Search This Blog

Sunday, March 18, 2018


DCSCA Letter: - Drysdale Western Intersection Concern.
To Lisa Neville, Member for Bellarine.
Cc Tim Price, VicRoads Project Director.

Re your item in the March SpringDale Messenger.  The Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis Association (DCSCA) would like to thank you and VicRoads for acknowledging and thanking DCSCA for the effort we put in liaising with VicRoads in the design of the bypass.

As you know DCSCA is very much in favour of, and lobbied for many years for the construction of a bypass in order to “get the trucks out of Drysdale High Street” and to improve the safety and ambience of our community and our motivation was to assist VicRoads in obtaining the best outcome for the Bellarine community.
Your item stresses the importance of community consultation, and as The Member for Bellarine who was responsible for obtaining funding for the bypass; the concerns within the community with the traffic lights that you referred to, must be of concern to you.

DCSCA recommends a simple solution: - That you require: -
VicRoads to make available to the community the data evidence upon which they determined the signalized treatment to be preferable to the roundabout option.
I.E. VicRoads to disprove the data comparison shown below.

If, as VicRoads asserts, the signalized treatment is the correct outcome, this data would set the community’s mind at rest.
As you know, at a meeting in your office on 24th March 2017, VicRoads agreed to provide comparative safety and traffic efficiency data comparing the 2 alternatives.
VicRoads did provide comparative traffic efficiency data: - in the Consolidated Options Report.

This VicRoads document showed the roundabout solution is a massive 10 times more efficient for Drysdale Clifton Springs traffic and a massive 5 times more traffic efficient overall with delays of only 10 seconds or less for all major traffic routes.

Unfortunately, VicRoads has provided no comparative safety data.

VicRoads and the expert witness to the Hearing Panel do not dispute that the roundabout option will be significantly safer “in traffic terms”. There will be a lower risk of crashes resulting in injury for the 30,000 vehicles per day that will pass through the intersection.

Nor does VicRoads dispute that the signalized treatment will entail the removal of a huge number of trees and will dramatically worsen the pleasant ambience of the entrance to Drysdale and of Lake Lorne Reserve.

What VicRoads does assert is that the roundabout option does not provide a safe outcome for pedestrians and cyclists (active transport). VicRoads has not disclosed what active transport crossing treatment (associated with the roundabout option) was assessed in making this judgment.
DCSCA believes that the community expectation would be that traffic infrastructure of this critical importance would be selected on sound evidence and engineering data, not on unsubstantiated opinion and assertions.

The alternative roundabout proposal advocated, is for two 2-lane roundabouts with slip-lanes constructed to Austroads/VicRoads recommendations within a well-designed active transport network with pedestrian/active transport crossings also constructed to Austroads/VicRoads recommendations. More details are shown in the attachment to this letter.
DCSCA has conducted two comparative safety assessments, which both show that the roundabout system with the well-designed active transport system proposed will be safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Bellarine Community Council (BCC) has raised a change.org petition “Please build the Drysdale Bypass without 3 new signalized intersections (and one roundabout) at the western entrance to Drysdale” which details 21 concerns with the signalized traffic infrastructure that is proposed to be built at the western entrance to our community. Search change.org Drysdale

Both DCSCA and BCC believe that the evidence available to them shows that the signalized treatment is the wrong outcome and will create an unsafe, inefficient and unattractive traffic bottleneck at the entrance to our community. As a result, there will be more crashes resulting in injury, increased travel times, a massive loss of trees and it will be very poorly received by residents of Drysdale and Clifton Springs.

DCSCA wishes to stress that it is in no way seeking to delay the construction of the bypass. The community expectation would surely be that the information requested would already be in VicRoads possession. Furthermore, should it transpire that the roundabout option is indeed the better solution, DCSCA believes that it will be quicker, easier and cheaper to construct and also much less disruptive during the construction process than the signalized option.

In addition, DCSCA has consistently advocated that the connection from Peninsula Drive through to Belchers Road should be completed prior to the commencement of the construction of the western intersection and that this should be expedited without delay.

This Table illustrates the information requested and also summarises DCSCA’s analysis and the evidence that VicRoads has made available to DCSCA.

