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
