albion park rail bypass · 2019-10-03 · albion park rail bypass - preferred option report ....

Albion Park Rail bypassPreferred option reportOCTOBER 2014

RMS 14.488 ISBN: 978-1-925217-05-6

ALBION PARK RAIL BYPASS - PREFERRED OPTION REPORT

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Structure of this Report.......................................................................................................... 4

2 Strategic Context and Project Need....................................................................................5

2.1 Consistency with Strategic Planning ..................................................................................... 6

3 Community Involvement and Feedback .............................................................................7

4 Project Issues and Constraints ...........................................................................................9

4.1 Traffic and Transport ............................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Hydrology and Flooding....................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Ecology................................................................................................................................ 10

4.4 Aboriginal Heritage.............................................................................................................. 11

4.5 Non-Aboriginal heritage....................................................................................................... 12

4.6 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................................. 12

4.7 Socio-Economic .................................................................................................................. 13

4.8 Landscape and Visual Amenity ........................................................................................... 13

4.9 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 14

4.10 Illawarra Regional Airport .................................................................................................... 15

5 Corridor Identification........................................................................................................16

6 Design Options..................................................................................................................19

6.1 Road Alignment Options...................................................................................................... 19

6.2 Interchange Options ............................................................................................................ 21

6.2.1 Northern Interchange Options ............................................................................ 21

6.2.2 Central Interchange Options............................................................................... 30

6.2.3 Southern Interchange Options............................................................................ 45

7 Shortlisting of Options.......................................................................................................53

7.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 53

7.2 Evaluation............................................................................................................................ 53

7.2.1 Alignment ........................................................................................................... 53

7.2.2 Interchange Options ........................................................................................... 55

7.3 Options Shortlist .................................................................................................................. 62

8 Identification of a Preferred Option ...................................................................................64

8.1 Option Development............................................................................................................ 64

8.2 Value Management Workshop ............................................................................................ 67

8.2.1 Review of Interchange Options........................................................................... 69

8.2.2 Summary Results of Value Management Workshop .......................................... 82

8.3 Actions Undertaken Following the Value Management Workshop ...................................... 83

8.3.1 Further Options Development............................................................................. 83

8.3.2 Technical Workshop ........................................................................................... 85

8.4 Preferred Option.................................................................................................................. 89

9 Next Steps.........................................................................................................................91

i


TABLES Table 1-1 Project Objectives........................................................................................................................ 3

Table 7-1 Alignment Options Shortlisting................................................................................................... 54

Table 7-2 Northern Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment............................................................. 56

Table 7-3 Central Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment............................................................... 58

Table 7-4 Southern Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment............................................................ 61

Table 8-1 Interchange Options Assessment Criteria.................................................................................. 67

Table 8-2 Interchange Options Assessment Criteria and Weighting.......................................................... 69

Table 8-3 Northern Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results ............................................. 70

Table 8-4 Northern Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost....................................................... 72

Table 8-5 Central Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results ............................................... 76

Table 8-6 Southern Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results ............................................ 80

Table 8-7 Central Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost ......................................................... 81

Table 8-8 Southern Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost...................................................... 82

Table 8-9 Northern Interchange Elimination Post Value Management Workshop ..................................... 85

Table 8-10 Updated Interchange Options Assessment Criteria and Weighting .......................................... 87

Table 8-11 Technical Workshop Central interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results ............. 87

Table 8-12 Technical Workshop Central Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost ...................... 88

FIGURES Figure 1-1 Regional Context of the Project ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 5-1 LEP Corridor .............................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 6-1 Mainline Alignment Options ....................................................................................................... 20

Figure 6-2 Northern interchange option 1 ................................................................................................... 22







Figure 6-9 Central interchange option 1...................................................................................................... 30

Figure 6-10 Central interchange option 2 ................................................................................................... 31





ii





Figure 6-18 Central interchange option 10 ................................................................................................. 39






Figure 6-24 Southern interchange option 1 ................................................................................................ 45








Figure 6-32 Southern interchange option 10 .............................................................................................. 50



Figure 8-1 Central interchange option 13a.................................................................................................. 65

Figure 8-2 Central interchange option 13b.................................................................................................. 66

Figure 8-3 Central interchange option 12a.................................................................................................. 73

Figure 8-4 Central interchange option 12b.................................................................................................. 74

Figure 8-5 Southern interchange option 1b................................................................................................. 83

Figure 8-6 Central interchange option 13c .................................................................................................. 84

Figure 8-7 Southern interchange option 1c ................................................................................................. 86

Figure 8-8 Preferred Project........................................................................................................................ 90

Figure 9-1 Process Flowchart ..................................................................................................................... 91

iii


ABBREVIATIONS AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

DA Development Application

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

km/h Kilometres per hour

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LEP Corridor The road corridor gazetted for the bypass of Albion Park Rail in the Wollongong and Shellharbour City Council Local Environmental Plans in the mid-1990s.

LGA Local Government Area

m metres

PACHCI Roads and Maritime Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation

RTA Roads and Traffic Authority

SEPP 14 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 – Coastal Wetlands

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Roads and Maritime Services has confirmed the preferred option for the Albion Park Rail bypass.

This follows an intensive process of reviews, investigations, planning, community and stakeholder consultation, and design work based on the strategic design developed by Roads and Maritime in the mid-1990’s.

The bypass would provide a 9.8 kilometre extension of the M1 Princes Motorway between Yallah and Oak Flats and bypass Albion Park Rail. It would complete the ‘missing link’ for a high standard road between Sydney and Bomaderry and would provide easy access to Dapto, Albion Park and Oak Flats.

Preferred Project

v


Preferred Option The preferred option features:

Road alignment: Croom option B largely follows the reserved road corridor except for the section around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. This option involves improving and shortening the route through the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. It skirts the southern side of Croom Reserve, reducing the length of the bypass by 800 metres. This option is feasible from an engineering perspective and largely avoids environmentally sensitive areas

Northern interchange at Yallah: Northern interchange option 7 provides free flowing movements to and from Albion Park Rail, Dapto and Yallah

Central interchange at Albion Park: Central interchange option 13c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The Illawarra Highway would be closed to through traffic. A northbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway and a southbound entry ramp at Tongarra Road would be provided in future years to cater for future traffic growth. This option can connect to a future bypass of Albion Park (Tripoli Way)

Southern interchange at Oak Flats: Southern interchange option 1c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp to and from the bypass at the Oak Flats Interchange. A local road, one lane in each direction, is proposed, connecting Croome Road and the Oak Flats Interchange. This separates local and through traffic and replaces the East West Link. The existing Oak Flats Interchange would be reconfigured to allow for the connection of the local road. This option provides full access between the motorway, Princes Highway, New Lake Entrance Road and the new local road.

Background In the mid-1990s the then Roads and Traffic Authority undertook a study which identified a preferred route for the bypass. To reserve land for this bypass route, a road corridor was included in the Wollongong and Shellharbour City Council Local Environment Plans. This road corridor protected the route from development.

In 2013 Roads and Maritime reviewed the reserved bypass corridor to assess if it was still a suitable location for the Albion Park Rail bypass.

The review confirmed the reserved corridor is suitable. It highlighted that when designed to current day road standards the bypass would largely fit within the existing road corridor except for a section around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex.

Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to outline the steps taken since the review in 2013 to identify the preferred Albion Park Rail bypass, including the selection of a road alignment and interchange options at Yallah, Albion Park and Oak Flats. It provides an overview of the steps followed and records the decision making process.

Preferred Option Selection Process The road alignment and interchange arrangements were identified through an extensive short listing and option elimination process. Following the road corridor review in 2013 Roads and Maritime identified options for the road alignment and potential interchange locations. This included the development of:

Five road alignment options

Nine northern interchange options

vi


15 central interchange options

16 southern interchange options.

A shortlisting workshop held in July 2014 assessed the options. This confirmed Croom option B as the preferred alignment for the project. At the workshop four northern interchange, nine central interchange and eight southern interchange options were eliminated. This short list was taken to a value management workshop for further assessment.

The value management workshop was held in August 2014. This workshop brought together technical experts and key project stakeholders to make recommendations and develop a way forward for the project. The workshop assessed the overall draft plans and recommended Croom option B as the preferred road alignment. Northern interchange option 7 was selected as the preferred northern interchange at Yallah.

The workshop participants recommended further work be done on potential access arrangements in the central and southern sections of the route. The workshop group narrowed down the number of access options in these areas but no preferred option was recommended.

Following the value management workshop, additional modelling and design refinements were completed for the interchange options in the central and southern sections. Preferred interchange options for the central and southern sections were a result of these design refinements. These options were confirmed as the preferred options at a technical workshop on 29 August 2014.

The preferred option for the Albion Park Rail bypass was determined to be Croom option B for the alignment, and northern interchange option 7, central interchange option 13c and southern interchange option 1c for the interchanges.

Next Steps The preferred option will be placed on display for community comment in late October 2014. This will provide an opportunity for the community to review the preferred option and provide feedback. This information will be used to further refine the preferred option. Roads and Maritime will then undertake an environmental impact statement for the project. This will have more detailed information about the design features. The environmental impact statement is expected to be exhibited in late 2015 when further community feedback will be sought. The timing of construction is yet to be confirmed.

vii

1 INTRODUCTION


Roads and Maritime Services is planning for a 9.8 kilometre extension of the M1 Princes Motorway between Yallah and Oak Flats to bypass Albion Park Rail.

The motorway will complete the ‘missing link’ for a high standard road between Sydney and Bomaderry.

It would provide easy access to Dapto, Albion Park and Oak Flats, have two lanes in each direction with median separation and have capacity for additional lanes. It will be signposted 100km/h.

The motorway would reduce travel times for through and local traffic, improve the reliability of journeys through greater flood immunity and provide more consistent driving conditions. It would also divert a substantial proportion of through traffic onto the motorway, reducing traffic volumes on the Princes Highway through Albion Park Rail. This would improve local amenity and access, and reduce other traffic related impacts such as noise for nearby residents.

The general location of the project is shown in Figure 1-1.

1


Figure 1-1 Regional Context of the Project

2


1.1 BACKGROUND The NSW Government has committed to a series of upgrades on the Princes Highway. The Foxground and Berry bypass was approved by the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in July 2013 and early work has begun. When the Foxground and Berry bypass is built, Albion Park Rail will be the only town between Heathcote, in southern Sydney, and Bomaderry that has not yet been bypassed.

A bypass of Albion Park Rail would also be consistent with the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

In the mid-1990s the then Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) undertook a study which identified a preferred route for the bypass. To reserve land for this bypass route, a road corridor was included in the Wollongong and Shellharbour City Council Local Environmental Plans (the LEP corridor). This road corridor protected the route from development and reserved the land for the road.

In 2013 Roads and Maritime reviewed the reserved bypass corridor to assess if it was still a suitable location for the Albion Park Rail bypass.

The review confirmed the reserved corridor is suitable. It highlighted that when designed to current day road standards the bypass would largely fit within the existing road corridor except for a section around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex.

A strategic concept design was developed by Roads and Maritime at that time.

