EIS 340
AA052343
F4-Western Freeway: section : Emu Plains to Lapstone:
environmental impact statement NS DEPT PRIMARI IRUSTR1ES
AAO5 2343
r.]IrIi ill 111T11*1111(i1I:1]
STATEMENT
I
I Prepared by Sinclair Knight & Partners Pty Ltd I I I I I I F4 - WESTERN FREEWAY I I Section: Ernu Plains to Lapstone I I 1
I CEAT2T CF I I L I I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1 STATEM ENT
I ERRATA The vehicle trips scales for Exhibits 4.3 and 4.4 have been interchanged. I The scale for Exhibit 4.3 is on Exhibit 4.4 and vice versa. The Legend for Exhibit 5.4 should have noise monitoring sites 1 depicted as dots with black lines representing noise contours. I Prepared by Sinclair Knight & Partners Pty Ltd I 1 I I F4 - WESTERN FREEWAY I I Section: Emu Plains to Lapstone I I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I STATEM ENT I I
I This is to certify that this Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with clauses 57 and 58 of the I Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1980. I 'L" '~"-'L I Z R D Crooks
I Manager- Environmental Services Sinclair Knight & Partners Pty Ltd L] 12 January 1987 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page 1 i. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY 1 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT 1 1.2 THE PROPOSED EXTENSION 1 1.3 INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENViRONMENT 2 1.3.1 Traffic 2 1.3.2 Access 3 I 1.3.3 Safety 3 1.3.4 Impacts on Business 4 1.3.5 Land Use & Zoning 4 1.3.6 Landscape Values 4 I 1.3.7 Noise Effects 4 1.3.8 Other Impacts 5 I 1.4 CONCLUSION 5 2. 1NTRODUCI1ON 7 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT 7 ' 2.2 BACKGROUND TO AND OBJECTiVES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 2.3 RECENT HiSTORY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 9 2.4 STUDY APPROACH 9 2.5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 10
3. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 12 I 3.1 FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DEVELOPING THE PROPOSAL 12 3.2 DESIGN STANDARDS 13 I 3.3 ROUTE DESCRIPTION 13 3.4 INTERCHANGES 15 3.4.1 Russell Street Interchange 15 3.4.2 Governors Drive Interchange 15 I 3.5 ROAD REARRANGEMENTS 16 3.6 CARRIAGEWAY DESiGN 16 3.7 EARTHWORKS 17 I 3.8 MAJOR BRIDGES 18 3.9 DRAINAGE WORKS 18 3.10 LIGHTING 19 I 3.11 SIGNPOSTING 19 3.12 LAND ACQUISITION 20 3.13 CONSTRUCTION 20 3.14 CONSTRUCTION SAFEGUARDS 22 I 3.14.1 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 22 3.14.2 Restoration and Landscape Treatments 23
I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Page
I 4. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 24
4.1 EXISTING SITUATION 25 4.1.1 Existing Origin Destination Pattern 25 4.1.2 Traffic Volumes 27 4.1.3 Travel Times and Distances 27 I 4.1.4 Other Relevant Road Developments 28 4.2 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED F4 EXTENSION 29 4.2.1 Accessibility 29 I 4.2.2 Growth in Travel Volumes 31 4.3 iMPACT ON MANAGEMENT OF OVERSIZE TRUCK LOADS 34 4.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 34
5. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 37 I 5.1 LOCAL ACCESS 37 5.1.1. Vehicular Access 37 5.1.2 Bicycle Access 39 I 5.1.3 Pedestrian Access 39 5.1.4 Access for Public Transport 40 5.2 SAFETY 41 I 5.3 IMPACTS ON BUSINESS 43 5.4 IMPACTS ON LAND ZONING AND LAND USE 44 5.4.1 Zoning 44 I 5.4.2 Land Use 46 5.5 VISUAL IMPACTS 47 5.6 HERITAGE 48 5.6.1 Transport Flistory 48 I 5.6.2 Archaeology 49 5.6.3 Natural Heritage 51 5.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 51 ' 5.7.1 Noise 51 5.7.2 Vibration 58 5.8 VEGETATION 59 60 I 5.9 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS 5.10 OTHER IMPACTS 60 5.10.1 Water Quality 60 5.10.2 Air Quality 61 I 5.11 ENERGY STATEMENT 61
6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 62
INTRODUCTION 62 OPTION 1- ROAD OVER RAIL 63 6.16.2 6.3 OPTION 2- EXIT AND ENTRY RAMPS AT LAPSTONE 64 OPTION 3- EXIT RAMPS ONLY AT LAPSTONE 67 6.5 OPTION 4- DUAL CARRIAGEWAY OPTION 69 6.66.4 THE NO DEVELOPMENT OPTION 72 6.7 CONCLUSION 73
I TABLE OF CONTENTS continued
Page
7. REFERENCES 74
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 DiRECTOR'S REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX 2 LIATSON WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES
APPENDIX 3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS I
I LIST OF TABLES
I Page
I TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/DISBENEFITS 6 I TABLE 3.1 BRIDGE DIMENSIONS TABLE 4.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON NEPEAN RIVER BRIDGES 28 I TABLE 4.2 ROUTE DISTANCES AND TRAVEL TIMES 29 TABLE 4.3 EFFECT OF F4 EXTENSION ON TRAVEL TIMES 30 - BLAXLAND/PENRITH I TABLE 4.4 EFFECT OF F4 EXTENSION ON TRAVEL TIMES 31 - BLAXLAND/F4 I TABLE 4.5 ROAD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) 33 TABLE 5.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS 52 I TABLE 5.2 PREDICTED LI0 (18-HOUR) NOISE LEVELS 54 TABLE 6.1 COST COMPARISON - PREFERRED SCHEME AND 67 I OPTION 2 ($M) I I I I I I I I I 1 I UST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT I.I. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT 2.1 METROPOLITAN FIREEWAY SYSTEM
EXHIBIT 3.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 3.2 LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 3.3 INTERCHANGE DETAILS EXHIBIT 3.4 CARRIAGEWAY DETAILS EXHIBIT 3.5 RUSSELL STREET BRIDGE EXHIBIT 3.6 RAILWAY BRIDGE EXHIBIT 3.7 LIGHTING AND SIGNPOSTING PLAN
EXHIBIT 4.1 ROAD NETWORK EXHIBIT 4.2 1986 ORIGIN - DESTINATION PATTERNS (AM PEAK) EXHIBIT 4.3 1986 ORIGIN - DESTINATION PATTERNS (PM PEAK) EXI-IIB1T4.4 FORECAST 1995 ORIGIN - DESTINATION PATTERNS (COMBINED AM AND PM PEAKS)
EXHIBIT 5.1 LOCAL ACCESS EXHIBIT 5.2 LAND ZONING EXHIBIT 5.3 LAND USE EXHIBIT 5.4 NOISE MONITORING SITES EXHIBIT 5.5 VEGETATiON AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
EXHIBIT 6.1 PLAN OF OPTION 1 EXHIBIT 6.2 PLAN OF OPTION 2 EXHIBIT 6.3 PLAN OF OPTION 3 EXHIBIT 6.4 PLAN OF OPTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY U
1.1 OBJECT! YES OF THE PROJECT
The proposal to extend the F4 Freeway from Emu Plains to Lapstone forms an integral part of the overall plan to provide a high standard east-west road route across Sydney. The proposal, in combination with the City-West Link Road, will facilitate the safe and efficient movement of vehicles through the most heavily trafficked corridor in the metropolitan region.
More specifically, the proposal will remove a hazardous section of the Great Western Highway between Emu Plains and Lapstone and improve the amenity of residents in Emu Plains who are presently adversely affected by through traffic.
1.2 THE PROPOSED EXTENSION
The F4 Freeway extension has been under consideration for many years with several I options being investigated. Factors taken into account in the planning and design process included engineering design standards, traffic, access, visual amenity and I heritage conservation impacts.
