Please Read Before Viewing
The following document is the full draft version of the Dongara-Geraldton-Northampton Corridor Alignment Selection Report, written for the purpose of identifying a preferred investigation corridor for further planning activities, including community consultation.
The report has not been altered in any way since its provision to the Minister for Transport in September 2020, and no sections of it have been omitted in this presentation.
Alignment Selection work is normally assessed through desktop assessments, which provide a reasonable understanding of the constraints, issues and opportunities.
The desktop work is used to progress stakeholder discussions to test the validity of shortlisted options, leading to landholder and community input.
This community and landholder input is a critical step in the process to fill a number of gaps with regard to constraints/issues and assessment of the options.
Only after consultation has been incorporated into the planning process can alignment selection be finalised, allowing for more detailed planning (including site investigations).
The report was written on the information available at the time of writing. Main Roads’ current engagement activities have already revealed a number of further constraints and opportunities that require further investigation, which may influence the alignment of the final recommended corridor.
Feedback on the report can be directed to: [email protected]
HP Records Manager No. Date Published Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Alignment Selection Report (Draft, Aug 2020)
DONGARA – GERALDTON – NORTHAMPTON CORRIDOR
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 2 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Document Control
This document has the following amendment history:
Version Date Author Amendment
V.0.0 July 2020 Naomi Mynott (A/RRPM) Draft for internal comment
V1.0 07/08/20 Naomi Mynott (A/RRPM) Final draft for endorsement
Approvals
Name Naomi Mynott Recommended by: Position A/RRPM Date 07/08/2020
Name Owen McLean
Position PRPM Date
Name Bernie Miller
Position RM MWGR Date Reviewed by: Name Markus Botte
Position MSRP Date
Name Lindsay Broadhurst
Position DRP Date
Name Doug Morgan Approved by: Position EDPTS Date
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 3 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ...... 9 2. Introduction ...... 11 2.1. Purpose of Study ...... 11 2.2. Problem Definition & Planning Objectives ...... 11 2.3. Study Area ...... 12 2.4. Glossary & Abbreviations ...... 14 3. Planning Context...... 15 3.1. Background ...... 15 3.2. Literature Review ...... 16 FEDERAL PLANNING, INITIATIVES & STRATEGIES ...... 16 STATE & REGIONAL PLANNING, INITIATIVES & STRATEGIES ...... 18 LOCAL PLANNING & STRATEGIES ...... 21 3.3. Existing Road Network ...... 28 3.4. Planned Road Network ...... 29 Pell Bridge Realignment ...... 29 Indian Ocean Drive Coastal Extension ...... 29 Dongara Bypass ...... 29 Greenough Realignment – Bookara Bends, S-bends ...... 30 Geraldton North South Highway ...... 30 North West Coastal Highway upgrades through Geraldton ...... 32 Oakajee Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor (ONIC) ...... 32 Northampton Bypass ...... 34 Summary Planned Road Network ...... 34 3.5. Previous DGNC Planning ...... 34 Planning Context (pre-2012) ...... 34 Planning 2012 – 2016 ...... 35 2017 to present ...... 38 3.6. RAV Network ...... 41 High Wide Loads / Over Size Over Mass ...... 41 Triple Road Train access (RAV10) ...... 42 3.7. Rail Network ...... 42 3.8. Port ...... 42 3.9. Geraldton Airport ...... 43 4. Traffic and Safety Assessment ...... 44 4.1. Current Traffic Demand ...... 44 Traffic Volumes ...... 44 Heavy Vehicles ...... 45 Growth Trends (historical) ...... 45 Seasonal Influence on traffic patterns ...... 48 Seasonal Influence on Heavy Vehicles ...... 49 4.2. Speed Limits ...... 50
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 4 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
4.3. Crash History ...... 51 Midblock Crashes ...... 51 Intersection Crashes ...... 53 4.4. Future Traffic Volumes ...... 54 5. Road and Infrastructure Corridor Options ...... 56 5.1. Considerations ...... 56 5.2. Geometric Design Standards ...... 56 5.3. Road Corridor Alignment Options Considered ...... 56 Option 1 – South ...... 56 Option 2 – South ...... 57 Option 3 – South ...... 57 Option 4 – North ...... 57 Option 5 – North ...... 57 Option 6 – North ...... 58 6. Constraints Assessment ...... 59 6.1. Environmental Constraints – South ...... 59 Reserves, Conservation Areas and Regional Parks ...... 59 Wetlands & Waterways ...... 59 Priority / Threatened Ecological Communities (PEC/TEC)...... 59 Vegetation and Flora...... 59 Fauna ...... 60 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) ...... 60 Contaminated Areas & Unexploded Ordnance Areas ...... 60 6.2. Social Constraints – South ...... 60 Indigenous Heritage ...... 60 European Heritage ...... 60 Existing Land Use and Facilities and Tenements ...... 61 Property Impact – Severance and Access...... 61 Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy ...... 61 Air Quality ...... 61 6.3. Engineering Constraints – South ...... 61 Topography and Hydrology ...... 61 Drainage ...... 63 Geology and Soil Conditions ...... 63 Public Drinking Water ...... 63 Services ...... 64 Infrastructure ...... 64 Constructability ...... 64 Staging ...... 64 Access ...... 65 Road Network Performance ...... 65 Road Safety ...... 65 6.4. Economic Assessment – South ...... 65 Construction Cost Considerations ...... 65
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 5 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Whole of Life Costs ...... 65 Land Cost Considerations ...... 65 Network Benefits ...... 65 6.5. Environmental Constraints – North ...... 66 Reserves, Conservation Areas and Regional Parks ...... 66 Wetlands & Waterways ...... 66 Threatened / Priority Ecological Communities (TEC/PEC)...... 66 Vegetation and Flora...... 66 Fauna ...... 66 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) ...... 66 Contaminated Areas & Unexploded Ordnance Areas ...... 67 6.6. Social Constraints – North...... 67 Indigenous Heritage ...... 67 European Heritage ...... 67 Existing Land Use and Facilities and Tenements ...... 67 Property Impact – Severance and Access...... 67 Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy ...... 67 Air Quality ...... 68 6.7. Engineering Constraints - North ...... 68 Topography and Hydrology ...... 68 Drainage ...... 68 Geology and Soil Conditions ...... 68 Public Drinking Water ...... 68 Services ...... 68 Infrastructure ...... 68 Constructability ...... 69 Staging ...... 69 Access ...... 69 Road Network Performance ...... 69 Road Safety ...... 69 6.8. Economic Assessment ...... 69 Construction Cost Considerations ...... 69 Whole of Life Costs ...... 69 Land Cost Considerations ...... 70 Network Benefits ...... 70 7. Combined Assessment ...... 71 7.1. Multi-Criteria Analysis ...... 71 7.2. Preferred Option ...... 72 SOUTH ...... 72 NORTH ...... 72 CENTRAL ...... 73 8. Consultation and Endorsements ...... 75 8.1. Consultation ...... 75 Engagement to 2016...... 75
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 6 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Engagement Strategy 2020 ...... 75 Key Stakeholders ...... 76 8.2. Endorsements ...... 76 9. Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 77 9.1. RECOMMENDATION ...... 78 9.2. Notes ...... 80 9.3. Further Refinements ...... 80 10. References ...... 81 11. Appendices ...... 84 11.1. Appendix 1 – Multi-Criteria Analysis ...... 84 11.2. Appendix 2 – Environmental Data ...... 95
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 7 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area (Main Roads Integrated Mapping System) ...... 13 Figure 2: Mid West Region (DPIRD, 2019) Figure 3: Batavia Sub Coast Region (DPLH, 2013) ...... 15 Figure 4: International exports, from Mid West Blueprint (MWDC, 2015) ...... 16 Figure 5: National Road Network (DITRDC, 2020) ...... 16 Figure 6: From Map 5 in WA Regional Freight Strategy ...... 20 Figure 7: Greater Geraldton Structure Plan (WAPC, 2011) ...... 22 Figure 8: Extract from City of Greater Geraldton Local Planning Strategy ...... 23 Figure 9: Walkway townsite, extract from CGG Strategy ...... 24 Figure 10: extract from Shire of Chapman Valley Strategy ...... 24 Figure 11: Extract from Shire of Irwin Local Planning Strategy ...... 25 Figure 12: Northampton Strategy Figure 13: Northampton Strategy ...... 25 Figure 14: Central & Northern sections land use Figure 15: Southern section land use (WAPC, cited May 2020)26 Figure 16: Extract from Narngulu Industrial Area Strategic Land Use Direction (WAPC, 2010) ...... 27 Figure 17: Extract from Plan WA mapping showing reserve for Pell Bridge realignment ...... 29 Figure 18: Extract from PlanWA showing Dongara Bypass realignment reserve ...... 30 Figure 19: Options considered for Brand Highway realignment (BGE, Main Roads document D11#118621) ...... 30 Figure 20: GNSH reserve, extract from CGG Local Planning Scheme (insert, showing full GNSH alignment) ...... 31 Figure 21: OPR alignment ...... 32 Figure 22: ONIC Alignment Definition – preferred corridor (DoP, 2014) ...... 33 Figure 23: Southern Options from 2016 AS report ...... 36 Figure 24: Northern Options from 2016 AS report ...... 37 Figure 25: 2016 corridor options shortlisted for engagement (with current numbering) ...... 38 Figure 26: 2016 start points for northern options...... 39 Figure 27: Northern maximum RAV access Figure 28: Southern maximum RAV access ...... 41 Figure 29: Aerial image of section in Northampton townsite ...... 41 Figure 30: ARC network in study area ...... 42 Figure 31: Traffic Volumes on Key Roads, Geraldton ...... 44 Figure 32: Traffic Volumes on key roads in the study area. Volumes shown are AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) from data collected 2017 – 2019...... 45 Figure 33: Heavy Vehicle Volumes for Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Heavy Vehicles are Austroads Class 3 -12 vehicles...... 46 Figure 34: Heavy Vehicles (Austroads Classes 3-12) shown as the volume and proportion of total vehicles. Volumes shown are AADT from years 2017-2019...... 47 Figure 35: Traffic Volumes by Vehicle Types (Austroads indicative length) ...... 48 Figure 36: Seasonal traffic behaviour. Data shown is daily traffic volumes collected in 2018 at continuous traffic monitoring sites...... 49 Figure 37 a- e: Daily traffic for vehicles grouped into Austroads Length (Indicative) Classes...... 50 Figure 38: Speed by vehicle type at continuous traffic monitoring locations. Speeds are the 85th Percentile of all vehicles captured in 2018...... 51 Figure 39: Midblock Crash Comparison ...... 52 Figure 40: Crash Rate Calculation ...... 53 Figure 41: Number of crashes at key intersections by Crash Severity (highlighting heavy vehicle involvement) .... 54 Figure 42: Strategic Model Outputs – forecast volumes ...... 55 Figure 43: Southern options considered ...... 57 Figure 44: Northern options considered ...... 58 Figure 45: Flood modelling, Greenough (BG &E)...... 62 Figure 46: Public Drinking Water Source Areas (DPLH PlanWA mapping, 2020) ...... 63 Figure 47: Preferred option – Option 1 (south) and Option 6 (north) ...... 74 Figure 48: Options from 2016 Alignment Selection Report ...... 77 Figure 49: Recommended Options ...... 79
TABLES
Table 1: Directions set out in WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan ...... 20 Table 2: Summary of planned road network ...... 34 Table 3: Summary of re-tested assumptions ...... 40 Table 4: Midblock Crash Comparison ...... 52
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 8 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
1. Executive Summary The Mid West region holds an important place in the local, regional, state and global supply chains. The stretch of Brand Highway and North West Coastal Highway between Dongara and Northampton, passing through Geraldton, is a key link in the land based transport network. Growth in traffic, high access requirements, an alignment that bisects urbanised areas and sections with sub-optimal horizontal and vertical geometry present concerns from both safety and efficiency points of view. Many of these issues cannot be addressed with localised upgrades and need a strategic approach to plan for an ultimate road corridor.
Heavy vehicle bypasses of Geraldton, Dongara and Northampton townsites would improve the capacity, efficiency, safety and reliability of the current road network. Efficiency and safety would be improved by minimising the conflicts caused by mixing local and regional traffic through urbanised areas, by ensuring a satisfactory clearance envelope for oversize vehicles and by improving or rationalising intersections along the route. Reliability would be improved by limiting road closures caused by flooding, bushfire or as a result of accidents. The new route would provide a high standard facility carrying regional freight and general traffic safely, efficiently and at good levels of service to Geraldton and along the coastal route.
Main Roads has undertaken an Alignment Selection planning study with the aim of identifying a preferred broad corridor capable of accommodating a high quality, safe and efficient road suitable for all users including large heavy vehicle combinations. This work reviews and revises earlier planning work (for which a report was produced in 2016). Following identification of a preferred corridor, more detailed studies will be undertaken to define road concepts, connections and associated land requirements (called Alignment Definition work). Areas considered through the assessment include: alignment with land use and transport planning strategies/objectives; state road network requirements; side road connectivity and access to key commercial, industrial and residential areas; “triple bottom line” (environmental, social and economic) considerations; network performance, safety and engineering factors. For alignment options north of Geraldton, previous recommendations assumed that the Oakajee port, industrial area and the Oakajee – Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor (including a partial road bypass of Geraldton) would be delivered in the shorter term, but this is no longer the case. Timing for delivery of the Oakajee project is unknown and now considered a more long term proposition, particularly in comparison to the need for a road bypass of Geraldton, which is required predominantly for heavy vehicles to address safety and efficiency constraints in the urban area. Original assumptions for the corridor included the need for the road to follow the rail alignment, with associated earthworks. In the absence of an immediate need for rail, a road only solution can be considered that more closely follows existing topography, therefore presenting a better value option that allows for future delivery of the rail link. Revised corridors have been considered and assessed in this report.
A number of other changes, as set out in section 3.5.3 of this report, have also been reviewed and assessed. Main Roads now recommends that corridor option 1 to the south of Geraldton and corridor option 6 to the north of Geraldton be selected as preferred options and should be taken forward for further analysis as part of Alignment Definition work. The key reasons behind this recommendation are as follow:
Options 1 and 6 are supported by the results of the high level comparative (Multi Criteria Analysis) MCA, confirming they best balance environmental, social, economic, engineering, safety and network performance matters;
Option 1 to the south of Geraldton enables separation of heavy regional traffic from local/commuter traffic on the busiest sections of the route;
Option 6 to the north of Geraldton presents a better value for money option to achieve improved geometry and overtaking opportunities and provide a high standard of safety, efficiency and amenity for all users. It provides good access to Geraldton and Oakajee from the north. Technical complexities around delivery of option 6 are believed to be manageable;
The recommended corridors are also generally supported by feedback received following consultation activities undertaken to date. A number of presentations and meetings have been held since 2018 to keep key stakeholders appraised of the current situation and to inform them of the revised assessments being undertaken. This included presentations to Local Government officers and elected members (as appropriate) at which Main Roads has advised stakeholders of the re-testing of assumptions and underlying reasons for doing so. Main Roads will continue working with stakeholders throughout the planning process to ensure that communication
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 9 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 is open and honest and that all recommendations are transparent and understood by all parties.
Following endorsement of the recommendation (in the form of this report) by Main Roads Executive Director of Planning & Technical Services, Main Roads Planning Branch will engage with key stakeholders on the preferred corridor, being option 1 and option 6, and seek Ministerial approval prior to wider community consultation. Main Roads will engage directly with landowners intersected by the preferred corridor and then undertake a period of wider community engagement to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to review plans and that all views have been taken into consideration. The Transport portfolio’s online consultation system will be used for the upcoming engagement activity as well as letters and meetings.
An updated consultation report will be provided reflecting comments received as part of the upcoming engagement. If necessary, a revision to this report can be completed. Main Roads will seek formal endorsement of the preferred corridor from LGA Councils and the WAPC in due course.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 10 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
2. Introduction 2.1. Purpose of Study The identification and protection of transport corridors to meet long term demands is an important step in the planning process, framing and informing decisions on investment and development in the area. Main Roads Western Australia (“Main Roads”) has undertaken an Alignment Selection (AS) planning study to identify a preferred corridor suitable for accommodating the ultimate road alignment between Dongara and Northampton, including heavy vehicle bypasses of both of those townsites and Geraldton. The future corridor will enable provision of a safe, efficient state road network for all traffic including large Heavy Vehicle (HV) combinations.
This report defines key objectives for the route, which have been used to frame a high level, comparative assessment of corridor options. A range of qualitative and quantitative criteria have been used, along with feedback from stakeholders, to inform the recommendations set out in this report. Feedback received in response to this report will also be considered before finalising the recommendation and seeking endorsement from key stakeholders.
Due to the level of information available (predominantly existing information available electronically), the assessment is necessarily a comparative assessment of likely impacts of a road in a broad corridor and likely connection locations (without detail) rather than a detailed analysis of absolute impacts of a specific design. Following endorsement of the preferred corridor, further work will be undertaken, including a range of site based surveys, to inform the definition of a road alignment within the corridor and consider the likely impacts and their appropriate mitigation in more detail. Land requirement plans will be a key output of the next stage in the planning process, Alignment Definition. Planning for the Dongara – Geraldton – Northampton Corridor (DGNC) is considered within the context of the wider Carnarvon to Muchea Road Train Access (C2M) study, which focuses on works required to facilitate extension of Restricted Access Vehicle (RAV) 10 network over this route. These upgrades would help address existing inefficiencies and safety considerations relating to the movement of people and goods along the coastal corridor. The section of C2M between Dongara and Northampton presents one of the most constrained sections, requiring major realignments rather than relatively localised upgrade treatments. This planning study has been funded in part by Main Roads and in part through Royalties for Regions Funding provided by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, through the Mid West Development Commission.
2.2. Problem Definition & Planning Objectives The Brand Highway (BH) / North West Coastal Highway (NWCH) corridor presents the most direct coastal route between Perth and the resource rich north west of Western Australia (WA) and provides access to a number of ports, coastal towns, key east-west links and popular visitor areas and attractions. As a result, the BH / NWCH route is used by a large range of vehicles, including a significant proportion of freight and heavy vehicles. Geraldton is the third largest city in WA and the largest settlement north of Perth. It is a major population centre and provides services for its residents and those of a number of smaller towns and their hinterlands as well as visitors to the area. The BH / NWCH corridor bisects the townsite and there are limited alternative transport modes (e.g. rail) or road corridors for regional traffic to use to avoid the urban area. This arrangement results in a high proportion of local movements on the state network, with many full movement connections and direct lot accesses. It also results in interactions between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists in the built up area. In addition, the presence of urban development and associated infrastructure presents physical limitations for vehicles moving through the area e.g. traffic lights restricting vehicle clearance envelopes through Geraldton; and buildings and parked cars complicating heavy vehicle movements through Northampton. To the south of Geraldton, vehicle numbers on the network are significantly higher than to the north, with a combination of heavy vehicle, regional and local movements including commuting between Dongara and Geraldton. There is a high level of lot access and concentration of intersections, resulting in potential conflict points with associated safety and efficiency risks. Growth in local and regional traffic is forecast for the corridor and the combination of a mix of users, access demands, geometry and the surrounding environment contribute to concerns around safety and efficiency. This situation will only be exacerbated with future growth. To the north of Geraldton, the road passes through challenging terrain. While the road was built to meet design standards at the time of construction, the current alignment has sections of poor horizontal and vertical geometry that would not meet desirable design standards for the road and its current use. Given the limited road reserve width, topography and the surrounding environmental and land use constraints, a road built to current standards incorporating safe system principles would be difficult to achieve on the current alignment, which allows only for HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 11 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 minor upgrades. While forecast growth is more conservative on this northern section, increasing vehicle numbers are expected in future and this will exacerbate these issues. Combined with ageing existing pavements, there will be a need for additional maintenance funding. In the absence of strategic planning solutions, the safety and efficiency of the route is likely to worsen, resulting in higher costs for operators, users and maintenance. It will make the coastal route a less competitive option and potentially lead to Geraldton being viewed as a less competitive location for business. Given the region’s role in the wider state and national supply chain, especially around grain, iron ore and other commodities, this outcome could have detrimental impacts on the state’s and country’s status within the global market. In addition to protecting the region’s role in the supply chain, DGNC route planning will have the benefits of informing transport investment decisions, providing certainty for landowners and enabling or facilitating investment at major strategic industrial areas (e.g. Narngulu and future Oakajee). Holistic route planning will assist in improving the attractiveness of Geraldton, Dongara and Northampton and surrounding areas as places to live, work and visit.
Clear objectives are considered to be important to clarify the intentions for this study and future planning and development. These objectives, listed below, are framed by Main Roads aspiration “to provide world class outcomes for our customers through a safe, reliable and sustainable road-based transport system”.
SAFE ROAD & RESERVE: Plan for a safe, homogeneous road and surrounding environment that caters for current and future network demands through the application of consistent, relevant and appropriate design standards and safe system principles. ROUTE EFFICIENCY: Identify deliverable safety and efficiency improvements for all road users that contribute to, and/or will not prejudice, the ultimate freight network in the area. FREIGHT EFFICIENCY: Facilitate optimal freight efficiency by planning a future network that will provide: roads capable of accommodating the largest heavy vehicle combinations and oversize / overmass vehicles; separation of heavy/regional vehicles and local traffic from built up areas; appropriate access control; grade separated rail crossings; and roads that are resilient to closure due to major fire / flood events. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Facilitate economic development and growth of local and regional industries (including agriculture, commercial, mining and tourism) by providing appropriate levels of connectivity to the network, connecting Geraldton with its hinterland and other locations on the wider Perth- Pilbara routes. Provision should be made for multimodal hubs and integrated transport opportunities where appropriate, including connection to existing and future strategic development areas. ROUTE AMENITY: Improve safety and amenity for all road users by considering provision of facilities to cater for fatigue and journey management. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Manage stakeholder involvement throughout the process to achieve understanding of stakeholder’s concerns; consensus on approach; and general support for recommendations where possible. NATURAL, CULTURAL & BUILT ENVIRONMENT: Protect and enhance natural and built environment throughout planning processes by identifying relevant constraints and opportunities and minimising impacts of road on the most valuable and/or sensitive assets. VALUE FOR MONEY: Consideration given to efficient use of resources through whole cycle of planning, design, construction and maintenance of transport corridors. INTEGRATED LAND USE AND TRANSPORT PLANNING: Identify and use opportunities to collaborate with other organisations to deliver integrated planning outcomes and enable development/growth in line with endorsed strategies.
2.3. Study Area The study area, shown in Figure 1, can be described broadly as the coastal strip of land between Dongara and Northampton, including Geraldton. The key roads in the study area are the Brand Highway and North West Coastal Highway, but interactions with Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Geraldton Walkaway Road, Moonyoonooka Yuna Road and key local connections are also relevant. The study area can be considered in three sections, as set out below.
SOUTHERN – starting south of the Brand Highway / Midlands Road intersection, running north towards Geraldton, passing to the east of Walkaway townsite, east of the airport and tying in with Geraldton Mount Magnet Road and the central section.
CENTRAL – north from Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, broadly following Moonyoonooka – Yuna Road
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 12 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
alignment to the intersection with Morrell Road / Chapman Valley Road.
NORTHERN – runs north / west from the central section towards Northampton, where it ties in with the southern end of the planned Northampton bypass. The corridor for the central section will be the same as ONIC (see section 3.4.7). As a result, Alignment Selection has not been reviewed for this section. Further assessment will be undertaken through the Alignment Definition phase.
Figure 1: Study Area (Main Roads Integrated Mapping System)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 13 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
2.4. Glossary & Abbreviations Alignment Selection: Planning process, informed largely by existing available data, involving high level comparison of broad corridors of land for a future road. The key deliverable is identification of a preferred broad corridor.
Alignment Definition: Planning process, informed by site surveys and assessments, comprising more detailed analysis of impacts of potential road options within a preferred corridor to identify a preferred road alignment and associated land requirements.
BH: Brand Highway
C2M: Carnarvon to Muchea Road Train Study Controlled Intersection: Intersection at which through and turn movements are regulated. For example, by traffic lights or a roundabout.
Corridor: a broad area of land (typically hundreds of metres wide) in which a future road may be located (significantly wider than ultimate road).
DGNC: Dongara Geraldton Northampton Corridor: corridor of land between Dongara and Northampton the subject of this study and report.
Geraldton Freight Bypass / Geraldton Outer Bypass: terms referred to in a number of other reports. These are taken to mean the section of DGNC providing a bypass of Geraldton built up area specifically. High Productivity Vehicle: generic term used to describe heavy vehicle combinations with ability to move larger amounts of freight.
ONIC: Oakajee Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor, a corridor connecting Narngulu Industrial estate to Oakajee with provision for road, rail and utilities. OPIE: Oakajee Port and Industrial Estate, site identified for a future deep water port and strategic industrial area.
RAV: Restricted Access Vehicle, heavy vehicle combinations that operate under a notice or a permit that can generally only access certain parts of the road network.
SIA: Strategic Industrial Area
NWCH: North West Coastal Highway
Uncontrolled Intersection: intersection at which through and turn movements are not regulated, for example “give way” signs, “stop” signs, line marking controls and driveways
Agencies
LGA: Local Government Authority CGG: City of Greater Geraldton
SoI: Shire of Irwin SoN: Shire of Northampton
SCV: Shire of Chapman Valley
MWDC: Mid West Development Commission (WA) DPLH: Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (WA)
JTSI: Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation (WA)
DWER: Department of Water & Environmental Regulation (WA)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 14 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
3. Planning Context 3.1. Background The Mid West Region stretches from Green Head to Kalbarri on the coast and more than 800km inland past Wiluna (Figure 2), covering around 478,000 sq km or nearly one fifth of WA’s land area. It has three subregions: Batavia Coast, Murchison and North Midlands, with the Batavia Coast subregion comprising four Local Government Authority (LGA) areas (Figure 3), namely City of Greater Geraldton, Shire of Chapman Valley, Shire of Irwin and Shire of Northampton (MWDC, 2011) – these LGAs cover the study area for DGNC planning. Together these LGAs were predicted to have a combined population of nearly 47,000 in 2018 (ABS, 2019). Regional population is focussed within the main townsites of Geraldton (32,000 people), Dongara-Port Denison (3,300 people), Northampton (800) and Kalbarri (1,350).