Roads and Maritime has completed work to identify options for the road alignment and interchange locations, and undertaken a number of key tasks to select a preferred option for the project.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the project is to complete the missing link for a high standard road between Sydney and Bomaderry. The project aims to address short and long term transport needs. The project objectives are listed and described in Table 1-1.

These objectives relate to the function of the project. Roads and Maritime also places a high priority on achieving quality project outcomes from an environmental and community perspective. These factors are fundamental to the options selection and design development and are reflected in the evaluation criteria described in Sections 7 and 8.

3

Table 1-1 Project Objectives

Project Objectives Description

Provide a motorway standard bypass of Albion Park Rail.

Motorway standard refers to a dual carriageway and a design speed of at least 100 km/h.

Provide a minimum of one in 20 year flood immunity.

The project is to ensure that the highway can remain open in a flood event with an average recurrence level of at least one in 20 years.

Provide access for A-double vehicles.

A-double vehicles incorporate two trailers that can each carry a full- length shipping container. While these vehicles are not currently

used, it is intended that the project be designed to accommodate such vehicles to provide maximum flexibility into the future.

Provide east-west connectivity for current and future land use.

It is important that efficient motor vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements are catered for across the project.

4


1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is to outline the steps taken to identify a preferred Albion Park Rail bypass alignment and interchanges.

Specifically, this report:

Identifies the strategic context and need for the project

Presents the alignment and interchange options developed as part of the current investigations, and the methodology used to assess these options against the project objectives

Documents the results of the assessment of the alignment and interchange options and the selection of a preferred arrangement

Outlines the next steps for the project.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT This report is divided into the following sections:

Section 2 outlines the strategic context and need for the bypass

Section 3 summarises the community involvement in the project to date, feedback received by the community about the project and the on-going consultation proposed by Roads and Maritime

Section 4 describes the key constraints for the project and their implications for project design and development

Section 5 summarises the process undertaken to identify a corridor for the proposed bypass

Section 6 describes the preliminary options identified, both for the alignment of the bypass and for northern, central and southern interchanges

Section 7 outlines the assessment approach and methodology for shortlisting the alignment and interchange options

Section 8 summarises the methodology, analysis and results of the assessment of options undertaken, to identify a preferred option for the bypass

Section 9 outlines the next steps to be taken for the project.

2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND PROJECT NEED


The road standard of the section between Yallah and Oak Flats is inconsistent with the rest of the Princes Motorway to the north and the Princes Highway to the south.

The Princes Motorway and Princes Highway between southern Sydney and Nowra has free flowing traffic conditions with the only remaining traffic lights at Albion Park Rail.

The project is needed to improve road safety and improve the efficiency of the road network. Constructing the Albion Park Rail bypass would:

Divert a substantial proportion of through traffic onto the bypass, allowing the existing section of the Princes Highway at Albion Park Rail to mainly cater for local traffic. This would:

Improve travel times for through and local traffic, and reduce congestion

Improve the reliability of journey times, particularly during peak travel periods

Provide consistent travel conditions for through traffic

Increase the road capacity of the Princes Motorway and Princes Highway corridor, which would support population growth in West Dapto, Calderwood, Tullimbar and Tallawarra

Maximise the benefits of upgrading the Princes Motorway and Princes Highway corridor between Sydney and Nowra by bypassing the only traffic lights between Heathcote and Bomaderry

Reduce traffic volumes on the Princes Highway through Albion Park Rail, which would improve local amenity and access, and reduce other traffic related impacts, such as noise and localised air quality, for nearby residents

Improve flood immunity: The project would include the removal of a section of the Illawarra Highway near the Illawarra Regional Airport that is highly susceptible to flooding as well as improving flood immunity of the Princes Highway

Provide opportunities to improve the public domain and amenity within the Albion Park Rail town centre

Substantially improve road safety by separating through and local traffic and removing traffic conflicts

Provide economic benefits in excess of the expected costs, as a result of increased efficiency of freight and reduced travel times.

5

6


2.1 CONSISTENCY WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING The project is consistent with strategic planning, as documented in the following reports:

NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One (NSW Government, 2011): The project supports the Plan’s transport goals to by reducing travel times between Yallah and Oak Flats

The State Infrastructure Strategy 2012-2032 (NSW Government, 2012a): The project supports the goal to reduce localised congestion, improve safety and mitigate amenity impacts in regional communities, particularly those experiencing rapid increase in demand

The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (TfNSW, 2012): The project supports the Plan’s vision of improving connectivity for regional NSW and would be important for providing additional capacity to cater for proposed land releases, reduce travel times and provide a more consistent journey between Sydney and Nowra

The Illawarra Regional Transport Plan (NSW Government, 2014): The Plan identifies the ongoing upgrade of the Princes Highway as the most important road focus for the region. The project forms an integral component of the ongoing upgrades identified

Illawarra/South Coast Regional Action Plan (NSW Government, 2012b): The project supports the NSW Governments plan to deliver significant road upgrades across the region to provide accessible, efficient and integrated regional transport

The Illawarra over the next 20 years: A Discussion Paper (NSW Government, 2013): The discussion paper predicts that 31,300 new homes will be built, 24,250 new jobs will be needed and an additional 52,300 people will be living in the region over the next twenty years. With a heavy dependence on private vehicles in the Illawarra, this growth will result in substantial increases in traffic movements requiring upgrades to transport infrastructure, with the Albion Park Rail bypass identified as a key piece of infrastructure to support this growth

Illawarra Regional Strategy 2006-31 (DoP, 2007a). The project supports the timely implementation of major transport infrastructure projects, including upgrades to the Princes Highway, which link the major urban centres

South Coast Regional Strategy 2006-31 (DoP, 2007b): The strategy identifies an additional 60,000 people expected in the region over the next twenty five years. The project would support growth in the region

Shellharbour City Community Strategic Plan 2013-2023 (SCC, 2013): The Plan identifies the large number of Shellharbour City residents who travel outside of the local government area (LGA) for work, as well as the high utilisation of private vehicles by residents. The project would improve road safety and efficiency, and would reduce pressure on the local road network

Wollongong 2022 Community Strategic Plan (WCC, 2012): The project supports the implementation of effective and integrated regional transport systems, with a focus on road, bus and freight movement.

3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND FEEDBACK


Community and stakeholder consultation has been an integral part of project planning since the mid-1990s.

Following the release of the Road Corridor Review Report in 2013, a range of communication and consultation activities for the bypass have been undertaken to inform the community about the project and seek feedback.

The objectives of these communication and consultation activities were to:

Raise awareness of the project

Engage with key stakeholders and affected local communities early in the planning process, so issues raised can help inform the concept design

Allow face to face dialogue between community members and the project team

Engage early with property owners about the potential need for property acquisition for the construction and operation of the bypass.

Activities Communication and engagement activities included:

Focus group to gather opinions, beliefs and attitudes to help Roads and Maritime tailor communications for the broader community

Delivery of the Road Corridor Review Report Summary to more than 17,500 residences and businesses

Six newspaper advertisements to promote the release of the Corridor Review Report and community information sessions

Visits to around 150 to local businesses

More than 400 face to face discussions with team members at four community information sessions

More than 140 face to face discussions with team members at Wings Over the Illawarra

Two Croom Regional Sporting Complex stakeholder group meetings

20 one-on-one meetings with sporting groups who use Croom Regional Sporting Complex

Two newspaper advertisements to invite community representatives to be involved in the value management workshop

Value management workshop to assess bypass options was attended by council, industry, business and community representatives.

Feedback Some of the most frequently received feedback includes:

Timing for construction – there is support for the bypass to be constructed now

Access to Dapto, Albion Park and Oak Flats

Impact of shortening the bypass through Croom Regional Sporting Complex

Property impacts, including potential impacts on property values.

7


Impact on local amenity and surrounding environment.

Next Steps The preferred option will go on display for community comment in late October 2014. This will provide an opportunity for the community to review the preferred option and provide feedback.

Feedback received will be collated into a community feedback report and used by the project team to refine the concept design and in the preparation of the environmental impact statement. This will ensure issues and concerns are considered and addressed in the environmental assessment.

Updates will be made available to the community as the project progresses and the environmental impact statement is expected to be placed on public exhibition late in 2015 when the community will have another opportunity to provide feedback.

8


4 PROJECT ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS Roads and Maritime held a workshop on 4 July 2014 to identify key environmental issues for the project. The outcomes of the workshop, combined with previous preliminary investigations, identified key constraints and informed the development of the road alignment and interchange options. The key project constraints, environmental issues and their implications are described below.

4.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT The Princes Highway is a major road link connecting Sydney and Wollongong to the Illawarra, South Coast and Victoria along the east coast of NSW. It provides:

A commuter road between Sydney, Wollongong and Nowra

A local route for residents

A major tourist route for destinations in the Illawarra and South Coast

An important freight route for the South Coast.

The annual average daily traffic on the Princes Highway immediately north of the Illawarra Highway has increased by 1.9 per cent per annum from 44,635 vehicles per day in 1990 to 61,606 vehicles per day in 2013. The Princes Highway, Tongarra Road, Lake Entrance Road and Terry Street are strategic bus corridors, used by high-frequency bus services that connect major regional centres.

Over the next 10 years, planned growth at Tallawarra, Calderwood, Tullimbar and West Dapto is likely to see travel conditions on the highway deteriorate rapidly if no action is taken to increase road capacity. Over the next 30 to 50 years these developments would contribute up to about 30,000 new lots, which would substantially increase traffic volumes on the Princes Highway and the surrounding road network. In addition, expected growth in airport-related traffic and in traffic along Tongarra Road is likely to substantially affect the performance of the Princes Highway. It is expected that current and planned urban development in the surrounding area would substantially increase traffic volumes and peak period traffic congestion on the Princes Highway and the nearby road network.

The 2013 road corridor review analysed peak-period travel times on the Princes Highway, revealing that the section between Yallah and Oak Flats currently has an average travel time of around nine minutes 27 seconds and eight minutes 37 seconds in the AM and PM peaks in the northbound direction respectively, and about seven minutes 30 seconds in both the AM and PM peaks in the southbound direction. If the current road network remains unchanged, northbound travel times in the morning peak period is forecast to be 40 to 45 minutes. The southbound evening peak travel times would also increase substantially, with the average travel time increasing to 20 to 25 minutes.

There were 367 crashes in the area during the five years April 2008 to March 2013. The crash data suggest a consistent increase in the number of crashes coinciding with increasing levels of congestion. This crash record is extremely poor compared to nearby sections of the Princes Highway and other major highways in NSW.

A review of the factors making up the traffic profile of the area show that a bypass of Albion Park Rail would benefit local, tourist, commuter and freight traffic. The improved road capacity of the motorway would reduce congestion, motorway traffic lights, and improve travel times and road safety.

9

10


Project Implications Current and future traffic and transport considerations are a key element when determining the alignment of the road corridor including the locations of interchanges. The success of the project will largely be determined by how well the distribution of traffic is managed and its ability to deliver efficiency, capacity and functionality across the entire road network.