The preferred scheme arising from these considerations is shown on Exhibit 1.1. I Alternative schemes are addressed in Section 6 of this environmental impact I statement (EIS). The proposed development extends from the present termination point of the F4 I Freeway at Russell Street, Emu Plains to where the Great Western Highway and Governors Drive intersect at Lapstone. The overall length of construction will be 1.9 kilometres. The road easement will vary between 65 and 90 metres in width depending on the depth of cut and fill.
An interchange will be provided at Russell Street with a bridge to carry Russell Street over the extended Freeway. This will facilitate exit and entry movements I while maintaining free passage along the Freeway. I nt034.eis I A second grade separated interchange will be provided at the Governors Drive/Great Western Highway intersection at Lapstone. The highway will pass over Governors Drive on a bridge.
Other significant engineering aspects of the proposed development include:
a substantial bridge to carry the Main Western Rail Line over the extended Freeway;
a substantial earthworks embankment to carry the Freeway over Knapsack Creek; and,
provision of pedestrian access beneath the extended Freeway via a culvert in the vicinity of Knapsack Creek.
Earthworks will be balanced at 100,000 cubic metres of cut and fill and hence there will be no requirement to establish off-site "borrow areas" or dispose of surplus fill.
1.3 INTERACHONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
1.3.1 Traffic
The proposed development will have a significant and primarily beneficial effect on traffic patterns and movements. In terms of access, the proposed development will increase options for accessing Penrith from the Blue Mountains and generally improve travel times. There is no evidence to suggest that vehicle loadings on Old Bathurst Road and Mitchells Pass Road will increase, in fact, they are expected to decrease slightly. in terms of traffic volumes, the major effect of the development will be to permit growth in through traffic volumes on the F4 while traffic volumes on local roads in the Emu Plains area will be reduced from what they would have been in the absence of the development.
2 nt034.eis 1.3.2 Access
Impacts on both inter and intra suburban traffic access were assessed. In terms of inter-suburban access, it is concluded that the development will leave the majority of access routes unchanged or will improve them so that the nett effect will be beneficial.
H The effect on intra-suburhan access will be neutral in the main with the major exception that existing leakage of through traffic into the Lucas Street, Forbes I Street and River Road area could increase. This already occurs to some extent, but the tendency could be worsened under the proposed development unless preventative I measures are taken. Effective controls would include installation of 'No Right Turn' signs for north bound traffic on Russell Street or closure of Lucas and Forbes I Streets. The residual impact would be a slight increase in travel time for local residents returning home from the east.
H Existing bicycle access will not be affected by the proposed development. However, it is expected that there will be an adverse local effect on access for public H transport. The Penrith-Faulconbridge bus route operated by Pearce Omnibus Pty Ltd will be affected to some degree. Passengers who presently access the route at I Grey Street and Brougham Street west of Russell Street will have to walk an additional 100 metres to 300 metres to access the route. I 1.3.3 Safety
I The proposed development will eliminate or significantly improve the three major I existing traffic hazards, namely: H the Great Western Highway/Governors Drive intersection at Lapstone; high through traffic volumes on Russell Street; and, I the T-intersection at the F4 Freeway/Russell Street junction.
I In addition, the higher geometric standard of the Freeway extension will in itself H piodu ce safety benefits. I 3 nt034.eis I I
1.3.4 Impacts on Business
It is expected that the effect of the development on businesses in Penrith will be negligible. There is some chance that business in Penrith may in fact improve due to improved access to the shopping centre.
However, it is also expected that will be an adverse impact on the three business establishments fronting onto the Great Western Highway west of Russell Street. It is quite likely that these businesses will see a major fall off in that component of their business attributable to passing trade.
1.3.5 Land Use & Zoning
The proposed development is not prohibited in any of the land use zonings affected. There will be a reduction in areas zoned open space, amounting to 0.9 hectares. However, this would be offset if a proposal by the Department to make available 9.4 hectares of its own land in the vicinity for recreational purposes is successful. There would be a substantial nett gain in available recreational land.
The development will have no significant impact on existing land use values.
1.3.6 Landscape Values
The main adverse visual impact of the development will be registered at short range viewpoints. The impact is essentially unavoidable and is the minimum practical. The impact will lessen over time as landscaping installed as part of the proposed development grows and provides better screening.
The impact on the overall visual quality of the escarpment will be minimised by the substantial cut in which the freeway will be placed.
Visual impacts are assessed as being acceptable on balance.
1.3.7 Noise Effects
It is expected that there will be minor increases in L1O (18hour) noise levels at residences adjacent to the proposed freeway extension but the increases will not be large enough to justify the application of noise control measures. 4 nt034.eis There will be major noise level reductions at residences adjacent to the by-passed section of the Great Western Highway.
Finally, while there will be reductions in traffic movements in Russell Street due to the proposed development they will not be sufficient to produce significant reductions in traffic noise levels.
Noise impacts are not assessed as beingsignificant.
1.3.8 Other impacts
impacts were also assessed in the following categories:
heritage and archaeology; . vegetation; utility installations; . economics; .water quality; and, air quality.
In all cases, the adverse impact potential of the proposed development was assessed as being low. I 1.4 CONCLUSION
I The proposed development represents another stage in the establishment of the east-west Sydney arterial road system, a public utility of considerable social and I economic benefit. Inevitably such a development will also result in some disbenefits. in the final analysis, the decision whether or not to proceed will result I from an assessment of the balance between benefits and disbenefits. In Table 1.1 the major benefits and disbenefits are listed. I The Table shows quite clearly that the benefits of the proposed development will be felt both regionally as well as locally whereas the disbenefits will be concentrated in the immediate near-site environment. The number of people adversely affected I by the proposed development is small in comparison to the number who will benefit. In conclusion, it is considered that there is adequate justification for the I 5 nt034.eis I development and the balance of environmental effects favours the development proceeding.
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS/DISBENEFITS
Benefits Disbenefits
Improved inter-suburban access. 1. Potential for increased through traffic in Gough Street/River Road area.
Reduced heavy vehicle and through 2. Penrith-Faulconbridge bus traffic numbers on Russell Street. route affected.
Significant improvements at all 3. Loss of passing trade for existing major hazards and on businesses west of Russell roads in the area generally. Street.
Improved vehicular access to 4. Some short to medium term Penrith with possible beneficial adverse visual impacts in commercial impacts. the Leonay/Emu Plains area.
Possible increase in areas available 5. Minor traffic noise for public recreation. increases adjacent to F4 extension. Noise controls not required.
Significant improvement in traffic noise climate adjacent to Great Western Highway west of Russell Street.
Major economic benefits indicated by high cost-benefit ratio. 6 nt034.eis I '.- TOKATOOMBA I /I71-7-'-p—/ "-'V-E-R-N-0-R-S DRIVE INTERCHANGE C cc
100 20Cc I 11 Scale I I
I E CLET I 1 I LEO NAY I I
I EMU PLAINS I I I I I
I RUSSELL ST
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION R USSELL
STREET PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT IA cc cc SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PlY LTD I 2. INTRODUCTION [1 I 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
I This environmental impact statement (EIS) examines the likely environmental effects of a proposed extension of the F4 Freeway from Emu Plains to Lapstone to be El developed by the Department of M.ain Roads (DMR). The study has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the Environmental Planning and I Assessment Act, 1979 as amended. I The EIS outlines the background to the proposed development including the strategic road planning context within which it falls. The proposal is described and the likely impacts are examined. The EIS concentrates on traffic and transport I impacts but broader social and environmental considerations are also taken into account. Various alternatives to the proposal are considered to demonstrate that I the proposed development is the best means of achieving the stated objectives.
This document will serve as the basis for the evaluation of the project. Every effort has been made to consider all the environmental implications of the project and to assess, without prejudice, the short and long term environmental implications. The document is prepared as a basis for public submissions and the DMR's decision making. Factors which may require further information or clarification will be addressed in an assessment report which will outline the Department's determination of the proposal.