Figure 2: Mid West Region (DPIRD, 2019) Figure 3: Batavia Sub Coast Region (DPLH, 2013)
The Mid West Region is well connected to the rest of the state, country and globe by transport networks including road, rail and air and it is a major gateway to Asia and other global markets. It has a diverse economy with a Gross Regional Product (GRP) of around $6.78 billion (DPIRD, 2018), the third highest in WA after the Pilbara and the Goldfields. While the mining industry has contracted over recent years, it continues to contribute around 50% of the GRP with iron ore (haematite and magnetite) and mineral sands forming large portions of this. The Mid West region is located at the northern edge of the wheatbelt, with the agriculture / horticulture sector contributing around 8% of GRP. Geraldton Port is the second largest grain export terminal in Australia, exporting just over 2.7 million tonnes in 2019 (MWPA, 2019). Other important economic sectors include fishing (including rock lobster and finfish), retail and tourism (DPIRD, 2018). The Region holds a significant position within the wider global markets, as shown in Figure 4. Geraldton is the Mid West regional centre, located 424km north of Perth. It provides retail, industry, transport, health and education opportunities and services for the City and its hinterland along with a number of other regional towns. The transport network through the region plays a vital role in the supply chain for domestic and international export and the road network connects the northern and inland areas to Perth and the eastern states. While major mining operators often use rail to export material via the port, a number of smaller miners and other operators rely on the road network. Much of the wheat is carried to the port by rail, although road still plays a critical role in accessing the grain storage facilities. Tourists use the coastal roads to access various attractions in the Mid West and further afield including the Abrolhos Islands, Kalbarri, wildflowers, Shark Bay, Coral Bay and Exmouth.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 15 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 4: International exports, from Mid West Blueprint (MWDC, 2015)
In addition to existing industries, the region has a number of major opportunities with strategic industrial land available at Narngulu and land allocated for future development at Oakajee. The townsites in the study area provide a range of business and commercial land in the town centres and at the business park near Geraldton airport. Plans have been completed for a future deep water port at Oakajee, and there are also a number of renewable energy schemes developed or under consideration including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and renewable hydrogen fuel.
Most population and economic growth will be catered for on land already identified in schemes and strategies, as discussed at section 3.2.3.
3.2. Literature Review
FEDERAL PLANNING, INITIATIVES & STRATEGIES A number of agencies and organisations play a role in the development and implementation of federal government’s infrastructure and transport policies, programs, strategies and reforms.
Figure 5: National Road Network (DITRDC, 2020)
National Land Freight Routes
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC) aims to, amongst other things, facilitate economic growth through transport, seek improvements in travel safety and support
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 16 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 regional development. As part of their role, DITRDC produces a map of National Key Freight Routes (land based modes). Where roads are determined to be of national importance, they can be designated under the National Land Transport Network Determination, the most recent iteration of which is 2020 and was updated to include the Brand Highway (
Figure 5). Northlink, at the southern tie-in of the Brand Highway, is also shown. Such designation highlights the link’s strategic importance and enables access to funding allocated under the National Land Transport Act 2014.
National Freight & Supply Chain Strategy
The Transport and Infrastructure Council (TIC) was established by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to support delivery of national reforms to improve the efficiency, safety and productivity of infrastructure and transport systems to drive economic growth, increase employment opportunities, support social connectivity and enhance quality of life for Australians. Supported by DITRDC and building on the 2013 National Land Freight Strategy and 2012 National Ports Strategy, the TIC produced the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy (2019) and associated National Action Plan (2019) setting out the intent for Australia’s multimodal freight supply chains and expected challenges in the next 20 years and beyond. A state specific WA Implementation Plan (2019) has been developed by DoT and DPLH with government and industry stakeholders.
The Strategy considers supply chains holistically and commits to action across four critical areas: smarter and targeted infrastructure; improved supply chain efficiency; better planning, coordination and regulation; and better freight data. It recognises the need for all elements of supply chains to operate efficiently to maximise future economic success and to strengthen connections between regions, urban centres and global markets. It highlights the value of collaboration across all tiers of government and industry to deliver a well-planned and coordinated freight system allowing safe, reliable and efficient transport of products through supply chains. The study area features key domestic and international transport connections with strategic north-south and east- west road and rail alignments meeting around Geraldton including multimodal terminals at the port, airport and industrial areas. Strategic industrial land has been designated in the area and access to/from these areas will be critical to optimise their operation and value in the future. The planning for, and ultimate delivery of, the DGNC will contribute to delivery of the Strategy’s aims in a number of ways:
Provide resilient and efficient strategic regional freight corridors connecting the port, airport and key industrial areas with important resource areas; Provide a reliable road to connect the region and local communities; Integrate freight demand considerations into transport and land use planning, including consideration of intermodal requirements; Providing input to policy, planning and operations solutions to improve freight access and movement.
In addition, the DGNC will contribute specifically to the WA Implementation Plan (2019) in a number of ways:
Need to plan for major highways; Support Northern Australia Roads & Beef program; Potential contribution to National Hydrogen Strategy through improvement of transport links at strategic employment land around Geraldton, potentially suitable for this type of development; Provide input to Port Master Plans and consider connectivity to Ports; and Inform business cases for funding of infrastructure and upgrades to increase heavy vehicle road access.
Infrastructure Australia Plan
Infrastructure Australia (IA) is an independent organisation established in 2008 to advise governments, industry and the community on required investments and reforms to deliver better infrastructure for Australia. IA prepares and regularly reviews/updates the Infrastructure Priority List, identifying projects that will deliver best outcomes for Australia. The Infrastructure Australia Plan (IA, 2016) sets out recommendations for reforms and investments to enable delivery of infrastructure to help strengthen Australia’s role in the global economy, enhance the liveability and productivity of our cities and regions and to support a transition to a more sustainable and resilient economy. It highlights the need for long term infrastructure plans to support regional industries and recognises the importance of efficient regional supply chains (including road, rail and ports) to optimise our role within global markets. Geraldton and the wider Mid West play an important role in the local and regional supply chains. The DGNC will form part of an integral link contributing to efficient transport of goods, resources and freight by providing safe and
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 17 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 reliable infrastructure between resource rich areas and key national/global markets via ports, airports and strategic road and rail connections to Perth. It will also contribute to Geraldton’s role as a liveable regional city, supporting the regional area and facilitating access to strategic industrial land in and around Geraldton (Narngulu and future Oakajee).
The C2M study, of which DGNC is a key element, is the subject of a business case being prepared for inclusion in the Infrastructure Priority List. Regions 2030 – Unlocking Opportunity The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development report Regions 2030 – Unlocking Opportunity (DIRD, 2017) recognises the role regions play in providing natural resources, energy and produce for the nation and the importance of supporting regional growth. It defines a vision for regional Australia to be serviced by high-quality and safe land transport infrastructure that connects communities with markets and new opportunities, and enables safe journeys from home, to work and across the country. The DGNC will contribute to achieving this vision by planning for a safe and efficient route that will link regional areas and contribute to the region’s competitiveness. Transport and Australia’s Development to 2040 and Beyond
The Transport and Australia’s Development to 2040 and Beyond report (DIRD, 2016) recognises the need for Australia’s freight industry to reduce greenhouse gases with a commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28% over 2013/14 to 2029/30, while acknowledging an expected increase in freight task demand of 35% over the same period. By allowing for appropriate grades and overtaking opportunities for the future road, DGNC planning will enable delivery of a more efficient road route, contributing to reduced emissions for regional trips. It will also minimise emissions by reducing inefficiencies and queuing in the townsites. The report also notes the risks to and impacts on local and global markets in the form of increasing costs and delays where inefficiencies exist in supply chains between regional areas and ports/exports. It highlights that the nation’s position in global markets is reliant on efficient transport from farm / mine gates through to ports / airports and global markets and states that “efficient transport infrastructure is crucial to unlocking the productivity gains that will underpin Australia’s future prosperity”. An efficient road system including appropriate last kilometre access is integral to this and DGNC will protect appropriate corridors and connections. It will also consider the incorporation of rail and intermodal considerations. ATAP Guidelines
TIC has also published the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines, which provide a comprehensive framework outlining best practice for transport planning and assessment and are closely aligned with the Infrastructure Australia Assessment Framework. DGNC Alignment Selection has been undertaken in line with the principles and approach set out in the ATAP guidelines: identifying clear problems that need addressing; establishing objectives that align with the agreed strategies; extensive stakeholder engagement; and basing recommendations on a range of qualitative, quantitative, objective and subjective information.
STATE & REGIONAL PLANNING, INITIATIVES & STRATEGIES Connecting People & Places
The Transport Portfolio’s strategic publication “Connecting People and Places” identifies priorities for the state government including “a strong economy” and “regional prosperity”. The DGNC study will help deliver better outcomes in these areas by improving supply chains and efficiency for the region and connecting it to wider markets as discussed above.
As set out in the strategic vision, the Transport Portfolio seeks to influence and deliver the Government’s agenda by providing integrated transport solutions and services. Our strategic direction sets out six objectives to help achieve this: 1) keep the customer at the centre of decision making; 2) deliver integrated, safe and efficient transport solutions; 3) innovative solutions; 4) plan holistically for a growing state; 5) optimise investment; and 6) embrace collaboration. The approach taken in the DGNC study reflects all of these objectives with extensive engagement, strategic understanding of the situation and collaborative and innovative solutions considered to deliver best value for public money. Main Roads has sought, and will continue to seek, the views from a range of stakeholders as described at section 8 of this report and make recommendations from an informed position, objectively considering all viewpoints. Keeping WA Moving
Main Roads’ strategic direction “Keeping WA Moving” and our aspiration to “provide world class outcomes for the
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 18 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 customer through a safe, reliable and sustainable road-based transport system” frame all of the work we do. Main Roads considers the integration of other transport modes and opportunities to deliver best value for money solutions as part of the planning process. This is achieved in DGNC work through continued engagement and responding to stakeholders’ input. Main Roads’ areas of focus “customers”, “safety”, “movement” and “sustainability” frame the objectives defined for this study as discussed above and are integral to the approach taken throughout the study. WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan The WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan (DoT, 2011) identifies the strategic long term planning, policy and project priorities required to facilitate growth and ensure optimal network performance for the WA regional freight network to 2031. It sets a vision for the network to be an integrated regional freight transport network - connecting Western Australia, delivering freight to markets, balancing economic and social outcomes. It goes on to define objectives around efficiency, capacity, reliability, safety and sustainability as:
promoting efficient freight movement to facilitate economic development and productivity gains; providing sufficient network capacity to support growth ; improving the reliability of the network servicing industries and communities; providing a safe network that maximises safety for all network users; and minimising adverse environment and social amenity impacts of freight operations on communities and the environment.
The objectives of this study align with the above. The plan acknowledges the increasingly important role of NWCH in strategic movements of freight along the coast and inland to Great Northern Highway. It highlights the importance of reconfiguring roads around regional centres to allow port related traffic to flow without interfering with local traffic and specifically mentions the Oakajee port project (see Figure 6). For the Mid West – Gascoyne region, it identifies priority projects including: construction of outer bypass between Oakajee and Geraldton Mount Magnet Road (ONIC); construction of southern section of Geraldton north-south highway, duplication of NWCH; construction of Northampton Bypass; realignment of Brand Highway at Bookara and S-bends; and replacement of bridges at Pell Bridge, Greenough River and Irwin River. DGNC planning incorporates many of these projects and studies (see section 3.4). The report goes on to set out strategic directions and priorities that reflect the state government’s intention to manage future freight growth and address cumulative impacts on the network, with those relevant to DGNC summarised in Table 1, below.
Direction Priorities Relevance / Application to DGNC
Plan regional freight corridors Monitor and evaluate the role of the DGNC will improve efficiency and for future development NWCH in freight task capacity of NWCH.
Progress ONIC planning work to connect DGNC acknowledges and reflects Oakajee Port and Strategic Industrial established ONIC planning. May enable Estate via road and rail delivery of road element.
Optimise the efficient use of the In conjunction with C2M, DGNC work will freight network – roads assist in improving HV access and overall efficiency.
Improve safety and social Implementing MR strategy Towards Zero DGNC planning has safety amenity outcomes – road & rail improvements as key focus
Bypasses a number of townsites to Progress planning for HV realignments improve safety and amenity. Also seeks and bypasses around regional centres to consolidate accesses. Safety and Social Amenity initiative for Allow for grade separated rail crossings rail along DGNC.
Invest in the road network with Construct Geraldton Outer Bypass to DGNC planning incorporates and/or targeted expansions and major connect Oakajee to Geraldton Mount supersedes these projects. upgrades Magnet Road Upgrade Brand Highway – S Bends, Bookara, Pell Bridge, Greenough & Irwin River crossings.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 19 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Improve landside access to Good road access to port will be regional authority ports maintained.
Alleviate the impact of heavy Northampton Bypass DGNC focuses on strategic bypass, with freight movements on regional Northampton deliverable independently. centres Other town bypasses are incorporated.
Invest towards common user Undertake priority road projects to DGNC recognises and facilitates port infrastructure necessary to support and integrate the project and Oakajee planning. develop the Mid West reduce impact of project related traffic on resources industry – Oakajee residential communities. Mid West Development Project
Table 1: Directions set out in WA Regional Freight Transport Network Plan
Figure 6: From Map 5 in WA Regional Freight Strategy
Planning & Infrastructure Framework The Mid West Regional Planning and Infrastructure Framework (MWRPIF) (WAPC, 2015A) provides the context for regional land use planning and highlights infrastructure projects considered significant for the region. It promotes a coordinated approach to infrastructure delivery to enable the region to capitalise on its natural resources and diverse economy. It identifies a number of transport and infrastructure challenges including pavement age, infrastructure capacity and the need to improve safety and efficiency of road network by minimising the conflict between freight and other traffic. It references the need for construction of the “Geraldton Outer Freight bypass”, comprising the connection from Oakajee to Geraldton Mount Magnet Road and the Geraldton North South Highway south of Geraldton Mount Magnet Road. It also highlights the need for upgrades to Brand Highway at Bookara, the S-bends and Dongara as well as North West Coastal Highway around Oakajee and Northampton. DGNC planning reviews and incorporates all of these projects and will give clarity for future investment decisions. Mid West Investment Plan
The Mid West Investment Plan (MWDC, 2011B) sets out a vision to make the Mid West a better place to live, work, study and invest. In conjunction with the MWRPIF, MWDC aims to secure and guide public and private investment in the region. It prioritises projects as high (providing significant economic and/or social benefit), medium (valuable social / economic benefits) or low (some benefits). Specifically, it identifies an outer bypass of Geraldton (effectively DGNC) and bypasses of all townsites as Flagship (high priority) projects.
MWDC also produces the Blueprint (2015), which reiterates the strategic importance of the projects identified in the WA Regional Freight Transport plan. State Planning Strategy & Policies
The State Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2014) sets a vision of sustained growth and prosperity for WA to 2050, aimed at building the capacity and capability of WA to anticipate, adapt to and manage growth. Principles underpinning the Strategy include the facilitation of trade, investment, innovation, employment and community betterment; and the need for infrastructure to support development. The Strategy seeks to harness existing and emerging competitive and collaborative advantages to stimulate job creation and wealth and also to deliver key infrastructure.
DGNC planning will support existing economic activity by enabling more efficient transport of goods and people. It assists in making the region and the state more attractive and has the potential to facilitate further development
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 20 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 opportunities e.g. Oakajee port and / or industrial estate. It also aligns with existing state planning in the area. Goals set out in the State Planning Strategy include “competitiveness”, “strong and resilient regions”, “sustainable communities” and “infrastructure planning and coordination”. It has an objective of managing the movement of people, goods and services through an integrated network connected locally, regionally, nationally and globally. All of these rely on safe and efficient transport networks, well connected intermodal opportunities and well integrated land use and transport planning and, as a result, DGNC planning directly aligns with these goals. State Planning Policy 1: State Planning Framework (SPP 1) (WAPC, 2017A) reiterates and expands upon the key principles of the State Planning Strategy in planning for sustainable land use and development. It highlights six key principles that enable and support sustainable land use and development including “facilitate trade, investment, innovation, employment and community betterment”, “ensure infrastructure supports development” and “build the competitive and collaborative advantage of the regions”. As described above, DGNC planning aligns with this approach. State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning (WAPC, 2016) seeks to protect rural land assets and ensure compatibility between land uses. DGNC planning involves extensive research and stakeholder engagement to seek to address this aim.
Progress Mid West – Growing Greater Geraldton The Geraldton Jobs and Growth Plan: 2020-2023: Growing the Capital of the Midwest (Progress Midwest, year unknown) has been produced by the City of Greater Geraldton with input from MWDC and MWPA. It seeks to make Geraldton a diverse and globally connected regional capital. It identifies critical road projects including the C2M Heavy Freight Route, incorporating DGN, Northampton bypass and ONIC as a key element in delivering quality infrastructure for the region to enable industrial growth, enhanced performance and to attract investment. It also mentions an inland port at Narngulu.
LOCAL PLANNING & STRATEGIES Local & Sub-Regional Strategies
The Greater Geraldton Structure Plan (WAPC, 2011) (GGSP), which updates the Geraldton Region Structure Plan (WAPC, 1999) was originally intended as an interim document until local governments prepared new local planning strategies and district structure plans but references in some of the local strategies highlight that it still presents an honest reflection of the strategic planning for the area and is therefore considered to be relevant in the current planning framework. Figure 7 shows the strategic zoning plan from the document. The City of Greater Geraldton Local Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2015B) guides land use and development to achieve the City’s strategic community vision, which includes the ability to cater for a population of up to 100,000. It advocates for an efficient land use strategy focussing development on intensification at a number of activity centres within the existing urban area as shown in the GGSP, rather than permitting “sprawl”. Both Structure Plan and Planning Strategy show similar intentions relevant to DGNC planning (see Figure 7 and Figure 8), including the ONIC (although it is shown connecting to Geraldton-Walkaway Road at the south). They show a Development Investigation Area (DIA) around Moresby but to the west of the DGNC alignment. A separate DIA is shown near the Broadcast Australia site, bisected by the ONIC alignment. For DGNC planning, these are noted as constraints and will continue to be discussed with stakeholders throughout the planning and definition stages. The Strategy extends south beyond the Structure Plan boundary to show the Walkaway townsite and highlights the flood area around Walkaway (Figure 9). No development is shown to the east of the townsites and proposed DGNC corridors, which should minimise demands for east-west movements across and local connectivity to the state network. The Strategy also refers to an inland port at Narngulu. The Shire of Chapman Valley Local Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2008) highlights challenges handled by the Shire around agricultural diversification, lifestyle opportunities, tourism and natural resource management. The strategy establishes precincts and defines a vision, objectives and strategies for each of these precincts (Figure 10). Relevant to this study, the Strategy defines a precinct around Oakajee Industrial Investigation Area, for which the vision is to achieve “large scale regional and significant industry … protected by a buffer of compatible uses”. It also seeks to protect environmental and landscape values in and around the Moresby Range area. The Shire of Irwin Local Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2017B) establishes a vision for a motivated, progressive and friendly community, offering a brilliant blend of opportunity natural beauty and heritage with an enviable lifestyle”, which is underpinned by objectives relating to economy, environment, society and civic leadership. The Strategy seeks, amongst other things, to protect land and development from flood risk around the Irwin River and to protect Public Drinking Water Source Areas, both of which are discussed in the constraints section below. It establishes policy areas with varying focuses (Figure 11). The document highlights that development at Dongara industrial area, to the east of the current Brand Highway, would result in higher east-west movements across the major road
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 21 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 and acknowledges Main Roads’ plans for the bypass as part of the broader DGNC work and the upgrades around Midlands Road / Brand highway intersection (which will also be addressed by DGNC work). The Dongara-Port Denison Structure Plan (Shire of Irwin, 2014) builds on the Strategy, making provision for relatively high growth into the future which would see the combined townsite reach a population of 22,000 through intensification at existing development areas as well as a town expansion to the south.
Figure 7: Greater Geraldton Structure Plan (WAPC, 2011)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 22 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 8: Extract from City of Greater Geraldton Local Planning Strategy
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 23 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 9: Walkway townsite, extract from CGG Strategy
Figure 10: extract from Shire of Chapman Valley Strategy
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 24 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 11: Extract from Shire of Irwin Local Planning Strategy
Figure 12: Northampton Strategy Figure 13: Northampton Strategy
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 25 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
The Shire of Northampton Local Planning Strategy (WAPC, 2009) seeks to, amongst other things, preserve the viability of agricultural industries; provide for subdivision, development and tourism development in appropriate areas; and protect landscape, environmental, conservation and heritage values. It forecasts relatively conservative population growth focussed in the townsites of Northampton and Kalbarri and to a lesser extent Horrocks and Port Gregory. There is an indication of potential support for further rural smallholding subdivision around some of the smaller townsites e.g. Isseka. Engagement with the Shire will continue to ensure that any proposals do not conflict with DGNC or other planning. The heavy haulage route alignment is shown as proposed on the plan (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The Guilderton to Kalbarri Sub Regional Strategy (WAPC, 2019) sets strategic directions to be implemented through decision making for the sub region. It highlights the need to designate and retain IOD as a coastal tourist route, restricting its use for freight tasks (with the inference being to ensure Brand Highway can accommodate the freight movements). It also recognises the importance of ONIC as an important infrastructure corridor linking Geraldton and Oakajee site. Zoning
The PlanWA Mapping System (extract shown at Figure 14 & Figure 15) shows the zoning and reserves designated in the Local Planning Schemes of all the Local Government Authorities. Land requirements for the DGNC have not yet been defined and are not shown in the schemes. At the culmination of the planning process, ways of seeking to protect the land through the planning system will be investigated. Specific conflicts between alignment options and current scheme provisions are discussed further at section 6 of this report.
Figure 14: Central & Northern sections land use Figure 15: Southern section land use (WAPC, cited May 2020)
Local Policies & Master Plans The Shire of Chapman Valley has produced Local Planning Policy 4.1 for Development Adjacent to the Proposed Oakajee to Tallering Peak and Oakajee to Narngulu Rail Corridors (Shire Chapman Valley, 2020), which limits building within 250m of the centre line of the railway. This has an impact on the ability to develop land through the ONIC. The Narngulu Industrial Area Strategic Land Use Directions report (WAPC, 2010) was released in response to pressure to expand the Narngulu industrial area following the mining boom and rapid growth in the early 2000s.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 26 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 16: Extract from Narngulu Industrial Area Strategic Land Use Direction (WAPC, 2010)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 27 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
The document is intended to provide broad land use planning direction to inform development decisions. It shows that the boundary generally lies to the west of the DGNC corridor (Figure 16Error! Reference source not found.). While no impacts on DGNC are expected as a result of the provisions of the report, it is noted that access into and out of the broader industrial area will be a key consideration for DGNC. The CGG has set out plans for the airport in the Geraldton Airport Master Plan (CGG, 2016). The airport runway extension contemplated in this document was completed in 2019 and plans do not show limitations on DGNC land requirements. Potential restrictions on structure height, lighting or other elements and implications for design need to be understood. The Geraldton Port is a critical element in the supply chain for the region and the state. Access to and from the Port must be reliable, safe and efficient to optimise operations. Mid West Ports Authority (MWPA) produced the Geraldton Port Master Plan (MWPA, draft 2019) that sets out infrastructure required to accommodate potential trade growth over the next 30+ years. It cites lack of RAV10 access to the north and south and the need for heavy vehicles to pass through Geraldton urban area as limitations for the overall efficiency of the Port as well as the associated amenity and safety concerns. It mentions the creation of an “inland port” at Narngulu that may be of interest to lower volume/higher value commodities, but does not elaborate on specific operators or connection requirements. The Master Plan also refers to the “Geraldton Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor”, which runs along/near the Geraldton Southern Transport Corridor. This is something being managed by Department of Jobs Tourism Science and Innovation (JTSI) and any associated constraints or opportunities will be discussed during later planning stages. Oakajee Port & Strategic Industrial Area
Oakajee was selected by the State Government as the site for a future deep water port and Strategic Industrial Area (SIA) to service the Mid West region. JTSI is the lead agency for the development of the overall project, with the Port due to be administered by MWPA and the SIA by DevelopmentWA.
Much of the land required for the Port and SIA has been acquired by state government already, but construction funding has not been secured. The Oakajee Industrial Estate Structure Plan (Department State Development (now JTSI), 2012) has been developed to guide future land use and development processes. Discussions will continue between all stakeholders to manage interactions between transport and land use planning. JTSI and MWDC continue to investigate opportunities for suitable developers and operators in the area.
3.3. Existing Road Network Roads in the broader study area are shown in Figure 1. The major regional state roads include Brand Highway (BH), North West Coastal Highway (NWCH), Midlands Road, Indian Ocean Drive (IOD), Geraldton Southern Transport Corridor / Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Geraldton Walkaway Road and Moonyoonooka Yuna Road. NWCH and BH form the primary coastal regional freight route between Perth and the northwest of Western Australia. The corridor links the major coastal population centres of Perth, Geraldton, Carnarvon and beyond.
BH between Dongara and Geraldton is currently a 2-lane rural highway passing through predominantly agricultural land. It has been constructed on flat terrain over most of its length with reasonable horizontal and vertical geometry. The road passes over the Greenough River floodplain and is subject to flooding during/after significant rain events. The road provides direct access to numerous adjacent properties on both sides of the highway. As an example, a 6.1km stretch of BH through Greenough (342.1 SLK – 348.2 SLK) has a total of 22 driveways, 2 roadside parking/pull over bays and 7 intersections, resulting in an average distance between connections of less than 200m. The reservation width varies nominally between 20m and 40m, with local widening in places.