Signalized option
Roundabout option
SAFETY


Vehicle Injury Crashes
3.1 per year
0.11 per year.
One every 9.5 years
Pedestrian Injury Crashes
0.023 per year
One every 42.3 years
0.01 per year
One every 98 years.
On-Road Cyclist Injury Crashes
0.05 per year
One every 20.3 years
.018 per year
0ne every 54.4 years
TRAFFIC EFFICIENCY DELAY TIME


Jetty Road to Geelong Road
74 sec
7 sec
Jetty Road to Grubb Road
66 sec
9 sec
High Street to Geelong Road
64 sec
9 sec
High Street to Grubb Road
66 sec
5 sec
Bypass to Geelong Road
43 sec
9 sec
Bypass to Jetty Road
66 sec
20 sec
Grubb Road to Geelong Road
28 sec
2 sec
Grubb Road to High Street
67 sec
14 sec
Geelong Road to High Street
33 sec
9 sec
Geelong Road to Bypass
33 sec
10 sec
Average Delay Time
46.3 sec
12.3 secs
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT


No of trees removed outside POA
100 plus
Zero
No of Properties adversely affected
7
Zero
Amount of land required outside POA
2 Ha
Zero
Fuel Usage due to Traffic Delay
281,658 litre/year
74,825 litre/year
Cost of Fuel Usage Traffic Delay
$408,485 per year
$108,580 per year
CO2 emissions due to Traffic Delay
675,980kg/year
179,580kg/year
COST


Land Acquisition outside POA
$????
Zero
Compensation to Land Owners
$????
Zero
Traffic delay times are obtained from the VicRoads Consolidated Options Report.

As can be seen, all this comparative data clearly shows that the roundabout option is superior in all respects.
It is most unsatisfactory and very worrying to DCSCA that VicRoads has presented zero evidence to counter this comparative data, or these serious concerns.

DCSCA asks again that VicRoads present their data to disprove these concerns.

DCSCA has requested the assistance of the Victorian Ombudsman in the matter.

It should also be noted that the Hearing Committee had significant reservations with the proposed design of the intersection. See Attachment for further information.

Looking forward to your and VicRoads responses in this matter.

Regards
Neil McGuinness, DCSCA Committee member.
Clifton Springs 18/3/2018

Attachment to Letter to Lisa Neville.
VicRoads Proposed Signalized Treatment for the Western Intersection

The Alternative Roundabout Proposal
The Active Transport Network is shown in green.
More on Safety.
This analysis is based on the following paper: Jurewicz C, Sobhani A, Development of an analytical method for Safe System assessment on intersection design. 27th ARRB Conference 2016.
The number of conflict points (e.g. vehicle-to-vehicle) can be used to calculate a prediction of the number of injury causing crashes using an estimation of the number of errors per million trips though each conflict point.
For example assuming 1 error per 50 million trips through each conflict point. (This is a number used for comparative purposes obtained from www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00067/000675pdf which refers to injury crash rates of 0.08 to 0.275 crashes per million vehicles entering an intersection).
The Towards Zero website describes driver error as “inevitable” and crashes are bound to occur. This is due to many factors: e.g. drug usage, alcohol consumption and risk taking behavior in society, driver distraction, use of mobile phone whilst driving, mix of heavy and light vehicles with different braking performance, prevalence of young or inexperienced, sun glare, etc. etc.
Two calculations have been made 1 error/crash every 50million conflicts (quoted in the table) and 1 error/crash every 100million conflicts.
DCSCA believes that errors would be more likely that average at these two signalized intersections due to: - the east/west orientation causing sun glare at peak AM and Peak PM periods, a high mix of trucks and towing vehicles with different braking distances, the probability of a high mix of young/inexperienced drivers and pedestrians.

Vehicle Safety
30,000 vehicles per day
Signalized Option
Total number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points = 98 (31 crossing, 37 T-bone, 30 nose-to-tail)
Average number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points that each vehicle passes through = 20
Av. Probability of injury with crossing and T-Bone conflicts at speeds up to 60km/h = 70%
Number of Injury Crashes assuming one crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = (30,000 x 20 x 365 x 70% / 50,000,000) = 3.1 per year.
Number of Injury Crashes assuming I crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 1.5 per year
Roundabout Option
Total number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points = 49 (16 entry merge, 16 exit diverge, 3 lane merge)
Average number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points that each vehicle passes through = 8.
Average Probability of injury with merge and diverge conflicts at speeds of 50km/h = 5%
Number of Injury Crashes assuming I crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = 0.11 or one every 9.5 years.
Number of Injury Crashes assuming I crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 0. 06 or one every 19 years.