The Department undertakes to carry out the various environmental protection measures identified in this document and those that may be further identified in the environmental impact assessnient report following the examination and consideration of submissions made.
2.2 BACKGROUND TO AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
When completed, the F4 Freeway in combination with the City-West Link Road, will I provide a safe, high standard east-west route across Sydney, through the most heavily travelled corridor in the metropolitan region. it will connect the city I 7 nt034.eis
I centre to the Blue Mountains, and western New South Wales. It will also improve linkages between the major centres in the corridor, including Penrith, Blacktown, Parramatta and Strathfield.
The position of the F4 Freeway within the existing and proposed metropolitan freeway system is shown on Exhibit 2.1.
The City West Link Road/174 Freeway system will ease congestion and delay, reduce the cost of travel and thereby improve cost-effectiveness in the delivery of goods and services. It will continue to remove through traffic from local residential streets and from local centres along the Great Western Highway where environmental quality has been adversely affected by excessive through traffic. At the same time it will facilitate the development of these centres by improving their accessibility. In this respect, the F4/City-West route is compatible with the draft Regional Environmental Plan (Commercial Centres) which aims, inter alia, to develop selected centres in the Sydney metropolitan region, including Blacktown, Mt Druitt, St Marys and Penrith (Reference 1).
The F4 system will also facilitate urban development plans for the Sydney region. Local government areas along the route are expected to grow at approximately 1.5 percent per annum to the turn of the century (Reference 2). Improved transportation systems to provide access to jobs and services are essential in underwriting population growth.
The development to which this EIS relates, extension of the F4 Freeway from Emu Plains to Lapstone, forms only one part of the total City West Link Road/F4 Freeway development. However, it is a particularly important part since it completes a high standard road link to the Blue Mountains and removes a comparatively substandard section of road, the existing Great Western Highway from Emu Plains to Knapsack Gully, from the inter-regional road system. The specific objectives of the proposed development are therefore:
to complete the F4 Freeway;
to remove an existing unsatisfactory highway section and substitute a high standard alternative; and,
8 nt034.eis to maximise attendant benefits in terms of travel time, access, and residential i amenity. 2.3 RECENT HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I In recent years, a number of options for the proposed development have been considered by the Department. In September, 1985, a variation on the development I as now proposed (Option 2 in Chapter 6) was placed on public display and public comments were received. However, this proposal was withdrawn for both I environmental and cost reasons and replaced by the now proposed development. This development was the subject of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) by I the Department in April, 1986. An REF is an internal Departmental environmental review which forms a basis for assessment of all new developments. This REF was I placed on public display and public comments were received. Comments from the public were generally in favour of the proposed scheme. However, Penrith City Council expressed concern about the off-ramp provision in the proposal; in particular, that on and off ramps would only be provided at Russell Street, Emu Plains. Under the previous scheme, ramps were also to be provided at Knapsack I Gully, Lapstone. The main substance of Council's concerns related to the traffic implications of the revised proposal, particularly, the implications for traffic I travelling from the Blue Mountains to Penrith.
The comments received caused the Department to review its previous assessment of the significance of the proposed development. As a result of this review, the Department determined that an EIS should be prepared with the primary intentions I of examining traffic implications in more detail and evaluating in greater depth the preferences of both Penrith City Council and, subsequently, the Blue Mountains City I Council.
In the light of this background, the emphasis in this EIS is on the assessment of traffic impacts although all other impact categories, as are statutorily defined, are also addressed.
2.4 STUDY APPROACH
in preparing this EIS, the factors listed in Clause 57 of the Environmental Planning I and Assessment Regulation, 1980 have been addressed and the requirements of the Director of Planning and the Environment (Appendix 1) have also been taken into I 9 nt034.eis I account. A range of relevant government and non-government authorities were also consulted and their comments, where available, are summarised in Appendix 2.
However, and as was discussed in Section 2.3, the focus of this EIS is in determining what are the traffic implications of the proposed development. These are discussed in Chapter 4.
Considerable attention has also been paid to possible alternatives to the proposed development including an option presented by the Blue Mountains City Council. The results of these considerations are discussed in Chapter 6.
Chapter 3 of this document describes the proposed development and Chapter 5 contains both descriptions of the existing environment and assessments of the impacts of the proposal on each relevant component of the environment. To assist in impact assessment, a number of specialist studies were commissioned. The study reports have been published as a separate volume and can be made available on request. The studies undertaken covered; traffic, noise and vibration, vegetation and archaeology. The results of the studies have been abstracted into the main text as required.
2.5 STATUTORY REQUIIREMIENTS
The Department of Main Roads follows the requirements of Part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment, Act, 1979 for the purposes of environmental assessment. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in terms of Section 112 of the Act. (Where it is necessary to change a land use zoning for arterial road purposes, the Department requests the local government councils involved to make a new local environmental plan under Part III of the Act).
The form and content of this document is in accordance with the requirements of clause 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. All factors for consideration under clause 57 have been taken into account in the assessment. Consultation has been made with the Director of Environment and Planning pursuant to clause 58 of the Regulation and account has been taken of the Director's requirements. (A copy of the requirements is included as Appendix 1).
10 nt034.eis I
I This EIS will be advertised and placed on public display at various centres in the region and in central Sydney. Copies will be available for sale to the public from I the Department of Main Roads Divisional Office in Blacktown and the Sydney Head Office. During the public display period, submissions can be made to the I Department. These submissions will be considered in the preparation of the environmental impact assessment report, in accordance with clause 64 of the I Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation. This document and any submissions macIc will be the basis for the Department in I making a decision whether or not to proceed with the project. I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I nt034.eis I I lAi\O I
8kr Scale
1 I
I BLACKTOWN I PENRITH 1 PAR RA MATTA p11111
I LEGEND
COM PLETED
--- YET TO BE CONSTRUCTED
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
MEIROPOLITAN FREEWAY SYSTEM
EXHIBIT 2.1 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTh' LTD 3. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION I I This Section discusses the criteria for determining the route alignment and describes the features of the proposal in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of its environmental consequences. The expected construction procedures are also I outlined. 3.1 FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DEVELOPING THE PROPOSAL
There were a number of significant engineering and environmental factors which had a bearing on the development as it is now proposed. These factors are discussed below.
Crossing the Main Western Rail Line
I As shown on Exhibit 3.1, the proposed extension must cross the Main Western Rail Line. The option of taking the freeway over the railway was considered and I rejected (see Section 6.2), amongst other reasons, due to the adverse visual impact of the large earthworks embankments which would be required. Adopting the I alternative, taking the freeway under the railway, provides a better solution visually but resulted in a slightly steeper than preferable grade on the western side of the rail line. This was considered to be an acceptable price for a reduced visual I impact.
I Residential Areas
I The location of the alignment was influenced by the presence of residential developments in Leonay. To reduce potential traffic noise impacts on these residences, the alignment was located further to the north-west than might U otherwise have been the case.
Li Archaeological Sites Two archaeological sites were found (Volume 2, Working Papers) and the alignment I was adjusted to avoid these. I 12 nt034.eis I I Protection of Walking Trails As discussed in Section 5.1.3 there are plans to further develop walking opportunities in the Leonay/Lapstone area. Provision was required in the freeway design to allow walkers to cross the freeway in safety.
Geological Conditions at Lapstone The escarpment at Lapstone is a result of the Lapstone monocline, a formation of sedimentary rocks which dips steeply to the east. The steeply dipping strata immediately to the south of Knapsack Gully Bridge represent a constraint on road cutting since the strata require rock bolting for stability. This adds significantly to the cost of road cuttings.
3.2 DESIGN STANDARDS
The Freeway Extension has been designed to generally comply with relevant NAASRA standards (Reference 3). The standards which influence the overall design and consequently its environmental assessment are summarised below:
Design grade for flooding - 0.5 metres above 100 year flood level; Access - full control of access with service roads if necessary; Fencing - required along Freeway boundary; Land acquisition - nominal 90 metres wide easement sufficient for four lane divided road; Design speed - 100 kilometres per hour minimum; Horizontal alignment - 1000 metres radius curve general minimum (450 metres absolute minimum); Road and rail intersection - grade separated; Grade design - 6 percent desirable maximum; Pavement design - minimum strength to withstand anticipated axle loads over next 40 years; Markings - as required by Australian Standard AS 1742.