NWCH between Geraldton and Northampton is currently a 2-lane rural highway constructed on rolling terrain with sections of sub-standard horizontal and vertical geometry. The road also provides direct property access, but to a lesser extent than BH. In some locations, concentration of connections does present a problem – for example a 2.8 km stretch of road between Coronation Beach Road and Sheehan Lane has a total of 21 driveways and 5 intersections (an average of a connection roughly every 110m). The reservation width varies, nominally 40m with extensive widening. IOD is currently a tourist route traditionally linking the coastal towns but since the completion of the Lancelin - Cervantes section in 2010 has become an alternative route for commuting between Perth and Geraldton. It joins the Brand Highway south of the study area. Traffic is expected to increase on this route, although its use as a freight route is restricted.
Within the Geraldton urban area BH and NWCH pass through residential, commercial and industrial development and carry a mix of local and regional traffic. There are many accesses to properties directly from the highways and several accesses and driveways with unrestricted movements allowing right turns across two lanes of oncoming
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 28 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 traffic. Vehicles turning at uncontrolled intersections can impact through-traffic movements, resulting in an inefficient road network which can appear congested, particularly at peak times. Strong east-west flows may significantly impede the operation of the north-south flow in busy areas. In addition to regional freight efficiency, this conflict between local and regional traffic, particularly light and heavy vehicles, can create safety and amenity issues for users and surrounding areas. With increasing traffic volumes, the roads are becoming even less suitable for heavy freight vehicles. Through Geraldton there is currently only 7.4 m horizontal clearance available, which limits access for Oversize / Overmass (OSOM) vehicles. Overhead cables, bridges and other structures create clearance restrictions in several locations along the route and it will not be possible to achieve a 10 m x 10 m corridor on the existing alignment without major work. The BH and NWCH run through the townsites of Dongara and Northampton respectively, with a number of uncontrolled full movement intersections and direct property accesses on these stretches. Several heritage properties are located close to the road in both townsites and parallel parking is available in the road reserve through Northampton, limiting accessibility for larger vehicles and resulting in safety and amenity issues (see Figure 29).
While not in the study area, the Great Northern Highway currently provides the key north-south route for freight between Perth and the north of the state. However, for destinations broadly west and south of Karratha, the coastal roads can present a shorter option. Given the lack of north-south alternative routes, major environmental incidents such as bushfire or flood can cause significant disruption to the network.
3.4. Planned Road Network This section lists projects and studies undertaken in addition to this planning study. They are listed from south to north.
Pell Bridge Realignment Currently, traffic needs to complete a turning manoeuvre to stay on the Brand Highway (left turn northbound, right turn southbound) through a priority controlled intersection. Planning has been completed to update this intersection to allow priority for Brand Highway in both north and south directions. Land has been reserved in the Local Planning Scheme (Figure 17) however construction funding has not been secured. The DGNC study leverages off this work and may result in updated land requirements.
Figure 17: Extract from Plan WA mapping showing reserve for Pell Bridge realignment
Indian Ocean Drive Coastal Extension The Shire of Irwin has indicated interest in further investigations for a coastal extension of IOD, which would provide a continuing coastal tourist route for traffic on IOD to travel into the townsite of Port Denison and Dongara before joining the Brand Highway. Main Roads has undertaken some very high level consideration of constraints and opportunities to inform discussions with stakeholders. It is not yet clear whether the proposed alignment would deliver state or federally significant benefits. Main Roads will continue to engage with the Shire to understand and address concerns where practicable.
Dongara Bypass The existing Brand Highway presents a constraint limiting the development of industrial land to the north of the existing Brand Highway within the townsite. Upgrade of the existing road would be difficult / unsuitable due to limitations in land availability, existing access levels and demand for local movements across the highway that
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 29 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 development would generate. A planning study was completed in 1993 and the land required for the proposed realigned corridor has been reserved in the Local Planning Scheme (Figure 18). The realignment runs parallel to and south of the Geraldton Millendon Junction railway reserve, forming the northern boundary of the townsite. The 5.3km bypass has been planned to 2 lane rural highway standard and includes a bridge over the rail reserve at its eastern end.
Figure 18: Extract from PlanWA showing Dongara Bypass realignment reserve
Greenough Realignment – Bookara Bends, S-bends Assessments have been undertaken on realignment options through this area (Figure 19). However, before a final recommendation was made, it became clear that the planning would be superseded by the DGNC planning. A new bridge was constructed over the Greenough River to address geometric, flooding and safety considerations, but the rest of the planning has been delayed pending the outcome of the DGNC work, which will help clarify priorities of future work.
Figure 19: Options considered for Brand Highway realignment (BGE, Main Roads document D11#118621)
Geraldton North South Highway The proposed Geraldton North South Highway (GNSH) is identified in the Greater Geraldton Structure Plan to replace the existing coastal route of BH and NWCH as the primary route through the Geraldton City area. Some of
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 30 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 the land, the northern section in particular, is reserved in the CGG Scheme (Figure 20). The GNSH would provide an “inner bypass” around some of the busiest sections of the BH / NWCH, extending from BH north of Jandanol Road to NWCH at Webberton Road. GNSH has been planned as a high standard 4-lane divided arterial road with grade separations at the GSTC and future Columbus Boulevard intersections. The section of the GNSH south of Geraldton Mount Magnet Road would pass through and provide access to the Narngulu industrial area. The section north of Geraldton Mount Magnet Road would pass through residential, commercial and industrial land.
Figure 20: GNSH reserve, extract from CGG Local Planning Scheme (insert, showing full GNSH alignment)
The northern section of GNSH in particular is seen as a priority for CGG. Key benefits include:
local traffic improvements; alleviate pressure on NWCH (south of Webberton Road), extending lifespan of existing infrastructure; improved property / land access; and facilitation of development opportunities.
The southern section of GNSH (south of Geraldton Mount Magnet Road) would enable vehicles to avoid the busy section of BH through Wandina, Tarcoola and the BH/NWCH/John Willcock Link interchange. Enabling this alternative route, particularly for heavy vehicles, would have significant benefits for efficiency and safety on this section, as well as extending the operational life of the existing asset. The southern section has generally not been protected in the Planning Scheme, however is recognised in a number of local structure plans.
Earlier work indicated that an interim bypass of Geraldton could be provided using the southern section of GNSH (south of Geraldton Mount Magnet Road), then Geraldton Mount Magnet Rd to Moonyoonooka and the road in ONIC to Oakajee. With the demand for RAV10 vehicles and improved safety and efficiency standards for a Geraldton bypass, this alignment is no longer seen to meet the desirable standards for the freight task and would not deliver the same benefits for freight efficiency and regional traffic movements as DGNC. Furthermore, investment in this southern section in the shorter term could delay additional funding for delivery of the long term “outer” bypass. While the proposed GNSH would alleviate some of the pressure on NWCH in the short term, there are a number of reasons why the GNSH would not meet the strategic aims for a Geraldton Bypass, including:
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 31 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
GNSH would join NWCH at an at-grade intersection in the urban area and would not provide a full bypass of the Geraldton townsite; planning for GNSH was completed prior to consideration of RAV10 road access between Carnarvon and Muchea; GNSH would not cater for the largest heavy vehicles and does not present a significant improvement for freight efficiency for Geraldton and ports; and GNSH passes through a built up industrial/commercial area with no direct lot access but a relatively high level of connectivity. Strong north/south and east/west traffic movements are anticipated, undermining the effectiveness of GNSH as a major freight route.
The DGNC is considered to achieve the objectives around safety and efficiency of regional and freight movements, unlike GNSH. Notwithstanding, we recognise the role that GNSH would play as an important north south connector within the urbanised area of Geraldton. The funding source and mechanism for delivery of the GNSH, both north and south sections, will need to be considered. Further engagement with stakeholders, including CGG, will take place in addition to discussions around DGNC.
North West Coastal Highway upgrades through Geraldton Planning has been completed to widen NWCH to 4-lane divided standard from the end of the current dual carriageway section north of the Geraldton Mount Magnet Road intersection to Green Street. The NWCH road reserve width north from Green Street to the Oakajee Port site also generally provides for a 4 lane divided standard. Traffic modelling has indicated that this link will remain busy even with an inner and/or outer bypass. As a result, these upgrades, with improvements to intersections and access management through Geraldton, will be required in addition to any bypass planning and therefore remain a priority for Main Roads. They will improve safety and efficiency for the state and local network, but would not meet the objectives around strategic long term planning and freight efficiency as the DGNC. Notwithstanding, Main Roads is continuing to refine the original designs both as a total project and as individual packages of works that could be funded and delivered in a staged manner. The original planning to install traffic signals at key intersections is also being reviewed to reconsider roundabouts as an option.
Oakajee Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor (ONIC) The Oakajee Mid West Development Project (OMWDP), planning for which is led by JTSI (formerly Department for State Development), proposed to establish a deep water port with supporting rail infrastructure and an industrial estate to facilitate development of the resource sector in the Mid West.
Oakajee was first confirmed as the location for a new deep water port in 1992. Since then, significant investment has been made into the planning for the area, including structure planning and environmental approvals for the port area.
In 2009, an agreement was executed formally appointing Oakajee Port & Rail Pty Ltd (OPR) to design, construct and operate a deep water port and a railway connecting mine sites to the port. The OPR railway was proposed to run east from Oakajee through the Wokatherra Gap before heading north east to Weld Range and Jack Hills (Figure 21).
Figure 21: OPR alignment
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 32 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
The 34km Oakajee Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor (ONIC) forms a component of the OMWDP and was planned to facilitate regionally significant road, rail and utilities between Narngulu and the Oakajee port/industrial area. An Alignment Definition Report was completed by the then Department of Planning (now DPLH) in 2014 (Figure 22), showing that the OPR and ONIC rail would use the same corridor through Wokatherra Gap and then diverge. The ONIC Alignment Definition report (DOP, 2014) shows shared cross sections for the whole corridor (including road, both rails and utilities) that would require construction at the same time. This was not viewed as a limitation as it was expected to be delivered as part of the OMWDP, driven by mining development. Changes in the mining economy over recent years have delayed the delivery of OMWDP and Main Roads now believes there is value in investigating a road bypass solution that is unhindered by the extent of earthworks that would otherwise be required to achieve rail grades, while still allowing sufficient space for future construction of a rail as planned by JTSI, when the mining economy warrants that scale of investment. This has been discussed in principle with JTSI at officer level and there is general support for the revised approach (see also section 3.5.3 for discussion around current planning assumptions).
Figure 22: ONIC Alignment Definition – preferred corridor (DoP, 2014)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 33 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Planning for ONIC, still led by JTSI, is extensive and complex. It is noted that delays in the likely delivery of OMWDP mean a road in ONIC would not be needed in the short- to medium-term specifically to support a port or SIA. However, a bypass, predominantly for freight, is still required for the Geraldton urban area. ONIC has been included in a number of endorsed state government and therefore presents the most suitable location for such a road. For the purposes of the DGNC work, it is important to note that the current planning seeks to use the previously identified ONIC road alignment wherever possible. Main Roads will continue collaborating with JTSI and all other stakeholders throughout the planning process.
Northampton Bypass Planning and project development work has been completed for the Northampton Heavy Vehicle bypass, which diverges from the existing NWCH alignment north of the tie in for all of the DGNC corridor options, enabling it to be delivered independently from the remainder of DGNC.
Summary Planned Road Network Table 2 provides a brief summary of previous planning studies that have occurred and their status within the context of the current DGNC planning. The next section provides a review of DGNC specific planning.
Study Planning Status Status in DGNC context Pell Bridge Realignment Planning completed, land reserved in Superseded by DGNC scheme Reservation to be resolved Dongara Bypass Planning completed, land reserved in Incorporated into DGNC options, may scheme be required as separate future project Bookara Bends Planning commenced but not finalised Superseded by DGNC Future upgrades may still be required, further work required S-bends Planning commenced but not finalised Superseded by DGNC Future upgrades may still be required, further work required GNSH Planning completed, partly reserved Not of state/federal strategic imporance CGG priority and therefore not a Main Roads priority NWCH Upgrades in Geraldton Complete, some land reserved High priority for shorter term delivery ONIC Planning completed, land not Incorporated into DGNC reserved in scheme Northampton Bypass Planning & project development Not impacted completed, no land reserved Table 2: Summary of planned road network
3.5. Previous DGNC Planning
Planning Context (pre-2012) Expected and emerging capacity and efficiency issues, including those identified in section 2.2, for the route between Dongara, Geraldton and Northampton have been discussed in various upgrade strategies. Some important studies are summarised below. The Roads 2020 Regional Road Development Strategy (MRWA, 1997) identified the need to duplicate Brand Highway to cater for predicted traffic increases. It also identified the need to remove the S-Bend, as well as to upgrade Greenough River Bridge and the Rudds Gully section due to inadequate geometry and flooding. It proposed realigning Brand Highway to the east to a new alignment beside the railway reserve from Dongara to Geraldton. It noted limitations around duplication of the existing Brand Highway due to impacts on adjacent farms causing reductions to broadacre farming land sizes and removal of accesses. The Southern Transport and Services Access Corridor Master Plan Report, North-South Highway Realignment (Connell Wagner, 1999) investigated the realignment of Brand Highway from Geraldton to Jandanol Road. The report identified four realignment options, with Option 2 being preferred. Option 2 commences 400m south of the Brand Highway / Jandanol Road intersection, proceeds north adjacent to and east of Brand Highway to the City of Geraldton Quarry, then continues east through the quarry and north to Rudds Gully Road. Option 2 requires a cut of up to 16m depth through a ridge formation, passes through a steep ridge between Jandanol Road and Rudds Gully Road and requires 10m of fill to cross the Rudds Gully flood plain. Public consultation undertaken as part of this study raised concerns about the environmental impacts on Rudds Gully and its wetlands, the amount of fill required through Rudds Gully and the visual impact on Rudds Gully. The Greenough River Flood Study, Indian Ocean to Walkaway report (KBR, 2006) investigated the impact of flooding along the route in more detail and outlined that the area has low rainfall so flooding was rare. However, HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 34 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 when the area does receive significant rain, the flooding is usually extensive and road closures and delays are typically experienced. The report noted that the Greenough River Bridge was inadequate for the volume and speed of traffic seen. This bridge has since been replaced. Alignment options to reduce flooding were investigated in the Brand Highway Realignment Study (BG&E, 2011), which noted that the 1 in 50 year flood will cause Brand Highway to be closed for four days and recommended realigning Brand Highway. Three options were proposed for the realignment of Brand Highway between Bookara Road East and Hamersley Road, with Option 1 being preferred. Option 1, which commences south of Bookara Road East intersection, removes the S-bend, aligns with new bridge over Greenough River upstream of the existing bridge and ties back into Brand Highway north of Hamersley Road intersection (Figure 19). The report highlighted a number of environmental, heritage, and infrastructure constraints along the corridor. The Waterways Report Greenough River Flats Flood Study (BG&E, 2010) outlines that flooding occurs at 20 years ARI, and that road closures of greater than 5 days would be typically witnessed along some sections of Brand Highway during 50 and 100 year ARI rainfall events. The Perth Pilbara Coastal Road Route Strategy (AECOM, 2011) echoed the requirements for improvement to Brand Highway, outlining that a 1 in 100 year flood could close the road for an extended period of time (maybe several months). Since completion of the AECOM, a replacement bridge has been constructed over the Greenough River improving safety and serviceability at that location (completed in September 2014).
Planning 2012 – 2016 As outlined in the previous section, a number of studies and proposals have been identified in and around Geraldton to address existing and emerging constraints and to improve the safety, efficiency and operation of the network, including an “interim” bypass (section 3.4.5). ONIC would provide an outer bypass for the central and northern areas of Geraldton but would still rely on a connection south to Brand Highway to provide a fully functional bypass of the Geraldton area. With increasing vehicle numbers, population and pressure for larger vehicles, along with the recognition that investment of the scale required for the “interim” bypass would be significant, it was agreed to investigate alignments for the long term requirements of the state network around Geraldton. Given the anticipated traffic and existing geometry on the coastal network between Dongara and Northampton, it was logical to extend the study area to incorporate these areas.
Between 2012 and 2016, Main Roads undertook a high level Alignment Selection planning process, the outputs of which are summarised below. At the time, ONIC was expected to be delivered separately. As a result, the study was split into sections north and south of Geraldton, utilising ONIC through the central section. The aim was to identify a preferred corridor for further analysis. Dongara to Geraldton (southern section)
Nine corridor options were developed, including full duplication of the Brand Highway along the existing alignment, a largely greenfield inland option and a number of options using a combination of elements of both. The main advantage of dualling the existing highway was that works could be staged, with the ability to improve and dual sections based on traffic conditions and in line with funding becoming available. However, that option would not separate local and regional traffic and the numerous existing local road intersections and direct property accesses would impact serviceability. While a new inland route would achieve better network performance, it cannot be staged. On balance, the inland options was considered to be more cost effective.
Traffic modelling suggested that a 2 lane inland route would provide sufficient capacity, as the existing Brand Highway would remain an important 2-lane road carrying predominantly local traffic generated between Dongara and Geraldton, with the new inland route carrying predominantly regional traffic. Where Brand Highway was proposed to be upgraded, a 4 lane median separated road was proposed. A multi criteria analysis indicated that the inland option (2-lane) and combined Brand/inland options (4-lane and 2- lane) scored more highly, as well as being the lowest cost options when compared to other options. These three options were shortlisted for public consultation.
Following review of the desktop assessments, multi-criteria assessment and public and stakeholder consultation undertaken in 2015, the inland Option 2 (previously numbered as Option 1 when presented to the community in the information sheet) was recommended to be taken through to Alignment Definition. This option was broadly supported by the desktop planning assessments, the community and the majority of key stakeholders at the time, however during later engagement activities, there was some change in opinion (see section 8.1.1).
All issues identified during the desktop assessments and consultations were considered manageable.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 35 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 23 shows all the options considered. Options 1d, 1g and Option 2 were shortlisted and subsequently relabelled as 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
Figure 23: Southern Options from 2016 AS report
Geraldton to Northampton (northern section)
Five road corridor alignment options were developed, including upgrading NWCH between the ONIC and the Northampton Bypass, a new inland route from ONIC tying in with existing NWCH in the vicinity of Isachar Road, and new coastal and inland routes between the ONIC and the Northampton Bypass.
The main advantage of dualling the existing highway was that works could be staged. However, NWCH runs across undulating to hilly terrain and dualling the existing highway would require extensive geometric improvements to achieve the required design standard. There would be limited potential to use the existing 2-lane road as one of the future carriageways given that its geometry does not meet current road design standards and traffic management during construction would be complex and disruptive. While a new inland route would achieve better network performance, it cannot be staged.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 36 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 24: Northern Options from 2016 AS report
Traffic modelling suggested that a 2-lane inland route would be adequate, as the existing NWCH would remain an important 2-lane road carrying a mix of local and regional traffic, with the inland route carrying predominantly regional traffic.
A multi criteria analysis indicated that an inland option (2-lane) and combined Brand/inland option (4-lane and 2- lane) would out-perform the other options, as well as being the lowest cost options, when compared to other options. In light of the assessment results, Main Roads shortlisted options 1, 2 and 2a (subsequently labelled 4, 5 and 6 respectively) for stakeholder and community consultation.
Following review of the desktop assessments, multi-criteria assessment and public and stakeholder consultation undertaken in 2015, the inland Option 2 (numbered Option 4 as presented to the community in the information sheet) was recommended to be taken through to Alignment Definition. Further consideration indicates that there is unlikely to be development pressure along this route, which largely impacts rural properties, and therefore that the level of detail proposed for the Alignment Definition phase could be subject to review.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 37 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
This option was broadly supported by the desktop planning assessments, the community and the majority of key stakeholders during engagement activities at the time. All issues identified during the desktop assessments and consultations were considered manageable. Following production of the AS report, further consultation took place with key stakeholders (particularly the four Local Governments), who highlighted a number of concerns over the recommendations. Hence, a report seeking endorsement of the recommended alignment was not presented to WAPC. Figure 25 shows the shortlisted options, with most recent numbering used, in the 2016 and subsequent engagement activities. This numbering is referred to for the remainder of this report.
Figure 25: 2016 corridor options shortlisted for engagement (with current numbering)
2017 to present In recent years there have been a number of changes that Main Roads believes warrant review and re-testing of assumptions made during earlier planning work for DGNC. This has informed revised corridor assessments, set out in the remainder of this report. While the changes in assumptions resulted in some amendments to the corridors, large portions of the corridors remain the same as assessed previously because the overarching constraints and opportunities that informed
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 38 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 those corridors remain the same. Section 6 (Constraints Assessment) and section 7.1 (MCA) set out assessment of the new corridors within the context of the objectives articulated at section 2.2 of this report.
The changes in situation pivot around the following;
Slow in mining and associated delays in infrastructure funding; Slow in growth in and around Geraldton; Increasing pressure for RAV10 network to extend along the C2M route; Higher design standards & access control expectations; Feedback received from stakeholders; and Cost of earthworks related to concurrent road & rail construction.
Insofar as they relate to the DGNC and associated planning, these changes have informed updated assumptions around the delivery of road and rail in ONIC, connection to Oakajee, design, constructability and whole of life cycle cost. The following section covers the assumptions, how and why they were updated and the implications they had on the assessment. A summary is provided in Table 3.
ONIC Delivery
At the time of the 2016 AS Report, it was assumed that the DGNC would tie into a constructed ONIC, and that the earthworks for road and rail in ONIC would be completed together by the first agency/organisation to deliver works. The road assessment at the time therefore did not include implications of the ONIC road section. Although it was noted that if ONIC was not delivered by the time of DGN construction, earthworks for road and rail would need to be completed at the same time due to the proximity of road, rail and utilities corridors. Given significantly lower grades required for rail, this would result in significant earthworks (both cut and fill) along ONIC, in particular through Wokatherra Gap, which would make any project very complex and expensive. Due to the slow in the mining sector and the associated reduction in investment, the timeframe for delivery of the OMWDP is significantly longer term than previously expected. Associated with this, the delivery of rail (both OPR alignment and the ONIC rail) is unknown but engagement with stakeholders indicates longer term. As mentioned earlier, the need for a road in ONIC is now related more to a bypass of the city than specifically related to OMWDP.
This situation presents an opportunity to consider a road only option through ONIC that more closely follows existing topography, providing sufficient separation could be provided between road and rail to the extent that a rail could be constructed along the planned alignment at a later date independently of the road. Concepts have been amended to achieve this and assessment has been undertaken on revised corridors. Delivery of a road serving the function of a bypass and suitable for large heavy vehicles may also facilitate or trigger investment at the Oakajee SIA. Provision of East-West Link (Connection to Oakajee)
Closely related to the provision of a road only solution is the need for the east-west link. Original planning assumed that the east-west link through Wokatherra Gap would be constructed as part of ONIC and that Option 4 (inland to the north) would tie into the road in ONIC near Chapman Valley Road as shown in Figure 26.
Figure 26: 2016 start points for northern options
If the assumption is updated to consider that a road only solution needs to be considered for the entire length of DGNC rather than utilising an already constructed ONIC, then comparison between previously identified options is
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 39 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 no longer ‘like for like’. In the absence of ONIC, an inland option would also not necessarily provide HV connection to the Oakajee SIA / future port. As the delivery of this link is established in endorsed state planning documents, it is considered that the east-west link should be provided for and assessed in all options. To ensure all options are assessed fairly, the current planning considers impacts and costs associated with all options starting from the same point as Option 4 as shown in Figure 26. It is noted that providing for the east-west link (and a future rail) would result in an additional grade separation being required near this start point. Configuration
During earlier planning, direct lot access in various locations was largely accepted, particularly on northern options. In light of safe systems principles to road planning and design, lot access is reduced to an absolute minimum along both corridors to optimise safety and efficiency, especially in view of future presence of RAV10 vehicles on the route. This has some implications for lengths of required service roads and the number and location of connections.
The original planning assumed that the coastal option near the NWCH would need to be a 4 lane median separated road. On review of the traffic forecast and in recognition of the relatively low traffic volumes forecast north of Oakajee, it is now considered that a 2 lane highway between Oakajee and Northampton, with sufficient overtaking lanes suitable for passing RAV10 vehicles in each direction, would provide a good level of service for all users. The section south of Geraldton would likely see a much higher number of vehicles and lane configuration of updated concepts remains similar to earlier planning.
Review of the proposed coastal option near NWCH was also undertaken regarding the constructability of the section while maintaining traffic flow, given that in some sections there would need to be significant earthworks around the existing carriageway. A planning concept confirms that much of the construction can be offset from the existing road, with a manageable number of crossings. Whole of Life Cycle Cost
Construction of a northern inland option in addition to a coastal option would effectively result in a parallel network between Geraldton and Northampton. Given the relatively low volume of vehicles, it is considered unlikely that they would both meet the criteria for inclusion on the state network and the existing road could be deproclaimed, with operational responsibility transferred to the LGA. In the event that the existing NWCH were deproclaimed, upgrades would be required prior to transfer of operational responsibility. Ongoing maintenance would place a significant financial obligation on any road authority in perpetuity. While there is no quantitative data on the exact financial liability associated with a potential transfer, impacts of construction and future maintenance of both roads for a low volume of traffic have been taken into consideration in this assessment. For the southern section, significantly higher traffic volumes and anticipated future coastal development along Brand Highway between Geraldton and Dongara make it unlikely that a similar transfer of operational responsibility would be considered.