Pedestrian Safety
400 pedestrians per day
Signalized Option
Total number of pedestrian-to-vehicle conflicts = 55.
Average number of pedestrian-to-vehicle conflict points that each pedestrian passes through = 9.
Probability of injury = 90% (vehicle speeds up to 60 km/h)
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = (400 x 9 x 365 x 90% / 50,000,000) = 0.023 per year or one every 42.3 years
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 0.012 per year or one every 84.5 years.
Platform Croassings associated Roundabout Option
Total number of pedestrian-to-vehicle conflict points = 5.
Average number of pedestrian -to-vehicle conflict points that each pedestrian passes through = 5.
Probability of injury = 70% (Platform design reduces vehicle speeds to 50 km/h)
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = (400 x 5 x 365 x 70% / 50,000,000) = 0.01 per year or one every 97.8 years
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 0.005 per year or one every 195.7 years.

On-Road Cyclist Safety
500 On-road cyclists per day
Signalized Option
Total number of cyclist-to-vehicle conflict points = 161 (Main intersection 92, Jetty Rd/High St 63 and Grubb Rd Roundabout 6).
Average number of cyclist-to-vehicle conflict points that each cyclist passes through = 15 approx.
Probability of injury = 90% (cyclist colliding with vehicle at speeds up to 60 km/h)
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = (500 x 15 x 365 x 90% / 50,000,000) = 0.049 per year or one every 20.3 years
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 0.025 per year or one every 40.6 years.
Roundabout Option
Total number of cyclist-to-vehicle conflict points = 22.
Average number of cyclist-to-vehicle conflict points that each cyclist passes through = 7.
Probability of injury = 90% (cyclist colliding with vehicle at speeds up to 60 km/h)
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 50,000,000 conflicts = (400 x 7 x 365 x 90% / 50,000,000) = 0.018 per year or one every 54.4 years
Number of Injury Crashes assuming 1 crash every 100,000,000 conflicts = 0.009 per year or one every 108.7 years.
It should be noted; that statements were made that BikeSafe supported the roundabout solution. This is not actually the case. BikeSafe stated that, in general signalized intersections were safer for on-road cyclists than roundabouts. BikeSafe did not comment on the Western Intersection proposal and did not indicate that it believed that two complex signalized intersections and one roundabout would be safer than two roundabouts.

More on Fuel Usage
Signalised Option
Examination of the VicRoads Consolidated Options Report shows that the average delay time with the signalized option is 46.3 seconds.
Estimation of the fuel usage associated with this delay for 30,000 vehicles per day assuming a fuel usage at idle of 2 litres/hour = 30,000 x (46.3/3600) x 2 x 365 = 281,658.3 litres per year.
Cost of this fuel at $1.45 per litre = $408,485 per year.
A figure of 2.4kg of CO2 per litre of fuel may be used to calculate the CO2emissions.
CO2 emissions from the burning of this fuel = 281,658.3 x 2.4 = 675,980 kg of CO2.
Roundabout Option
Examination of the VicRoads Consolidated Options Report shows that the average delay time with the roundabout option is 12.3 seconds.
Estimation of the fuel usage associated with this delay for 30,000 vehicles per day assuming a fuel usage at idle of 2 litres/hour = 30,000 x (12.3/3600) x 2 x 365 = 74825 litres per year.
Cost of this fuel at $1.45 per litre = $108,496
A figure of 2.4kg of CO2 per litre of fuel may be used to calculate the CO2emissions.
CO2 emissions from the burning of this fuel = 74825 x 2.4 = 179,580 kg of CO2.

DCSCA believes the 4 facts below summarise our concerns: -

1. It is undisputed that the alternative roundabout treatment will be much safer for the predicted 30,000 vehicles per day that will pass through the intersection.
There will be more vehicle-to-vehicle crashes that result in injury with the signalized option.

2. It is undisputed that the roundabout treatment will provide much lower travel times for the predicted 30,000 vehicles per day that will pass through the intersection.
VicRoads own analysis predicts that, with the roundabout option, there will be delays of 10 seconds or less for all traffic routes compared with 40 to 80 seconds for the signalized option.

3. It is undisputed that the signalized treatment does not fit within the existing Public Acquisition Overlay (POA) and requires the additional purchase of in excess of 2Ha of Rural Living Zone land at the entrance to Drysdale and that this will detrimentally impact the ambience of the entrance to Drysdale.
See photos below for photos of the huge number of mature trees that will be removed and the undesirable impact this will have on the ambience of the entrance to Drysdale and Lake Lorne Reserve..