4.2 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING The project crosses three separate water catchments including from north to south, Duck Creek, Macquarie Rivulet and Horsley Inlet. The project primarily crosses and affects the Macquarie Rivulet Catchment, which covers an area of about 110 square kilometres from the Illawarra escarpment in the west to Lake Illawarra in the east. This catchment flows east from the Illawarra escarpment to Lake Illawarra although there is a primary tributary of Frazers Creek that flows from south to north. Within the Frazers Creek tributary there are a series of complex wetlands immediately north of Tongarra Road.

Using traffic incident and asset management data, Roads and Maritime found that there has been on average three flooding events a year that close the Princes Highway for half a day each, and seven flooding events on the Illawarra Highway that close it for a total of about 4.5 days.

Project Implications The local area experiences high and intense rainfall. Average annual rainfall is more than 1100 millimetres, and up to 1600 millimetres in some upper catchments. Flooding is a problem for both the Illawarra Highway and the Princes Highway. A significant portion of the road corridor is located within the Macquarie Rivulet/Frazers Creek floodplain and as such, impacts of flooding will be a major consideration in the design of the project when determining an appropriate level of flood immunity for the bypass.

4.3 ECOLOGY As part of the corridor review completed in 2013, Roads and Maritime carried out a Biodiversity Constraints Analysis to identify potential ecological constraints within the LEP corridor (NGH Environmental, 2014). The analysis identified the following key ecological features along the corridor:

Four distinct vegetation types were observed: planted/regrowth vegetation, Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland (listed as an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)), riparian/aquatic vegetation and non-indigenous vegetation

One floodplain wetland listed on the State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 – Coastal Wetlands (SEPP 14) occurs directly to the east of the LEP corridor, north of Tongarra Road. Frazers Creek feeds into this wetland, which contains a good diversity of native aquatic and riparian plant species, and may provide foraging habitat for migratory wading birds

Background searches identified a total of 38 threatened plant species with potential to occur, with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Wildlife Atlas Database identifying 27 species and the Commonwealth Protected Matters Search Tool identifying 20 species. Targeted searches were carried out for the threatened species for which there were numerous records in the region, or where potential habitat was present on the site. The searches confirmed the presence of the Eastern Flame Pea (Chorizema parviflorum), and identifying the potential for a number of other threatened flora species to


occur, including the Illawarra Greenhood Orchid (Pterostylis gibbosa) and Curved Rice Flower (Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora) which are respectively listed as endangered and vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

Eighty-five fauna species were detected during field surveys: 60 bird, 17 mammal, five frog and three reptile species. NSW Wildlife Atlas database searches for threatened species listed under the TSC Act identified 33 bird species, 18 mammal, five amphibian, three fish and two reptile species within 10 kilometres of the LEP corridor. The Commonwealth Protected Matters Search Tool identified seven bird, one reptile, five amphibian, three fish, nine mammal and 12 migratory bird species with the potential to occur within 10 kilometres of the corridor. Targeted field surveys within the study area confirmed the presence of the Varied Sittela, five species of threatened microbat and Latham’s Snipe, as well as identifying the potential for a number of other threatened species to occur.

Project Implications The preliminary Biodiversity Constraints Analysis identified a number of ecologically sensitive areas within and close to the LEP corridor. Notably the presence of Illawarra Lowland Grassy Woodland EEC, Freshwater Wetland EEC, threatened flora species (including the Eastern Flame Pea and Illawarra Greenhood Orchid) and SEPP 14 wetlands will be a major consideration for the project in terms of managing both direct and indirect impacts during construction and operation.

4.4 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE As part of the corridor review completed in 2013 and the options development process, Roads and Maritime conducted an Aboriginal archaeological survey and assessment of the LEP corridor and the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. This was, in accordance with stage two of Roads and Maritime’s Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (PACHCI) (Artefact Heritage, 2013 and 2014).

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) register found 105 Aboriginal sites within the wider region near the road corridor. Investigations undertaken as part of the corridor review and options development identified further individual artefacts, collections of artefacts, Aboriginal sites and a cultural site near the road corridor. The investigations also identified seven areas within and in the vicinity of the road corridor, as being areas with Aboriginal archaeological potential.

Project Implications Due to the location of known Aboriginal sites as well as potential archaeological deposits, and given the nature of the surface infrastructure required for the project, it may not be possible to avoid direct impact to all Aboriginal heritage items. There is also potential for direct impact on unknown or unidentified archaeological items that may be uncovered, disturbed, damaged or destroyed. Known Aboriginal heritage sites need to be considered during design development in order to minimise potential direct and indirect impacts. More detailed investigations will enable impacts to be more accurately assessed and specific measures to be developed to minimise them.

11

12


4.5 NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Roads and Maritime carried out non-Aboriginal heritage baseline investigations of the LEP corridor as part of the road corridor review. The investigations identified six heritage items in the LEP corridor and two very close to the LEP corridor. All items are recorded as being of ‘local significance’, including Stapletons Bridge, which is on the Roads and Maritime Section 170 Register. The heritage items within, and very close to, the LEP corridor include:

Boles Meadows

Albion Park Showground

Stapletons Bridge over Frazers Creek

Swansea Dairy site, fig tree and silo

Swansea Farmhouse

House, Yallah

Illawarra Regional Airport

Ravensthorpe grounds and workers cottages.

A site near Tongarra Road (Lot 11, DP 883605) has been identified as a potential historical archaeological resource. There is also the possibility for other remnant evidence associated with farms (eg fence lines and outbuildings) within the proposed corridor.

Project Implications The construction of the project is likely to have both direct and indirect impact on non-Aboriginal heritage items. The project design will need to consider how best to minimise potential impact on the known non-Aboriginal heritage sites.

4.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION The sound profile of the project area is typical of a mixed use rural and urban area. The background noise levels are largely influenced by road traffic, and vary in level due to traffic volumes and the distance from the road.

In some places the project area is close to suburban and rural-residential areas, for which the motorway would be a new or changed source of noise.

Project Implications The introduction of new, and redistribution of existing, traffic would alter noise levels in the area. Once the project is operating, new traffic noise would be introduced to areas where there was previously low background noise levels. There would be potential for traffic noise levels to exceed current standards in some areas, and conversely, there would be potential for some reductions in noise levels where traffic volumes are reduced. Consequently, the position of the road alignment and the layout of the interchanges will be assessed as a noise and vibration source and their impacts will be considered during the design process.


4.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC At the time of the 2011 Census, the Illawarra region had a population of 275,983, with Wollongong and Shellharbour local government areas (LGAs) having populations of 192,418 and 63,605 respectively. Both Wollongong and Shellharbour are projected to continue to show steady population growth. The LEP corridor is within an area that is undergoing rapid and substantial development with further residential, commercial and industrial development proposed, including Calderwood, Tallawarra, West Dapto and Tullimbar.

The area has a high proportion of young families, particularly in new-release areas. There is evidence of disadvantage in the Shellharbour area, including lower income households, high levels of unemployment and a concentration of Indigenous residents.

The Albion Park Rail town centre comprises 171 businesses with a workforce of 1800 people. Only 11 per cent of the current workforce are local residents, with about three-quarters of the workforce travelling in from nearby suburbs. Conversely, 56.6 per cent of residents travel outside the area to work.

Project Implications Traffic congestion is a key community concern within the region. Over the last few years in particular there has been media coverage on the increasing traffic congestion on the Princes Highway in Albion Park Rail. As a result of commercial and residential developments in the area, traffic congestion is now an important community issue. There is community pressure for the project to be built. This is evidenced by a petition in 2013 encouraging the community to campaign on the issue. This section of the road has been referred to in the media as the ‘missing link’ along the highway. Consequently there is a high level of community interest in and expectation about the project.

A number of key socio-economic factors will need to be considered for the development and assessment of the road alignment and interchange options. These include the potential impact on population and demography, access and connectivity, local business, agriculture, tourism, social and recreational infrastructure, and community values.

4.8 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY The Illawarra region has a variety of landforms, ranging from the sandstone cliffs of the escarpment, hills and lower slope, coastal sand dunes, beaches and rocky headlands, to flat alluvial floodplains. The area surrounding the LEP corridor is a mix of rural and urban land use and is situated between the towns of Albion Park and Albion Park Rail. The main landscape types and uses within and near the project area are:

Reserves: The LEP corridor crosses two reserves, being Terry Reserve near Frazers Creek and playing fields in the south, and Darcy Dunsters Reserve on the southern banks of the Macquarie Rivulet

Recreational areas: Des King Oval, Albion Park Showgrounds and the Croom Regional Sporting Complex

Albion Park residential area

Larkins Lane rural residential area

Other residential areas, including Albion Park Rail and Oak Flats

Industry, including light industry and the Illawarra Regional Airport

Agriculture, including dairy, cattle grazing and horse agistment

13

14


Infrastructure, including highway, railway line and roads

Natural areas, including remnant vegetation, wetlands and rivers.

Project Implications The LEP corridor is set in an area with high scenic values, running through a large area of green space with a dramatic backdrop of the escarpment and hills. Since the LEP corridor is set in a floodplain, the bypass would be raised in some areas, to improve flood immunity. Together with associated structures such as noise walls, the project would be a major piece of road infrastructure in the area. Consequently urban design will be carefully considered during the concept design phase, particularly visual impacts, connectivity and amenity.

4.9 LAND USE The many land uses in the LEP corridor include sporting fields and reserves, agriculture, railways, roads, a wholesale plant nursery, power utility infrastructure, and dairy and cattle grazing. Land uses along the LEP corridor include residential areas, an industrial area, Illawarra Regional Airport, tourism, agriculture and agistment. Crown land is located south of where the corridor crosses the Illawarra Highway between the East West Link and the LEP corridor.

Large-scale residential development is planned for the surrounding areas at Calderwood, Tullimbar, West Dapto and Tallawarra. These developments and land releases have been approved by the NSW Government and adopted in the relevant council LEPs, with the exception of Calderwood, which has been rezoned under State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005. These are major developments and are expected to substantially change the land use of the locality.

The LEP corridor passes through a number of open space recreation facilities. Land near the LEP corridor next to the Croom Regional Sporting Complex is currently used as sporting fields for the Albion Park Junior Soccer Club. The Stony Range Pony Club, South Coast Equestrian and the Illawarra Trailblazers currently use the area north of the sporting fields.

The major utilities and services that occur within, cross or are located next to the LEP corridor include, notably, the Eastern Gas Pipeline, as well as electrical, gas, water, sewer and communications.

Project Implications The Shellharbour City Council LEP has included a road corridor for the bypass route for the Princes Highway since 1983. However, the previous corridor did not join up with the East West Link. It was largely in the same location as the north-south portion of the LEP corridor. Since the LEP corridor was originally gazetted there has been considerable change in land use, with a notable increase in housing in Albion Park, Haywards Bay and Flinders. Commercial development has also increased, largely near the Princes Highway. There has also been rapid expansion of the Shellharbour town centre. Land use considerations will form an integral component of project planning. In addition, the major utilities in the area, including the Eastern Gas Pipeline, will require careful consideration and need to be avoided where possible.