3.3 ROUTE DESCRIPTION
The proposed development, which is shown in plan on Exhibit 3.1 and longitudinal section on Exhibit 3.2, extends from chainage 27.4 kilometres on the F4 Freeway (that is, where it presently terminates at Russell Street, Emu Plains) to chainage 29.3 kilometres (that is, where the Great Western Highway and Governors Drive 13 nt034.eis presently intersect at Lapstone). The overall length of construction will be 1.9 kilometres. The freeway will be carried in a road reserve between 65 and 90 I metres wide depending on the depth of cut or fill required. The reserve will be fenced along both boundaries with 1.8 metre high post and wire or wire netting I freeway type fencing to the Department's standards.
The extension commences at Russell Street, Ernu Plains. East facing ramps have 1 already been substantially constructed at the present terminus of the F4. Under the proposed development, west facing ramps will also be established at Russell I Street (see Section 3.4) along with a bridge to take Russell Street over the extended Freeway (see Section 3.8).
The extension commences with a short straight section at moderate grade (1.69 I percent, see Exhibit 3.2) which enters a 460 metre radius left hand curve at chainage 27.600 kilometres. A 100 metre radius vertical curve at chainage 27.800 kilometres increases the grade to 4.67 percent as the freeway heads towards I Knapsack Gully.
The alignment is in cut until chainage 28.200 kilometres with the maximum depth of cut being approximately 8 metres.
At chainage 28. 1.00 kilometres the road curvature increases to 1000 metres radius. The freeway crosses Knapsack Gully at chainage 28.250 kilometres on an embankment with a maximum height of 13 metres.
The pavement then re enters cut at chainage 28.400 kilometres and the curvature decreasesto a radius of 460 metres. The freeway passes under the Main Western Rail Line at chainage 28.500 kilometres and continues in cut to chainage 29.100 kilometres, the maximum depth of cut in this section being approximately 10 metres.
At chainage 28.350 kilometres, a 140 metre radius vertical curve commences a I comparatively steep climb (7.4 percent) necessary to take the freeway from below the railway, at chainage 28.500 kilometres, back to the level of the existing Highway at Lapstone (chainage 29.200 kilometres). The steep grade is a I consequence of the decision to reduce visual impact by taking the freeway under the railway.
1 14 nt034.eis
I
An interchange will be provided at Governors Drive (chainage 29.290 kilometres) with a deceleration lane and exit ramp for west bound F4 traffic (see Section 3.4) and a Governors Drive underbridge and entry ramp for east bound traffic on Governors Drive.
3.4 INTERCHANGES
Two interchanges will be provided; one at Russell Street, Emu Plains, and the second at Governors Drive, Lapstone. Plans of the interchanges are shown on Exhibit 3.3.
3.4.1 Russell Street Interchange
The major part of the east facing ramps for this interchange have already been constructed. Under the proposed development two additional 3.7 metre wide west facing ramps will be established. Roundabouts will be provided where the ramps intersect Russell Street. The Russell Street interchange will be the most direct exit point for traffic travelling from the west to Penrith. (There will be an alternative route via the F4 Freeway and Mulgoa Road, utilising exit ramps at Mulgoa Road which are presently under construction).
Traffic from Penrith heading west can enter the extended F4 Freeway via a roundabout and a west facing ramp at the Russell Street overpass (Section 3.8).
3.4.2 Governors Drive Interchange
The Governors Drive interchange will provide an exit to Governors Drive for west bound traffic and an entry to the F4 for east bound traffic on Governors Drive. It will not be possible for east bound traffic on the Great Western Highway/174 Freeway to enter Governors Drive, access being prevented by a New Jersey type barrier (see Exhibit 3.4) on the highway.
An 80 metre long deceleration lane will be provided for traffic exiting to Governors Drive. East bound traffic on Governors Drive will enter the Freeway via an underpass (Section 3.8), an entry ramp and a 200 metre long acceleration lane and taper.
15 nt034.eis I 3.5 ROAD REARRANGEMENTh
I The Freeway extension will result in several rearrangements in the existing road system. The most significant change will be that the Great Western Highway will be closed at the southern end of the Knapsack Gully Bridge to form a cul-de-sac and I future recreational area. The full length of the Great Western Highway from Russell Street at Emu Plains to the end of the bridge will be deproclaimed to be I used only for local traffic using Mitchells Pass Road, traffic from visitors to I Knapsack Gully Bridge or walkers requiring access to Knapsack Gully itself. Secondly, it will no longer be possible for east bound traffic on the Highway to I turn right into Governors Drive. This means that access to Lapstone for east bound traffic and from Lapstone for west bound traffic will be via Explorers Road from I Glenbrook. Finally, it is proposed to close Gough Street at its Russell Street end to permit I construction of the Russell Street interchange and prevent undesirable traffic I movements at the interchange. 3.6 CARRIAGEWAY DESIGN I The typical dimensions and details for the carriageway are shown on Exhibit 3.4.
I The carriageway will consist of two 3.5 metre wide lanes in each direction separated by a 2.4 metre wide median containing a central New Jersey type concrete barrier I i as shown on Exhibit 3.4.
I Three metre wide shoulders will be provided on each side of the carriageway. There will be a three percent crossfall on straights.
Generally, where fill embankments exceed two metres in height, a 700 millimetre high guardfence will be installed at the edge of the three metre outer shoulder. I The top of the embankment batter will commence at 0.9 metres from the guardfence I face. I
16 1 nt034.eis I In cuttings, an 0.5 metre berm will be provided between the three metre shoulder and the toe of the cutting. Runoff from the pavement and batter will be collected in a V-shaped drainage channel adjacent to the shoulder. A catch drain will be constructed at the top of the cutting.
The limit of clearing will be generally in the order of three metres from the edge of earthworks on the low side of the roadway and four metres on the higher side. In areas of low fill without guardfence some additional clearing may be provided for safety reasons.
Ramps will have a single carriageway 3.7 metres in width with a right hand shoulder 0.6 metres wide and left hand shoulder 2.4 metres wide. The carriageway will have a crossfall of typically 3 percent. Guardfences will be provided on all ramps where necessary.
The pavement design will be determined at the contract document stage, but it is likely that it will be of concrete with a design life of 40 years.
3.7 EARTHWORKS
As shown on Exhibit 3.2 the proposed extension will comprise two long cuttings separated by a substantial fill across Knapsack Creek.
The materials to be excavated are largely conglomerate, interbedded sandstones and siltstones and previously ripped sandstone fill. Blasting may be required in the lower parts of the upper cutting.
Cut batters will generally be at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) flattening to 4 to 1 where there are indications of instability and space pernlits. Cut batters in rock will be at 1 to 1 or less. Geotechnical investigations have shown that some slope stabilisation (rock bolting) will be required when existing batters in the Lapstone area near Governors Drive are deepened.
Fill batters will be at 2 to 1.
The earthworks quantities as of November, 1986 are balanced at 100 000 cubic metres of cut and fill and hence there will be no requirement to establish off-site "borrow areas" or to dispose of surplus fill. 17 nt034.eis I
I 3.8 MAJOR BRIDGES
I Three bridges will be required, as follows: I Russell Street overpass at the Russell Street interchange;
a railway overhridge at Lapstone to take the Main Western Rail Line over the I freeway; and,
I a Governors Drive underpass at the Governors Drive interchange. I The relevant details are set out in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 BRIDGE DIMENSIONS I Dimension Russell Main Western Governors I Street Rail Line Drive Length (m) 60 37 11 Width (iii) 10.8 11.3 31 I Span(m) 30.3 32 ii No. Spans 3 1 1 I Angle of Skew 29 32 45
Relevant details of the Russell Street overhridge and the rail overbridge are shown I on Exhibit 3.5 and 3.6 respectively. The Governors Drive underpass has not yet I been designed. 3.9 DRAINAGE WORKS I Stormwater drainage details for the works will be in accordance with the I Department's standard designs.
in cuttings there will be concrete lined gutters to drain the carriageway and the I cut face. At fills with batter slopes of 5 to 1, runoff is permitted to flow over the batter. For fills of 2 to 1 slope, a tOO millimetre high kerh under the guarcifence I will direct runoff to discharge points.
