The RMS first briefing on new by-pass changes – a brief report

The following is from Garth Cornwall who went along to the first RMS by-pass ‘information session’ at the Coffs Harbour Golf Club on Thursday night (27-9-18);

‘Hi Editor:

I went along today and the place was packed with the numbers steadily growing. So much so that all I could do was to get a look at the displays,maps and photos.
I did try to g
et a Project Manager from the RMS to speak with me,to answer the questions as put by Rod McKelvey. They said that they couldn’t do it and he would get their media person to speak with me.
She took the pages of questions and promised to “answer them the best they could over the next few weeks.”


However they would not be able to answer some, as those answers will probably be in the EIS when it is released.


I think that this exercise leaves more questions than answers about their planning transparency process. The anger was palpable in the room

Hope that you have a good weekend
Cheers

 

Garth’

The proposed ‘bridge tunnels’

It was more ‘Info’ than ‘Consultation’ – so they got this right!

2 thoughts on “The RMS first briefing on new by-pass changes – a brief report

  1. This needs to be resisted and over-turned.
    The State and Federal governments are ‘having a lend’ of Coffs Harbour and have gone back on what they said in 2016 we would get. Namely, three tunnels in the proposed by-pass. This strikes one as being a cheap-skate option.
    The ‘dangerous goods’ argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and is an insult to one’s intelligence.

  2. In the USA they design stacked expressways, as the RMS already owns the present route of the highway thru Coffs, why not consider this as an option?
    Presently in Coffs there is a reinforced concrete bridge beam manufacturer who could supply overhead bridge forming the overhead road (already used for most othe bridges on the Highway upgrade).
    Roadway structure could be supported on reinforced concrete or steel portal frames spaced at centres to suit concrete bridge beams.
    Portal frames would be erected on suitable foundations along the existing route.
    If these components were manufactured in Coffs transport costs to site would be minimised.
    If noise pollution from an elevated roadway, a suitable noise reduction structure could be incorporated.
    Modern erection equipment could erect large one lane sections of the structure with minimum disruption to highway traffic.
    A tunnel would be required thru’ McCauley’s Headland near the Big Banana, this results in good alignment with the existing highway route heading north.
    The old section around Mccauley’s Headland could be use for flammable bypass of the tunnel.
    Loading ramps on to the southern end could be incorporated into the elevated highway.
    Minimum land or Property acquisition would be required for this route.
    Furthermore all pollution (both noise and air) resulting from the new highway structure is already present along the existing route.
    The more prefabricated structure manufactured off site also reduces inconvenience to traffic movements.
    As there are already 4 highway lanes existing through Coffs this would allow single file north and south bound travel thru’ Coffs during construction phases.
    Consideration of this proposal could be evaluated from the $ costs and completion / public disruption period.
    All design / constructions options should be completely evaluated before the final decision on this project is made.

Leave a Reply

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

Coffs Coast Outlook - Your alternative Coffs Coast voice
+ +