4.10 ILLAWARRA REGIONAL AIRPORT The Illawarra Regional Airport is bounded by the Princes Highway to the east, Illawarra Highway to the west and Tongarra Road to the south. The LEP corridor runs to the west of the Airport and traverses within 200 metres of the north-south runway to the south of Macquarie Rivulet, and within 400 metres of the east-west runway to the north of Tongarra Road. In addition Shellharbour City Council has allowed for possible future expansion of the north-south runway in its master planning.

Project Implications The project will be designed to meet the air space requirements of the Airport and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and will consider any operational impacts on the Airport. In particular, the height of the road and its associated infrastructure would need to be below the airport’s obstacle limitation surface. These surface envelopes regulate the height of objects in the vicinity of the airport to safeguard the operation of aircraft.

15

16

5 CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION


Over the last 30 years Roads and Maritime has carried out substantial work to improve the Princes Highway corridor between Wollongong and Nowra. The ultimate need for an upgrade at Albion Park Rail has been acknowledged for many years. This section provides an outline of the steps taken to identify the initial road corridor in the 1990s and the subsequent review to confirm the suitability of the corridor in 2013.

In 1994, the then RTA carried out a route selection study for a suitable long-term road corridor for an upgraded Princes Highway between Yallah and Oak Flats, so that planning for the surrounding land could occur. The route selection study investigated a number of options for possible locations where the road corridor could be placed. Six options were shortlisted for detailed evaluation against a number of technical, environmental, social and economic constraints. The route selection study was finalised in 1996, selecting option 6 as the preferred road corridor for the project. Option 6 would bypass the existing Princes Highway and the township of Albion Park Rail to the west. Following the study, the project became known in the region as the Albion Park Rail bypass. The corridor shown in Figure 5-1 was then included in the Wollongong City and Shellharbour City Councils’ LEP, reserving the land for the future bypass.


Figure 5-1 LEP Corridor

17


In 2013 Roads and Maritime carried out a road corridor review to assess the LEP corridor identified in 1996 to decide if it was still a suitable location for the bypass of Albion Park Rail. The review’s key tasks included:

A review of the route selection study done in 1996

Examination of the key physical and engineering features of the LEP corridor to ensure the project could meet current road design standards

Analysis of the traffic and transport performance of the LEP corridor, including current and future traffic volumes, travel times, the proportion of trips that would use the motorway, and a forecast of the future performance of the current road network without the project

Assessment of the economic value and benefits that the project would bring to the community and the economy

Assessment of the LEP corridor in terms of environmental, community and social issues and considerations.

The review found that most of the LEP corridor was largely suitable for a bypass of Albion Park Rail.

However, the LEP corridor was based on a design speed standard of 100 km/h, and current design standards require a design speed of 110 km/h to enable a speed limit of 100 km/h to be applied. The review found this speed could not be achieved in one section of the LEP corridor. The curve next to the Croom Regional Sporting Complex would need to be increased from a radius of 500 metre to 600 metre to meet current design standards. A 600 metre radius would not fit within the LEP corridor and so the review concluded that further design refinements were required around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. The review also recommended further investigations and traffic modelling were needed to identify the potential interchange locations and layouts for connections of the proposed Albion Park Rail bypass with the surrounding road network.

Despite these design refinements and additional investigations, the road corridor review largely confirmed that the LEP corridor was suitable for the bypass of Albion Park Rail. The review confirmed that the corridor would perform well when judged against a range of technical and environmental criteria, including that it has a generous width, could provide motorway conditions, could largely meet road standards to provide consistent driving conditions (except around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex) and would provide substantial traffic benefits.

18


6 DESIGN OPTIONS This section describes the options identified by Roads and Maritime for the road alignment and potential interchange locations and layouts for the project.

6.1 ROAD ALIGNMENT OPTIONS Following the release of the Road Corridor Review Report, Roads and Maritime carried out preliminary design investigations. This work included updating the road alignment to meet current road design standards, reducing the length of the bypass and minimising impacts to identified threatened flora species. Four modifications to the LEP alignment for the curve near the Croom Regional Sporting Complex were identified and are shown in Figure 6-1.

Croom option A: This modification to the LEP road alignment would increase the 500 metre radius curve at Croom to a 600 metre radius curve. There would be no extra impact to existing sporting fields at the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. This option would shorten the length of the bypass by about 140 metres

Croom option B: In this option the road alignment would skirt the southern edge of Croom Reserve. This option would affect a number of sporting fields, most significantly the cricket/AFL oval. The option would avoid impacting the Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC within Croom Reserve, and would minimise visual and noise impacts on the Albion Park community. This option would shorten the length of the bypass by about 800 metres

Croom option C: This option is a modification of option B where the curve radius has been increased to reduce the impact on sporting fields. This option would still separate the sporting complex, but would only affect the cricket/AFL oval. This option would impact Croom Reserve, with about 600 metre of the bypass going through part of the Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC. This option would shorten the length of the bypass by about 860 metres

Croom option D: This option is a modification of option B which avoids directly impacting any sporting fields. However it would result in an undesirable road alignment, and would have major impacts on the Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC. This option would shorten the length of the bypass by about 640 metres.

19


Figure 6-1 Mainline Alignment Options

20


6.2 INTERCHANGE OPTIONS The strategic design prepared by Roads and Maritime as part of the road corridor review identified three possible interchange locations to connect the local road network with the motorway at Yallah, Albion Park and Oak Flats. The project team developed interchange options at each location:

Northern interchange: Nine interchange options near Yallah

Central interchange: 15 options connecting the motorway to Albion Park

Southern interchange: 16 options between Croome Road and Oak Flats Interchange.

This section describes the interchange options developed for the project.

6.2.1 NORTHERN INTERCHANGE OPTIONS The northern interchange options were designed to connect the motorway to the existing Princes Highway north of the Macquarie Rivulet. Roads and Maritime identified eight interchange options, described in detail in this section.

21


Northern interchange option 1

Figure 6-2 Northern interchange option 1

Northern interchange option 1 provides a southern connection of the motorway to the existing Princes Highway, just north of the Macquarie Rivulet. This option reuses a substantial length of the existing Princes Highway which negates the need to use the reserved road corridor between the commercial properties on Yallah Road and Larkins Lane. The bypass connects to the existing Princes Highway alignment at the Haywards Bay interchange. Yallah Road provides a northbound entry ramp. The Haywards Bay interchange remains unchanged.

22




Northern interchange option 2 provides entry and exit ramps connecting to two roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway. Access is provided to and from the motorway to Dapto, Yallah and Albion Park Rail. Princes Highway traffic uses the roundabouts to access the motorway. Local traffic between Dapto and Albion Park Rail use the existing Princes Highway east of the motorway.

23




Northern interchange option 3 provides entry and exit ramps connecting to roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway. Local traffic movements between Dapto and Albion Park Rail are split south of the railway crossing. Northbound Princes Highway traffic follows the existing Princes Highway under the motorway to the western roundabout to access the motorway. A northbound exit ramp provides access to Dapto for motorway traffic. A southbound motorway exit ramp connects to the eastern roundabout for access to the Princes Highway.

24




Northern interchange option 4 provides entry and exit ramps connecting to two roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway. The roundabouts are aligned with Yallah Bay Road to reduce the reliance on the existing underpass for Princes Highway traffic, which may have limited capacity for future growth. Local traffic movements between Dapto and Albion Park Rail are split south of the railway crossing. Northbound Princes Highway traffic follows the existing Princes Highway under the motorway to the western roundabout to access the motorway. A northbound exit ramp provides access to Dapto for motorway traffic. A southbound motorway exit ramp connects to the eastern roundabout for access to the Princes Highway.

25

Northern interchange option 5 Northern interchange option 5 was identified to maximise reuse of the existing Princes Highway. It was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. It was discussed in principle at the shortlisting workshop and formally eliminated (See Section 7.2.2).


Northern interchange option 6 Northern interchange option 6 provides a roundabout on the existing Princes Highway just north of the railway bridge. It was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. The option was eliminated due to the steepness of the road between the northbound carriageway and the motorway, and was therefore not feasible from an engineering perspective.

26




Northern interchange option 7 provides entry and exit ramps connecting to two roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway. It provides free flowing connections for motorists on all movements on and off the motorway. Local traffic movements between Dapto and Albion Park Rail are split south of the railway crossing. Northbound Princes Highway traffic follows the existing Princes Highway under the motorway to the western roundabout to access the motorway. A northbound exit ramp provides access to Dapto for motorway traffic. A southbound motorway exit ramp connects to the eastern roundabout for access to the Princes Highway.

27




Northern interchange option 8 provides entry and exit ramps connecting to two roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway. Northbound Princes Highway traffic access the motorway via a free flowing entry ramp just north of the railway bridge. This follows the existing Princes Highway alignment. This lane merges with the northbound motorway lane. Local traffic between Dapto and Albion Park Rail use the existing Princes Highway east of the motorway.

28




Northern interchange option 9 includes a large roundabout located in the wide median area with the motorway traveling over the roundabout. The roundabout has entry and exit ramps providing all connections to the motorway. This option provides entry and exit ramps connecting to two additional roundabouts on the Princes Highway, either side of the motorway.

29

30


6.2.2 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE OPTIONS The central interchange options were designed to connect the bypass to Albion Park. Roads and Maritime identified 15 interchange options, described below:

Central interchange option 1

Figure 6-9 Central interchange option 1

Central interchange option 1 has entry and exit ramps at Tongarra Road. The entry and exit ramps have traffic lights. This provides northbound and southbound access to Tongarra Road. This interchange has a small footprint, requiring less land than other options. It has higher a capacity than a conventional diamond intersection, as the opposite right turns do not cross each other’s paths.




Central interchange option 2 is a conventional diamond interchange that has entry and exit ramps at Tongarra Road. The entry and exit ramps have traffic lights. This provides northbound and southbound access to Tongarra Road. This interchange has a small footprint, similar to option 1, requiring less land than other options.

31




Central interchange option 3 includes an elevated roundabout with entry and exit ramps connecting to the motorway. The motorway passes under the roundabout. A local road connects the roundabout to the Illawarra Highway and Tongarra Road. This option removes the need to provide traffic lights at Tongarra Road and would result in better traffic flows.

32




Central interchange option 4 has a northbound entry and exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway and a southbound exit and entry ramp at Tongarra Road. This provides a connection to a future Tripoli Way that improves the distribution of traffic within Albion Park.

33




Central interchange option 5 includes a roundabout and local road that connects a northbound entry and southbound exit ramp to the Illawarra Highway. The motorway passes over the local road. This provides a connection to a future Tripoli Way that improves the distribution of traffic within Albion Park.

34




Central interchange option 6 provides entry and exit ramps connected to two roundabouts on Tongarra Road, either side of the motorway. It provides northbound and southbound access to and from the motorway and removes the need for traffic lights at the Tongarra Road intersection. It improves traffic flows on Tongarra Road east of Terry Street.

35




Central interchange option 7 provides entry and exit ramps via a local road that loops and connects to the south of Tongarra Road. This option provides one less intersection at Tongarra Road.