Previous Assumption Test / Discussion New Assumption
ONIC would be delivered This is unlikely to happen and rail A road only solution, with reduced earthworks before DGNC is still a long term prospect. presents a more viable and deliverable option that is more likely to attract delivery funding
ONIC would deliver As above The east-west link through Wokatherra Gap is a key connection to Oakajee component to be included in all northern options
4 lanes required for Low traffic volumes 2 lanes + overtaking would be sufficient option 6
Number of lot accesses Safe systems approach Lot access and connections should be kept to a considered acceptable minimum
Constructability of Review/ revise concepts Achievable largely on/near existing corridor, based NWCH problematic on prepared planning concept
Whole of life cycle cost Parallel network on northern Include consideration in assessment section with low volumes
Stakeholder feedback Continued engagement Continued engagement
Table 3: Summary of re-tested assumptions
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 40 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
3.6. RAV Network Brand Highway and North West Coastal Highway are part of the RAV 7 network, which typically allows for vehicles up to 36.5m in length. A number of connecting local roads are on the RAV4 network (Figure 27 & Figure 28).
Figure 27: Northern maximum RAV access Figure 28: Southern maximum RAV access
Figure 29: Aerial image of section in Northampton townsite
High Wide Loads / Over Size Over Mass The BH / NWCH corridor is generally suitable for larger vehicles with corridors up to 8.5m wide, apart from the Geraldton townsite where horizontal structures limit clearance to 7.4m. The Northampton townsite can also be problematic (Figure 29), with some sections limited by structures encroaching into the road reserve and further constraints caused by parallel parking bays in the road reserve. BH and the section of NWCH between Geraldton and Onslow do not form part of the State High Wide Load (HWL) Network. Geraldton Mount Magnet Road forms part of the HWL network, providing future HWL access to Oakajee
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 41 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Port via the ONIC and a short section of NWCH. Overhead cables, bridges and other structures create clearance restrictions in several locations along the route and it will not be possible to achieve a 10 m x 10 m HWL corridor on the existing alignment without major works.
Triple Road Train access (RAV10) The main risks associated with allowing 53.5m triple road trains to travel along sections of NWCH and BH include:
proximity to and amenity impacts on urban areas including schools, shopping precincts and residential areas; risk to other road users due to substandard road geometry, for example the tight curvilinear alignment of NWCH through Northampton and Geraldton and some sections of BH such as Greenough and Bookara; road and bridge width; and risk of other road users attempting to overtake the longer, slower road trains in inappropriate areas.
Generally 53.5 m road train access for vehicles transporting freight and bulk commodities is only approved for travel south on NWCH as far as Carnarvon. 53.5 m road train access for vehicles transporting livestock is approved to travel south on NWCH as far as Ogilvie, near Binnu, i.e. livestock transporters are allowed to travel a further 400km south than other transport operators. The Temporary Special Assistance Permits were established in 2010 and were designed to grant temporary special access to livestock transporters when circumstances occur that result in the need to urgently relocate cattle. These circumstances include flooding, drought, live export bans and other exceptional circumstances.
The Temporary Special Assistance Permits allow 53.5 m road trains to travel south of Binnu to Regan’s Ford, via NWCH and BH, which is a route that has been assessed as unsuitable for such vehicle combinations and is usually only approved for 36.5 m road train combinations. However, due to the low volume of livestock vehicles, the additional safety conditions that are applied and the short periods of these approvals, the risks associated with operating 53.5 m road trains on a 36.5 m road train route are lessened. Main Roads will not issue permits for 53.5 m road trains transporting livestock to travel further south because there is a significant increase in traffic and the road trains would represent a greater road safety risk to other road users. It is understood that there is interest from local industries to expand RAV10 access along the entire length of NWCH and BH, as per the C2M Road Train Access investigations (ongoing at the time of writing this report). All DGNC planning work assumes future use by RAV10 vehicles.
3.7. Rail Network Arc Infrastructure manages and operates 5,500 km of rail network across WA (Arc Infrastructure, 2019). The Mid West team is responsible for the maintenance and upgrade of over 600km of track, playing a role in delivering grain and iron ore for customers CBH Group, Karara Mining Limited and Mount Gibson Iron (Figure 30).
Figure 30: ARC network in study area
3.8. Port The Port has 7 land backed berths, handling a diverse range of commodities including iron ore, metal concentrates and mineral sands, grain and agricultural products, rock lobster, molluscs and finfish; fuel; live cattle and a growing HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 42 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 tourism sector including cruise shop visitation, as well as recreational and commercial operations operating from the Fishing Boat Harbour area. The Port has set out plans for growth over the next 30 years in their draft Port Master Plan (MWPA, 2019), with a focus on short-medium term expansion in capacity at Geraldton Port. The potential for long term construction of a new major port at Oakajee is also allowed for, most likely to be triggered by a major iron ore operation, the timing for which will be influenced by a number of economic and global factors.
3.9. Geraldton Airport The City of Greater Geraldton is committed to ensuring that infrastructure and facilities to support growth in aviation activity are provided for and it is expected that growth planned in the region and beyond will trigger increased activity at the airport. The Geraldton Airport Master Plan 2012-2030 establishes the strategic development framework for the airport based on ultimate capacity (including future runway lengthening). The DGNC runs to the east of land identified for airport requirements current and future. Notwithstanding, ongoing liaison will be required to ensure that road plans are compatible with the airport requirements (e.g. grade separation and lighting limitations).
Access to the airport will continue to be via Geraldton Mount Magnet Road and not directly from DGN.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 43 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
4. Traffic and Safety Assessment This assessment is based on key roads in Greater Geraldton that may be influenced by an outer bypass. Although changes in traffic on roads within Geraldton townsite may be inferred by the removal of through traffic, these roads have not been included in this section.
4.1. Current Traffic Demand
Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes in the Greater Geraldton area are highest closest to the Geraldton townsite. Figure 31 shows traffic volumes at locations along these key roads over 2009 – 2019. Figure 32 shows indicative volumes across the network.
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 BRAND HWY (H004) W of Midlands Rd 2601 2450 2435 2665 2442 S of Geraldton Mount Magnet Rd 2786 2774 2981 2899 2784 2716 N of Showground Rd 2978 2970 2882 2693 S of Gilbert Rd 3571 3083 S of Devlin Pool Rd 3526 3559 3635 3558 3347 S of Jandanol Rd 3310 3159 3452 3562 N of Rudds Gully Rd 4845 4382 4336 S of Bellimos Dr 5551 S of Lockyer Rd 9403 S of Broadhead Av 12701 13107 9578 N of Olive St 13303 12480 14346 11260
CHAPMAN VALLEY RD (5050358 / M064) W of Narra Tarra Moonyoonooka 1324 1408 S of Nanson Howatharra Rd 518 511 N of Morrell Rd 876 715 683 E of Nabawa Northampton Rd 185 203 129
EDWARD RD (M054) N of Deepdale Rd 2022 1959 2741 2202 2175 S of Brice Rd 1652 1671 N of Bootenal Rd 1328 2131 1291
GERALDTON MOUNT MAGNET RD (H050) E of North West Coastal Hwy 2427 2807 2585 3287 3306 4513 2856 W of Deepdale Rd 1240 1508 1245 1884 1405 1214 W of Moonyoonooka Narngulu Rd 1774 1688 1955 1846 2501 1788 E of Glengarry Rd 895 863 918 875
NARRA TARRA MOONYOONOOKA RD (M064) N of Geraldton Mount Magnet Rd 535 477 422 693 749 180
NORTH WEST COASTAL HWY (H007) N of Olsen Rd 2238 2512 2083 1871 N of Coronation Beach Rd 2224 2193 2181 2142 N of Tramway Rd 4205 3506
RUDDS GULLY RD (5051012) E of Brand Hwy 1080 1021 E of Goulds Rd 638 621 595
Figure 31: Traffic Volumes on Key Roads, Geraldton
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 44 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 32: Traffic Volumes on key roads in the study area. Volumes shown are AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) from data collected 2017 – 2019.
Heavy Vehicles Heavy Vehicle volumes make up a significant proportion of traffic on the network surrounding Geraldton with most of the key state links outside the built up area carrying around 20-25% heavy vehicles. Origin-destination studies have not been undertaken so it is difficult to make any conclusions on what volume of heavy vehicles travel through the region using the existing BH / NWCH route versus those with Geraldton as start/end point. Figure 33 shows heavy vehicle traffic volumes at locations along key roads over period 2009-2019. Figure 34 shows indicative volumes across the network.
Figure 35 shows the counts broken down by vehicle size.
Growth Trends (historical) Traffic growth trends are difficult to discern in in the Geraldton area as the majority of sites do not exhibit a clear trend over time and could be influenced by other factors. Several locations show slight growth (between 1 and 2% per growth annum) however the variability on the surrounding network suggests this rate could not be reliably used to make any assumptions about future growth in the area.
Similarly, Heavy Vehicle volumes do not indicate any consistent growth patterns. HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 45 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 BRAND HWY (H004) W of Midlands Rd 421 524 637 687 617 S of Geraldton Mount Magnet Rd 562 540 706 637 623 602 N of Showground Rd 789 742 706 543 S of Gilbert Rd 485 456 S of Devlin Pool Rd 729 669 683 601 719 S of Jandanol Rd 552 745 611 641 N of Rudds Gully Rd 431 578 498 S of Bellimos Dr 455 S of Lockyer Rd 743 S of Broadhead Av 749 1061 670 N of Olive St 1477 949 1090 856
CHAPMAN VALLEY RD (5050358 / M064) W of Narra Tarra Moonyoonooka Rd 173 152 S of Nanson Howatharra Rd 123 110 N of Morrell Rd 152 125 75 E of Nabawa Northampton Rd 46 48 34
EDWARD RD (M054) N of Deepdale Rd 415 390 532 383 461 S of Brice Rd 416 417 N of Bootenal Rd 193 432 277
GERALDTON MOUNT MAGNET RD (H050) E of North West Coastal Hwy 529 817 509 460 711 641 803 W of Deepdale Rd 235 503 231 363 334 268 W of Moonyoonooka Narngulu Rd 386 408 733 306 295 398 E of Glengarry Rd 264 227 265 242
NARRA TARRA MOONYOONOOKA RD (M064) N of Geraldton Mount Magnet Rd 158 99 57 115 143 34
NORTH WEST COASTAL HWY (H007) N of Olsen Rd 405 514 372 362 N of Coronation Beach Rd 473 449 458 471 N of Tramway Rd 475 697
RUDDS GULLY RD (5051012) E of Brand Hwy 199 192 E of Goulds Rd 147 135 99 Figure 33: Heavy Vehicle Volumes for Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Heavy Vehicles are Austroads Class 3 -12 vehicles.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 46 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 34: Heavy Vehicles (Austroads Classes 3-12) shown as the volume and proportion of total vehicles. Volumes shown are AADT from years 2017-2019.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 47 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Short Medium Long Medium Long Combination (Classes 1- (Classes 3 - (Classes Combination (Class 12, over 2, up to 5, up to 6-9, up (Classes 10-11, 33m) 5.5m) 14.5m) to 19m) up to 36.5m) BRAND HWY (H004) - RAV 7 W of Midlands Rd 2179 179 78 162 3 N of Showground Rd 2188 451 129 204 6 S of Gilbert Rd 3084 202 84 189 12 S of Jandanol Rd 2757 251 94 195 13 N of Rudds Gully Rd 4415 239 77 113 1 S of Bellimos Dr 5094 276 70 109 2 S of Lockyer Rd 8658 351 221 169 4 S of Broadhead Av 11950 493 149 104 5 N of Olive St 11827 1223 107 146 0
CHAPMAN VALLEY RD (5050358 / M064) - RAV 7 east of Narra Tarra Moonyoonooka Rd W of Narra Tarra Moonyoonooka Rd 1151 155 18 0 0 S of Nanson Howatharra Rd 394 59 18 47 0 N of Morrell Rd 724 73 20 59 0 E of Nabawa Northampton Rd 139 18 6 22 0
EDWARD RD (M054) - RAV 10 (to Georgina Rd), RAV 7 N of Deepdale Rd 1608 211 55 140 8 S of Brice Rd 1235 277 59 77 4 N of Bootenal Rd 1134 98 45 49 2
GERALDTON MOUNT MAGNET RD (H050) - RAV 10 E of North West Coastal Hwy 1899 263 50 180 35 W of Deepdale Rd 1005 113 31 49 42 W of Moonyoonooka Narngulu Rd 1387 195 53 105 34 E of Glengarry Rd 631 123 35 66 40
NORTH WEST COASTAL HWY (H007) - RAV 8 N of Coronation Beach Rd 1751 224 73 174 2 N of Tramway Rd 3730 264 86 123 2
RUDDS GULLY RD (5051012) - RAV 7 E of Brand Hwy 880 125 24 48 3 E of Goulds Rd 491 66 17 62 2 Figure 35: Traffic Volumes by Vehicle Types (Austroads indicative length)
Seasonal Influence on traffic patterns Seasonal behaviour on BH / NWCH, shown in Figure 36, is typical of regional routes with fluctuations in traffic during holiday periods. Total volumes are slightly higher in spring and summer. Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Edward Road and Chapman Valley Road have less variation in total volumes across the year with the daily volumes close to the annual averages.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 48 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
School Holidays Public Holidays Geraldton Mt Magnet Rd North West Coastal Hwy Brand Hwy Chapman Valley Rd Edward Rd
Figure 36: Seasonal traffic behaviour. Data shown is daily traffic volumes collected in 2018 at continuous traffic monitoring sites.
Seasonal Influence on Heavy Vehicles Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, Edward Road and Chapman Valley Road have significant increases in heavy vehicles, particularly Medium Combination (Austroads Classes 10 & 11) vehicles, during October – December. This aligns with the grain harvesting season. Geraldton Mount Magnet Road (which is RAV 10 network) also has a marked increase in Class 12 vehicles during this period, almost doubling average numbers.
Figure 37a Brand Highway
Figure 37b: North West Coastal Highway
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 49 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 37c Chapman Valley Road
Figure 37d: Geraldton Mount Magnet Road
Figure 37e Edward Road
Figure 37 a- e: Daily traffic for vehicles grouped into Austroads Length (Indicative) Classes.
4.2. Speed Limits The roads assessed are all zoned for high speed (110km/h), with no conditional speed limits for RAV. Vehicle speeds at continuous monitoring sites were assessed to determine the disparity in speed between types of vehicles (Figure 38). Larger heavy vehicles (over Class 6) typically travel within the speed limit. For Class 12 on Geraldton Mt Magnet Road the 85th Percentile speed was 15km/h below the speed limit. Light vehicles and smaller heavy vehicles (up to Class 5) generally travel at or above the speed limit. The highest 85th Percentile speed was seen in Medium (Class 3 – 5) vehicles on Chapman Valley Road, exceeding the limit by 10km/h (120km/h).
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 50 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 38: Speed by vehicle type at continuous traffic monitoring locations. Speeds are the 85th Percentile of all vehicles captured in 2018.
4.3. Crash History Crash rate provides a method of directly comparing the number of midblock crashes occurring on a section of road to other sections, even when the length of that section and the number of vehicles travelling on it are different. The network is divided up into sections for comparison, in this case based on key intersections and where there are significant points of change in traffic volume. For these sections MVKT (million vehicle kilometres travelled) is calculated using the length, vehicle volumes (AADT) and the time period for comparison (in this instance 5 years of crash history has been used 2015 – 2019). This provides a number of crashes per MVKT, known as crash rate. This calculation can also be used to obtain a crash rate for KSI (Killed and/or Seriously Injured) crashes by using only the number of crashes with a Fatal or Hospital severity. KSI (Killed and/or Seriously Injured) crashes are those resulting in the death or serious injury of one or more persons and are a key metric in road trauma evaluation and road safety risk assessments.
Midblock Crashes Table 4 shows comparison of crash rates against average rates for state roads on a state-wide basis (including all metropolitan and rural state roads), by region (Mid West-Gascoyne) and rural areas. At the time of writing this report, the most recent comparison information available is 2014-2018. Figure 39 shows this data on a map and highlights where incidents involved Heavy Vehicles. Figure 40 shows a breakdown of crash rates by section. Many sections assessed had a crash rate higher than the Mid West – Gascoyne region average (2014 – 18). Using the ‘Rural’ average (which is a comparison of regional roads across WA), the roads assessed are still above average. In particular, Moonyoonooka Yuna Road is overrepresented in all severities of crash and Killed/Seriously Injured crashes (KSI).
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 51 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 39: Midblock Crash Comparison
Midblock Crash Comparison Table 2014 - 2018 State Roads Local Roads Severity Mid West-Gascoyne Rural WA Mid West-Gascoyne Rural WA All 14.5 17.8 32.5 52.9 60.9 85.0 Killed/Seriously Injured (KSI) 3.4 3.4 2.4 6.4 7.5 4.7 Table 4: Midblock Crash Comparison
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 52 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
End
Rate
Start
AADT
No. KSI KSI No.
Crashes
KSI Crash KSI Crash
Crash Rate Rate Crash
(100MVKT) (100MVKT)
Road Name Road
No. Crashes No.
Intersection Intersection
Length (Km) Length
Brand Highway Midlands Francisco Rd 10.18 2600 7 0 14.5 Francisco Rd Flat Rocks Rd 28.65 2800 14 5 9.6 3.4 Flat Rocks Rd Rudds Gully Rd 23.45 3400 13 6 8.9 4.1 Rudds Gully Rd McDermott Av 3.34 4800 1 0 3.4 McDermott Av Ackland Rd 2.77 9400 2 1 4.2 2.1 Ackland Rd Cathedral Av 2.37 13300 10 0 17.4 Geraldton Walkaway Edward Rd Rty Rudds Gully Rd 2.72 2000 3 1 30.2 10.1 Rudds Gully Rd Walkaway Nangetty Rd 17.41 1600 2 1 3.9 2.0 Moonyoonooka Yuna Road Geraldton Mt Magnet Rd Narra Tarra Rd 9.8 500 2 1 22.4 11.2 Narra Tarra Rd Chapman Valley Rd 5.29 500 3 1 62.1 20.7 Chapman Valley Rd Nanson Howatharra Rd 10.75 500 4 1 40.8 10.2 Nanson Howatharra Rd Nabawa (Post Office Rd) 8.43 200 3 2 97.5 65.0 Geraldton Mt Magnet Rd North West Coast Hwy Edwards Rty 5.6 2500 1 1 3.9 3.9 Edwards Rty Moonyoonooka Yuna Rd 4.15 1800 0 0 Moonyoonooka Yuna Rd Northern Gully South Rd 21.32 900 8 4 22.8 11.4 NWCH Eliza Shaw Dr White Peak Rd 2.3 2600 2 1 18.3 9.2 White Peak Rd Nanson Howatharra Rd 11.1 2200 7 1 15.7 2.2 Nanson Howatharra Rd Isseka East Rd 11.89 1800 3 0 7.7 Isseka East Rd Northampton Nabawa Rd 8.23 1800 4 1 14.8 3.7 Edward Road Geraldton Mt Magnet Road Walkaway Nangetty Rd 2.65 3200 3 0 19.4 Rudds Gully Road Brand Hwy Edward Rd 5.74 1000 3 0 28.6 Chapman Valley Road Chapman Rd Hackett Road 4.24 2000 10 1 64.6 6.5 Chapman Valley Road Hackett Road Nanson Howatharra Rd 9.64 700 3 1 24.4 8.1
2014-2018 Crash Rate Comparison
State Road Average Region (MWG) 14.5 3.4 Rural 17.8 3.4 WA 32.5 2.4
Local Road Average Region (MWG) 52.9 6.4 Rural 60.9 7.5 WA 85.0 4.7
Figure 40: Crash Rate Calculation
Intersection Crashes There are relatively few intersection crashes on the key roads outside the Geraldton urban area. Around a quarter of these are KSI crashes (Hospital) with the remainder Property Damage Only (PDO Major 53% and PDO Minor 23%).
The movements resulting in the KSI crashes were opposing directions (Thru-Thru and Thru-Right) and Left Turn Off Path. Figure 41 shows the severity of incidents at key intersections, highlighting those in which Heavy Vehicles were involved.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 53 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 41: Number of crashes at key intersections by Crash Severity (highlighting heavy vehicle involvement)
4.4. Future Traffic Volumes A Strategic Transportation and Land Use Model (STLUM) was developed and used to inform the 2016 AS report. Given the limited change in strategic land use and traffic composition since this time, the outputs are considered to remain valid. Further modelling may be undertaken to inform later planning and definition. The model extent covers the study area from Dongara to Northampton. Future year networks and land use scenarios include 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031. Three growth scenarios were modelled. Scenario 1 (No change) represents current population growth levels of 1.5% per annum. Scenarios 2 (Expected Growth) and 3 (Maximum Growth) represent population growth levels of 3% and 5% per annum respectively, constrained by maximum zonal population targets. Modelling for Scenario 2 (Expected Growth) shows a substantial increase in traffic demand across the regional road network by 2031, with daily volumes summarised in Figure 42. Volumes on Brand Highway between Dongara and Geraldton are expected to increase by 60% to around 6,000 vpd including 600 large articulated vehicles (Austroads classes 6 and above). This represents growth of approximately 3% per annum. Assuming growth slows marginally to 2.5% per annum beyond 2031, volumes on Brand Highway would still exceed 7,500 vpd by 2041. Volumes on NWCH north of the ONIC are expected to more than double to around 3,000 vpd by 2031. Volumes on the Geraldton Mount Magnet Road are shown to increase by up to 70% over the same time period.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 54 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 42: Strategic Model Outputs – forecast volumes
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 55 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
5. Road and Infrastructure Corridor Options 5.1. Considerations A future road in the DGNC is intended to provide a safe, efficient and appropriate bypass of the built up areas of Geraldton, Dongara and Northampton, as well as offer a high standard connection between the towns, allowing for reliable connection to Geraldton Port, Narngulu Industrial Area, future Oakajee Port/SIA and other key roads and locations in the area. It must be suitable for use by a range of road users and vehicles, including large heavy vehicle combinations and tourists, and provide a safe environment for all users to ensure a resilient and efficient network, fit for purpose and able to support the Mid West’s role in the local, regional and global supply chains into the future.
It is expected that provision of a road within DGNC will improve safety and amenity of roads within the townsites as well as extend the service life of a number of local road assets by removing a proportion of regional heavy vehicles and the associated road deterioration and conflicts with manoeuvring local vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
5.2. Geometric Design Standards Parameter General (Typical) Design Speed 110 km/h Posted Speed 110 km/h Lane Width 3.5m Number of lanes in each direction 1 – 2 Nominal crossfall 3% Maximum superelevation 6% Shoulders 2.0m sealed (both sides) Sight Distance Reaction Time (desirable) 2.5s Reaction Time (minimum) 2.0s Stopping Sight Distance 209m / 193m Vertical Geometry Min Vertical Grade (kerbed) 0.5% (Des.) / 0.3% (Abs.) Max Vertical Grade 3% (Des.) / 5% (Max) Min vertical curve length 110m Min tangent (between reverse VC) = 0.2V 22m Min tangent (between compound VC) = 0.4V 44m Horizontal Geometry Design Vehicle RAV Network 10 (53.5m) Intersecting Roads Various – up to RAV10 Clearance envelope (for High-Wide Loads) 10m x 10m Desirable minimum radius 800m Absolute minimum radius 600m Min horizontal curve length 336m
5.3. Road Corridor Alignment Options Considered Where options were discounted during the 2016 planning for reasons that have not changed, they were not reassessed.
Option 1 – South Option 1 entails the construction of a new 2 lane inland rural highway from the intersection with Midlands Road east of Dongara to the tie in with Geraldton Mount Magnet Road near Geraldton airport.
The corridor would run broadly north from Midlands Road before crossing the railway, then continuing towards Mt
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 56 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Horner Road West. From this point, it would swing broadly northwest and would continue parallel to and south of Allanooka Springs Road, crossing Walkaway – Nangettty Road to the east of Walkaway townsite. It would continue parallel to and south of Arthur Road (with Arthur Road retained as a service road for local property access) and then cross the Northam Geraldton Railway before heading to the east of the airport and tying in with Geraldton Mount Magnet Road.
Option 2 – South Option 2 would entail upgrading existing Brand Highway to a 4 lane divided highway in parts and would include the construction of Dongara Bypass. North of Dongara, the existing Brand Highway would be retained as a service road to provide property access and rationalise local road intersections with the new road constructed to the west. From review of options considered in 2016, this option is considered preferable to using a carriageway of Brand Highway and constructing new service roads. The corridor would generally follow the existing alignment towards Bookara, where it would swing north just before the Bookara Bends. It would then cross the railway and continue north, turning northwest before reaching Allanooka Springs Road. It would then follow the same alignment to Geraldton Mount Magnet Road as Option 1.
Option 3 – South Option 3 would follow the same southern alignment as Option 2 but instead of swinging north before Bookara Bends, it would continue to the north west along the Brand Highway, including a realignment of the Bookara Bends, swinging north near Knapps Road, then crossing the Geraldton-Millendon Junction Rail and heading north along the Walter Road alignment. It would pass east of Walkaway townsite and then join up with the same alignment as the others around Arthur Road.
Figure 43: Southern options considered
Option 4 – North Option 4 starts around the ONIC / Chapman Valley Road intersection. A grade separated interchange would be included providing connectivity to the road that continues west through the Wokatherra Gap (south of a future ONIC rail) and then ties in to NWCH at a grade separated interchange near Oakajee. The interchange would also provide connectivity to a new 2 lane highway leading inland broadly north – northwest until it reaches Nanson Howatharra Road. It would then continue north, passing to the west of the smallholdings on Ridley Place, crossing the former rail reserve just north of Isseka. It would finally tie in to existing NWCH around Walsh Road. Northampton bypass would be constructed as planned.