I Where runoff is to be directed across the freeway, this will be by reinforced concrete pipes which discharge to natural drainage courses. Drainage outlets will
18 I nt034.eis I I be protected by stone pitching or, if necessary, concrete stilling ponds. All cross drainage will be designed to pass a I in 100 year flood.
Only one major drainage culvert will be required; at the Knapsack Creek crossing. An 80 metre length of Knapsack Creek will be diverted to join the adjacent Jamison Creek and discharge jointly under the freeway. A three cell culvert with 1.8 metre high cells will be provided. The 1 in 100 year design flood has an estimated peak discharge of 27 cumecs with a velocity of 8.9 metres per second.
A second culvert, 2.4 metres high, will be installed in the Knapsack Gully embankment as shown on Exhibit 3.1. This culvert will provide pedestrian access for the users of existing and proposed walking trails.
Finally, at chainage 28.780 kilometres, a 150 metre length of a minor unnamed watercourse will be diverted to clear the alignment.
3.10 LIGHTING
The proposed lighting plan is shown on Exhibit 3.7. Lighting will be provided at the Russell Street and Governors Drive interchanges. At each location marked, high pressure sodium vapour (250 watt) lamps will be provided on 12 metre high steel columns with curved outreach arms 4.5 metres in length.
3.11 SIGNPOSTING
The signposting plan is shown on Exhibit 3.7.
The main points to be noted are:
end freeway conditions signs and the 80 km/h signs at Lapstone are to slow traffic for the low radius curve on the highway between Lapstone and Blaxland;
direction signs to Emu Plains on the approach to the Russell Street exit to advise drivers of how to access these centres. Off ramps at Mulgoa Road, presently under construction will include direction signs to Penrith and Wallacia; and,
19 nt034.eis I a tourist information sign at the Russell Street exit will indicate how to access I Knapsack Gully Bridge. LAND ACQUISITION I 3.12 Most of the land required for the project is already in public ownership. The only exception is an area of approximately 0.1 hectares of land presently forming part of I Leonay Golf Course.
I 3.13 CONSTRUCTION
I Construction will be carried out by contract. I As there have been no contracts awarded it is not possible to state definitely the construction details which will apply. It is, to a large extent, the prerogative of the contractor to choose plant and methods to suit his own needs. An attempt is I made in this subsection to anticipate the likely practices so that the environmental I impacts of construction works can be assessed. It is estimated that the mobile plant required would probably include the following I items and approximately the following plant numbers: - Dozers (1), scrapers (2), graders (1), front end loaders (1), compactor (1), rollers (2), dump trucks (6), cranes I (1), fuel tanker (1), service trucks (1), water truck (2), compressors (3), backhoe (1) and a concrete paving machine. Not all of this equipment would necessarily be on I site at the one time. Construction will follow normal road making procedures. The first operation will be I topsoil stripping and stockpiling by dozer, followed by excavation of drainage lines by backhoe. The excavation of the several cuts will be by dozer and scrapers with I material being transported directly to the areas of fill. Blasting of the deeper parts of the cuts may be required where resistant areas cannot be ripped by dozer. I Material is compacted by rollers and vibrating compactors and trimmed by graders.
All earthfill will be derived from the project site and as discussed, the design has I achieved a balanced cut and fill operation. Materials to be imported includes aggregate and cement. The sources will be arranged by the contractor, with I delivery by road.
1 20 nt034.eis
I At all times the contractor will be responsible to provide for the safe and convenient passage of vehicles and pedestrians to and from local roads affected by the development. Where necessary suitable alternative provisions will be made. Convenient access to any properties affected will also be maintained.
it will be the prerogative of the contractors to select work storage areas, however these will be subject of approval by the Department. Materials and plant will generally be located within the freeway reserve, unless satisfactory areas can be secured closeby.
The reserve will be fenced prior to the commencement of road works.
Construction will commence after (letermination of the proposal, and the award of contracts. The contract period for road works will be approximately 24 months, although this could be extended in the event of excessive wet weather or other contingencies. Construction is to be completed by the end of 1989.
Construction activities will be limited to the following hours:
Monday to Friday - 0700 to 1700 Saturday - 0700 to 1700 with approval Sundays and public holidays - no work permitted, however, some Sunday work will be required on the railway bridge to suit SRA track possession times.
The project will employ a number of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The number of these will depend on the contractor, however it is estimated that a workforce of the order of 30 persons would be required on average over the contract period.
The estimate of construction cost for the freeway extension (in 1986 dollars) is $14.20 million. The major components of this estimate are $2.4 million for earthworks, $2.1 million for bridges and $3.5 million for pavement. The remaining cost will cover such items as landscaping, public utilities and drainage works.
21 nt034.eis 3.14 CONSTRUCTION SAFEGUARDS
3.14.1 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Temporary erosion controls will be (leVelope(l to suit each area of the construction site. Examples of some of the proposed measures are given in Figure 3.1. Careful planning will allow for the most efficient balance between construction needs and erosion control requirements.
When a construction site is cleared, graded contour drains will be formed to divert water and sediment into nearby stable areas. These drains are intended to reduce I sediment runoff from the site by diverting much of the flow before it reaches the main outlet channel. By spacing these drains at suitable vertical intervals, the rate I and velocity of overland flow will be reduced. This will help to prevent rilling and consequent scouring. I Haul roads and other access tracks within the freeway reserve associated with construction activities will he planned with special attention to erosion control. I Where these tracks have steep grades, diversion drains may he constructed at close intervals. In addition, temporary berms and drains can he formed at the end of I each work period. The latter works prevent the scouring of unconsolidated i Sediment which does reach the downstream end of the construction site will he collected in sediment traps or basins. These structures will be either hay check I clams or more substantial structures (see Figure 3.1) depending on the catchment I characteristics of a particular site. The sediment traps will be retained after construction ceases until such time as I restoration works have become effective. To determine the time when the structures can he safely removed, checks of stream sedimentation will he made I during and after the construction stage.
When necessary, temporary culverts or channels will be used to pass natural runoff I through the construction site. This procedure will maintain dry conditions on the I site and will prevent the pick-up of sediment by the flow coming from upstream of the roadworks. I 22 nt034.eis I I SEDIMENTATION TRAPS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
COMPACTED BERM 600 WIDE x 600 HIGH DROP INLET
50 x 50 x YOU STAKES
PORARY SLOPE DRAIN
LEAVE BERM AT TOP 0 HAY OR BUSH DAM AT THE END OF EACH DAY FILL IL OPERATION Fl H RIPRAP
IEI( - SETTLING BASIN STONE OUTLET BALES EMBEDIFD TOO TO 10
CULVERT INLET EIIIIU IIUL1lt1iDI FLOW i1NN1
.. .'
JOL
PIPE INLET
EARTH EMBANKMENT
'•/' /GRAcEL
SLOPES
STAKES 50 x 50 900 TOPSOIL AND EDBED
600 LOLOW BERM OR \ \\\ NATURAL TERRAIN H 450 — * PILL r; FLOW - -
S BA EMBEDDED - 100 TO 150 450
HAY CHECK DAM CATCH DRAIN
RUNOFF CONTROL- STRUCTURES
FIL L\ \ FLEXIBLE PIPE FIGURE 3.1 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
ALL MEASUREMENTS IN MILLIMETRES 3.14.2 Restoration and Landscape Treatments
For fill batters of 3 to 1 gradient, and other disturbed areas the trimmed surface will be topsoilecl to a depth of 100 millimetres using weed free stockpiled topsoil. I Surfaces will then be grass seeded by tractor drawn seed drill. The seed will be a mixture of several species of low grasses and native seed collected from the site. The grass seeding will provide quick stability of the surfaces to guard against I erosion until the regeneration of desirable native species.