36




Central interchange option 8 provides entry and exit ramps via an elevated roundabout and local road that connects to the Illawarra Highway. This provides a connection to a future Tripoli Way that improves the distribution of traffic within Albion Park.

37




Central interchange option 9 provides entry and exit ramps connected to two roundabouts east of Albion Park. Tongarra Road to the west of the motorway is a cul-de-sac and a new local road connects Tongarra Road to the Illawarra Highway. This provides a connection to a future Tripoli Way that improves the distribution of traffic within Albion Park. The motorway travels under the new local road.

38




Central interchange option 10 provides entry and exit ramps connected to two roundabouts east of Albion Park. Tongarra Road to the west of the motorway is a cul-de-sac and a new local road connects Tongarra Road to the Illawarra Highway. This provides a connection to a future Tripoli Way that improves the distribution of traffic within Albion Park. The motorway travels under the new local road.

39




Central interchange option 11 provides entry and exit ramps connected to two roundabouts, on either side of the motorway, about 850 metres south of Tongarra Road. The ramps connect to Terry Street via a new local road. The motorway travels under the new local road.

40




Central interchange option 12 provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp connected to a roundabout at the Illawarra Highway. This option keeps the Illawarra Highway open. The Illawarra Highway is upgraded with a new local road over the motorway connecting to the new roundabout.

41




Central interchange option 13 provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The southbound exit ramp travels over the motorway to connect to the Illawarra Highway. In this option the existing Illawarra Highway becomes a cul-de-sac.

42




Central interchange option 14 provides entry and exit ramps connected to two elevated roundabouts on either side of the motorway at the Illawarra Highway, to the north of Tongarra Road. A local road connects the roundabouts to the Illawarra Highway. The motorway passes under the local road.

43




Central interchange option 15 provides northbound entry and southbound exit ramps at the Illawarra Highway and northbound exit and southbound entry ramps at Tongarra Road. The ramps at the Illawarra Highway are connected to a roundabout on the western side of the motorway. The motorway travels over the Illawarra Highway. The Illawarra Highway is upgraded and remains open for local traffic.

44


6.2.3 SOUTHERN INTERCHANGE O PTIONS The southern interchange options were designed to connect the bypass to Oak Flats. Roads and Maritime identified 16 interchange options, described in detail below:

Southern interchange option 1

Figure 6-24 Southern interchange option 1

Southern interchange option 1 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway connects Croome Road and Colden Drive, providing access to the quarries and Albion Park. Colden Drive is extended from the Princes Highway to the new local road. It travels over the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

45



Southern interchange option 2 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and north of the motorway connects Croome Road, Woollybutt Drive and Colden Drive providing access to local traffic from Albion Park. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway provides access to the quarries. Colden Drive is extended from the Princes Highway to the new local road. It travels over the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.


Southern interchange option 3 Southern option 3 provides local connectivity via Woollybutt Drive which would travel under the motorway. A connection would also be provided between Croome Road and Woollybutt Drive north of the motorway. Direct access to the quarries would be provided south of the motorway via Woollybutt Drive. This option was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. It was eliminated due to impacts associated with quarry traffic using Woollybutt Drive.

46



Southern interchange option 4 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway connects Croome Road, Woollybutt Drive and the Oak Flats Interchange, providing access to the quarries and Albion Park. Woollybutt Drive is extended to the new local road. It travels under the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.




Southern interchange option 5 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway connects Croome Road, Colden Drive and the Oak Flats Interchange providing access to the quarries and Albion Park. Colden Drive is extended from the Princes Highway to the new local road. It travels over the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

47



Southern interchange option 6 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and north of the motorway connects Croome Road, Woollybutt Drive and Colden Drive providing access to local traffic from Albion Park. Woollybutt Drive and Colden Drive are extended and pass under the motorway to provide access to the quarries. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.




Southern interchange option 7 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and north of the motorway connects Croome Road, Woollybutt Drive and Colden Drive providing access to local traffic from Albion Park. Woollybutt Drive and Colden Drive are extended and passes over the motorway to provide access to the quarries. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

48


Figure 6-30 Southern interchange option 8 Southern interchange option 8 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway connects Croome Road, Woollybutt Drive and the eastern most quarry providing access to the two quarries and Albion Park. Woollybutt Drive extends to the new local road. It travels under the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.




Southern interchange option 9 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A northbound exit and southbound entry ramp is provided at Croome Road. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway provides access to the quarries. Colden Drive is extended from the Princes Highway to the new local road. It travels over the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

49


Figure 6-32 Southern interchange option 10 Southern interchange option 10 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A northbound exit and southbound entry ramp is provided at Croome Road. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway provides access to the quarries. Woollybutt Drive extends to the new local road. It travels under the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.




Southern interchange option 11 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A northbound exit and southbound entry ramp is provided at Croome Road, with connecting roundabouts on either side of the motorway. The southern roundabout becomes the entrance to the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. The northbound exit ramp connects to it. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway provides access to the quarries. Woollybutt Drive is extended to the new local road. It travels under the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

50

Southern interchange option 12 Southern interchange option 12 moves the alignment of the motorway further north within the public recreation area adjacent to East West Link. The option was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. The option was eliminated due to engineering constraints associated with curves in the motorway between Croome Road and the Oak Flats Interchange.

Southern interchange option 13 Southern interchange option 13 includes the motorway bypassing the Oak Flats Interchange and connecting to the existing Princes Highway. This option was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. The option was not considered feasible from an engineering perspective as it would require large bridges passing over the motorway.

Southern interchange option 14 Southern interchange option 14 includes a motorway bypassing the Oak Flats Interchange. The option includes ramps that would travel over the motorway and connect to the existing Oak Flats Interchange. This option was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. The option was eliminated as it would have a high cost of construction and substantial visual and hydraulic impacts.


Southern interchange option 15 Southern interchange option 15 includes an upgrade of the Oak Flats Interchange to have an additional roundabout. A new service road would be provided parallel and south of the motorway. Southbound traffic would pass under the existing Oak Flats Interchange and northbound traffic would bypass south of the Oak Flats Interchange. This option was deemed unfeasible at an early stage of the design process and was not fully developed. The option was considered not to be feasible due to hydraulic impacts, visual impacts and the extent of redundant existing infrastructure.

51




Southern interchange option 16 includes a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A northbound exit and southbound entry ramp s provided at Croome Road. A roundabout is provided to become the entrance to the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. The northbound exit ramp connects to it. A new local road parallel to and south of the motorway connects Croome Road and Colden Drive providing access to the quarries and Albion Park. Colden Drive extends from the Princes Highway to the new local road. It travels over the motorway. Croome Road is realigned and travels over the motorway.

52

7 SHORTLISTING OF OPTIONS


This section sets out the steps that were taken to shortlist the alignment and interchange options for further design development and assessment.

7.1 METHODOLOGY Roads and Maritime held a shortlisting workshop on 15 July 2014, to rule out any options that were not feasible for engineering or environmental reasons. A list of criteria was developed to assess both the alignment and interchange options. This list was expressed as a series of questions:

Is the option feasible in terms of engineering, including road and bridge design, constructability and encroachment into the airport obstacle limitation surface?

Is the option feasible in terms of traffic performance?

Does the option demonstrate that it minimises impact to the local community? Is there an alternative available with similar functionality but lower impact?

Does the option demonstrate that it can minimise environmental impact? Is there an alternative available with similar functionality but lower impact?

Does the option have acceptable flood impact?

If an option failed on any of the above criteria, it was discarded unless there was a notable reason to keep it on the shortlist. Options were considered to fail against a criterion if impacts were considered to be unacceptable, and it was determined that impacts could not be minimised, either through design refinement or mitigation measures, to an acceptable level.

This initial assessment of the options used information from preliminary traffic modelling, Roads and Maritime design guidelines, geotechnical surveys, preliminary flooding investigations, the locations of major public utilities and an understanding of key environmental and socioeconomic constraints.

7.2 EVALUATION The following section sets out the results of the shortlisting workshop of 15 July 2014, and summarises the assessment of the alignment options and interchange options.

7.2.1 ALIGNMENT Each of the five alignment options (described in Section 6.1) were assessed against the shortlisting criteria. Table 7-1 shows the result of this assessment and the key reasons for eliminating specific options.

53


Table 7-1 Alignment Options Shortlisting Shortlisting criteria Roads and

Maritime strategic concept

Croom option A

Croom option B

Croom option C

Croom option D

Is the option feasible in terms of engineering?

× × ×

Is the option feasible in terms of traffic?

Does the option demonstrate that it minimises impact to the local community?

Is there an alternative available?

Does the option demonstrate that it can minimise environmental impact?


× × ×

Does the option have acceptable flood impacts?

Status Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated

Option cannot be eliminated as impacts are either considered likely to be acceptable; or could potentially be reduced to acceptable levels through design refinements × Option fails against criterion and should be eliminated.

This process eliminated four of the five alignment options. The main reasons for eliminating each option were as follows.

Roads and Maritime’s strategic concept design was eliminated primarily due to engineering reasons. This option does not meet the current recommended design speeds of 110 km/h, and would consequently fail to align with the rest of the motorway. It would also involve longer travel times than other alignment options.

Croom option A was also eliminated for engineering reasons. Part of the bypass alignment would require a bridge to span Frazers Creek. Due to the radius of the curve being used and the position of the bridge parapets (walls), this would result in substandard sight distances whilst travelling on the motorway, presenting a potential road safety risk.

Croom option C passes through high quality Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC in Croom Reserve. Therefore this option did not meet the environmental impact criterion, particularly as there were other alternatives that would not have a substantial impact on the EEC.

Croom option D was eliminated because it also did not meet the engineering or environmental criteria. This option would encroach on the Illawarra Regional Airport obstacle limitation surface and similar to option C, it would pass directly through the Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC at the Croom Reserve.

54


The shortlisting process confirmed Croom option B as the preferred alignment. This option is feasible in terms of engineering design, largely avoids environmentally sensitive areas, and is the best option for minimising flood impacts as it is away from the Frazers Creek floodplain.

7.2.2 INTERCHANGE OPTIONS An assessment of each interchange option was undertaken using the methodology and criteria described in Section 7.1. As noted above, where an interchange option failed against a criteria it was eliminated. Options failed against criteria if the impacts were considered to be unacceptable and could not be minimised, through either design refinements or mitigation measures. An interchange option also failed against a criterion when it functioned in a similar way to another option, but was considered to be inferior against that criterion.

Northern Interchange Eight preliminary interchange options were developed for the northern interchange, presenting a range of configuration arrangements for connection of the new motorway to the existing Princes Highway. Table 7-2 summarises the outcomes of the assessment of each northern interchange option against the shortlisting criteria.

55

Table 7-2 Northern Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment

Shortlisting criteria Northern interchange option 1








Is the Option feasible in terms of engineering?

× × ×


×






Status Retained Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Retained Retained


Option cannot be eliminated as impacts are either considered likely to be acceptable; or could potentially be reduced to acceptable levels through design refinements. × Option fails against criterion and should be eliminated.

