“Dangerous Goods Argument a Complete Furphy” – Coffs Bypass Action Group

State Roads Minister Melinda Pavey (pictured below) has been quoted as saying that the Coffs Harbour Bypass cannot have tunnels due to dangerous goods. Is this actually true? Let’s take a look at the detail.

“Firstly let’s be clear dangerous goods travel through tunnels in Australia every single day”  says CBAG member Peter Walsh. “Whilst there are nine classes of dangerous goods, there are only two kinds that cannot, at this point, go through tunnels we want in Coffs Harbour.

Class 1 (explosives) and Class 2.1 (flammable gases). The figures suggest there are, on average, 7-15 of this kind of hazardous good vehicles coming into or through Coffs Harbour on busy days.

“This brings me to my second point. There seems to be agreement that one third of these vehicles would enter Coffs Harbour and not leave as they would be unloading their goods here in Coffs Harbour. This again reduces the numbers actually going through tunnels and means that there will always be hazardous material on Coffs Harbour roads.

“Nearly all of what we call dangerous goods, can travel through tunnels and to say that the tunnels cannot be built because of it is simply a furphy.”

Further investigation by the Coffs Bypass Action Group discovered that NatRoad the peak body for transport operators “recently met with Transport for NSW, RMS and road transport operators to look at improving access for heavy vehicles carrying dangerous goods. The group discussed running a trial removing restrictions for dangerous goods in Sydney”. That review may change this entire concept allowing all dangerous goods to travel through tunnels.

“In the interests of putting some researched facts into the discussion,” said Brian Polack, Chair of CBAG and their EIS Committee, “in their 2004 report Connell Wagner concluded that the likelihood of a serious incident (e.g. LPG gas explosion) through the 2 tunnels (Gatelys Road and Shepherds Lane) was 1 in 2,000 years to 1 in 7,200 years depending on the final length of each tunnel. Even if the Sydney study comes to nothing; do we really want to rule out the many improvements that tunnels can bring to the solution and to the benefit of the people of Coffs Harbour over a handful of trucks?”


Reference link on dangerous goods: https://www.natroad.com.au/news/transporting-dangerous-goods

Coffs Bypass Action Group Press Release – Monday 3 December 2018.

Dangerous Goods Argument a Furphy.pdf

Displaying Dangerous Goods Argument a Furphy.pdf.

4 thoughts on ““Dangerous Goods Argument a Complete Furphy” – Coffs Bypass Action Group

  1. Melinda seems very loose with the truth with most things 😣😡. We are treated like idiots by these type of politicians.
    (From Outlook Facebook site – 5-12-2018)

  2. NUTSHELL: Tunnels save landscape & Aboriginal heritage, PLUS reduce noise & impacts of fill on flooding, farming, environment & residents. (From Outlook Facebook site – 5-12-2018)

  3. The Roads Minister is WRONG !! Tunnels are the answer, so get on with the By Pass with Tunnels. Stop the argy bargy Melinda & BTW Merry Christmas to you and your family. (from the Outlook Facebook site – 5-12-2018)

  4. It takes 10 seconds to drive through the St Helena tunnel at the designated road speed. The tunnel has state of the art safety and control systems. What’s the fuss about having tunnels rather than cuttings..? Why are tunnels considered risky here when our cities depend on them. And what of inter-European cross boarder tunnels through the Alps..! The “Nanny State” and the way authorities impact on our overly precious lives simply hinder progress and development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Coffs Coast Outlook - Your alternative Coffs Coast voice
+ +