Option 5 – North Option 5 would follow Option 4 north from ONIC up until Oakabella Road East road reserve (unconstructed where they intersect). It would swing north west and tie in with a new road on/near the existing NWCH (see option 6) just south of Isachar Road. It would then broadly follow the existing highway towards Northampton as per option 6.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 57 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Option 5 was considered to present the same complications at the southern end as option 4 and while it would avoid some of the major earthworks around the Oakabella Reserve, it was considered the least preferable of the three northern options on balance. As a result, it was discounted from further assessment, with the comparison being between Options 4 and 6.
Option 6 – North Option 6 would start at the same point as Option 4, but would not have an additional interchange. It would continue broadly parallel to and south of the alignment shown for a future ONIC rail, then lead west through the Wokatherra Gap and finally connect to the North West Coastal Highway at a three way interchange near Oakajee. Running north near the existing road alignment, option 6 would consist of a largely new 2 lane highway on or near the existing NWCH. The new road would be to the west of the existing where it passes townsites of Howatharra and Isseka. A small number of properties retain direct access, however some service roads will be included to consolidate accesses and intersections where possible. The Northampton bypass would be constructed as planned.
Figure 44: Northern options considered
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 58 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
6. Constraints Assessment Constraints have been assessed based on existing available data. No new surveys or studies have been undertaken to inform this work. An assessment of likely impacts was undertaken on the corridor options identified in section 5. While significant parts of the corridors are the same as original planning, there have been a number of changes to corridors following the review and a full review of constraints and potential impacts/interactions has been undertaken for this report. Due to the high level nature of the planning undertaken as part of Alignment Selection, the precise extent of impacts or outcomes cannot be quantified and therefore for some constraints, the analysis has been done on the basis of a comparison rather than an absolute nature. The impacts, where quantifiable, have been assessed for the broad (around 200m wide) corridors identified. This generally over-represents the impacts as the actual road reserve would be around 100m with the road narrower within that. However, this is considered the most appropriate methodology for the purposes of the comparison and ensures a consistent approach for all options.
The information below compliments the high level comparative MCA provided at section 7 of this report. Southern Section
6.1. Environmental Constraints – South Further information is provided at Appendix 2.
Reserves, Conservation Areas and Regional Parks The C class Dongara Nature Reserve is located north of Dongara town centre approximately 800m west of Brand Highway near Francisco Road. It does not intersect with any corridor options.
None of the corridor options intersect with any land managed by DBCA.
Wetlands & Waterways There are no wetlands within the project area for either alignment option.
All three options would cross two major waterways being the Greenough and Irwin Rivers. Corridor option 1 would cross 6 minor waterways. A short section (<1km) of the corridor would run alongside a minor waterway and approximately 4.7km along the edge of the 1 in 100 ARI floodplain associated with the Greenough River near Walkaway, resulting in approximately 200ha of designated floodplain land being upstream of the corridor.
Corridor option 2 would cross three minor waterway crossing. Approximately 4.7km would run along the edge of the 1 in 100 ARI floodplain associated with the Greenough River near Walkaway, resulting in approximately 200ha of designated floodplain land being upstream of the corridor.
Corridor option 3 would cross 3 minor waterways. Approximately 4.7 km of the corridor runs through the edge of the 1 in 100 ARI floodplain near Walkaway, resulting in approximately 400ha of floodplain being upstream of the corridor. This corridor could also present an additional risk to some properties in the townsite of Walkaway. More detailed assessment would be required to understand the extent of potential impacts.
There is also a section of the existing Brand Highway located within the 1 in 100 event ARI floodplain of the Irwin River as it passes though Dongara that would be utilised by corridor option 2 and 3.
Priority / Threatened Ecological Communities (PEC/TEC) Corridor option 1 does not intersect with any known PEC / TECs. Corridor option 2 intersects with the buffers of 3 known priority 1 PEC sites and corridor option 3 intersects with the buffers of 4 known priority 1 PEC sites. These PECs relate to coastal sands with Acacia rostellifera and mallees.
Vegetation and Flora None of the corridors intersect with any known rare flora sites, however a number are identified in the local area and it is considered similar habitats would exist within the corridors. The local examples include: acacia telmica (P3), anthocercis intricate (PP3), banksia elegans (P4), grevillea teniloba (P3), liparohyllum congestiflorum (P4)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 59 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 and wumbea tubulosa (threatened or likely to become extinct). Corridor option 1 would have the potential to impact up to 61ha of native vegetation. Generally, the corridor avoids large, established areas of vegetation and it does not bisect any valuable areas of vegetation although it does run along the side of one area. Further work to define a road in the corridor would seek to avoid impacts where possible.
Corridor option 2 would have the potential to impact up to 55ha of native vegetation. The corridor avoids areas of large, established vegetation, although there would be some impact on roadside vegetation along the Brand Highway at the southern end of the alignment.
Corridor option 3 would have the potential to impact up to 73ha native vegetation. The corridor avoids most large areas of established vegetation, however would present the greatest risk of damage to flora including roadside vegetation.
Fauna There is one recorded rare fauna site in corridor option 1 and corridor option 2, ID 25240 Carpet Python. Corridor option 3 intersects with 5 recorded rare fauna sites: ID41324 Eastern Great Egret, 24779 Sharp Tailed Sandpiper, 24788 Red-necked Stint, 30932 Bar tailed Godwit and 24808 Common Greenshank. In addition to the above, there are a number of recorded fauna sites near the corridors: 24803 Grey-tailed Tattler, 41323 Common Sandpiper, 25575 Great Sand Plover, 24293 White Bellied Sea Eagle, 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater, 24383 Grey Plover, 24610 Australian Bustard.
Given the similarity of the habitats in the area, it is conceivable that further surveys would identify further sites.
Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) Up to 28ha of corridor option 1 is defined as the highest risk of salinity, with up to 43ha being defined as low risk and the remainder lowest risk classification.
Both corridor options 2 and 3 have up to 28ha of land defined as the highest risk of salinity, with the remainder the lowest risk classification.
Contaminated Areas & Unexploded Ordnance Areas There are no listed contaminated sites within the project area for either corridor option. Most of corridor option 1 intersects with at least one of 6 areas identified as having “Slight Occurrence Risk” of Unexploded Ordnance Risk (UXO), i.e. an area that has a confirmed history of military activities that have resulted in residual UXO but which the Department of Defence considered inappropriate to assess as “substantial”. In addition, corridor 1 intersects with the edge of an area identified as having “substantial” risk of UXO, i.e. a history of numerous finds or heavy residual fragmentation. Corridor options 2 and 3 both have a significant area intersected by at least one of 5 areas identified as having UXO “Slight Occurrence” risk.
6.2. Social Constraints – South
Indigenous Heritage Corridor option 1 would intersect with 5 Aboriginal Heritage sites, comprising 3 Registered Aboriginal Sites (1065 Bradley Road Burial, 24761 Greenough River and 18907 Irwin River), 1 Other Heritage Place (4445 Moonyoonooka 2) and 1 Lodged Site (4650 Pell Bridge). Given the largely greenfield nature of this alignment, it is likely that surveys would identify further sites in the area.
Corridor options 2 and 3 would intersect with 4 Aboriginal Heritage Sites comprising 3 Registered Aboriginal Sites (1065 Bradley Road Burial, 24761 Greenough River and 18907 Irwin River) and 1 Other Heritage Place (4445 Moonyoonooka 2).
European Heritage Corridor option 1 would intersect with 2 local registered heritage sites; 13935 former Eastern Valley Hotel and 17149 Silcock Cottage.
Corridor option 2 would intersect with the above places and also the state and locally designated place 1217 Old East End.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 60 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Corridor option 3 would intersect with the same as options 1 and 2 and also the locally designated Rumble Cottage (17216). It would also have a potential positive impact on the state listed P1240 Seventh Day Adventist Church (fmr) and the locally listed Travellers Rest Inn (ruin, fmr) by enabling a road to be moved further from these sites. There are a number of European Heritage locations nearby the corridors for which it may be necessary to consider impacts to the properties and/or setting.
Existing Land Use and Facilities and Tenements North of Walkaway, all of the corridor options run along Arthur Road, passing close to the Narngulu Industrial area and the Airport. While appropriate access and egress for the industrial area will be a key consideration, it is common to all options and will be considered in greater detail through Alignment Definition work. None of the corridor options would impact on land identified for the airport and limitations a result of the airport’s location would also be common to all options.
All corridor options also intersect with designated flood prone land, as discussed above. Corridor option 1 passes predominantly through rural land zoned for agriculture and rural smallholdings. Construction of a road in corridor 1 would generally not be considered contrary to the aims and objectives of the land. Corridor options 2 and 3 broadly follow the Brand Highway reserve for their southern sections. While widening of the road reserve and associated infrastructure would be required through these areas, given the presence of the existing road it would not be considered contrary to the aims and objectives of the local planning framework. These corridors utilise the planned Dongara bypass reserve, defined in the local planning scheme.
As discussed above, corridor option 3 would have a greater impact on the floodplain defined area given the increased area upstream land. Corridor options 1 and 2 intersect with two exploration licences. Discussions with Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) indicate that these would not present a fatal flaw but could be managed through later stages.
Property Impact – Severance and Access Corridor option 1 intersects up to 660ha of privately owned land, across 70 properties. Up to 30 properties could be severed however exact impacts would need to be defined at a later stage.
Corridor option 2 intersects up to 568ha of privately owned land, across 103 properties. Up to 24 properties could be severed however exact impacts would need to be defined at a later stage. Corridor option 3 intersects up to 542ha of privately owned land, across 105 properties. Up to 15 properties could be severed however exact impacts would need to be defined at a later stage.
Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy South of Walkaway, corridor 1 would pass through largely undeveloped land, but generally located more than 500m from residential properties. Corridors 2 and 3 would broadly follow existing road corridors so would not be introducing entirely new impacts. North of Walkaway, all options would follow an existing road reserve, although currently the road is used by only a small number of vehicles.
Later more detailed planning will include an assessment of potential impacts on amenity as a result of the positioning of a road and will include management and mitigation of any impacts.
Air Quality All corridor options would include reduced grades suitable for larger vehicles and sufficient overtaking opportunities to reduce inefficiencies. They will provide bypasses of the main townsites, reducing sitting traffic from the built up areas and as a result reduce emissions associated with movement of people and goods. All three options are considered to present similar benefits in this regard.
6.3. Engineering Constraints – South
Topography and Hydrology A coastal ridge runs between Dongara and Geraldton, generally located between 1 and 2.5km from the coastline and varying in elevation between 40 and 70m. A low lying coastal valley runs parallel with and land of the coastal
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 61 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 ridge, containing the Greenough River north of Reynolds Road. A second ridge runs through the project area inland from the coastal ridge, at similar elevation but more defined to the north of Bookara East road. Another valley lies to the east of this area, rising towards the Kojarena Range further inland. The Greenough River runs through Walkaway, crossing Geraldton Walkaway Road (Edward Road) and Brand Highway then running parallel to the coast before discharging into the ocean at Cape Burney.
The Irwin River runs along Midlands Road and Brand Highway before discharging into the ocean at Dongara. Between Dongara and Geraldton, Brand Highway runs along the low-lying coastal valley between the coastal and inland ridges, partly located in the 100 year ARI event Floodway and Flood Fringe Area, as defined by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. Flood modelling undertaken by BG&E for the Greenough River shows the 100 year ARI flood area extending south of the river (Figure 45). The modelling shows there is a risk of prolonged closure of Brand Highway between Knapp’s Road and Bookara East Road for large rainfall events as this area is within a low lying basin without outlet for flood water.
Figure 45: Flood modelling, Greenough (BG &E)
A section of Brand Highway lies within the 100 year ARI event Floodway and Flood Fringe Area of the Irwin River as it passes through Dongara. Options 2 and 3 would run through this area.
Geraldton Walkaway Road and Arthur Road run along a valley west of the Moresby Ranges. Both these roads
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 62 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 cross a 5km section of the Greenough River 100 year ARI Floodway and Flood Fringe Area and are subject to flooding. East of Arthur Road and Allanooka Springs Road the Kojarena Range rises to an elevation of up to 250m.
Corridor option 1 would lead across rolling terrain north from Dongara towards Walkaway. Through this section there may be some relatively significant earthworks required to achieve a suitable design standard. North from Walkaway along Arthur Road, the terrain flattens out. The corridors intersect the 1 in 100 ARI event flood plain near Walkaway, as discussed above, and would result in the road needing to be raised for a distance through this area. As per AS study 2016, this is expected to be about 3m. Corridor options 2 and 3 need to cross the inland ridge to the east of the existing Brand Highway, but otherwise tend to run through relatively flat terrain. They pass through the floodplain of the Greenough River near Walkaway and would have to be raised to achieve serviceability. Option 3 in particular cuts through more of the floodplain and a road would need to be engineered suitably to ensure no detrimental impact upstream on properties/development. All three options require bridge structures over Greenough and Irwin Rivers. All three options would present a significant improvement in resilience of the network to significant flood events.
Drainage As alluded to above, drainage would be a significant consideration for a road in any of the corridors.
Geology and Soil Conditions Geology and soil conditions in the study area between Dongara and Geraldton are typically characterised by hard neutral yellow mottled and red mottled soils along the coastal ridge; red earthy sands to the northern section of the coastal valley; sandy loams and shallow neutral red earths to the south of the coastal valley; yellow earthy sands along the inland ridge, underlain by sedimentary rocks; and shallow stony sands, sandy loams and loams along the second inland valley.
Public Drinking Water Public Drinking Water Source Areas (PDWSA) are declared under the Country Water Supply Act 1947 to help protect quality of drinking water sources. State Planning Policy 2.7: Drinking Water Protection (WAPC, 2003) assists with protection through the land use planning framework. Water Quality Protection Notes no. 25 and no.75 (DWER, 2006) provide advice on land use planning in PDWSA. Protection is also written into the local planning system through section 6.2 of the Shire of Irwin Local Planning Scheme, which highlights that the purpose of the Water Source Protection Area is to protect groundwater resources that provide a potable water supply.
Figure 46: Public Drinking Water Source Areas (DPLH PlanWA mapping, 2020)
A PDWSA is located north east of Dongara ( Figure 46), which intersects with two sections of corridor option 1. Initial discussions with DWER indicate that a road is considered to be supportable in these areas, subject to approval. Further engagement will be required and appropriate preventative and mitigating measures (e.g. additional bund to prevent spill/ leaching and pollution)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 63 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 could be required during construction and operation.
Services High voltage overhead distribution lines run along and across Brand Highway, Geraldton – Walkway Road and Allanooka Springs Road. Low voltage overhead and underground distribution networks are concentrated in the townsites of Dongara, Walkway and Geraldton.
The Geraldton Lateral Gas Pipeline runs along Walkaway Nangetty Road towards Allanooka Springs Road, following it for approximately 2.5km before swinging to run along Geraldton Walkaway Road into Geraldton. Water pipelines run along Geraldton Mount Magnet Road and cross all of the corridors at a number of locations including Short Road (location), Pettit Road and Mt Horner Road West. A 600mm above ground mains water pipe runs adjacent to Allanooka Springs Road and follows Geraldton-Walkway Road (Arthur Road) into Geraldton. The presence of this, particularly in combination with the rail, is a factor in positioning the corridors along Arthur Road instead of Edward Road. The high voltage overhead cables would cross corridor option 1 at up to 22 locations, with underground water pipes crossing the corridor at 3 locations.
The high voltage overhead cables would cross corridor option 2 at up to 31 locations, with underground water pipes crossing the corridor at 4 locations. The high voltage overhead cables would cross corridor option 3 at up to 31 locations, with underground water pipes crossing the corridor at 4 locations.
Fibre optic cables run along most of Brand Highway on both sides between Dongara and South Greenough and also along the Millendon Junction – Narngulu Railway.
Infrastructure All corridor options would have an interchange at the very northern extent at Geraldton Mount Magnet Road (common to all). Option 1 would likely require some sort of grade separation at Brand Highway tie in east of Dongara. Corridors 2 and 3 would require grade separation at the tie in with Brand Highway, and some treatment at Midlands Road. Further works will be required in this regard.
All corridor options would require some sort of grade separation at the Northam-Geraldton Railway at Brice Road near Narngulu, which may also assist with access into / out of the Narngulu Industrial Area. All corridor options would also need to cross the Geraldton – Millendon Junction Railway near Dongara at the southern end. Corridor options 2 and 3 would have an additional railway crossing of the Geraldton Millendon Junction Railway near their departure from Brand Highway. All three options may impact a number of existing built structures including residential properties, farming / commercial structures, drainage structures (e.g. dams) and power facilities. Exact impacts would depend on final corridor alignments, however where possible, infrastructure will be avoided in consultation with impacted landowners. Corridor options 2 and 3 would be close to heritage properties through Dongara.
Constructability Corridor option 1 would be a largely greenfield construction with tie in at the southern end and to the existing road network near Allanooka Springs Road. The northern section (common to all) would be a new road adjacent to Arthur Road (with Arthur Road retained for servicing local properties). Construction of a road in either corridor options 2 or 3 would have associated impacts with proximity to live traffic environment. Generally Brand Highway would be retained as service road, so traffic flow will need to managed during construction.
All corridors need to cross inland ridge, resulting in significant earthworks to achieve appropriate grades. As above, the PDWSA and floodplains will also introduce complex considerations.
Staging Further work would be required to define staging options, however corridor option 1 would have no staging opportunities at least to Walkway.
Options 2 and 3 could be staged more easily where they use or align closely to existing road reserves.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 64 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Access High level lot and network access requirements have been considered for all three options to give an indication of the extent of service roads and number/configuration of intersections required along the corridor. A more detailed access strategy will be developed, in conjunction with further stakeholder engagement, as part of Alignment Definition work.
A road in corridor option 1 would have the lowest number of intersections, with the number of intersections increasing in correlation with the length of the existing Brand Highway alignment being followed. Option 3 would require the longest distance of service roads, followed by option 2, then 1. All options would provide a significant reduction in the number of accesses to the state network.
Road Network Performance Road network performance is considered across a balance of route length, number of connections, number of lanes and intersection size/complexity. Corridor option 1 would provide a slightly more direct route to Geraldton from the south, however this difference is only a few kilometres and in a regional travel context is considered to be effectively negligible.
All corridor options would present significant improvements to current performance.
The number, location and configuration of intersections will be further considered through Alignment Definition.
Road Safety All corridor options would present a significant improvement in road safety for all users by providing improved vertical and horizontal geometry, overtaking opportunities and reducing intersections and lot connections.
Corridor option 1 would split regional/through traffic from more local Brand Highway traffic and would have significantly fewer side road connections. Options 2 and 3 would ultimately be a dual carriageway where the traffic was combined, optimising efficiency and safety, although there would be higher levels of connectivity.
6.4. Economic Assessment – South
Construction Cost Considerations While the bridge over the Greenough River on Arthur Road is common to all, it is worth noting that this is expected to be a significant structure due to the low lying nature of the road and the presence of the floodplain.
Relative costs associated with construction of a road in corridor 3 are expected to be slightly higher than a road in corridor 2, which in turn is expected to be higher than option 1. The key influences are the number of grade separated structures, earthworks and service roads.
Whole of Life Costs If a road was constructed in corridor option 1, it would be a two lane road with overtaking opportunities. Brand Highway would be maintained as a similar 2 lane road with overtaking opportunities. Trucks would be predominantly on the inland route, however both roads would be likely to stay as state network due to high volumes of traffic and function for connecting townsites.
All three options are similar lengths of new road and it is considered that ongoing maintenance costs would not influence selection of one corridor over another.
Land Cost Considerations Option 1 is expected to have greater land costs due to a larger area of privately owned land, and higher potential severance considerations due to impacts on operational farming properties. These matters will be considered further with stakeholders throughout alignment definition process.
Land parcels along corridor options 2 and 3 tend to be smaller and adjacent to existing road reserves. Consequently there would be a larger number of land owners impacted but to a lesser extent and with fewer severance concerns than option 1. Further work is required to understand the alignment to inform discussions around potential financial implications of severance.
Network Benefits All options would alleviate pressures through townsites.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 65 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Option 1 would allow separation of regional from local traffic along the route. Options 2 and 3 would allow some separation of regional traffic from local, and would allow for 4 lanes where they are combined. Option 1 would have the fewest connection points, although all options would experience significant improvement from current operations due to the reduction in access and intersections. Northern Section
6.5. Environmental Constraints – North Further information is provided at Appendix 2.
Reserves, Conservation Areas and Regional Parks The Oakabella Nature Reserve (R8397) is located adjacent to the west of the North West Coastal Highway. Corridor option 6 corridor would run close to the Reserve, but would not intersect with it. The Bella Vista Nature Reserve (R4001) is located adjacent to corridor option 4 and the corridor as shown intersects with a corner of the reserve.
There are a number of other DBCA managed lands near the corridors that would not be intersected or impacted.
Neither of the corridors intersect with any declared Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) declared under s51b of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), although a number of ESA are situated along waterways in the broader area and within the Nature Reserves.
Wetlands & Waterways There are no wetlands or flood prone areas within the project area for either alignment option.
Both options would require new crossings of both the Bowes River and Chapman River. Option 4 would require 8 minor waterway crossings, where option 6 would require 13 minor waterway crossings (new structures would be required, but the crossings exist already).
Threatened / Priority Ecological Communities (TEC/PEC) Corridor option 4 would have the potential to impact 2 Priority Ecological Communities (PEC) and corridor option 6 would have the potential to impact 3 PECs. The PECs in the area relate to Plant Assemblages of the Moresby Range System.
Vegetation and Flora Corridor option 4 would have the potential to impact up to 53ha of native vegetation, most significantly by severing the vegetated area extending east from the Bella Vista Nature Park. It would also require clearing of vegetation along waterways. The corridor would intersect with 1 priority 3 (P3) flora site and 4 P4 sites as well as passing close to a number of additional P2, P3 and P4 sites in and around the nature reserves. Corridor option 6 would have the potential to impact up to 86ha of native vegetation. Due to the location of this corridor adjacent to an existing road, much of this would be roadside vegetation. The corridor would intersect with 1 P2, 3 P3 and 4 P4 sites as well as passing near a number of other P2, P3 and P4 sites particularly in and around Oakabella and Howatharra Nature Reserves It is also worth noting that the corridor option 6 area has been subject to more detailed surveys, so potential impacts are better understood than those associated with the largely unsurveyed option 4 corridor.
Fauna There is 1 recorded rare fauna site in corridor option 4, ID25240 Carpet Python. There are 2 recorded rare fauna sites in the corridor option 6, ID 25240 Carpet Python and ID24475 Australian Peregrine Falcon. In addition, there a number of other recorded rare fauna sites in the area surrounding both options: ID24734 Carnaby’s Cockatoo, ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater and ID34013 White Brown Babbler. It is considered that similar habitat occurs in both corridors and therefore that further surveys may identify additional fauna sites.
Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) Up to 130ha of corridor option 4 is defined as low/medium risk of salinity, with the remainder of the land being lowest risk. Up to 33ha of corridor option 6 is defined as low/medium risk of salinity, with the remainder of the land being lowest risk.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 66 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Contaminated Areas & Unexploded Ordnance Areas There are no listed contaminated sites within the project area for either corridor option.
A large portion of both corridor options is identified as having “Slight Occurrence Risk” of Unexploded Ordnance Risk (UXO), i.e. an area that has a confirmed history of military activities that have resulted in residual UXO but which Department of Defence consider inappropriate to assess as “substantial”.
6.6. Social Constraints – North
Indigenous Heritage Corridor option 4 would intersect with up to 5 Aboriginal Heritage Sites, comprising 3 Registered Aboriginal Sites (24416 Bowes River, 24415 Buller River and 30063 Chapman River) and 2 Other Heritage Places (5681 Kobe Juana and 24413 Elephant Hill ‘Moondong’). Given the largely greenfield nature of this alignment, surveys could identify additional sites in the area.
Corridor option 6 would intersect with 11 Aboriginal Heritage Sites comprising 6 Registered Aboriginal Sites (24416 Bowes River, 24414 Oakajee River, 441 Royce Farm Burial and Paddock, 4433 Oakajee Spring Scatter Site, 24415 Buller River and 60063 Chapman River) and 5 Other Heritage Places (5861 Koebe Juana, 24413 Elephant Hill ‘Moondong’, 16134 & 16138 & 16132 Oakajee Buffer Sites).
European Heritage Corridor option 4 intersects with Local Place ID 12059 Geraldton Northampton Railway Precinct.
State and Local Registered Places 15838 Cuddy Cuddy Changing Station and 17858 Isseka School Site abut corridor option 6. Local Place 12059 Geraldton Northampton Railway Precinct also runs near and intersects corridor option 6.
Based on earlier discussion with State Heritage Office, the value of the railway precinct lies in its alignment rather than any residual infrastructure from the period.
Existing Land Use and Facilities and Tenements Corridor option 4 crosses generally undeveloped farmland, zoned predominantly Rural with some Rural Smallholdings. A future road would introduce an interchange into an area designated in the Local Planning Scheme as Moresby Range Landscape Protection.
Corridor option 6 is close to an existing road reserve. Where it diverges from the existing road, it would be located further from residential areas than the current alignment. Both corridor options intersect mining tenements near the Oakajee Port and Industrial Estate area.
Property Impact – Severance and Access Corridor option 4 intersects up to 406ha of privately owned land, across 37 properties. Up to 22 properties could be severed however exact impacts would need to be defined at a later stage. Corridor option 6 intersects up to 180ha of privately owned land, across 49 properties. Up to 7 properties could be severed however exact impacts would need to be defined at a later stage.
Potential sterilisation of land as a result of lack of certainty over future requirements has been a point of contention with Local Governments and landowners, particularly for the northern options. Inclusion of the east west link in both options aligns with earlier ONIC planning and would address some of these issues.
Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy Both corridor options would pass through the landscape protection area designated by the Shire of Chapman Valley, although option 4 would introduce a grade separated interchange in this area.