56


The shortlisting workshop resulted in four northern interchange options being eliminated. The main reasons for eliminating each option were as follows:

Northern interchange option 1 was determined not to be feasible from an engineering perspective as the Princes Highway northbound overpass of the motorway encroached into the obstacle limitation surface. The limitations of the road corridor width at Haywards Bay would restrict any future upgrades to the Princes Motorway

Northern interchange option 4 would have ramps connected to raised roundabouts on either side of the Princes Motorway, resulting in impacts to Duck Creek, the Energy Australia gas main and the overhead high voltage transmission lines. There would be a short distance to undertake the northbound merge from the Princes Motorway to Princes Highway. This would not meet current motorway design standards and was considered not to be feasible in terms of engineering

Northern interchange option 5 was considered not feasible in terms of traffic, as it would require a complex local road arrangement in order to maintain connectivity, and would need the Haywards Bay roundabout to be rebuilt in order to maintain traffic performance. In addition there would be limited potential to upgrade for future traffic demands

Northern interchange option 8 would require the northbound free flow entry ramp to merge from the right, which does not meet current motorway design practice. In addition it would not have vertical clearance to the existing overhead transmission lines, constraining the entry ramp heading south.

The shortlisting process concluded that northern interchange options 2, 3, 7 and 9 be retained for further assessment.

Central Interchange A total of 15 central interchange options were assessed against the shortlisting criteria at the shortlisting workshop. Table 7-3 presents the outcomes of the assessment of the central interchange options against the shortlisting criteria.

57


Table 7-3 Central Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment Shortlisting criteria Central

interchange option 1









× × ×






× ×


Status Retained Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated


58


Shortlisting criteria Central interchange option 9








×






× ×


Status Eliminated Eliminated Retained Retained Retained Retained Eliminated


59


As a result of the shortlisting workshop nine of the central interchange options were eliminated. The main reasons for eliminating each of the options were as follows:

Central interchange option 2 has a similar design to option 1. Both options would have all entry and exit ramps at Tongarra Road and both options would achieve similar traffic outcomes. Option 2 did not perform as well as option 1 because it would not manage the traffic movements as efficiently at the intersection of the ramps and Tongarra Road. As such this option was considered to fail in terms of engineering feasibility

Central interchange option 3 would have a substantial impact on environmentally sensitive areas including freshwater wetlands and wetlands listed on the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14- Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14). This option failed against the criteria to minimise environmental impacts

The southbound ramps of central interchange option 5 performed poorly. The south exit and north entry ramps in option 12 were considered to perform a similar function and did not present engineering constraints. Option 5 was considered inferior to option 12 and was eliminated for engineering reasons

The south bound ramps of central interchange option 7 performed poorly. Option 7 and was eliminated for engineering reasons

Central interchange option 8, option 9 and option 10 would have substantial impacts on environmental sensitive areas including freshwater wetlands and SEPP 14. These options were eliminated for environmental reasons

Central interchange option 15 presents a similar design outcome as option 12 which was considered to provide a superior outcome against the performance criteria. The option was eliminated for engineering reasons.

The shortlisting process concluded that central interchange options 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 be retained for further assessment.

Southern Interchange Ten options were developed for the southern interchange. These were identified as having potentially high community impacts. The following criteria were added to the assessment process:

Does the option significantly impact the public recreation area adjacent to the northern side of the East West Link Road?

Does the option significantly increase traffic on Woollybutt Drive, which is a residential street with potential noise, air and visual impacts?

These factors were highlighted as key considerations for the assessment of each interchange option against the criterion to minimise impacts to the local community.

Table 7-4 presents the outcomes of the assessment of the southern interchange options against the shortlisting criteria.

60


Table 7-4 Southern Interchange Options Shortlisting Assessment Shortlisting criteria












×




× × × × × × ×




Status Retained Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated


61


As a result of the shortlisting workshop, eight of the southern interchange options were eliminated. Each eliminated option failed to meet the criteria to minimise community impacts, and are listed as follows:

Southern interchange option 2 would significantly impact the public recreation area

Southern interchange option 6 and 7 would impact both the public recreation area and increase traffic on Woollybutt Drive

Southern interchange option 4 would increase traffic on Woollybutt Drive, and was also considered not to be feasible in terms of engineering due to the poor geometrical design for the approach to the Oak Flats Interchange and the difficult turning movements for large vehicles when entering the roundabout

Southern interchange option 8, 10 and 11 would significantly increase traffic on Woollybutt Drive.

The shortlisting process concluded that southern interchange options 1, 5 and 9 be retained for further assessment.

7.3 OPTIONS SHORTLIST The shortlisting workshop identified Croom option B as the only alignment option worthy of further design and assessment.

The retained interchange options from the shortlisting workshop were:

Northern interchange:

Option 2: Roundabouts on either side of the motorway with the Princes Highway traffic between Dapto and Albion Park Rail to the east of the bypass

Option 3: Roundabouts on either side of the motorway with the Princes Highway traffic between Dapto and Albion Park Rail split on either side of the bypass

Option 7: Roundabouts on either side of the motorway with free flowing movements from Albion Park Rail to the motorway

Option 9: A roundabout interchange under the bypass

Central interchange:

Option 1: All entry and exit ramps at Tongarra Road

Option 4: Southbound entry and exit ramps at Tongarra Road, and northbound entry and exit ramps at Illawarra Highway

Option 6: Linked roundabouts either side of the motorway at Tongarra Road

Option 11: Entry and exit ramps with linked roundabouts either side of the motorway 850 metres south of Tongarra Road

Option 12: Northbound entry and southbound exit ramps at Illawarra Highway (with the Illawarra Highway open)

Option 13: Northbound entry and southbound exit at Illawarra Highway (with the Illawarra Highway closed)

Option 14: Entry and exit ramps with linked roundabouts either side of the motorway at Illawarra Highway (with the Illawarra Highway closed)

Southern interchange:

Option 1: Northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. A new local road parallel to the motorway would connect Croome Road and Colden Drive

62


Option 5: Northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. Local road south of the motorway between Croome Road and Oak Flats Interchange

Option 9: Northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. Northbound exit and southbound entry ramps at Croome Road. A new local road would provide access to the quarries via Colden Drive.

63

64


8 IDENTIFICATION OF A PREFERRED OPTION After the shortlisting workshop, Roads and Maritime carried out a number of key tasks to identify a preferred option for the Albion Park Rail bypass project. These tasks were completed in three stages:

Option development: The design of the shortlisted interchange options was developed in sufficient detail to allow the comparative assessment of the options

Value management workshop: Roads and Maritime held a value management workshop to confirm the preferred alignment option and review and assess the shortlisted interchange options. The objective of the workshop was to assess and recommend preferred interchange options or recommend options for further investigation and refinement

Post value management workshop activities: The value management workshop identified a number of additional assessments that needed to be undertaken before a preferred project could be identified.

Section 8 describes these key stages.

8.1 OPTION DEVELOPMENT After the shortlisting workshop, interchange option designs were further developed. The design and layout of each option was developed in sufficient detail to ensure that project objectives were achieved and enable a comparative assessment to be carried out.

In conjunction with the design refinements, further investigations were undertaken including preliminary traffic, flooding and hydrology assessments to determine the suitability of the options. This eliminated two interchange options. The reasons for their exclusion are listed below:

Central interchange option 11 would encroach the obstacle limitation surface and was not considered to be feasible from an engineering perspective

Southern interchange option 5 would not to be feasible due to the difficult turning movements for large vehicles when entering the roundabout at the Oak Flats Interchange.

Following the shortlisting workshop central interchange option 13 was refined. This option did not have a southbound entry and/or northbound exit ramp. It was assumed that these ramps would be available at Croome Road as part of the southern interchange. However, not all southern interchange options had allowed for ramps at Croome Road. To ensure this movement was considered for the central interchange, two variations of the option were developed with one option providing ramps to a local road that connected the bypass to Church Street (central interchange option 13a) and the other locating ramps at Tongarra Road (central interchange option 13b).


Central interchange option 13a

Figure 8-1 Central interchange option 13a Central interchange option 13a provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The southbound exit ramp travels over the motorway to connect to the Illawarra Highway. In this option the existing Illawarra Highway becomes a cul-de-sac. The southbound entry and northbound exit ramps to and from the motorway would be connected to an extension of Church Street.

65


Central interchange option 13b

Figure 8-2 Central interchange option 13b

Central interchange option 13b provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The southbound exit ramp travels over the motorway to connect to the Illawarra Highway. In this option the existing Illawarra Highway becomes a cul-de-sac. The southbound entry and northbound exit ramps to and from the motorway would be connected to an extension of Tongarra Road.

66


8.2 VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Roads and Maritime held a value management workshop in Shellharbour on 5–6 August 2014. The workshop was attended by representatives from Roads and Maritime and the project team, Wollongong City Council, Shellharbour City Council, Transport for NSW, Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries), Planning and Environment Southern Region, Albion Park Chamber of Commerce, Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Office of Environment and Heritage, and two community members.

The objectives of the value management workshop were to:

Obtain a common understanding of the project and the planning to date

Review the proposed alignment and test its robustness

Highlight any issues and concerns about the proposed alignment

Gain an awareness of the issues and concerns associated with the proposed alignment

Review interchange options at key locations on the project, evaluate them against the assessment criteria and recommend further steps for the project.

Identification of Assessment Criteria Roads and Maritime developed a draft set of assessment criteria for the value management workshop to comparatively assess the interchange options. The assessment criteria was divided into four key perspectives including: functionality, traffic performance, socio-economic and environmental. Each criterion had a number of key performance indicators to help assess points of difference between interchange options. These draft criteria were taken to the workshop and reviewed and refined by the workshop group. The final list of criteria as well as performance indicators used to guide the assessment of options is presented in Table 8-1 below.

Table 8-1 Interchange Options Assessment Criteria

67

Perspective Preliminary Assessment Criteria

Performance Indicator

Functionality Provide east-west traffic connectivity

Minimise impact of flooding

Minimise potential conflict points

Provide a road layout that is easy to use

Traffic performance

Optimise network performance (overall journey)

Flexibility to adapt to future requirements

Additional length of trips (in m) for each option compared to existing east-west trips

Afflux (increase in flood levels) mapping for each option

Identify potential conflict points for each option

Identify weaving requirements for each option

Identify any design issues for each option

Co-location of ramps (ie full interchange vs ramps in different locations)

Intuitive layout (eg turn north at roundabout to head north)

Cumulative delay across key traffic movements

Additional length added to journey for key traffic movements

Does option restrict any potential network arrangements (eg Tripoli Way)

Perspective Preliminary Assessment Criteria

Performance Indicator

Interchange Level of Service and Degree of Saturation for key intersections

Number of intersections that would be impacted in some way by the option

Number of sensitive receptors (residences, schools, sports fields, other community facilities) within 100 metres of carriageway

Area of acquisition required

Change to land use

Level of visibility from key viewpoints (list of key viewpoints subject to higher visual impact)

Impact on non-Aboriginal heritage items (including impacts on curtilage/views from items – dot point description)

Impact on Aboriginal heritage items (including impacts on curtilage/views from items – dot point description)

Potential impact on pedestrian and cycle routes (potential access conflict)

Area of Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodland EEC directly affected

Area of Coastal Freshwater Wetland EEC directly affected

Number of watercourse crossings

Length of watercourse diversions

Provide efficient interchange and intersection performance

Minimise knock-on impacts

Socio-economic Minimise noise impact

Minimise impact on property

Minimise adverse amenity impacts

Minimise impact on heritage

Provide connectivity for non-road users

Environmental Minimise impact on Illawarra Lowlands Grassy Woodlands EEC

Minimise Impact on Coastal Freshwater Wetland EEC

Minimise number of watercourse crossings

Minimise extent of watercourse diversions


Project and Road Alignment Review Roads and Maritime provided value management workshop participants an overview of the project background and objectives including the project context, constraints and planning completed to date. Participants were given an overview of the road alignment options and an explanation of how Roads and Maritime had identified the preferred road alignment. This allowed participants to understand how the proposed road alignment was developed to meet the project purpose and objectives, given the existing constraints. The group was allowed an opportunity to provide comment and raise any issues or concerns regarding the process and option development. Roads and Maritime provided responses on how issues and concerns identified were being addressed and highlighted items for further consideration as project planning proceeds.