4. The only fact in dispute are that VicRoads asserts that the roundabout treatment does not provide the safer option for pedestrians and cyclists and, unfortunately, this view was supported by the Hearing Panel.
DCSCA requested that VicRoads present evidence to support this assertion but they declined to do so.  They also declined to provide information on what pedestrian treatment was assessed for the roundabout proposal and what predicted pedestrian and cyclist volumes were used in making this statement.

Fact 1: More information.
There is a mountain of evidence that shows that roundabouts are safer in traffic terms than signalized intersections and this was confirmed by expert witness Mr Henry Turnbull of TraffixGroup in his 31st July 2017 letter to the Hearing Panel.

It should also be noted that the Hearing Committee had significant reservations with the proposed design of the intersection.
Executive Summary:
The Panel concludes that a left turn slip lane from Geelong-Portarlington Road onto Jetty Road has merit and should be more closely examined by VicRoads and Council.
VicRoads should review the intersection design for the Bypass/Grubb Road/High Street intersection, taking into consideration an expanded school population, the community/sports precinct and the seasonal variation in traffic volumes.
Page 34. The Panel agrees with DCSCA that the roundabout diameters shown on the functional plans are excessive.

Fact 2: More information
VicRoads own Consolidated Options Report clearly shows the roundabout solution to be far more traffic efficient. With the signalized option (left), traffic from Drysdale and Clifton Springs has to pass through two signalized intersections with C and D level of Service compared to only one roundabout with an A Level of Service.

Fact 3: More Information
This is the site of the new High Street/Jetty Road/Reserve Road intersection.
High Street will be a 2 or 3 lane dual carriageway with pedestrian footpaths either side all the way from here to the intersection with the bypass.
All the trees in the photo on both sides of the road will be removed.
A new entrance will be provided into the motel and its unattractive rear aspect will be exposed.
These photos show the fence line of the roadside reserve that will be extended towards Drysdale. All the trees to the left of the extension of the fence line will be removed.
All the trees to the right of the fence will be removed.
All these trees to the left of the fence will go.
This is the approximate location of where Jetty Road will deviate left to intersect with High Street. All the trees along the route will be removed.

Fact 4: More information
Pedestrian Safety
The roundabout proposal is for roundabouts within a well-designed Active Transport System. Proposed active transport crossings (for pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, etc) are platform type crossings similar to the image shown.
Note. DCSCA is concerned that the roundabout option may have not got a fair assessment by the Hearing Panel. This is a paragraph from the Hearing Panel Report: -
The Panel appreciates the input provided by DCSCA in support of its intersection solution, however, it does not agree with their conclusions. In particular, the Panel does not accept that a roundabout will provide a safer option in this case, nor that there will be operational advantages. The Panel does not support the use of pedestrian underpasses at the intersection. This, in the Panel’s view, is reflective of the shortcomings of the roundabout solution.
This suggests that the Panel may have rejected the roundabout solution largely because they were under the impression that it was dependent on pedestrian underpasses. Such was not the case.

DCSCA has conducted two safety analyses, which both show that these crossings will enable fewer pedestrian-to-vehicle conflicts and will be safer for pedestrians.

DCSCA has consistently presented evidence of these concerns with the signalized treatment and presented evidence that a roundabout treatment with slip lanes within an active transport network would be much safer and more efficient for all users (motorists, pedestrians and cyclists) as well as not destroying the pleasant ambience of the entrance to Drysdale. DCSCA has not seen any evidence to counter these concerns.

On-Road Cyclist Safety
DCSCA has conducted two safety analyses, which both show that there will be fewer cyclist-to-vehicle conflicts with the roundabout solution and will be safer for on-road cyclists.
DCSCA believes that the complex signalized intersections will be exceptionally dangerous for on-road cyclists.
Jetty Road / High Street Intersection                       Bypass Intersection
 
  Consider an on-road cyclist wishing to travel from Jetty Road to the Geelong Road. The number of conflict points with different lanes or streams of traffic through the two intersections (and the number of potential crashes) is 10 at the High Street intersection and 13 at the bypass intersection. There are also 4 conflict points with pedestrians. This is a total of 27.
With the roundabout option cyclists have to pass through one pedestrian conflict point and 10 vehicle conflict points. This is less than half and indicates that the roundabout solution is likely to have fewer cyclist crashes than the VicRoads proposal which has 2 signalized intersections and one roundabout.

Furthermore the roundabout proposal is for two roundabouts within a well-designed Active Transport Network that would be provide routes that would be quicker and safer and encourage cyclists not to travel on the roads: - an indisputable safer outcome.

Neil McGuinness 18/3/2018











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
2/1/2018