Corridor option 4 would pass through a large area of previously undeveloped farmland, although there would be limited vantage points from which visual amenity and/or privacy would be impacted. There are a small number of residential properties in the vicinity of the corridor, for which impacts would have to be assessed.
Corridor option 6 would be located on or near an existing state road reserve. Where it diverges from the existing road, it would generally be located further from residential areas than the current alignment and therefore potential noise, visual amenity and/or privacy impacts would be limited.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 67 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Air Quality Both corridor options include reduced grades suitable for larger, higher productivity vehicles and sufficient overtaking opportunities to reduce inefficiencies. They would provide bypasses of the main townsites, reducing sitting traffic from built up areas and as a result reduce emissions associated with movement of people and goods. Both options are considered to present similar benefits in this regard.
6.7. Engineering Constraints - North
Topography and Hydrology The terrain in the study area between Geraldton and Northampton is generally rolling and hilly land.
A coastal ridge runs broadly north-south, rising to an elevation of around 100m. The Moresby Range rises over 200m, characterised by distinctive flat mesa tops. It runs roughly parallel to the coast for about 33km averaging around 6km from the coast. Terrain is more rolling to the east and north of the Moresby Range.
There are two main rivers: Oakajee River (source in Moresby Range and discharges to sea at Oakajee) and Bowes River, which passes south of Northampton and discharges into the sea south of Horrocks.
Corridor option 4 would run generally east of the Range. The corridor would follow relatively gentle vertical contours along a gully at the southern end, however further north some more significant earthworks would be required to achieve suitable grades.
Corridor 6 option would run through rolling to hilly terrain. A corridor has been identified seeking to minimise earthworks, however in sections these may still require significant cut and fill to achieve a suitable alignment. Further work will be required to quantify exact impacts.
Both options would cross two major waterways being Bowes and Chapman Rivers. Option 4 corridor would cross eight additional minor waterways as well as broadly following a gully for some distance. Option 6 would cross a further 13 minor crossings. Neither corridor intersects with land identified as flood prone.
Drainage Drainage will be a key consideration for both options. Corridor option 4 would cross existing farmland and associated impacts would need to be considered.
Geology and Soil Conditions Corridor option 4, east of the Moresby Range, is characterised by rocky outcrops in shallow loamy soil. Soils west of the Moresby Ranges up to Northampton (for corridor option 6) are red loamy duplex soils.
Public Drinking Water There are no Public Drinking Water Source Areas intersected by either corridor option.
Services 33kV overhead distribution lines would cross corridor option 4 at up to 7 locations. There are no other known utility / infrastructure corridors in the area.
33kV overhead distribution lines run broadly north-south near corridor option 6, with a number of local distribution cables running to individual properties and townsites. A 300mm PVC mains water pipe runs adjacent to (inside at times) the corridor, generally to the west of the existing road. Further work would be needed to define ultimate alignment and interactions between road and pipe alignment. Main Roads will engage with Water Corporation in this regard.
Both corridor options cross the easement for the Dampier Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline spur to Oakajee.
A corridor for fibre optic cables has been identified parallel to NWCH.
Infrastructure Both corridor options may impact a number of existing built structures including residential properties, farming / commercial structures and drainage structures (e.g. dams). Exact impacts would depend on final corridor alignment, however where possible, infrastructure will be avoided in consultation with impacted landowners. As discussed previously, the east-west connection through the Wokatherra Gap is included in the assessment for
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 68 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 both north options. The inclusion of this for option 4 means a further grade separated interchange is required at the point option 4 runs north from ONIC to provide for rail and for the east-west connection.
Constructability Corridor option 4 would be a largely greenfield construction with tie ins at each end. Impacts on adjoining farming land would need to be considered and managed appropriately (including but not limited to access, ASS, drainage).
A road in corridor option 6 would need to be constructed on or near a live traffic environment in sections and so would be more difficult to manage. Both options have significant earthworks required in sections, including management of potential rocky outcrops. Further detail on the extent of earthworks will be developed through later planning.
Staging A road in corridor option 4 would not be capable of being staged, although the east-west connection at the southern end could be constructed separately. Corridor option 6 is on or near the existing road reserve for much of the alignment. While detailed alignment will be considered at a later step in the planning, it is reasonable to assume that it would be possible to construct in a more staged manner than option 4.
Access High level lot and network access requirements have been considered for both options to give an indication of extent of service roads and number/configuration of intersections required along the corridor. A more detailed access strategy will be undertaken, in conjunction with further stakeholder engagement, as part of Alignment Definition work.
A road in corridor option 4 would be expected to have a low number of intersections and minimal lot access, whereas a road in corridor option 6 would have a few more intersections with an expectation of some driveways to be maintained due to lack of alternative network and constraints that would limit the use of service roads. Option 4 would have slightly longer service road requirement.
Road Network Performance Road network performance is considered across a balance of route length, number of connections, number of lanes and intersection size/complexity. Corridor option 4 would provide a slightly more direct route to Northampton from the south, however this difference is only a few kilometres and in a regional travel context is considered to be effectively negligible.
The east-west link would provide access to northern suburbs and Oakajee industrial area (and future port) for both options. The number, location and configuration of intersections will be further considered through alignment definition.
Road Safety Both corridor options would present a significant improvement in road safety for all users by providing improved vertical and horizontal geometry, overtaking opportunities and reducing the number of intersections and lot connections.
Corridor option 4 would allow separation of regional traffic from more local traffic, however there are relatively low volumes of vehicles north of Geraldton forecast in the future (with potential reduction with transfer of some HV movements into RAV10 movements) and the mix of traffic is not considered to present a significant concern with the upgrades to the overall network being contemplated by the northern section.
6.8. Economic Assessment
Construction Cost Considerations Construction of a road in corridor option 4 is expected to have a greater construction cost largely due to the greater number of structures and earthworks.
Whole of Life Costs If a road was constructed in corridor option 4, it is unknown whether the NWCH would be maintained as part of the state network. There is a chance that NWCH would not be transferred to Local Government and therefore that
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 69 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Main Roads would be liable for maintaining parallel roads for a low volume of traffic between Geraldton and Northampton. Even if the Local Government was to maintain the road in the future, it is a significant item of infrastructure that would have to be maintained using public funds (whether local, state or federal). Given the low traffic volumes, it is considered that an efficient network could be achieved for all users with a single road servicing the traffic between Geraldton and Northampton.
Land Cost Considerations Land in corridor option 4 is largely privately owned farmland. While a relatively small number of landowners would be impacted, there would be a need to acquire a large area of land and manage resulting severance considerations.
Land parcels along corridor option 6 tend to be smaller, so there would be a larger number of landholders impacted to a lesser extent, with fewer severance considerations, than option 4. Further work is required to understand the alignment to inform discussions around potential financial implications of severance.
Network Benefits Both options would alleviate pressures through townsites. Construction of option 4 would enable separation of regional traffic from local NWCH traffic, although tourists may choose either. Option 6 does not allow separation, however low volumes of combined traffic could be safely accommodated on a high standard road.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 70 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
7. Combined Assessment It is important to note that this is not entirely revisiting earlier planning. All options identified were reviewed and where there were no changes, earlier conclusions remain valid. Notwithstanding, the full corridors were reassessed with updated criteria to ensure a robust process was followed.
7.1. Multi-Criteria Analysis A Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) was prepared to assess the options under consideration. The MCA is included at Appendix 1, with key aspects assessed using discrete data wherever possible (to minimise subjectivity). The MCA makes provision for a number of critical elements relevant to major infrastructure studies including the following: Environmental Rare flora, native vegetation; Rare fauna, fauna habitat and TECs; Waterways & wetlands Soils & ground
Social Land acquisition Severance Heritage Land use alignment
Economic Construction cost Whole of life costs Economic development Constructability
Engineering Major structures Other infrastructure Route Travel efficiency Intersections & access Safety
A consistent number of criteria is used for each “triple bottom line” aspect of environment, social and economic factors, to ensure skewing of results is avoided as far as possible. Care is also taken to avoid double counting of potential impacts under more than one heading (e.g. number of intersections assessed as a single element rather than being double counted in network performance and safety elements).
It should be noted that all corridors would run through areas of bushfire risk. Resilience to bushfire is considered at a network scale, i.e. having an alternative network suitable for carrying the same vehicles if one area is subject to closure as a result of bushfire. DGNC will contribute to this network resilience by providing an alternative to the GNH for regional vehicles. Bushfire risk was not assessed independently for each option.
Assessments were based on constraints mapping and analysis as well as other relevant factors. Scoring, as shown in the MCA, was on a rating of 0 to 3, with 0 being a poor outcome/major impact/major constraint and 3 being a very good outcome / minor impact (i.e. a higher scoring option is perceived to balance issues better).
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 71 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
The total ratings provided the following: SOUTH
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Environmental 7 7 4
Social 8 8 8
Economic 7 6 6
Engineering 14 12 11
TOTAL 36 33 29
NORTH
Criteria Option 4 Option 6
Environmental 4 5
Social 5 7
Economic 5 8
Engineering 13 13
TOTAL 27 33
7.2. Preferred Option The preferred options, shown at Figure 47, have been identified based on the planning reviews undertaken to date, continued through the MCA process and incorporate engagement feedback and any other relevant factors as described below.
SOUTH Option 1 is identified as the preferred route for the following summarised reasons:
Provides greatest safety and efficiency benefits by separating regional and local traffic along the more highly trafficked section of the study area and removes the highest number of intersections/connections for the regional traffic alignment; Removes regional movements from the town site of Dongara and enables intensification and expansion at townsite in line with planning objectives; Presents best value for money over whole of life costs; Minimises impact on the 1 in 100 ARI flood plain area near Walkaway; It avoids most significant areas of vegetation, valuable habitats and other protected flora/fauna; and Minimises need for grade separation of road/road and road/rail interactions.
NORTH Option 6 is identified as the preferred route for the following summarised reasons:
Provides good level of service for all users in terms of safety and efficiency; Presents best value for money over whole of life costs; Achieves strategic objectives including providing strategic link to Oakajee; Allows for Northampton bypass to be delivered as a separate stage; Manages lot access and intersections effectively; More effectively manages environmental and social impacts by providing a single corridor in and around the existing NWCH corridor; Provides greater staging flexibility; and Minimises need for grade separation of road/road and road/rail interactions.
A second parallel road for the volumes of traffic forecast north of Geraldton is considered to present over-
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 72 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020 capitalisation and poor investment of state (and local) government funding over whole of life cycle (taking into high level consideration of upgrades and maintenance of both roads). A single 2 lane road with overtaking opportunities would also be consistent with Northampton bypass and the roads further north.
CENTRAL The road in the central section will follow the existing ONIC planning completed.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 73 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 47: Preferred option – Option 1 (south) and Option 6 (north)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 74 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
8. Consultation and Endorsements 8.1. Consultation A stakeholder engagement plan was developed and implemented during the planning that culminated in the 2016 AS report. A summary of the outcomes from the engagement process is included at section 8.1.1 of this report.
An updated engagement strategy has been produced to manage and guide engagement of the reviewed assessment and the engagement required to finalise the process from this point. Key points from this are included at section 8.1.2 of this report
The engagement strategies are developed and implemented to ensure that appropriate stakeholders are identified and suitably engaged throughout the process. Given the history around this planning study and the broader area, it has been particularly important to ensure effective stakeholder and community engagement.
Engagement to 2016 In 2015 Main Roads undertook public consultation on 6 alignment options, 3 north and 3 south of Geraldton, based on the shortlisted options identified through the planning work (Figure 25). Having considered environmental, social, heritage and topographical constraints, and the outcomes of additional planning studies, these options were presented to the community and stakeholders for consideration and feedback. This multi-faceted consultation campaign included Local Government liaison, personal landowner contact via a letter, widespread distribution of study brochures and comment sheets, public displays, website and advertising.
Submissions for this consultation process closed on 2 October 2015 resulting in approximately 360 submissions being received, including those from Local Government. This consultation confirmed widespread support for the planning study and raised a number of potential issues that required further assessment. It was confirmed that all issues raised regarding a number of options presented would be manageable.
Outcomes of the process indicated that the inland options (Option 1 to the south and Option 4 to the north as per Figure 25) received the widest level of stakeholder and community support. Issues identified with these options both within the 2016 report as well as those raised during the consultation period were deemed manageable.
Particular elements of feedback received, which have been noted and either have been, or will be, addressed before finalisation of planning work, include:
Engagement with the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, which acts for the Native Title claimant groups will be undertaken once a preferred corridor is selected (this will be undertaken) Use of Arthur Road and potential impacts on heritage value (corridors have been amended and engagement will continue) Crossing at Allanooka Springs Road on alignment shown (corridors have been amended) Impacts on farming and access to severed lots (Impacts considered) Potential detrimental impacts on townsite vitality with development of bypasses (potential outcomes will be considered and engagement will continue).
Since this original activity, there has been continued engagement with key stakeholders where differing views have been presented from original responses. In particular, all of the LGAs counter signed a letter in 2017 confirming that their preferred options were 2 (combination inland / BH) to the south and option 6 to the north. Further engagement has taken place, referenced below.
Engagement Strategy 2020 The most recent iteration of the Engagement Strategy sets out the study objectives, key messages for future engagement, stakeholders and activities around stakeholder engagement. A number of presentations and meetings have been held over 2018-2020 to keep key stakeholders appraised of the current situation and the revised assessments being undertaken. This included presentations to LGA officers and elected members as appropriate.
During this time, Main Roads has advised stakeholders of the re-testing of assumptions and the reasons for doing so. Generally, this has been met with support from stakeholders. The Shire of Irwin has indicated general support for Option 1, with some details to be confirmed regarding connections and a possible extension of the southern study boundary to the Brand Highway / Indian Ocean Drive intersection. Implications of this will be considered during later planning work. The Shire of Chapman Valley has indicated a strong preference for Option 6 to the north.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 75 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
The Transport portfolio’s online consultation system will be used for the upcoming engagement activity as well as letters and meetings.
An updated consultation report will be provided reflecting comments received as part of the upcoming engagement. If necessary, a revision to this report can be completed.
Key Stakeholders A summary of the key Government Agencies and Key Stakeholders who have been involved to date, and will continue to be involved, is provided below: Main Roads Directorates – Planning & Technical Services, Central & Northern Regions Local Government Agencies – City of Greater Geraldton, Shire of Irwin, Shire of Chapman Valley and Shire of Northampton Mid West Development Commission Mid West Ports Authority Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (also Western Australian Planning Commission) WA Members of Parliament – Minister of Transport & Minister of Planning, Local Members Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Local Action Group “Chapman Valley Highway Opposition Group” Landowners
8.2. Endorsements Following endorsement of the recommendation (in the form of this report) by Main Roads Executive Director of Planning & Technical Services, Main Roads Planning Branch will engage with key stakeholders on the preferred option. Ministerial approval will be sought before undertaking wider public consultation. The intention is to then engage directly with landowners intersected by the preferred corridor options and then undertake a period of wider community engagement to ensure that people have had the opportunity to review plans and that all views have been taken into consideration. Once Main Roads has had the opportunity to discuss all concerns with landowners and respond to queries or concerns from members of the community and other stakeholders, formal endorsement of the preferred corridors will be sought from LGA Councils and the WAPC.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 76 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
9. Conclusion and Recommendation An alignment selection planning study has been undertaken by Main Roads for the Dongara Geraldton Northampton Corridor, reviewing and refining earlier planning summarised in a 2016 report. The original report recommended corridor option 1 to the south and corridor option 4 to the north (Figure 48). While this was Main Roads’ recommendation, it was never formally endorsed by WAPC and the planning process was not fully completed advising all stakeholders of the final decision.
Figure 48: Options from 2016 Alignment Selection Report
Reflecting on the changed economic and development situation and re-testing some earlier assumptions, Main Roads has revised the proposed corridors and reassessed against updated criteria. Consultation has been undertaken with a range of key stakeholders.
Main Roads now recommends an updated option 1 to the south and an updated option 6 to the north (Figure 49). Reasons for this are summarised below. The intent is to now re-engage with key stakeholders, landowners and the wider community to allow people the opportunity to comment on the revised corridors and recommendation. Following this period, Main Roads will seek formal endorsement from LGAs and WAPC.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 77 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
9.1. RECOMMENDATION Main Roads recommends that corridor option 1 to the south of Geraldton and corridor option 6 to the north of Geraldton be adopted as the preferred route in order to undertake further detailed planning activities based on these corridors. The key reasons for this are as follow:
Options 1 and 6 present the best value for money outcomes over whole of life cycle and most effectively balance environmental, social and economic considerations;
Options 1 and 6 provide a high quality, safe and efficient route for all vehicles, suitable for the levels of traffic forecast;
Options 1 and 6 strongly align with state and federal frameworks, drivers and objectives;
Option 1 enables separation of local and regional / heavy traffic on the most heavily trafficked section. It minimises lot access and intersections, optimising safety and efficiency on the route; and
A combination of options 1 and 6, connected by a road following the previously identified ONIC alignment, provides good access to key industrial areas, Geraldton port, airport and a future port/ strategic industrial area at Oakajee and allows for a future rail to be constructed in ONIC.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 78 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Figure 49: Recommended Options
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 79 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
9.2. Notes Corridor option 4 is no longer under consideration.
For northern options, previous recommendations assumed that the Oakajee port, industrial area and infrastructure corridor, which would include the provision of a partial road bypass of Geraldton, would be delivered in the shorter term but this is no longer the case. Timing for the project is unknown but longer term than the need for a road bypass of Geraldton, which is required to address safety and efficiency constraints in the urban area. The planned corridor is still suitable for use, however original assumptions were that earthworks for road and rail would be completed concurrently. In the absence of an immediate need for rail, a road only solution that more closely follows existing topography presents a better value option that may be more likely to attract construction funding while allowing for delivery of rail in the future. Revised corridors have been considered and assessed in this report.
Changes to corridors reflect feedback received in response to earlier consultation activities and Main Roads will continue working with stakeholders throughout the planning process to ensure that decisions are made from an informed viewpoint, communication is open and honest and that all decisions are transparent and understood by all parties.
9.3. Further Refinements Further refinements required during more detailed planning assessment include:
Ongoing and detailed consultation with landholders regarding potential impacts to property, homes and businesses, exploring options to avoid, minimise and manage impacts and ensure that circumstances are understood and that honest, open communication is achieved to help alleviate uncertainty as far as possible;
Ongoing engagement with LGAs and DPLH to incorporate corridor into strategic and statutory planning documents as appropriate and resolve outstanding uncertainty about corridor requirements;
Ongoing engagement with JTSI regarding ONIC, future rail and interactions with the road only bypass solution;
Review central section road planning, including interchange between DGNC and Geraldton Mount Magnet Road, to ensure current design and safe system requirements are met;
Seek to progress more detailed planning Alignment Definition;
Detailed planning assessments and further modelling as required for road configuration, location, intersection locations and layout together with associated local road and lot connectivity; and
Wider and ongoing consultation with all stakeholders.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 80 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
10. References
Arc Infrastructure. (undated). Mid West Rail Network Map [online]. http://www.arcinfra.com/Rail-Network/Rail-Map/Midwest [Accessed 30/07/2019] Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019). QuickStats 2016 [online] https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20QuickStats [Accessed 24/07/19]
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019). 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia [online] https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02017-18 [Accessed 24/07/19] City of Greater Geraldton. (2016). Geraldton Airport Master Plan to 2030 v2.2. [online] https://airport.cgg.wa.gov.au/Profiles/airport/Assets/ClientData/Useful_Links/Master_Plan/Geraldton_Airport_Maste r_Plan_2012-2030_Version_2_2_February_2016.pdf [Accessed 09/04/20] Committee for Economic Development of Australia. (2016). Regional Development in Western Australia. [online] http://www.mwdc.wa.gov.au/f.ashx?v=2024477 [Accessed 24/07/19]
Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development. (2014). The Evolution of Australian Towns [online] https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/report_136 [Accessed 27/03/20] Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development. (2017). REGIONS 2030 Unlocking Opportunity. [online] https://www.regional.gov.au/regional/publications/regions_2030/ [Accessed 27/03/2020]
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. (2019). National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy. [online] https://www.freightaustralia.gov.au/. [Accessed 11/02/20] Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. (2020). National Land Network Routes. [online]. https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/about/the_national_land_transport_network.aspx [Accessed 10/06/2020]
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. Website [online] https://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/ [Accessed 27/03/2020]
Department of Planning. (2013). Mid West region map. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/592191f9-eb85-4a1c-8c31-69b32e1747f6/MWT- Midwest_region_location_plan [Accessed 24/07/19] Department of Planning. (2014). Oakajee Narngulu Infrastructure Corridor Alignment Definition Draft Report. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/4913a93a-81c0-4114-8342- b13c0e07af12/MWT_Draft_Alignment_Definition_Report_Oakajee_Narngulu_Infrastructure_Corridor [Accessed 09/04/20] Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (undated webpage). Regional Development / Mid West [online] http://www.drd.wa.gov.au/regions/Pages/Mid-West.aspx%20 [Accessed 24/07/19 & 23/04/20].
Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (2018). Mid West Regional Profile [online] http://www.drd.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/A%20regional%20profile%202018%20- %20%20Mid%20West.pdf#search=mid%20west%20regional%20profile [Accessed 25/07/19].
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. (2016) Transport and Australia’s Development to 2040 and Beyond. [online] https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/publications/files/Trends_to_2040.pdf [Accessed 27/03/20]. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. (2017). Regions 2030 – Unlocking Opportunity. [online]. https://www.regional.gov.au/regional/publications/regions_2030 [Accessed 27/03/20]. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (undated webpage). Mid West Region,[online] https://app.remplan.com.au/midwestregion/economy/summary?state=RADliG1rpF8D7PlhNdzXBGtyIxINea [Accessed 27/03/20]. Department of State Development. (2012). Oakajee Industrial Estate Structure Plan. [online] https://www.landcorp.com.au/Documents/Projects/Industrial/Oakajee%20Industrial%20Estate/Oakajee-Structure- Plan-Report.pdf [Accessed 13/04/20].
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 81 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Department of Transport. (2011). WA Regional Freight Network Plan. [online] https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/about-us/ABOUT_P_RegionalFreightPlan_FullA3.pdf [Accessed 24/07/19]. Department of Transport. (2018) Connecting People & Places. [online] https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/about-us/ABOUT_P_Connecting_People_and_Places_2018_19.pdf [Accessed 10/06/20]. Department of Transport & Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (2019). National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy WA Implementation Plan. [online] https://www.freightaustralia.gov.au/what-are-we-doing/implementation-plans [Accessed 20/03/20].