I For batter slopes steeper than 3 to 1, (except for cuttings through rock) the surfaces will be topsoiled to 50 millimetres depth and hydroseeded with a mixture of I low grasses and native seed. Where soils are shown by testing to he dispersive, the Department, in consultation with the Soil Conservation Service, will determine an I appropriate form of treatment.
For catch drains where velocities may be erosive, drains will be seeded and sprayed L with bitumen emulsion on a jute mesh lining, or where necessary, hard surfacing I will be provided. A landscaping plan has been prepared and requires the exclusive use of Australian I native species which, to the maximum extent possible, will be collected on site. I The landscaping concept developed, extends west from the Regentville Bridge and comprises a series of staggered planting modules in mulched beds on both the freeway batters and adjacent to the formation. Plantings between the bridge and the I Russell Street interchange will mainly comprise shrubs and fast growing trees of only moderate height (eg Black Wattle).
More intense planting is proposed for the Russell Street interchange. Provision is I made for the planting of taller trees on the boundaries of the interchange to break up its appearance from outside viewpoints. I The major cut batters will be randomly planted with larger shrubs and trees as will E be the fill batters at the Knapsack Creek crossing. I I 23 nt034.eis I I Provision has also been made for tree planting at the cul-de-sac on the Great Western Highway at Knapsack Bridge. In summary, the landscaping plan is based entirely on indigenous species, makes provision for visually integrating the development into surrounding bushland areas and for breaking up the appearance of the Russell Street interchange which would otherwise be visually obtrusive in its surroundings. T 1
LJ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
24 1 nt034.eis I
0 (0 200, Scale
RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE 1 4'''tv
PEDESTRIAN CULVERT I DRAINAGE I I I LEO NAY I
I EMU PLA INS I I
F I I
7 RUSSELL STREET I INTERCHANGE
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION RUSSELL
STREET Co PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT 3.1
SINCIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTY LTD i Ii
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
200 4000 Horizontal Scale 40o Vertical 20
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT 3.2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTY LTD
FOFES i STREET LII' / ii II i'lII'II / /1111111 Il/i I l /l To Kul FORMS
b/I I 1111 / 11 fill 'Il/Il
H/fl /'Il ill n//A11 11II lit//Il I /
DECELERATION LANE ACCELERATION I LANE / I
GOVERNORS DRIVE UNDERBRIDGE I
RUSSELL STREET INTERCHANGE
100 200 Scale
GOVERNORS DRIVE INTERCHANGE
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW Sca Ic F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
INTERCHANGE DETAILS
EXHIBIT 3.3
SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTY LTD 1")
0 H- z
I0
uJ
1 -J NEW JERSEY KERB
to I ly
03, oH 1.0 L I 0.9 I 1.2 3.0 2/3.5 2/3.5 3.0 2.Om ROUNDING I TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - F4 FREEWAY I I
I w jI 0 01 1 F—L i—DESIGN LEVEL to zI r1° 1 ci I U
I 1.0 0 1.2 2.4 3.7 2.Om I ROUNDING TYPICAL RAMP CROSS SECTION I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
I CARRIAGEWAY DETAILS I EXHIBIT 3.4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS PTh' LTD I I
I 0 ------ ------15 1TYPICAL I 7 7
I I / 01,
I E /' - - RUSSELL STREET LEO NAY PARADE I -- 7-- I /B I I I P LA N
I Scale
I 10.8mDECKWIDTH I 2.2m 4.Om - 4.Om COMBINED TRAFFIC/PE GRILL RAILING FFIC BARRIER I RAILING I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION L 1 __J I I FC() RUSSELL STREET BRIDGE U cc
cc 0 SECTION B-B F F-z EXHIBIT 3.5 cc 5 1,0 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PJY LTD Sc1e
I I
I OVERALL LENGTH OF DECK ON BRIDGE = 367m I I I I
I (F4FREEWAY)
* MINIMUM CLEARANCE WAS DESIGNED FROM SHOULDER LEVEL AS CURVE I ELEVATION UNDER THE BRIDGE IS SUPERELEVATED 0 5 iCc I Scale I 1 \ I I I I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
P LA N RAILWAY BRIDGE
Scale cc 0 IHz EXHIBIT 3.6 cc SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PlY LTD I - WA - To I OOfOOmbo 1 I I Jill' 1 00 I I
I < /2kOO
1 90, / I 7 \ \ A A
4
I LEGEND
UGHTING FIXTURES / I (4)
I 0
L
100 200o I Scale
C I / DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW e F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
L IGHTING AND SIGN POSTING PLAN
ii EXHIBIT 3.7 C SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PlY LTD I 4. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT I I As discussed in Section 2.3, the major issue raised by the proposed development relates to its likely impact on traffic movements, particularly on local roads and between centres such as the Blue Mountains and Penrith.
To evaluate the traffic implications of the proposed development a traffic study, I based on surveys undertaken by the Department, was carried out. The study report, from which this section has been abstracted, is contained in Volume 2, Working I Papers published under separate cover.
The methodology used to forecast the effects of the proposed F4 extension involved I the development of a model to simulate traffic movements in the affected area. The model utilised existing origin-destination patterns based on a number plate survey I undertaken by the DMR together with travel times and distances on the various roads in the area. The impacts of the network changes as a result of the F4 LI Extension in terms of travel time and distance were then used to determine road user route choices. I Origins and destinations within the area between Blaxland and Nepean River were distributed amongst smaller traffic zones in order to more accurately assess the I effects of the proposal. For example, those living in Mount Riverview who wish to travel to and from Penrith would be less influenced by the proposal than those I living in Glenbrook or Lapstone. Tripmaking to and from each zone was assumed to I be proportionate to its population. Two basic options were evaluated, the baseline case (the 'without' case) is the I existing road network without the proposed F4 Extension. The optional case (the 'with' case) would be the road network assuming the proposed F4 Extension were built. A sub-option which includes an interchange at Lapstone which would allow I continued access to the Great Western Highway across Knapsack Bridge was also I examined (this option is discussed in Chapter 6). Forecasts of traffic volumes involved use of the forecast population growth in the I areas adjacent to the proposed F4 extension to estimate 'local' traffic growth. Local traffic was taken to be generated in areas around Emu Plains, Lapstone and 25 I nt034.eis I Blaxiand which are expected to grow at a rate of between 0.5% and 2.0% over the next ten years with an average of about 1%. The through traffic component growth rate was based on the historical growth rate of about 5% per annum. Forecasts were estimated for 1995 for both the 'with' and 'without' cases. The forecasts were limited to 1995 because this is the limit of forecasting confidence for this area.
4.1 EXISTING SITUATION
The main elements of the local road network are shown on Exhibit 4.1. There are three considerations necessary to determine the effect of the proposed development:
origin - destination patterns (where vehicles are coming from and going to); traffic volumes (how many vehicles are coming and going); and travel time (how long does it take to get from origin to destination) which influences the route travellers select to get from origin to destination.
4.1.1 Existing Origin Destination Pattern
Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3 show schematically the current origin-destination patterns in the corridor based on the DMR's number plate survey. The survey was conducted between 6.00 and 9.30 am and between 3.00 and 6.30 pm. The illustrations show the origin-destination patterns by direction for the two periods separately.
The illustrations show trips with origins and destinations in five distinct geographic areas.
areas west of Blaxiand (the greater Blue Mountains);
areas between Blaxiand and the escarpment (Blaxiand, Glenbrook and Lapstone);
areas between the escarpment and the Nepean River (Ernu Plains);
Penrith itself; and
areas north, south or east of Penrith.