The workshop participants, in five focus groups, reviewed the preferred road alignment option in more detail to test the robustness of the identification process of the preferred option.

68


The value management workshop recommended Croom option B as the preferred road alignment option for the project.

Workshop participants identified the alignment would require further refinement during concept design, with consideration of key constraints, including flooding impacts, impacts on biodiversity, addressing airport operations, east-west connections across the alignment, access within and to the Croom Regional Sporting Complex and its reconfiguration.

8.2.1 REVIEW OF INTERCHANGE OPTIONS The draft assessment criteria developed by Roads and Maritime prior to the workshop was discussed and refined by the workshop group. These criteria were weighted using a paired comparison approach, to determine if some criteria were considered to be more important than others. Table 8-2 summarises the criteria and weightings identified at the value management workshop for the comparative assessment of interchange options.

Table 8-2 Interchange Options Assessment Criteria and Weighting Perspective Criterion Weighting

Functionality Provide traffic connectivity across the alignment 33%

Minimise potential safety risk 33%

Provide a road layout that is easy to use 33%

Traffic performance Optimise road network performance (overall journey)

50%

Flexibility to adapt to future requirements 8%


33%

Minimise knock-on impacts (ie amenity and adverse impacts elsewhere)

8%

Socio-economic Minimise noise impact 7%

Minimise impact on property (acquisition and land use changes)

7%

Minimise adverse visual amenity 9%

Minimise impact on heritage 9%

Provide connectivity for non-road users (pedestrians and cyclists across and along)

21%

Minimise adverse impact on community facilities and use

13%

Minimise impact on business 16%

Minimise impact of flooding 18%

Environment Minimise impact on terrestrial ecology 50%

Minimise impact on aquatic ecology 50%

69


Roads and Maritime provided participants with an overview of each interchange option. Interchange options were assessed in four focus groups containing a mixed representation of stakeholders. Each focus group considered the options against one of the four key perspectives; functionality, traffic performance, socio-economic and environment.

The interchange options were assessed against each criterion. Using the performance indicators for each criterion, the ‘best performing’ option/s within each interchange zone (northern, central and southern) for each criterion was identified by participants and assigned a score of four. Every other interchange option within that zone was then compared with the best performing option/s, with a relative score between one and three assigned. A major difference between them would score the other option as a one, a medium difference would score the other option as a two and a minor difference between them would score the other option as a three.

Once the evaluation was complete, each option was scored using the weighting identified for each criterion. This enabled a relative overall ranking for each option for the four criteria categories (from one to four). The findings of each focus group were presented to all the workshop participants for discussion, amendment (if necessary) and endorsement (if appropriate).

The participants were presented with the relative cost estimates for each of the interchange options to gain some comparison between them. The costs were indicative and were only used for comparison purposes. Participants assessed the interchange option rankings against the relative cost estimates to determine the value for money of each option, and make recommendations for a preferred interchange option or provide guidance for further investigations.

Northern Interchange Using the criteria and methodology outlined above, workshop participants did a comparative assessment of the four shortlisted northern interchange options. Each option was given an overall score by multiplying the weightings (refer to Table 8-2) by the comparative scores given against each criterion for each option. Table 8-3 summarises the results and scores given by workshop participants for the northern interchange options.

Table 8-3 Northern Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results

70

Criteria Northern interchange option 2




Functionality

Provides traffic connectivity across the alignment

3 3 4 1

Minimises potential safety risks including conflict points, etc

3 3 4 2

Provides road layout that is easy to use 4 2 3 1

Score 330 264 363 132


Criteria Northern interchange option 2




Traffic Performance

Optimise road network performance (overall journey)

1 2 4 1

Flexibility to adapt to future requirements 1 2 4 3


1 2 4 3


1 2 4 2

Score 99 198 396 189

Socio-economic

Minimise noise impact 1 1 1 4

Minimise impact on property (ie land acquisition, land use etc)

4 2 2 3

Minimise adverse impact on visual amenity

4 2 2 1

Minimise impact on heritage n/a n/a n/a n/a

Provide connectivity for non-road users (pedestrians and cyclists across and along alignment)

3 3 3 4

Minimise adverse impact on community facilities and land uses

1 4 4 4

Minimise impact on business 2 4 4 4

Minimise impact on flooding 3 4 4 4

Score 233 290 290 330

Environmental

Minimise impact on terrestrial ecology 2 3 3 4

Minimise impact on aquatic ecology 3 3 3 4

Score 250 300 300 400

71


Based on these results, each option was ranked for each key perspective (functional, traffic, socio-economic and environment), after which participants were given relative cost estimates for each of the interchange options. Table 8-4 shows the rankings given for each northern interchange option and their relative cost.

Table 8-4 Northern Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost -

1.0X

1.32X

1.68X

2.0X

Options Functional Traffic Socio economic

Environmental Relative cost*


2nd 4th 4th 2nd


3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd


1st 1st 2nd 2nd


4th 2nd 1st 1st

* The cheapest option was given a nominal cost of 1, with the cost of other options described as a multiplier of this (ie option 9 was regarded as approximately twice the cost of option 2).

Each focus group assessed the interchange options rankings against the relative cost estimates to determine the value for money of each option.

Unanimously, the focus groups recommended northern interchange option 7 (two linked roundabouts on either side of the motorway with free flow movements from Albion Park Rail to the bypass) as the preferred northern interchange option.

This was because it would provide the best option from a functional, traffic performance, socioeconomic and environmental perspective. It was seen as a mid-range cost option that was the best value for money. The focus groups recommended further investigation and assessment as part of concept design.

Central and Southern Interchanges The central and southern interchanges were presented together as the close proximity of the two areas would influence traffic movements and distribution. Some central interchange options could only be paired up with some of the southern interchange options.

Workshop participants undertook a comparative assessment for the central and southern interchange options, before comparing the rankings with their relative costs and making recommendations for both interchanges collectively.

Before assessing the central interchange options, the workshop participants considered the need for the Illawarra Highway to remain open. It was decided that options keeping the Illawarra Highway open should be assessed as part of the value management process. Central interchange option 12 was the only option available for assessment that kept the Illawarra Highway open. It was proposed that similar ramp configurations be assessed for option 12 to those of option 13a and option 13b, that is, providing ramps at either Church Street or Tongarra Road. As a result, options 12a and 12b were added to the shortlisted options.

72



Figure 8-3 Central interchange option 12a

Central interchange option 12a provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp connected to a roundabout at the Illawarra Highway. This option keeps the Illawarra Highway open. The Illawarra Highway is upgraded with a new local road over the motorway connecting to the new roundabout. The southbound entry and northbound exit ramps to and from the motorway would be connected to an extension of Church Street.

73



Figure 8-4 Central interchange option 12b

Central interchange option 12b provides a northbound entry ramp and southbound exit ramp connected to a roundabout at the Illawarra Highway. This option keeps the Illawarra Highway open. The Illawarra Highway is upgraded with a new local road over the motorway connecting to the new roundabout. The southbound entry and northbound exit ramps to and from the motorway would be connected to an extension of Tongarra Road.

74


Workshop participants did a comparative assessment of the 10 shortlisted central interchange options and the two shortlisted southern interchange options. Each option was given an overall score based on the weightings and the comparative score given to each criterion for each option. Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 summarise these results and scores.

75


Table 8-5 Central Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results

Criteria Central interchange option 1










Functionality


1 2 1 4 4 3 2 2 2 2


4 4 2 3 1 2 4 1 4 2

Provides road layout that is easy to use

4 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 4 1

Score 297 297 198 297 198 231 297 132 330 165

Traffic Performance


1 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 2


1 2 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 3

76













1 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 3.5 3


1 3 1 2 1 4 2 1 3 3

Score 99 239 99 206 248 305 247 372 371 247

Socio-economic

Minimise noise impact

1 3 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 4

Minimise impact on property (ie land acquisition, land use etc)

4 3 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

77








Minimise adverse impact on visual amenity

4

Minimise impact on heritage

3


2


1

Minimise impact on business

1

Minimise impact on flooding

4




1 2 3

2 3 3

3 2 3

1 2 4

4 2 2

1 2 2

4 2 2 1 2 1

3 4 3 2 3 3

3 1 4 2 2 3

3 1 4 1 2 4

2 1 2 3 2 2

4 4 3 1 2 1


78












Score 241 331 211 309 199 209 279 162 209 236

Environmental

Minimise impact on terrestrial ecology

2 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4 4

Minimise impact on aquatic ecology

3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4

Score 250 350 250 400 300 400 400 300 400 400

79


Table 8-6 Southern Interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results

Criteria Southern interchange option 1


Functionality

Provides traffic connectivity across the alignment 2 4

Minimises potential safety risks including conflict points, etc 3 4

Provides road layout that is easy to use 2 4

Score 231 396

Traffic

Optimise road network performance (overall journey) 3 4

Flexibility to adapt to future requirements 4 3

Provide efficient interchange and intersection performance 4 3

Minimise knock-on impact (ie amenity and adverse impacts elsewhere)

3 4

Score 338 355

Socio-economic

Minimise noise impact 4 2

Minimise impact on property (ie land acquisition, land use etc) 4 2

Minimise adverse impact on visual amenity 4 1

Minimise impact on heritage 4 4


4 1


4 4

Minimise impact on business 4 4

Minimise impact on flooding 4 4

Score 400 282

80

Criteria Southern interchange option 1


Environmental

Minimise impact on terrestrial ecology 4 4

Minimise impact on aquatic ecology 4 4

Score 400 400


Based on these results, each option was ranked against each key perspective, after which participants were given relative cost estimates for each of the interchange options. It is noted that these cost estimates were indicative and could only be used for comparison purposes. Table 8-7 and Table 8-8 show the rankings for each central interchange option and southern interchange option, as well as their relative cost.

