leader of the Vic Roads Drysdale Bypass project, will be the guest speaker at a public meeting in Drysdale at 7.00pm on Wednesday 19 October 2016.

Andrew will give an update on the Team's work so far and answer general questions about the Drysdale Bypass project.

The occasion is the 2016 Annual General Meeting of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA). It will happen at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre, 17-21 High Street, Drysdale 3222.

DCSCA Secretary Patrick Hughes said, “Vic Roads has worked hard to keep the local community informed about its work on the Bypass. We appreciate that and we're looking forward to Andrew’s update.”

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The mural's unveiled!

A glass and ceramic mural saying, "Welcome to Drysdale" was unveiled officially today on the outer wall of the Senior Citizens Club, from where it is visible across Drysdale's village green.

L to R: Tess Grace, Mercedes Drummond, Uncle David Tournier, Kaye Clancy, Sue Van Everey, Doug Carson
The unveiling ceremony started with a "Welcome to Country" by Uncle David Tournier, from the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-op, who has been an advisor to the mural project.

Mercedes Drummond, from the Festival of Glass committee, then told the story of the mural's creation; and Sue Van Everey, President of the Rotary Club of Drysdale, led the official unveiling.

The glass and ceramic mural is an initiative of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association and its Festival of Glass sub-committee.

Festival convenor Doug Carson said, "The mural is the latest link in the area's long association with glass and we're very grateful to all the local people and organisations that have made it happen. We're grateful especially to the Rotary Club of Drysdale, the Bendigo Bank and Drysdale's Hello World travel agency for their financial support."

The "Welcome to Drysdale" mural unveiled!
Worth waiting for!

Festival of Glass members Mercedes Drummond and Doug Carson ran the mural project, which started in December 2013, when Bellarine Secondary College Students - led by their teacher Tess Grace and local ceramic artist Kaye Clancy - created a collection of ceramic tiles. Each tile depicts a moment in the area's past or present and the whole collection forms the mural's border.

Inside the border, at the mural's centre, is a a single large piece of 'slumped glass' saying "Welcome to Drysdale", which was made by Geelong's Wathaurong Glass Company.
L to R: Tess Grace, Uncle David Tournier, Mercedes Drummond, Kaye Clancy, Sue Van Everey.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

A glass and ceramic mural for Drysdale

The "Welcome to Drysdale" mural will be unveiled officially at 1.00pm on Thursday 29th September in Drysdale Town Square.

The mural will be fixed to the outer wall of the Senior Citizens Club, which faces across the town square and is currently blank.

The mural is an initiative of Drysdale’s annual Festival of Glass. Festival convenor Doug Carson said, “The glass and ceramic mural gives glimpses of Drysdale then and now. It’s the latest link in the area’s long association with glass and we’re very grateful to all the local people and organisations that have made the 'Welcome to Drysdale' mural happen."

A local affair
The project started almost three years ago, in December 2013, when Bellarine Secondary College students – led by their teacher Tess Grace and by local ceramicist Kaye Clancy - created a collection of ceramic tiles, each depicting a moment in the area's past and present.

The ceramic tiles form a border to the mural, which has at its centre a sign in ‘slumped glass’ saying "Welcome to Drysdale", made by Geelong’s Wathaurong Glass. Festival of Glass members in Drysdale built the mural’s steel and wood frame.

Festival of Glass committee members Doug Carson and Mercedes Drummond have led the mural project; and Uncle David Tournier of Wauthorong Aboriginal Co-op has been an advisor. The Rotary Club of Drysdale and local travel agency Hello World have supported the project financially.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

DCSCA suggests community communication strategy to Geelong Administrators

Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has sent a draft Community Communication policy to the Administrators of the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG).

One of the Administrators' tasks is to design a Community Communication Strategy and the DCSCA Committee has sent the Administrators a draft Community Communication Strategy that was adopted in April 2010 by the Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations (ABCA).

The draft Strategy was produced because for years, community associations on the Bellarine Peninsula – individually and through the collective forum of the ABCA - had levelled detailed criticisms at the City of Greater Geelong over its handling of public consultation. In 2010, the ABCA decided to go beyond criticism and to propose ways to improve the council's communications with its citizens. It submitted a draft consultation policy to the council, intending that it would be the first step in a joint effort to improve the council's consultations.

The council didn't even show the ABCA the courtesy of acknowledging receipt of the document, let alone respond substantively to it. 

The DCSCA Committee has told the CoGG Administrators that the ABCA draft Strategy reflected community attitudes to community communication at the time and that it will assist them to design a contemporary community communication strategy.
 When ABCA submitted its draft Strategy to the council, it accompanied it with a covering letter summarising the draft Strategy; this appears below.

ABCA draft Community Communication Strategy. Covering Letter.
The Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations believes that the City of Greater Geelong's public communication and consultation practices could be better than they are now; and that improving them would contribute to building a vigorous local democracy. We are keen to contribute to that process and, in that spirit, we make the following two proposals:

1. The City of Greater Geelong should develop a set of protocols concerning its communication and consultation with communities and other stakeholders; and should list specific communication and consultation targets that should be met before any proposal or report is presented to a Council meeting.

2. Each proposal or report presented to a Council meeting should include a section - ‘Communication & Consultation’ - in which the authors show that they have:
(i) communicated with and consulted relevant communities and other stakeholders in accordance with the Council’s communication and consultation protocols
(ii) met the specific targets associated with those protocols.

Such protocols and targets will enable councillors to see whether and to what extent their officers have communicated and consulted with stakeholders in the manner that the Council has decided they should; and they will enable stakeholders to see whether and to what extent their views have been taken into account in a Council proposal or report.

At present, some reports and proposals to Council list and/or summarise the results of consultations, but this practice isn’t consistent. Implementing our two proposals will give continuity and consistency to the Council’s relationships with its stakeholders.

These proposals require no new spending and this alone should commend them to councillors! Indeed, we believe that making the Council’s public communication and consultation consistent with published protocols and targets will streamline officers’ work, instill new stakeholder confidence in the process and provide tangible evidence that the City of Greater Geelong listens to its constituents and wants to promote local democracy. The outcome will be that the Council's public communication and consultation will be easier and quicker (and potentially less expensive) to perform.