26 nt034.eis I The alternative routes between these areas are also illustrated schematically. All trips with an origin or destination west of Blaxland are assumed to use the Great I Western Highway. I Trips between areas 1 and 3, that is between the top of the escarpment (Blaxiand) and the bottom (Ernu Plains), use either the Great Western Highway, Mitchells Pass I Road (one-way eastbound) or Old Bathurst Road. Trips crossing the Nepean River, that is between areas 3 (Emu Plains) and 4 I (Penrith) or 5 (anywhere else east of the River) can go via either the Victoria Bridge or Regentville Bridge (that is, the F4 Freeway). I It is clear from the illustrations that the peak flows are eastbound in the am peak I and westbound in the pm peak. A particularly notable finding is that traffic crossing the Victoria Bridge is predominantly comprised of trips with an origin or destination in either Emu Plains or Penrith. These account for 50 percent of all Victoria Bridge I crossings.
I Trips crossing the Regentville Bridge are predominantly those with an origin or destination east of Penrith. These trips comprise over one third of the total I crossing the Nepean River and would utilize the Regentville Bridge regardless of whether the extension were constructed or not.
I About 20 percent of morning traffic using the Victoria Bridge has an origin or destination west of the Blaxiand survey station. The comparable figure for the I Regentville Bridge is 31 percent.
I Over the course of the total survey an estimated 43 percent of trips using the Regentville Bridge had an origin or destination in the Emu Plains area. For the I Victoria Bridge the figure was 50 percent. These trips would he relatively unaffected by the proposed F4 Extension as they start or end below the escarpment. The major effect on these trips would be the Mulgoa Road interchange, presently under I construction, which would provide quicker access for those travelling from (to) the I Leonay area to (from) Penrith via the F4 and Mulgoa Road. A final consideration is the role played by Old Bathurst Road and Mitchells Pass I Road. The survey showed that Old Bathurst Road is predominantly used as a route to or from the Victoria Bridge (the Great Western Highway is used for trips 27 I nt034.eis P crossing both bridges). Mitchells Pass Road is a significant route in the eastbound direction only as it is one-way.
4.1.2 Traffic Volumes
Traffic using both the Victoria Bridge and the Regentville Bridge has grown steadily over recent years. Table 4.1 shows the average daily traffic volumes on the Regentville and Victoria Bridges from 1975 to 1985. The growth in traffic volume for both bridges is attributable to growth in the vicinity of the bridges, and to growth in through traffic volumes utilising the Great Western Highway and the F4 Freeway.
Growth in traffic volume across the river has been rapid over the past ten years with the heaviest growth recorded on the Regentville Bridge. The growth in through traffic (origin and/or destination West of Blaxiand or east of Penrith) would account for the more rapid growth on the Regentville Bridge as it is more likely to be used by through traffic.
TABLE 4.1 - TRAFFiC VOLUMES ON NEPEAN RIVER BRIDGES
Victoria Bridge Regentville Bridge Both Bridges Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
1975 20470 12180 36650 1977 22530 4.9% 12390 0.9% 34920 3.4% 1 1979 24550 4.4% 12730 1.3% 37270 3.3% 1981 26980 4.8% 16840 15.1% 43820 8.4% 1983 28840 3.4% 17790 2.8% 46630 3.2% 1985 30190 2.3% 21220 9.2% 51410 5.0% Average Growth 4.0% 5.7% 4.6% 1
4.1.3 Travel Times and Distances
The most apparent factors affecting choice of route are differences in relative I travel times and distances between alternatives. Table 4.2 shows the estimated travel times and distances between Blaxland (the Great Western Highway - Wilson Way I intersection) and Penrith and between Blaxland and the existing end of the F4 at Russell Street on various routes.
28 nt034.eis 1 I 1 The section directly affected between Lapstone and Russell Street is approximately 2.9 km via the existing Great Western Highway - Russell Street route, with an I average travel time of between 3.4 and 5.7 minutes, depending on the traffic volume.
I TABLE 4.2 - ROUTE DISTANCES AND TRAVEL TIMES
I Distance Travel Time (minutes)1 (km) Off Peak Peak
I Blaxland2 - Penrith CBD via: Old Bathurst Road - Victoria Bridge 10.2 12.0 23.0 I Mitchells Pass Road - Victoria Bridge' 10.7 12.7 21.5 Great Western Hwy - Victoria Bridge" 13.8 14.9 22.7 I Blaxiand - Existing F4 (at Russell Street) via: Old Bathurst Road - Russell Street 7.7 8.9 17.5 Mitchells Pass Road - Russell Street- 6.5 7.5 13.3 I Great Western Hwy - Russell Street' 10.2 9.7 14.5
1 Notes: Approximate travel times during Off-Peak (low traffic volumes) and Peak (short periods of high traffic volume); Corner of Great Western hwy and Wilson Way I One-way eastbound The existing route for those using the Great Western Highway
I 4.1.4 Other Relevant Road Developments
I A number of roadworks are planned or underway in the affected area. New Jersey type median barriers are currently being constructed on the Great Western Highway I at Lapstone, from Governors Drive to McCauley Crescent. Sections of Old Bathurst Road are currently being upgraded. A railway underpass on Old Bathurst Road near I the intersection with the Great Western Highway is scheduled for completion within the next two years. M.ulgoa Road between the F4 Freeway and Jamison Street, LI Penrith will he widened to four lanes.
Finally, and most importantly, an interchange will be constructed connecting the F4 I Freeway and Mulgoa Road before the F4 extension to Lapstone is completed. This will provide a mode of access to Penrith for east bound traffic as an alternative to I the Victoria Bridge.
29 I nt034.eis I I
4.2 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED F4 EXTENSION I
4.2.1 Accessibility
Travel times and distances are the primary components of accessibility. The choice of origin and/or destination results from individual perceptions of relative accessibility, which in turn result from the individual's own perceptions of travel time and distance.
The proposed F4 Extension will have an effective length of approximately 1.7 kilometres with an expected travel time of between 1.3 and 1.5 minutes. The present route between Lapstone and the Russell Street/174 intersection is approximately 2.9 kilometres long with a travel time of between 3.4 and 5.7 minutes depending on traffic volumes.
The effect of the proposed extension on travel times between Blaxiand and Penrith and Blaxiand and other points to the east is shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.
TABLE 4.3 - EFFECT OF F4 EXTENSION ON TRAVEL liMES - BLAXLAND/PEN R1TH
Travel Time (minutes) Off Peak Peak
Blaxiand to Penrith
Existing Options via Old Bathurst Road and Victoria Bridge 12.0 23.0 via MitcheUs Pass Road and Victoria Bridge 12.7 21.5 via Great Western Highway and Victoria Bridge 14.9 22.7
Future Options via Great Western Highway, F4, Russell Street and Victoria Bridge 13.8 20.2 via Great Western Highway, F4, Regentville Bridge and Mulgoa Road 13.7 19.5
30 nt034.eis I Table 4.3 clearly shows that the major benefit of the proposed F4 Extension will be to replace the existing route to Penrish via the Great Western Highway with two LI alternative routes, both of which are faster. However, these new options would offer no travel time benefits to those presently using Old Bathurst Road and I Mitchells Pass Road and it is likely that present users destined for Penrith will continue to use these routes.
I There is no evidence to suggest that travellers presently using the Great Western Highway to access Penrith might be encouraged to use Old Bathurst Road or I Mitchells Pass Road in the future. The travel time advantage these alternative I routes already have will actually be reduced under the proposed development. TABLE 4.4 - EFFECT OF F4 EXTENSiON ON TRAVEL TIMES BLAXLAND/F4 I Travel Time (minutes) Off Peak Peak I Existing I via Old Bathurst Road and Russell Street 8.9 17.5 via Mitchells Pass Road and Russell Street 7.5 13.3
via Great Western Highway and Russell I Street 9.7 14.5 I Future via F4 Extension 7.6 10.3 I Table 4.4 shows that for travellers destined for the F4 and points east, the proposed development will provide significant travel time savings over all existing I routes during peak periods. During off peak periods, the F4 Extension will be equal I to or better than all existing routes. In summary, overall accessibility between areas above and below the escarpment will I be affected by the proposed F4 Extension, but the relative accessibility of various areas within the corridor will not be materially affected. There is therefore no I reason to believe that origin-destination patterns would alter significantly as a result of the F4 extension. I
1 31 nt034.eis 1 Access to Emu Plains via the Great Western Highway and the F4 Extension will also be enhanced.