Department of Water & Environmental Regulation. (undated) PDWSA online mapping tool. [online] https://www.water.wa.gov.au/maps-and-data/maps/public-drinking-water-source-area-mapping-tool [Accessed 15/07/2020] . Department of Water & Environmental Regulation. (2016) Water Quality Protection Note no.: 25 Land Use compatibility in PDWSA. [online] https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/1733/12441.pdf [Accessed 13/04/2020]. Infrastructure Australia. (2016).Infrastructure Australia Plan 2016 [online] https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-06/Australian_Infrastructure_Plan.pdf [Accessed 17/03/20]. Infrastructure Australia. (2017). Corridor Protection Planning and investing for the long term. [online] https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/corridor-protection.aspx [Accessed 24/07/19] Mid West Development Commission. (2011) Mid West Investment Plan [online] http://www.mwdc.wa.gov.au/f.ashx/midwestinvestmentplan2011.pdf [Accessed 24/07/2019] Mid West Development Commission. (2015) MWDC Blueprint [online] http://mwdc.web123staging.com/f.ashx/BluePrint/%24387707%24BluePrint_btn.jpg [Accessed 25/07/19]
Mid West Development Commission. (2019). Major Projects Summary. [online] http://www.mwdc.wa.gov.au/f.ashx/2019-MPS-FINAL-April-2019-LR.pdf [Accessed 24/07/19] Mid West Development Commission. (2019). Annual Report. [online] http://www.mwdc.wa.gov.au/f.ashx/MWDC-Annual-Report-2017-18-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 22/07/19]
Mid West Development Commission. (2015).Western Australia – Mid West Infrastructure. [online] http://www.mwdc.wa.gov.au/f.ashx/MW-strategic-infrastructure-overview-March-2015.docx [Accessed 22/07/19] Mid West Ports Authority. (2018). Comparative Trade Report. [online] https://www.midwestports.com.au/Profiles/midwestports/Assets/ClientData/Documents/Trade/CompTradeStats/201 8/Comparative-Trade-Report-July-2018.pdf [Accessed 25/07/19]
Mid West Ports Authority. (2019) Draft Port Master Plan. [online] https://www.midwestports.com.au/Profiles/midwestports/Assets/ClientData/campaigns/geraldton-master- plan/MidWest-Draft-Port-Master-Plan.pdf 2019 [Accessed 23/03/20]
Mid West Ports Authority. (2019). Annual report 2018-19 [online] https://www.midwestports.com.au/Profiles/midwestports/Assets/ClientData/Documents/AnnualReport/2018-19/10/ [Accessed 19/03/20] Progress Midwest. (undated). Geraldton Jobs & Growth Plan 2020-2023: Growing the Capital of the Midwest [online] http://www.progressmidwest.com.au/ [Accessed 17/04/20]
Shire of Chapman Valley. (2020). Local Planning Policy 4.1 Development adjacent to proposed Oakajee to Tallering Peak and Oakajee to Narngulu Rail Corridors. [online] https://www.chapmanvalley.wa.gov.au/Profiles/chapmanvalley/Assets/ClientData/Document- Centre/planning/policies/SoCV_LPP_4_1_Development_adjacent_to_proposed_Road_Rail_Corridors.pdf [Accessed 24/07/20] Shire of Irwin. (2014). Dongara-Port Denison Structure Plan. [online] https://www.irwin.wa.gov.au/shireofirwin/media/documents/property%20development/development/wapc_final_unst amped_readable_dongara_-_port_denison_district_structure_plan.pdf [Accessed 18/06/20]
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 82 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Transport and Infrastructure Council. (2019). National Freight and Supply Chain. [online] https://www.freightaustralia.gov.au/ [Accessed 19/02/20]
Transport and Infrastructure Council. (2019). National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy National Action Plan. [online] https://imovecrc.com/news-articles/freight-and-logistics/action-plan-supply-chain-strategy/ [Accessed 19/02/20] Transport and Infrastructure Council, Australian Transport Assessment & Planning Guidelines. [online] https://www.atap.gov.au/. [Accessed 06/08/2019] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2003). Statement of Planning Policy 2.7: Public drinking Water Source Policy. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/ed831e80-907b-44e8-97cb-2a7efaceac03/SPP_2- 7_public_drinking_water_source . [Accessed 03/03/20] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2008). Shire of Chapman Valley Local Planning Strategy. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/0a2dc6d7-1d90-42ff-86a4-d39f6b3921c7/LST- chapman_valley_local_planning_strategy [Accessed 10/09/19]
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2009). Northampton Local Planning Strategy. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/9289c25e-7990-429e-9e41-bfb44477fcd2/LST-Northampton [Accessed 03/03/20] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2009). Narngulu Industrial Areas Strategic Land Use Direction.. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/district-and-regional-planning/country-planning/mid-west/mid- west-regional-publications/narngulu-industrial-area-strategic-land-use-direct [Accessed 10/09/19] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2011). Greater Geraldton Structure Plan. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/69e591f5-0b0c-498f-bbe3-345682deeaeb/SPL-Greater- Geraldton_Structure_Plan [Accessed March 2020]
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2015). Mid West Regional Planning and Infrastructure Framework. [online]. https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/district-and-regional-planning/country- planning/regional-planning-and-infrastructure-frameworks [Accessed March 2020]
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2015). CGG Local Planning Strategy. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/6ae28c90-2dfc-45be-be7a-625d76fbe46e/LST_City_of_Greater-Geraldton [Accessed March 2020] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2017). State Planning Policy 1 [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/75967422-d0bc-421e-84f5- 055663ab5426/SPP_1_State_Planning_Framework [Accessed March 2020] Western Australian Planning Commission. (2017). Shire of Irwin Local Planning Strategy. [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/e3689747-edd0-4d07-87c8-9dde9279cb5b/LST-Irwin_local-planning- strategy [Accessed March 2020]
Western Australian Planning Commission. (2019). Guilderton to Kalbarri Sub Regional Strategy Link [online] https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/ef5a6b2b-4bfb-4839-9be9-412c425d0645/MWT-WBT-Guilderton-Kalbarri- Sub-regional-Strategy 2019 [Accessed March 2020]
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 83 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
11. Appendices 11.1. Appendix 1 – Multi-Criteria Analysis SOUTHERN SECTION
0 Poor Outcome / Major Impact / Major Constraint / Very Difficult to Mitigate 1 Fair Outcome / Significant Impact / Actual or Potential to be Significant Constraint/ Difficult to Mitigate Good Outcome / Less Significant Impact / Actual or Potential Constraint (Less Significant) / Moderate or 2 Reasonable Mitigation Available 3 Very Good Outcome / Minor or No Impact / Easy to Avoid or Mitigate
COMMENTS / Corridor Option 1 Corridor Option 2 Corridor Option 3 SUMMARY
Potential to impact up to 61ha native vegetation. Potential to impact up to 73ha native Potential to impact up to 55ha native The corridor generally avoids vegetation. vegetation. large, established areas of The corridor would impact on the The corridor generally avoids large, vegetation and does not sever edge of one established area of Option 3 presents the established areas of vegetation and any significant areas of mature vegetation along Walter greatest risk of does not sever any significant areas of vegetation. The corridor runs Road. There would be some impacts damage to
vegetation. There would be some along the edge of one large area on roadside vegetation along the vegetation and rare impacts on roadside vegetation along of mature vegetation, however existing Brand Highway. flora, with the the existing Brand Highway. impacts could be minimised The corridor does not intersect with greatest area of The corridor does not intersect with any through later planning definition any known rare flora sites, however a potential impact known rare flora sites, however a
work. number have been identified in the including roadside number have been identified in the The corridor does not intersect surrounding areas including: vegetation. surrounding areas including: with any known rare flora sites, 2 2 * Acacia telmica (P3) 1 It is noted that the * Acacia telmica (P3) however a number have been * Anthocercis Intricata (P3) northern part of all ENVIRO * Anthocercis Intricata (P3) identified in the surrounding * Banksia elegans (P4) Corridor Options and * Banksia elegans (P4) areas including: * Grevillea tenuiloba (P3) most of the Corridor * Grevillea tenuiloba (P3) * Acacia telmica (P3) * Liparohyllum congestiflorum (P4); Option 1 have not * Liparohyllum Congestiflorum (P4); * Banksia elegans (P4) and been subject of and Rare flora and native vegetation * Grevillea tenuiloba (P3); and * Wurmbea Tubulosa (threatened or extensive survey and * Wurmbea Tubulosa (threatened or * Liparohyllum congestiflorum likely to become extinct). therefore the scale of likely to become extinct). (P4). It is possible that surveys could potential impacts are It is possible that surveys could identify It is possible that surveys could identify similar flora within the not fully understood. similar flora within the corridor. identify similar flora within the corridor. Corridor does not intersect with any corridor. Corridor does not intersect with any declared ESA. Corridor does not intersect with declared ESA. any declared ESA.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 84 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Corridor intersects with five (5 no.) Corridor intersects with one (1 rare fauna sites: ID 41324 Eastern no.) rare fauna site ID25240 Great Egret (International Agreement Carpet Python (other specifically Protection), ID 24779 Sharp Tailed Corridor intersects with one (1 no.) rare protected fauna). Sandpiper (International Agreement fauna site ID25240 Carpet Python There are a number of other Protection), ID 24788 Red-necked (other specifically protected fauna). recorded sites near the corridor: Stint (International Agreement There are a number of other recorded * ID 24803 Grey-tailed Tattler Protection), ID 30932 Bar tailed sites near the corridor: (International Agreement Godwit (International Agreement * ID 24803 Grey-tailed Tattler Protection) Protection) and ID 24808 Common (International Agreement Protection) * ID 41323 Common Sandpiper Greenshank (International Corridor Option 3 * ID 41323 Common Sandpiper (International Agreement Agreement Protection) intersects with a (International Agreement Protection) Protection) There are a number of other greater number of * ID 41324 Eastern Great Egret * ID 41324 Eastern Great Egret recorded sites near the corridor: sites known to (International Agreement Protection) (International Agreement * ID 24803 Grey-tailed Tattler contain protected * ID 24779 Sharp Tailed Sandpiper Protection) (International Agreement Protection) fauna and/or their (International Agreement Protection) * ID 24779 Sharp Tailed * ID 41323 Common Sandpiper habitats. It is noted * ID 25575 Great Sand Plover Sandpiper (International (International Agreement Protection) that both of the other (International Agreement Protection) Agreement Protection) * ID 41324 Eastern Great Egret options have * ID 24293 White bellied Sea Eagle * ID 25575 Great Sand Plover (International Agreement Protection) potential for
(International Agreement Protection) (International Agreement * ID 24779 Sharp Tailed Sandpiper additional protected * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater Protection) (International Agreement Protection) fauna and habitat (International Agreement Protection) * ID 24293 White bellied Sea * ID 25575 Great Sand Plover that may be identified * ID 24383 Grey Plover (International Eagle (International Agreement (International Agreement Protection) through survey. 2 Agreement Protection) 1 1
ENV Protection) * ID 24293 White bellied Sea Eagle Options 2 and 3 * ID 24808 Common Greenshank * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater (International Agreement Protection) intersect with buffers (International Agreement Protection) (International Agreement * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater of PECs and a * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater Rare fauna, habitat Protection) (International Agreement Protection) greater number of (International Agreement Protection) * ID 24383 Grey Plover * ID 24383 Grey Plover (International identified fauna sites * ID 24610 Australian Bustard (P4) (International Agreement Agreement Protection) (which may be partly * ID 30932 Bar tailed Godwit Protection) * ID 24808 Common Greenshank related to proximity to (International Agreement Protection) * ID 24808 Common (International Agreement Protection) ocean and partly to * ID 24788 Red-necked Stint Greenshank (International * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater number of surveys (International Agreement Protection) Agreement Protection) (International Agreement Protection) previously Given the nature of the area and the * ID 24958 Rainbow Bee Eater * ID 25240 Carpet Python completed), which limited existing survey, suitable habitat (International Agreement (International Agreement Protection) may require for these species may be found within Protection) Given the nature of the area and the management and/or the corridor. Given the nature of the area and limited existing survey, suitable mitigation. The corridor does not intersect with any the limited existing survey, habitat for these species may be nature reserves or land managed by suitable habitat for these species found within the corridor. DBCA. may be found within the corridor. The corridor does not intersect with The corridor intersects with the buffers The corridor does not intersect any nature reserves or land managed of three (3 no.) Priority 1 Environmental with any nature reserves or land by DBCA. Community sites (coastal sands with managed by DBCA. The corridor intersects with the Acacia rostellifera, mallees). The corridor does not intersect buffers of four (4 no.) Priority 1 with any designated PEC/TECs Environmental Community (coastal or their buffers. sands with Acacia rostellifera, mallees). Two (2 no.) new major waterway Two (2 no.) new major waterway crossings at Greenough and Irwin crossings at Greenough and Two (2no.) new major waterway Rivers. Irwin Rivers. crossings at Greenough and Irwin Three (3 no.) new minor waterway Option 3 presents a Six (6 no.) new minor waterway Rivers. crossings. significantly larger crossings. Three (3 no.) new minor waterway Approximately 4.7km of corridor runs risk given the One short section (<1km) runs crossings. through the edge of 1 in 100 ARI potential impacts on alongside a minor waterway. Approximately 4.7km of corridor runs floodplain associated with the 2 2 0 buildings in the 1 in
ENV Approximately 4.7km of corridor through the edge of 1 in 100 ARI Greenough River (near Walkaway). 100 ARI floodplain, runs through the edge of 1 in floodplain associated with the This results in around 400ha of which would require 100 ARI floodplain associated Greenough River (near Walkaway). floodplain area being upstream of the assessment and with the Greenough River (near This results in around 200ha of corridor. This could present additional management. Walkaway). This results in floodplain area being upstream of the risk to some properties in the
Waterways & wetlands/lakes around 200ha of floodplain area corridor. townsite of Walkaway that would upstream of the corridor. require detailed assessment and management.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 85 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
No recorded contaminated sites intersect with the corridor. The corridor does not intersect with any soils recognised as low- medium or medium-high ASS risk. Salinity risk: * up to 28 ha of corridor intersects with land defined as
">70% of map unit has moderate No recorded contaminated sites No recorded contaminated sites to high salinity risk or is intersect with the corridor. intersect with the corridor. presently saline" (highest risk) The corridor does not intersect with any The corridor does not intersect with * up to 43 ha of corridor soils recognised as low-medium or any soils recognised as low-medium intersects with land defined as Option 1 has a medium-high ASS risk. or medium-high ASS risk. "3-10% of map unit has greater potential Salinity risk: Salinity risk: moderate to high salinity risk or impact on salinity * up to 28 ha of corridor intersects with * up to 28 ha of corridor intersects is presently saline" (low risk) and also intersects land defined as ">70% of map unit has with land defined as ">70% of map * remainder of corridor intersects with the edge of an moderate to high salinity risk or is unit has moderate to high salinity risk with land defined as "<3% of area defined as presently saline" (highest risk) or is presently saline" (highest risk) map unit has moderate to high having "Substantial" * remainder of corridor intersects with * remainder of corridor intersects with salinity risk or is presently saline" UXO risk. While this 1 land defined as "<3% of map unit has 2 land defined as "<3% of map unit has 2
ENV (lowest risk) UXO area may be moderate to high salinity risk or is moderate to high salinity risk or is The corridor intersects with six (6 avoided through presently saline" (lowest risk) presently saline" (lowest risk)
Soils & Ground no.) areas identified as having future planning The corridor intersects with five (5 no.) The corridor intersects with five (5 "Slight Occurrence" risk of definition, further areas identified as having "Slight no.) areas identified as having "Slight Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) surveys and potential Occurrence" risk of Unexploded Occurrence" risk of Unexploded i.e. areas that have a confirmed mitigation/ Ordnance (UXO) i.e. areas that have a Ordnance (UXO) i.e. areas that have history of military activities that management will be confirmed history of military activities a confirmed history of military have resulted in residual UXO required. that have resulted in residual UXO but activities that have resulted in but which Defence considers which Defence considers inappropriate residual UXO but which Defence inappropriate to assess as to assess as substantial. This covers a considers inappropriate to assess as substantial. This covers a significant section of the corridor. substantial. This covers a significant significant section of the corridor. section of the corridor. In addition, the corridor intersects with the edge of an area identified as having "Substantial" risk of UXO, i.e. a history of numerous UXO finds or heavy residual fragmentation. Appropriate risk assessment will be required and potentially remediation/management.
Option 1 would have a greater land impact on a smaller number of owners whereas 2 and 3 would have smaller impacts on a higher number of 105 privately owned properties The corridor intersects with up to The corridor intersects with up to 103 land holders. Options intersect the corridor. 70 privately owned properties privately owned properties and up to 2 and 3 would have a The corridor intersects up to 542ha of and up to 660 ha of privately 568 ha of privately owned land. slightly higher risk of privately owned land. owned land. The corridor would generally be near impact on a higher The corridor would generally be near The corridor follows land existing roads, although the northern number of properties existing roads, although the northern boundaries where possible, but section would be along existing local given their proximity section would be along existing local would mostly be a new corridor 2 roads with low volumes of traffic. 2 2 to residential roads with low volumes of traffic. away from existing infrastructure The bypass section around Dongara buildings, however it The bypass section around Dongara and would bisect a number of would run close to a number of is noted that most of would run close to a number of private properties and farms. residential properties with heritage the properties are residential properties with heritage The corridor intersects a power value. already in the vicinity value.
SOCIAL facility, which may require The corridor intersects two power of an existing major The corridor intersects two power management/mitigation. facilities. road. facilities.
Impacts to property Corridor Options 2 & 3 also intersect with a second power facility, which will require management and potential mitigation.
Up to eighteen (18 no.) Up to thirteen (13 no.) properties could Up to seven (7 no.) properties could properties could be severed, be severed, with a further eleven (11 2 2 be severed, with a further eight (8 3 with a further twelve (12 no.) no.) properties with small areas of land no.) with small areas of land isolated with small areas of land isolated. isolated.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 86 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Corridor intersects with: * Other Heritage Place ID 4445 - ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Moonyoonooka 2 Corridor intersects with: * Registered Site 1065 - Bradley * Other Heritage Place ID 4445 - ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Road Burial Moonyoonooka 2 Corridor intersects with: * Registered Site 24761 Greenough * Registered Site 1065 - Bradley * Other Heritage Place ID 4445 River (Mythological, natural feature) Road Burial Moonyoonooka 2 * Registered Site 18907 Irwin River * Registered Site 24761 * Registered Site 1065 Bradley Road (historical, mythological, camp, Greenough River (Mythological, Burial natural feature, water source). natural feature) * Registered Site 24761 Greenough Corridor runs close to: * Lodged Site ID 4650 Pell River (Mythological, natural feature) * Registered Aboriginal Site 4774 Bridge (skeletal / burial) * Registered Site 18907 Irwin River Geraldton Pipeline 1 * Registered Site 18907 Irwin (historical, mythological, camp, natural * Lodged Site 5597 Dongara - Brand River (historical, mythological, feature, water source). Highway Potential impact on camp, natural feature, water Corridor runs close to: heritage sites and source). * Registered Aboriginal Site 4774 NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE their settings will Corridor runs close to: Geraldton Pipeline 1 Corridor intersects with: need to be * Registered Aboriginal Site * Lodged Site 5597 Dongara - Brand * CGG Local Place 13935 former considered for all 4774 Geraldton Pipeline 1 Highway Eastern Valley Hotel options. All corridors * Other: ID 5218 Natgas 138 * CGG 17149 Silcock Cottage run through areas NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE * State & SoI ID 1217 Old East End that have been
NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE * CGG Local Place 13935 former (major impact) relatively * CGG Local Place 13935 former Eastern Valley Hotel * CGG 17216 Rumble Cottage unsurveyed, in Eastern Valley Hotel 2 * CGG 17149 Silcock Cottage 2 *State Heritage P1240 Seventh Day 2 particular Option 1. It * CGG 17149 Silcock Cottage * State & SoI 1217 Old East End (major Adventist Church (fmr) - Positive is possible that
SOCIAL Heritage impact) impact (Bookara) surveys will identify a Corridor is in proximity of a * Irwin - Travellers Rest Inn (ruin, fmr) number of new sites. number of other local sites: Corridor is in proximity of a number of - Positive impact Based on available * CGG Places: 16876 other local sites: information, it is (Moonyoonooka Catholic Church * CGG Places: 16876 (Moonyoonooka Corridor is in proximity of a number of considered that - site), 13121 Hinton Farm , Catholic Church - site), 13121 Hinton other local sites: potential impacts 17697 McGuiness Cottage Site, Farm , 17697 McGuiness Cottage Site, * CGG Places: 16876 would be likely to be 13014 Pensioner Guard 13014 Pensioner Guard Cottage, (Moonyoonooka Catholic Church - comparable for all Cottage, 13895 Killarney, 13896 13895 Killarney, 13896 fmr St Thomas site), 13121 Hinton Farm , 17697 three options. fmr St Thomas Catholic Church, Catholic Church, 13898 McCagh McGuiness Cottage Site, 13014 13898 McCagh Cottage (ruin), Cottage (ruin), 13897 Surrey Farm, Pensioner Guard Cottage, 13895 13897 Surrey Farm, 13914 13914 Rumble Cottage (fmr), 9094 Killarney, 13896 fmr St Thomas Rumble Cottage (fmr), 9094 Well Station, 13919 Logue Homestead, Catholic Church, 13898 McCagh Well Station, 13919 Logue 13920 Desmond Cottage. Cottage (ruin), 13897 Surrey Farm, Homestead, 13920 Desmond * Shire of Irwin Places 1220 Nhargo 13915 Dale Farmhouse, 3749 Winton Cottage, 13921 Mt Hill farmhouse (ruin), 11812 Bonniefield, Cottage (fmr, ruin), 3750 Rumble Homestead & 12448 Wye Farm 12179 Roman Catholic Cemetery and House & outbuildings, 13994 Poole's House First Church (fmr) - site. cottage (ruin), 13958 Poole's * Shire of Irwin Places 12182 & Cottage. 12291 Pell's Cottage & Pell * Shire of Irwin Places: 1220 Nhargo Bridge Quarry, Lime Kiln Sites farmhouse (ruin), 11812 Bonniefield, 12179 Roman Catholic Cemetery and First Church (fmr) - site, 11810 Edwards House.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 87 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
CGG CGG The corridor runs near existing roads The corridor runs near existing local roads at the northern end local roads at the northern end through land zoned Rural and Rural through land zoned Rural, Smallholdings, crossing river and crossing river and railway railway reserves. It abuts Airport land reserves. It abuts Airport land at CGG at the northern extent. the northern extent. The corridor runs near existing roads Policy Areas: Special Control Area 3 Policy Areas: Special Control local roads at the northern end through (Geraldton Airport), SCA 5 All options run Area 6 (Floodprone area) & land zoned Rural and Rural (Greenough Flats), SCA 6 through sections of SCA3 (Geraldton Airport). Smallholdings, crossing river and (Floodprone Area), SCA 7 (South largely undeveloped Irwin railway reserves. It abuts Airport land at Greenough to Cape Burney coastal land. Option 1 would The corridor runs through land the northern extent. planning strategy). have the greatest zoned General Farming and Policy Areas: Special Control Area 6 impact by area, Rural Smallholdings, crossing (Floodprone area) & SCA3 (Geraldton Irwin however generally it Airport). road and rail reserves. The corridor runs through land zoned would be along the
Irwin Policy Areas: Water Supply General Farming, Rural edge of properties Control Area (2 sections, 0.8km The corridor runs through land zoned Smallholdings, Rural Residential, with limited expected and 3.6km long). This area General Farming, Rural Smallholdings, Special Residential. It abuts land impact on populated reflects the Public Drinking Rural Residential, Special Residential. zoned Light and General Industry areas with Water Source Area (Priority 1) - It abuts land zoned Light and General through Dongara (bypass land significantly fewer see below. Industry through Dongara (bypass land reserved for major road already), and properties reserved for major road already), and crosses river and rail reserves. The intersected. While the corridor would crosses river and rail reserves. The corridor runs closer to a significantly
Option 1 would introduce new development and corridor runs closer to a significantly larger number of residential remove heavy &
ed / approved land use bisect a number of farms, it is larger number of residential properties properties in Dongara and adjacent 2 2 1 regional vehicle not generally considered to in Dongara and adjacent to Brand to Brand Highway than Option 1. traffic and associated SOCIAL conflict with the aims and Highway than Option 1. impacts from more objectives of the land use The corridor generally runs through densely populated planning framework. Low The corridor generally runs through rural land but adjacent to existing areas. Options 2 & 3 numbers of properties are rural land but adjacent to existing roads roads (both local and state). Potential would maintain located close to the corridor. at the northern and southern ends (both impacts on land are generally limited proximity to the more local and state). Potential impacts on to edge of properties, although a populated areas. Public Drinking Water Source land are generally limited to edge of relatively large number of properties Given the greater Area: Guidance (DWER water properties, although a relatively large intersect with the corridor. Alignment with establish potential impact on quality protection notes, SPP 2.7 number of properties intersect with the the floodplain, Option and LPS Section 6.2) and corridor. Generally considered not to No mining tenements intersect with 3 is considered to discussions with DWER staff in conflict with the aims and objectives of corridor. conflict with the local 2019 indicates that roads are not the land use planning framework. planning framework, excluded from PDWSA P1 areas Given the presence of the existing whereas Options 1 but may be subject to certain Mining tenements: corridor intersects road along significant lengths of the and 2 could impact conditions. with two exploration licences. corridor, it is considered that the the floodplain, but to Discussions with DMIRS indicate that corridor does not conflict with the a lesser extent. Mining tenements: corridor further liaison would be required with aims or objectives of the relevant intersects with two exploration tenement holders, but this is not seen land use planning controls and licences. Discussions with as a fatal flaw for the corridor. strategies, apart from CGG SCA 6. DMIRS indicate that further With reference to this last point, this liaison would be required with corridor would have a greater impact tenement holders, but this is not on the floodplain than Options 1 or 2 seen as a fatal flaw for the and could therefore be seen as corridor. contrary to the aims and objectives of SCA6 (Flood Prone Area).
COMPARITIVE Pavement & Surfacing - lowest COMPARITIVE COMPARITIVE cost Pavement & Surfacing - middle Pavement & Surfacing - highest Earthworks - lowest Earthworks - middle Earthworks - highest Structures - lowest Structures - highest Structures - highest
Service Roads - lowest length Service Roads - middle Service Roads - highest Construction Costs - to be Construction Costs - to be confirmed 2 1 Construction Costs - to be confirmed 1 confirmed (relatively lower than Property costs - to be confirmed
ECON Property costs - to be confirmed 2 & 3) (severance very difficult to estimate), (severance very difficult to estimate), Property costs - to be confirmed moderate impact on privately owned
Construction Cost moderate impact on privately owned (severance very difficult to land. land. estimate), greater impact on
privately owned land than Options 2 or 3.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 88 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Ongoing maintenance costs will be similar for all three options given that the forecast volumes would warrant full length of 67.4 km new road. Constructing new 1 67.4 km new road. Constructing new Brand being retained 67km new road, 1 lane in each lane in each direction at northern end, 1 lane in each direction at northern as state network direction. Brand Highway will with new 4 lane dual carriageway end, with new 4 lane dual regardless of also be maintained as 1 lane in
adjacent to existing Brand south of carriageway adjacent to existing preferred option for
each direction with overtaking, diverge point. Existing Brand north of Brand south of diverge point. Existing DGN. The volumes may avoid need to construct 2 this point will continue as important 2 Brand north of this point will continue 2 of traffic forecast for Dongara Bypass.
ECON route for local traffic therefore any as important route for local traffic the southern section WOLCC Upgrades required on Brand upgrades will not be redundant. therefore any upgrades will not be of DGN warrants would not become redundant Dongara Bypass will be constructed redundant. Dongara Bypass will be provision of either asset given it will remain a key (unknown status of existing Brand constructed (unknown status of dual carriageway, or route for local and tourist traffic. through townsite). existing Brand through townsite). 2 roads with one lane in each direction therefore all options would have limited redundancy if improvements are made to existing network.
All options are similar length and would improve regional Facilitates more efficient regional Facilitates more efficient regional travel travel efficiency for travel by improving environment for Facilitates more efficient regional by improving environment for both regional operating both heavy and regional traffic as travel by improving environment heavy and regional traffic as well as companies. All well as local / light traffic. While not for users by enabling separation local / light traffic. While not separating options would also separating heavy from light vehicles, of heavy and regional traffic from heavy from light vehicles, where they include a bypass of where they mix the road would be 2 local / light traffic. As part of mix the road would be 2 lanes in each Dongara townsite, lanes in each direction. As part of wider upgrade strategy, direction. enabling. Option 1
wider upgrade strategy, contributes contributes to expanding RAV 10 As part of wider upgrade strategy, would in addition to expanding RAV 10 network and network and improved access to contributes to expanding RAV 10 allow potential 2 1 improving access to Geraldton Port 1
CON Geraldton Port from the south. network and improving access to expansion of from the south. industry Allows Dongara townsite to Geraldton Port from the south. Dongara townsite Construction of Dongara bypass focus on more local traffic. Construction of Dongara bypass would along local roads, would allow Dongara townsite to Opportunity to improve allow Dongara townsite to focus on whereas Options 2 focus on more local traffic and connectivity to Dongara's more local traffic and opportunities for and 3 would not opportunities for businesses hinterland. Some potential businesses alongside the road. Some support development alongside the road. Some potential impact on a small number of potential impact on a small number of to the east of the impact on a small number of farming farming operations. farming operations and commercial town's bypass as this operations and commercial operations along Brand Highway. would introduce operations along Brand Highway. additional local traffic crossing the main Facilitate regional economic development impact, on local road.