Table 8-7 Central Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost

81

-


Environmental Relative Cost*

Central interchange option1

2nd 9th 4th 9th 1.11X


2nd 4th 1st 6th 1X


7th 9th 6th 9th 1.15X


2nd 8th 1st 1st 1.26X


7th 4th 6th 7th 1.81X


6th 3rd 6th 1st 1.44X


2nd 4th 3rd 1st 1.37X


10th 1st 10th 7th 1.93X


1st 1st 6th 1st 1.56X

-


Environmental Relative Cost*


9th 4th 4th 1st 1.56X

-

82


* The cheapest option was given a nominal cost of 1, with the cost of other options described as a multiplier of this (ie option 13a w as regarded as being nearly twice the cost of option 4).

Table 8-8 Southern Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost Options Functional Traffic Socio

economic Environmental Relative

Cost


2nd 1st 1st 1st 1.0X


1st 1st 2nd 1st 1.0X

Each focus group assessed the interchange options rankings against the relative cost estimates to decide the best value for money for each interchange.

The focus groups did not recommend one option for either the central or southern interchanges. Instead, a number of options were recommended for further investigation and refinement. Keeping in mind the need for certain interchange options to be compatible with each other, the following combinations of options were recommended for further assessment and design development:

Central interchange option 13 and southern interchange option 9

Central interchange option 4 and southern interchange option 1

Central interchange option 13b and southern interchange option 1.

The value management workshop ruled out all other central interchange and southern interchange options.

To identify a preferred central interchange and southern interchange combination, additional traffic modelling and design refinements were required. It was decided that without this additional work there was not enough information to recommend a preferred interchange combination.

8.2.2 SUMMARY RESULTS OF VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP The value management workshop confirmed that Croom option B was the preferred road alignment option for the project, and that the process to identify Croom option B as the preferred road alignment had been robust and resulted in the best outcome within the constraints.

Interchange options selected at the value management workshop, either as a preferred option or recommended for further assessment and design development, were:

Northern interchange: Option 7

Central interchange: Option 4, 13 and 13b

Southern interchange: Option 1 and 9.


8.3 ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOLLOWING THE VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP A number of actions were identified during the value management workshop as being required to select a preferred option, notably for the central and southern interchanges, and to ensure that the preferred option could address issues identified. These actions included carrying out additional traffic modelling, and undertaking design refinements to address issues identified by workshop participants. This provided opportunities to further refine the central and southern interchange options to suitably address those issues identified in the value management workshop.

8.3.1 FURTHER OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT Southern interchange option 1 and 9 were modelled to determine the detailed traffic performance for each option in the future scenario of the year 2046. The traffic modelling for 2046 concluded the Oak Flats Interchange would be placed under significant pressure for both options, with southern interchange option 9 performing notably worse than southern interchange option 1. Due to the increased traffic demand on the Oak Flats Interchange, option 9 identified significant congestion at the roundabout and long queuing of traffic for the southbound exit ramp. Alternatives including the signalisation of the roundabout were considered but assessed and found not to work. As a result further design refinements of option 1 were undertaken, and southern interchange option 1b was developed. This was shown to alleviate the traffic pressure on the Oak Flats Interchange.

Southern interchange option 1b

Figure 8-5 Southern interchange option 1b

Southern interchange option 1b provides a northbound entry and exit ramp and a southbound entry and exit ramp to and from the motorway at the Oak Flats Interchange. Oak Flats Interchange would be upgraded to include an additional roundabout. A new local road parallel to the motorway would connect Croome Road and the upgraded Oak Flats Interchange.

Further design refinement and traffic modelling following the value management workshop identified a hybrid design of central interchange option 4 and 13b. Central interchange option 13c was developed to allow for superior performance in relation to function, traffic and socioeconomic factors, than either central interchange option 4 or 13b. This option was taken to the next stage of the assessment process and is described below.

83


Central interchange option 13c

Figure 8-6 Central interchange option 13c

Central interchange option 13c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The Illawarra Highway would be closed to local traffic. A northbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway and a southbound entry ramp at Tongarra Road would be provided in future years to cater for future traffic growth. This option can connect to a future bypass of Albion Park (Tripoli Way).

84


8.3.2 TECHNICAL WORKSHOP Roads and Maritime held a technical workshop on 29 August 2014 attended by project team members. The purpose of the workshop was to present the assessment and design refinements undertaken following the value management workshop and to select a preferred option for the central and southern interchange.

The workshop followed a similar process to the value management workshop. This involved revisiting previously identified criteria and using updated criteria to assess the remaining options.

Southern interchange option 1b described above was developed following the value management workshop to address the traffic constraints associated with options 1 and 9, while retaining its primary layout and function To confirm that southern interchange option 1 and 9 should be eliminated the southern interchange options were assessed against the criteria used in the shortlisting workshop (described in Section 7). Table 8-9 shows the results of this assessment.

Table 8-9 Northern Interchange Elimination Post Value Management Workshop

Shortlisting criteria Southern interchange option 1

Southern interchange option 1b




× ×



×




Status Eliminated Retained Eliminated


The workshop confirmed that southern interchange option 1b was the preferred southern interchange option. It was determined that option 1b would address the key issue of maintaining traffic capacity of the Oak Flats Interchange without causing significant queuing, and allow the most suitable design option from a functional, traffic performance, environmental and socioeconomic perspective.

However, the workshop participants questioned the need for a roundabout to be attached to the Oak Flats Interchange as part of option 1b. They suggested further design refinements be carried out to explore the possibility of removing the roundabout but still provide access from the new local road to the Oak Flats Interchange. If this could be achieved and remain feasible from an engineering perspective participants recommended that a modified version of southern

85


interchange option 1b, removing the roundabout, be adopted as the preferred southern interchange option.

Following the technical workshop southern interchange option 1c was modified through design refinements to remove the roundabout. Southern interchange 1c was found to be suitable from an engineering perspective and was determined as the preferred southern interchange option.

Southern interchange option 1c

Figure 8-7 Southern interchange option 1c

Southern interchange option 1c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp to and from the bypass at the Oak Flats Interchange. A local road, one lane in each direction, is proposed, connecting Croome Road and the Oak Flats Interchange. This separates local and through traffic and replaces the East West Link. The existing Oak Flats Interchange would be reconfigured to allow for the connection of the local road. It provides access to the quarries but eliminates the need for an overpass at Colden Drive. This option provides full access between the motorway, Princes Highway, New Lake Entrance Road and the new local road.

Because southern interchange option 9 was eliminated at the technical workshop, central interchange option 13 was also eliminated as it was required to be paired with southern interchange option 9. The remaining central interchange options 4, 13b and 13c were then assessed against updated criteria to identify a preferred option. The criteria identified at the value management workshop were updated to reflect aspects most applicable to the remaining interchange options and provide criteria with the greatest points of difference. The updated criteria and weightings are shown in Table 8-10.

86


Table 8-10 Updated Interchange Options Assessment Criteria and Weighting

Perspective Criterion Weighting

33%

33%

33%

50%

8%

33%

8%

30%

10%

60%

100%

Functionality Provide traffic connectivity across the alignment

Minimise potential safety risk

Provide a road layout that is easy to use

Traffic performance Optimise road network performance (overall journey)




Socio-economic Minimise adverse visual amenity


Minimise adverse impact on the townships of Albion Park and Albion Park Rail

Flooding Minimise impact on flooding

Using the criteria outlined above and the same methodology as in the value management workshop, technical workshop participants did a comparative assessment of the remaining central interchange options. Each option was given an overall score by multiplying the weightings (refer to Table 8-10) by the comparative scores given against each criterion for each option. Table 8-11 summarises the results and scores given by workshop participants for the northern interchange options.

Table 8-11 Technical Workshop Central interchange Options Comparative Assessment Results

87




Functionality


3 3 4


3 2 4

Provides road layout that is easy to use 2 4 3

Score 264 297 363

Traffic Performance


3 2 4

Flexibility to adapt to future requirements 3 2.5 4





2 2 4


2 1 4

Score 256 194 396

Socio-economic

Minimise adverse visual amenity 4 3 3


2 3 4

Minimise adverse impact on the townships of Albion Park and Albion Park Rail

3 1 4

Score 320 180 370

Flooding

Minimise impact on flooding 4 2 1.5

Score 400 200 150


Based on these results, each option was ranked for each key perspective (functional, traffic, socio-economic and flooding), after which technical workshop participants were given relative cost estimates for each of the remaining interchange options. Table 8-12 shows the rankings given for each option and their relative cost.

Table 8-12 Technical Workshop Central Interchange Options Rankings and Relative Cost -


Environmental Relative cost*

1.0X


2 3 3 2 1.34X

Central interchange 1 1 1 3 1.34X

3 122Central interchange option 4

option 13c

* The cheapest option was given a nominal cost of 1, with the cost of other options described as a multiplier of this

88


The workshop participants recommended central interchange option 13c (northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway, as well as a future northbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway and a southbound entry ramp at Tongarra Road) as the preferred central interchange option. This was because it would provide the best option from a functional, traffic performance and socio-economic perspective, and it was considered likely that the any flooding impacts could be mitigated. Participants groups recommended further investigation and assessment as part of concept design.

8.4 PREFERRED OPTION The preferred option for the road alignment and the three interchanges were identified through an extensive selection process. This report has provided an overview of the steps undertaken, and records the decision making processes completed, to arrive at a preferred option.

The preferred option for the Albion Park Rail bypass project is:

Road alignment: Croom option B largely follows the reserved road corridor except for the section around the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. This option involves improving and shortening the route through the Croom Regional Sporting Complex. It skirts the southern side of Croom Reserve, reducing the length of the bypass by 800 metres. This option is feasible from an engineering perspective and largely avoids environmentally sensitive areas

Northern interchange at Yallah: Northern interchange option 7 provides free flowing movements to and from Albion Park Rail, Dapto and Yallah to the bypass

Central interchange at Albion Park: Central interchange option 13c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway. The Illawarra Highway would be closed to local traffic. A northbound exit ramp at the Illawarra Highway and a southbound entry ramp at Tongarra Road would be provided in future years to cater for future traffic growth. This option can connect to a future bypass of Albion Park (Tripoli Way)

Southern interchange at Oak Flats: Southern interchange option 1c includes a northbound entry ramp and a southbound exit ramp to and from the bypass at the Oak Flats Interchange. A local road, one lane in each direction, is proposed, connecting Croome Road and the Oak Flats Interchange. This separates local and through traffic and replaces the East West Link. The existing Oak Flats Interchange would be reconfigured to allow for the connection of the local road. It provides access to the quarries but eliminates the need for an overpass at Colden Drive. This option provides full access between the motorway, Princes Highway, New Lake Entrance Road and the new local road.

Figure 8-8 shows the preferred option for the Albion Park Rail bypass project.

89


Figure 8-8 Preferred Project

90

9 NEXT STEPS


The preferred option will go on display for community comment in late October 2014. This will provide an opportunity for the community to review the preferred option and provide feedback. Roads and Maritime will use this information to further refine the preferred option. Roads and Maritime will then undertake an environmental impact statement for the project. This will have more detailed information about the design features. The environmental impact statement is expected to be exhibited in late 2015 when further community feedback will be sought.

The timing of construction is yet to be confirmed.

Figure 9-1 shows the tasks completed to date, as well as the key next steps for the project.

Figure 9-1 Process Flowchart

91