Lowest interaction with live traffic environment. Mix of greenfield Construction of southern section and brownfield construction, Construction of southern section would Option 1 - easier to would be adjacent to existing Brand limited construction on existing be adjacent to existing Brand Highway construct. Options 2
Highway so traffic flow would be state network and therefore so traffic flow would be easier to & 3 - offline easier to maintain. Ability to stage traffic flow should be easy to 1 maintain. Ability to stage sections of 2 2 construction along sections. Ability to stage sections of
ECON maintain with property access Brand Highway, but connection to Brand so relatively Brand Highway, but connection to being main concern. Limited northern section would need to be easy to construct as
Constructability northern section would need to be staging ability (no value completed in one. well as stage. completed in one. constructing one section without the full route).
Four rail grade separations (Brice Road, Pettit Road, near Pells Bridge, near Crampton Rd). Brice Road Three rail grade separations Four rail grade separations (Brice would also be grade separated road Option 2 - additional (Brice Road, Pettit Road, near Road, Pettit Road, near Pells Bridge, access.
grade separation for Pells Bridge). Brice Road would near Bookara). Brice Road would also One road interchange at Brand railways. Option 3 also be grade separated road be grade separated road access. Highway tie in at S. Potential has additional grade access. 2 One road interchange at Brand 1 additional grade separation at 0 One road interchange at Brand separation and INFRA Highway tie in at S. Potential additional northern Brand tie in (subject to further complications Floodways Highway tie in at S. grade separation at northern Brand tie further investigation). around flood Two major river crossings. in (subject to further investigation). Two major river crossings. management. Two major river crossings. One underpass. Location in 1in100 flood area will also require significant management and
Major structures (rail / river crossings, engineering.
interchanges & ramps) & service roads.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 89 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Power poles in corridor - 27 Overhead cables cross corridor - 22 Underground pipes/cables: WATER PIPES - all cross Power poles in corridor - 38 + ~ 8km broadly perpendicular to corridor Power poles in corridor - 33 + ~ 7km of of poles in Brand Highway alignment alignment. poles in Brand Highway alignment Overhead cables cross corridor - 31 * 300mm reinforced concrete Overhead cables cross corridor - 31 Underground pipes/cables: pipe runs along Geraldton Mount Underground pipes/cables: Large number of WATER PIPES Magnet Road WATER PIPES power poles in/near * 300mm reinforced concrete pipe * 600mm steel water pipe * 300mm reinforced concrete pipe runs reserve of Brand runs along Geraldton Mount Magnet crosses corridor near Short along Geraldton Mount Magnet Road Highway that will Road Road 2 * 600mm steel water pipe crosses 1 1 need to be * 600mm steel water pipe crosses * 800mm steel water pipe corridor near Short Road considered and corridor near Short Road crosses corridor near Short * 800mm steel water pipe crosses present a significant * 800mm steel water pipe crosses Road corridor near Short Road consideration for act on other services & utilities corridor near Short Road * 150mm asbestos cement water * 250mm reinforced concrete pipe options 2 and 3. * 250mm reinforced concrete pipe pipe crosses corridor north of Mt crosses corridor near Pettit Road crosses corridor near Pettit Road Horner West Road (with a * 375mm asbestos cement pipe * 375mm asbestos cement crosses 300mm PVC pipe proposed). crosses near Pettit Road near Pettit Road INFRA ImpINFRA This corridor runs parallel to but avoids Allanooka Springs Road, where a significant 600mm steel above ground water pipe runs.
67.0km 2 67.4km 2 67.4km 2
Route
NETWORK
While not separated, 4 lanes would While not separated, 4 lanes would
Separation of HV from LV provide overtaking potential to provide overtaking potential to optimise optimises efficiency for vehicles optimise efficiency. Significant efficiency. Significant improvement in on both routes. Significant improvement in road travelling 2 road travelling environment and 2 2 improvement in road travelling environment and efficiency for all efficiency for all vehicles. Greater environment and efficiency for all vehicles. Greater number of NETOWKR number of connections, however well ravel efficiency vehicles. connections, however well separated T separated and significant improvement. and significant improvement. INDICATIVE INDICATIVE INDICATIVE While Option 1 has Two (2 no.) grade separated Two (2 no.) grade separated (Brice Two grade separated (Brice Road & lowest number of interchanges (Brice Road & Road & Brand Highway south), Brand highway south), potential for a intersections and
Brand highway south). potential for a third at Brand Highway third at Brand Highway northern tie accesses, all options
Six (6 no.) four way intersections northern tie in. in. present a very good (most likely staggered Ts) 3 Six (6 no.) four way intersections (most 3 Three (3 no.) four way intersections 3 outcome with
Access Two (2 no.) full movement three likely staggered Ts) (most likely staggered Ts) reduction in SAFETY way intersections Nine (9 no.) full movement three way Twelve (12 no.) full movement three intersections and One (1 no.) Left in left out intersections way intersections suitable spacing of
Intersections & Lot One (1 no.) consolidated Nine (9 no.) consolidated driveways Twelve (12 no.) consolidated those that are to be driveway (full movement) (full movement) driveways (full movement) maintained. Would significantly improve operating Provides significant Would significantly improve operating conditions by allowing for overtaking improvement allowing for conditions by allowing for overtaking on All options present a
on much of Brand Highway, separation of heavy/regional much of Brand Highway, constructing significant constructing Dongara bypass and traffic from light/local traffic as 3 Dongara bypass and removing large 3 3 improvement for removing large number of Safety well as including safe system number of intersections and driveways. achieving road safety intersections and driveways. solutions considerations for road Incorporates safe systems objectives. Incorporates safe systems network. considerations. considerations.
Total Enviro 7 Total Enviro 7 Total Enviro 4 Total Social 8 Total Social 8 Total Social 8 Total Economic 7 Total Economic 6 Total Economic 6 Total TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 22 Total TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 21 Total TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 18
Total Infra 4 Total Infra 2 Total Infra 1 Total Network Performance 4 Total Network Performance 4 Total Network Performance 4 Total Safety 6 Total Safety 6 Total Safety 6
TOTAL 36 TOTAL 33 TOTAL 29
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 90 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
NORTHERN
Corridor Option 4 Corridor Option 6 COMMENTS / SUMMARY
Potential to impact up to 86ha native vegetation. Potential to impact up to 53ha native Corridor intersects with a number of known rare vegetation.
flora sites: Corridor intersects with a number of known Corridor Option 4 would have a * four (4 no.) P4 rare flora sites: detrimental impact on established * three (3 no.) P3 and * four (4 no.) priority 4 (P4) vegetation through severance of an * one (1 no.) P2. * one (1 no.) P3 area abutting a Nature Reserve and Additional P2, P3 and P4 sites recorded near the
Additional P2, P3 and P4 sites recorded near along waterways. Option 6 would have corridor, particularly in and around Oakabella the corridor, particularly in and around Bella a greater impact by total area. On and Howatharra Nature Reserves. Vista and Howatharra Nature Reserves. 1 1 balance, impacts on vegetation and The majority of the corridor runs on or near an The majority of the corridor runs thorough flora are considered equivalent for both ENVIRO existing road reserve and in some areas there sparsely vegetated agricultural land, severing corridors. will be impacts on roadside vegetation. This can some ribbons of established vegetation along The corridor for Option 4 has not been be minimised during later planning definition waterways and a significant area of vegetation subject to extensive survey (unlike work. abutting the Bella Vista Nature Reserve. Option 6) and surveys may reveal The corridor does not intersect with any ESA, Rare flora and native vegetation The corridor does not intersect with any ESA, additional constraints. however there are a number of recorded sites however there are a number of recorded sites near the east-west link and Oakabella Nature near the east-west link. Reserve. Corridor intersects with one (1 no.) known rare fauna site ID25240 Carpet Python (other Corridor intersects with two (2 no.) rare fauna specifically protected fauna). sites ID25240 Carpet Python (other specifically There are a number of other recorded sites protected fauna) & ID24475 Australian Peregrine near the corridor: Falcon (Other Specifically Protected Fauna). * ID24734 Carnaby's Cockatoo (rare/likely to
There are a number of other recorded sites near become extinct) Both options have the potential to the corridor: * ID24958 Rainbow Bee Eater (International impact on habitats of rare fauna and * ID24734 Carnaby's Cockatoo (rare/likely to Agreement Protection) are considered to be similar in the become extinct) * ID34013 White browed babbler (Priority 4 extent of their potential impact. Noted 1 * ID24958 Rainbow Bee Eater (International 1
ENV protected fauna) that corridor option 4 has not been Agreement Protection) Suitable habitat for these species may be surveyed to the same extent as * ID34013 White browed babbler (Priority 4 found within the corridor. corridor option 6 and therefore potential protected fauna) Rare fauna, habitat The corridor intersects with a corner of Bella impacts are not so well understood. Suitable habitat for these species may be found Vista Nature Reserve (up to 1.2ha) however within the corridor. impacts can be avoided through later planning The corridor intersects with the buffers of three definition work. (3 no.) Priority Ecological Communities: Plant The corridor intersects with the buffers of two Assemblages of the Moresby Range System. (2 no.) Priority Ecological Communities: Plant Assemblages of the Moresby Range System. Two (2 no.) new major waterway crossings at Two (2 no.) new major water crossings at Bowes Bowes & Chapman Rivers. River (existing bridge not proposed to be used) Each corridor identifies two new major Eight (8 no.) new minor waterway crossings. 1 and Chapman River. 1 river crossings. Similar impacts as a
ENV A number of sections run alongside a minor Thirteen (13 no.) minor waterway crossings result of both options. waterway. No flood prone land (DWER mapping).
Waterways &
wetlands/lakes No flood prone land (DWER mapping). No recorded contaminated sites intersect with No recorded contaminated sites intersect with the corridor. the corridor. Option 4, which is largely greenfield, The corridor intersects with up to 39ha of low- The corridor intersects with up to 16ha of low- presents a higher risk of impacting ASS medium ASS risk soils and no medium-high medium ASS risk soils and no medium-high ASS / salinity sensitive land. As this is ASS risk soils. risk soils. largely active farming area, this could Salinity risk: Salinity risk: cause wider reaching issues on
* up to 129.5 ha defined as "10-30% of map * up to 32.4 ha defined as "10-30% of map unit adjoining farmland if not appropriately unit has moderate to high salinity risk or is has moderate to high salinity risk or is presently managed.
presently saline" (low/medium risk) saline" (low/medium risk) Both options intersect with a number of 1 2
ENV * remainder of land defined as "<3% of map * remainder of land defined as "<3% of map unit areas defined as UXO risk "Slight unit has moderate to high salinity risk or is has moderate to high salinity risk or is presently Occurrence", which will require
Soils & Ground presently saline" (lowest risk) saline" (lowest risk) assessment and potential mitigation in Significant section of corridor is identified as Significant section of corridor is identified as the future but Option 4 has a slightly having "Slight Occurrence" risk of UXO i.e. having "Slight Occurrence" risk of UXO i.e. greater length of corridor intersecting areas that have a confirmed history of military areas that have a confirmed history of military with UXO area and has not previously activities that have resulted in residual UXO activities that have resulted in residual UXO but been assessed in this regard for road but which Defence considers inappropriate to which Defence considers inappropriate to construction. assess as substantial. assess as substantial.
Option 4 has a more significant impact on a smaller number of privately owned The corridor intersects up to 49 privately owned lots. Option 6 has an impact on a properties and up to 180ha of privately owned higher number of owners, generally land. edge of property and close to an The corridor intersects up to 37 privately Corridor largely follows/runs parallel to existing existing road. owned properties and up to 406ha of privately corridor and would generally require a widening On balance, the scale of area impacted 1 2 owned land. of the existing corridor rather than a completely by option 4 is considered to have
SOCIAL new alignment. greater potential impact than the higher The corridor intersects with a Water Corporation number of lots potentially impacted by
Impacts to property facility, however impacts can be mitigated option 6. through future planning definition work. The extent of potential impacts on structures is considered broadly equivalent across the options.
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 91 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Nineteen (19 no.) properties severed. Five (5 no.) properties severed. Three (3 no.) further properties severed with 1 Two (2 no.) further properties severed with very 2 very small areas of land isolated. small areas of land isolated. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Corridor intersects with: *Registered Aboriginal Site 24416 Bowes River *Other Heritage Place ID 5681 Koebe Juana (camp) Both Corridor Options intersect with a *Other Heritage Place ID 24413 Elephant Hill ABORIGINAL HERITAGE number of known heritage sites. 'Moondong' (mythological natural feature) Corridor intersects with: Further liaison will be required to *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 24414 Oakajee *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 24416 Bowes establish the extent of those impacts River (mythological natural feature). River and any potential mitigation. *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 441 Royce Farm *Other Heritage Place ID 5681 Koebe Juana Additional surveys may also identify Burial & Paddock (camp) currently unknown sites. *Other Heritage Place IDs 16134, 16138, 16132 *Other Heritage Place ID 24413 Elephant Hill On balance, both options are
Oakajee Buffers. (Registered site ID 16133 is 'Moondong', (mythological natural feature) - considered to have similar potential nearby but does not intersect with corridor.) corner only impact. 2 *Registered Aboriginal Site 4433 Oakajee Spring 1 *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 24415 Buller It is also worth noting that both options Scatter site
SOCIAL Heritage River impact the former railway precinct. *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 24415 Buller *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 30063 Early engagement with Heritage Office River Chapman River confirms that there is no residual *Registered Aboriginal Site ID 30063 Chapman physical value remaining on site, but River NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE that it is the alignment that has value.
*Local (Geraldton and Northampton) Place Opportunities to provide information NON-ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Number 12059: Geraldton-Northampton boards/follow the alignment may be *Corridor abuts State & Local Registered Place Railway Precinct. beneficial to the retention of State Number 15838 Cuddy Cuddy Changing Station. heritage value. *Corridor abuts Local (Shire of Northampton) Place Number 17858 Isseka School Site. *Local (Geraldton and Northampton) Place Number 12059 Geraldton-Northampton Railway Precinct. Corridor generally runs through land zoned Rural, with some areas of Rural Smallholdings. Corridor generally runs through mix of state road Corridor intersects with: reserve and adjoining rural land. It abuts some * Shire of Chapman Valley Special Control small townsites with residential and open space Area 1 (Oakajee Industrial Zone and Buffer) designations at Isseka and Howatharra but Corridor Option 6 runs broadly along (edge only) corridor would be to the west of these areas. an existing road alignment and * Shire of Chapman Valley Special Control Corridor intersects with: therefore would not significantly Area 2 (Moreseby Range Landscape * Shire of Chapman Valley Special Control Area change the nature of the development. Protection) 1 (Oakajee Industrial Zone and Buffer) Furthermore, a future road would be Would introduce road into otherwise greenfield * Shire of Chapman Valley Special Control Area further from the more densely
area, with the road potentially visible and 2 (Moresby Range Landscape Protection) populated areas than the current road. audible from a number of properties. * Shire of Northampton Special Control Area 2 Option 4 would run through an A potential road would generally not conflict 1 (Moresby Range Landscape Protection) around 2 otherwise undeveloped area, and with the aims and objectives of the zones and Oakabella. potentially introduce a grade separated
SOCIAL protection areas however the south eastern A potential road would not conflict with the aims interchange into a landscape protection interchange is located at the southern extent of and objectives of these areas, particularly given area. It would reduce noise SCV SCA2 and could be considered not in the presence of the existing road in / near the experienced by residents along existing keeping with the nature and values of the area. corridor. corridor by providing an alternative The northern extent of the corridor intersects The northern extent of the corridor intersects route for heavy vehicles, however with an expired mining tenement. The southern with an expired mining tenement. The southern would introduce impacts to new extent, near the location of Oakajee Port & extent, near the location of Oakajee Port & properties.
Alignment with established / approved land use Industrial Estate, intersects with two (2 no.) Industrial Estate, intersects with three (3 no.) tenements (Karara and Crosslands tenements (Karara and Crosslands Resources). Resources). No Public Drinking Water Source Area. No Public Drinking Water Source Area.
40.7km road construction, one lane in each 36 km road construction. One lane in each
direction with overtaking and direction with overtaking lanes and climbing/descending lanes. climbing/descending lanes. Note - full P90 will follow.
Pavement & Surfacing - Option 4 is greater Pavement & Surfacing - Option 4 greater than For initial analysis, it is noted that than Option 6 Option 6 Option 4 indicative construction costs 0 2 Earthworks - Option 4 volume greater than Earthworks - Option 4 volume greater than are in the order of 80% higher than ECON Option 6 Option 6 corridor 6. This may be considered a Construction costs only: highest Construction costs only: lowest fatal flaw for option 4. Construction Cost Land costs: to be confirmed: Land costs: to be confirmed:
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 92 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
40.7km road construction, one lane in each direction with overtaking and climbing/descending lanes. Existing NWCH retained (potentially not as state road - see below). Longer construction route, higher number of structures - higher maintenance costs into future.
Upgrades would be required on existing NWCH to address existing safety and Volumes of traffic drop significantly efficiency considerations, which would 36 km road construction. One lane in each north of Geraldton. Entirely new road effectively become redundant once DGN is direction with overtaking lanes and could be over-capitalisation if sufficient
constructed. This would include overtaking climbing/descending lanes. overtaking opportunities are provided lanes (expected to be in the order of $15m). Shorter overall length and fewer structures. to improve efficiency. If a road was constructed in Corridor Option 4, 1 Limited sections of existing NWCH retained as a 2 Nominally, each of the north south links
ECON an initial assessment indicates that the existing service road. Very low rehabilitation of existing have 2 overtaking lanes included.
WOLCC NWCH may no longer meet criteria for state network. While coordination of locations against network inclusion. This would introduce Upgrades could align with ultimate road plans, intersections and topography is still significant ongoing maintenance costs to the minimising redundancy. required it is not expected to change Local Government and would not present good the overall comparison. value for public funds. If not transferred to Local Government, the state would need to maintain two separate parallel 40km roads catering for up to 3000 vpd. The total traffic across both existing NWCH and DGN between Geraldton and Northampton would be in the order of 3000 vpd in the long term. The scale of investment over the life cycle is very high for the low traffic volume forecast.
Allows for separation of heavy/regional from light/local traffic. However, with the low Allows for separation of heavy/regional from volumes forecast, the combined traffic is not light/local traffic. However, with the low volumes seen as a major risk for the road or forecast, the combined traffic is not seen as a businesses. major risk for the road or businesses. Facilitates development at Oakajee Industrial Facilitates development at Oakajee Industrial Area, allows for rail connection to future Port. Area, allows for rail connection to future Port. Corridor Option 6 would allow for more Allows for road access to area by largest Allows for road access to area by largest direct connection between Geraldton / vehicles (RAV10). vehicles (RAV10). Oakajee and Northampton for RAV10 Improves access to Geraldton Port for largest Improves access to Geraldton Port for largest vehicles. vehicles from north and south as part of wider vehicles from north and south as part of wider Discussed at N1 below - for vehicles upgrade strategy. 3 upgrade strategy. 3
CON coming from further south and the east, Facilitates operational efficiencies for freight Facilitates operational efficiencies for freight Option 4 would be shorter than movements by enabling RAV10s on network. movements by enabling RAV10s on network. Corridor Option 6. Would provide alternative RAV10 network to Would provide alternative RAV10 network to Corridor Option 4 allows for separation GNH to access NW of state as part of wider GNH to access NW of state as part of wider of most regional traffic from local traffic. upgrade strategy. upgrade strategy. Improves efficiency and amenity in townsites Improves efficiency and amenity in townsites by by providing HV bypasses. providing HV bypasses. Potential impact on small number of farming Minor impact at edge of some commercial operations through severance. Slight operations. Slight additional distance for access additional distance for some operators to to network through service roads. access network via service roads.
Facilitate regional economic development impact, on local industry
Mix of greenfield and brownfield construction Corridor Option 4 - easy to construct Largely greenfield construction, limited traffic Options for delivering in stages and allowing but has to be all in one. management. 1 upgrades to contribute to ultimate. 1 Corridor Option 6 - can be staged, but
ECON No staging options. Some complications around construction and more complicated. management of live traffic environment. On balance considered to be similar.
Constructability
INDICATIVE New crossings required at Bowes River & INDICATIVE Chapman River
Eight (8 no.) minor waterway crossings. New crossings required at Bowes River & Corridor Option 6 has more minor No designated flood prone areas Chapman River waterway crossings, however only one 13 minor waterway crossings interchange, shorter length service One (1 no.) 3 way interchange No designated flood prone areas. roads and no flyover. 0 2
Structures
One (1 no.) 4 way interchange The requirement for additional grade One (1 no.) 4 way interchange separated structures for such low SERVICE ROADS: volumes of traffic presents a significant INFRA * 18km service/local roads to construct SERVICE ROADS: cost associated with Corridor Option 4. * 2 underpasses (service road under DGN) * 14km service/local roads to construct * 1 flyover (local road over DGN - 10x10 * 2 underpasses (service road under DGN) clearance required)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 93 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
Powerpoles in corridor - 33 Overhead wires cross road - 16, with 3 sections Corridor option 6 has greater running adjacent to road interaction with existing services given Other underground wires/pipelines - 0 Powerpoles in corridor - 10 proximity to existing development. Water Corp facility adjacent to road - would be Overhead wires cross corridor - 7 Presence of water pipe will require 2 avoided. 1 Other underground wires/pipelines - 0 some consideration, however not
utilities utilities otherservices & 300 mm PVC water pipe runs broadly adjacent Crosses DBNGP easement for future Oakajee considered to present a fatal flaw given – and to west of NWCH. Presents a significant relatively short distance over which it constraint in some locations where existing needs to be considered (~2km)
INFRA topography does not align with road grades. Crosses DBNGP easement for future Oakajee 31.5km to Northampton from start point of Both corridor options present a
36km to Northampton from start point of assessment around Chapman Valley Road. significant improvement for network
assessment around Chapman Valley Road. From south and east of Geraldton, Option 4 performance. Considering RAV10 from From south and east of Geraldton, Option 6 would be ~4.5km shorter than Option 6. 3 3 Oakajee specifically, Option 6 would be would be ~4.5km longer than Option 4. Route From Oakajee, RAV 10 route north to better however the additional distance From Oakajee, Option 6 would be ~16.5km NETWORK Northampton would be ~16.5km longer as is marginal within the context of typical shorter than Option 4 (for RAV 10). vehicles would not use existing NWCH. journeys for heavy vehicles.
Coordination of overtaking provision will be needed through design to Improves regional efficiency in general with achieve best outcomes given side road
improved grades and geometry but does not Improves regional efficiency with improved connection, however unlikely to impact
allow for separation of local from regional traffic. grades and separation of local from regional travel time/efficiency significantly. There are a higher number of connections along traffic, allowing existing road to continue to Both corridor options broadly similar option 6 compared to option 4, however they are service local commercial operations and tourist 2 2 with max 3% grades and some long WORK well spaced and with the relatively low volumes traffic. climbs. forecast, will be unlikely to have a detrimental NET Overtaking/climbing/deceleration lanes allowed Low traffic volumes forecast suggest impact on the operation of a future road. Travel Travel efficiency for on long / steep sections. that combination of heavy with light Overtaking/climbing/deceleration lanes allowed vehicles would not present an for on long / steep sections. efficiency issue as long as sufficient overtaking is provided.
INDICATIVE INDICATIVE Both options present a significant One (1 no.) 4 way interchange One (1 no.) 3 way interchange improvement to existing situation with Twelve (12 no.) 3 way, full movement at grade One (1 no.) 4 way interchange reduction in intersection numbers and intersections Four (4 no.) 3 way, full movement at grade removal of driveways. Given the 3 One (1 no.) 4 way full movements (typically, 2 intersections with local roads/service roads. relatively low volumes of traffic, the staggered T). Two (2 no.) 4 way full movements (typically, slightly higher number of intersections Ten (10 no.) consolidated driveway full staggered T) with key local roads. is not expected to impact safety or movement connections (two or three properties No direct driveway/individual lot access efficiency between the options. per connection).
Intersections & Access Lot
Both options present a significant improvement to the existing road with Would contribute to improved operating Would contribute to improved operating
high quality roads aligning with the safe conditions on townsite roads by removing conditions on townsite roads by removing system approach. While option 4 would significant proportion of heavy vehicles and 3 significant proportion of heavy vehicles and 3 split heavy traffic from local, the Safety regional traffic. regional traffic. volumes are low and with suitable Aligns with safe systems solution. Aligns with safe systems approach. overtaking provision, it is not considered to present a safety risk.
Total Enviro 4 Total Enviro 5 Total Social 5 Total Social 7 Total Economic 5 Total Economic 8 Total TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 14 Total TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 20
Total Infra 2 Total Infra 3 Total Network Performance 5 Total Network Performance 5 Total Safety 6 Total Safety 5
TOTAL 27 TOTAL 33
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 94 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
11.2. Appendix 2 – Environmental Data SOUTHERN
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 95 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 96 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 97 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 98 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
NORTHERN Note – east-west link is assessed in both (shown as option 4 in plans below)
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 99 Alignment Selection Report – Dongara Geraldton Northampton – Draft – August 2020
HP Records Manager No. D20#642220 – DRAFT REPORT PENDING ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES Page 100