Accessibility to Penrith from above the escarpment will be improved significantly, both by the improved routing via the F4 and Mulgoa Road, and by lower traffic volumes on Old Bathurst Road and the Great Western Highway routes across Victoria Bridge.
Blacktown and Parraniatta are a considerable distance from Penrith. The improved travel times in the corridor under evaluation would reduce travel times to those destinations by 2 to 4 minutes, which would be relatively insignificant for the total trip. The total travel time between Blaxland and Blacktown ranges from 25 to 40 minutes. Between Blaxland and Parramatta the range is from 35 to 50 minutes. There is no evidence to suggest that people presently travelling to Penrith to shop would be motivated by the proposed development to shop elsewhere, as has been suggested. On the contrary, the improved accessibility may enhance Penrith as a potential shopping area for those above the escarpment.
4.2.2 Growth in Travel Volumes
Traffic growth over coming years would be expected to correlate with population growth for trips generated within the affected area (local traffic). The forecast population growth in the affected area west of the Nepean River was used to estimate growth in local traffic to 1995. Population growth estimates were based on information provided by the relevant councils. The majority of weekday traffic within the corridor (Blaxland to/from Penrith) is generated by those living in the corridor between Blaxiand and the Nepean River (Blaxland, Lapstone, Leonay and Emu Plains).
Estimates of growth in through traffic (trips with origins or destinations west of Blaxland or east of Penrith) is based on historical growth, which is expected to be in the order of 5% per annum.
Table 4.5 shows the traffic volume estimates for five sites, comparing the 1986 and 1995 estimates both with and without the proposed F4 Extension.
32 nt034.eis TABLE 4.5 - ROAD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT)
Russell St Old I (sth of Bathurst Rd Gt Western Victoria Regentville (at Mulgoa I Highway) Bridge Bridge escarpment) Road
1986 I Without F4 extension 21100 30190 21200 11280 18000 With F4 extension 17700 22400 29000 9700 25000
1995 I Without F4 extension 23500 34300 25300 12900 21000 With F4 extension 19800 25400 34000 10100 29000
Note: The base load of Mulgoa Road was forecast to grow at a rate of about 5% pa regardless of whether or not the F4 extension or the F4 Mulgoa Road interchange I were constructed.
I The Table shows that traffic volumes on the Regentville Bridge will increase significantly with the Extension, while volumes using Russell Street and Old I Bathurst Road are expected to be reduced. Traffic using Russell street between the F4 Freeway and The Great Western Highway would be reduced by an estimated 16 percent. The percentage of heavy vehicles using this section of Russell Street 1 would be reduced by an even greater margin as the majority would proceed directly along the F4 to or from Lapstone.
The section of Russell Street north of the Great Western Highway is also expected I to experience a 20 percent reduction in traffic volume.
Traffic volumes on Victoria Bridge are expected to fall by 25 percent as a result of the project and would not reach existing levels, even with general traffic growth, by 1995 if the F4 Extension is constructed. This is due to provision made in the model for some use of the alternative route to Penrith via Mulgoa Road.
Mulgoa Road would experience a significant increase in traffic volume (40 percent according to the assumption in the model) due to the diversion of Penrith traffic I from the Great Western Highway - Victoria Bridge route.
in summary, a major benefit of the proposed development will be to take through I traffic, heavy vehicles in particular, off residential streets and onto the Freeway.
33 I nt034.eis I As discussed in Section 2.2, this is a prime objective of the development.
43 IMPACT ON MANAGEMENT OF OVERSIZE TRUCK LOADS
The route under consideration is the only route between Sydney and the Central West of NSW which can accommodate exceptionally heavy, wide, long or high truck loads. Loads with exceptional dimensions are relatively infrequent, but consideration of their dimensions should be included in the design and operation of the proposed F4 Extension. Weights have been recorded well over 100 tonnes, lengths up to 50 metres, widths up to 8.5 metres and heights up to 5.5 metres.
Trucks with exceptionally heavy, wide, long or high loads currently await escort into Sydney (Eastbound) and over the Blue Mountains (Westbound) at a layby on the Great Western Highway east of Mitchells Pass Road. These vehicles must await certain periods before they are allowed to continue. The proposed F4 Extension would bypass this layby area.
Vehicles with wide or long loads may result in occasional traffic delays on the F4 Extension for short periods, during off peak periods.
The site for a layby area has not yet been determined and is the subject of consultation between the DMR, the NSW Police Department and other affected parties. Several locations between Blaxland and Prospect are being considered.
4.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
The likely effects of the proposed development on local business were discussed in Section 5.3. This section relates to the direct benefits and costs of the development.
New South Wales dominates the Australian land transport arena, accounting for 35 to 40 percent of all Australian road tonne-kilometres. The freight industries form a major part of the State's economic activity with an estimated output exceeding that of both agriculture and mining. The Great Western Highway accounts for a significant percentage of the State's total long distance freight haulage.
34 nt034.eis I Since the operating costs of road transport are directly affected by the nature of the roads that are available, it is essential to the overall economy of both Australia I and New South Wales that the road system be in a good condition. With the Sydney metropolitan area being the heart of the State's economy and principal sea port and I the Great Western Highway being a major intrastate road artery, the strategic importance of the F4 Freeway can be appreciated.
I The main benefits of both the overall development and that small component of it discussed in this document will be reduced travel/transportation costs through travel I time savings, reduced vehicle operating costs and reduced costs to the community I through traffic accident reductions. Individuals, commerce and industry will be able to gain direct benefits from this I improved accessibility between Sydney, and the west.
In New South Wales, where 60 percent of all freight by weight and 95 percent of 1 all foodstuffs are consigned by road, the community will benefit collectively through lower transportation costs and quicker delivery of products. There will also be I savings in energy consumption costs as a result of the improved, free-flowing L operating conditions. There will be community cost reductions resulting from a reduction in road I accidents afforded by constucting roads to higher standards. A major reduction can be expected on the Great Western Highway between Lapstone and Emu Plains, where, in the three year period to December, 1985 there was a total of 42 accidents I in which one person was killed and 33 were injured.
I An economic evaluation of the Freeway Extension has been conducted, comparing the costs of construction and maintenance to the benefits derived by all road users. I The road user benefits include savings in commercial and private vehicle operating costs, commercial vehicle driver costs, accident costs and private occupants' travel Li time.
The benefit-cost analysis, which is contained in Volume 2, Working Papers showed I that the value of road user benefits from the development (reduced operating costs, accident costs and travel time) are well in excess of the capital cost. The benefit- I cost ratio is estimated to be 2.3 to 1, meaning that the value of the benefits which will accrue is more than twice the cost of construction. The sensitivity of the 35 I nt034.eis I benefit-cost analysis was tested by varying the assumptions in the analysis. The ratio remained comparatively high in all cases indicating that a high level of confidence can be attached to the conclusion. I I I Li I I I I I
L Li
I I I
36 nt034.eis 1 LI I I I I I a: Ui I > I I I I I I I
I GLENBROOK LAPSTONE. I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
ROAD NE1WORK
EXHIBIT 4.1 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS PlY LTD I Victoria Bri( ge I * GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY
OLZBA-T-HuRsT ROAD PEN R ITH
___
MITCHELLS PASS ROAD I MU I N
B LAXLAN D I F4
*
I - -
GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY Regentville Bridge LA P STO N E I EASTBOUND
I
Victoria Bridge I GR AT WESTERN HIGHWAY * OLD BATHURST ROAD PEN RITH
EM U P I I BLAXLAND
F4
GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY Regentville I Bridge LAPSTONE
WESTBOUND LEGEND I * ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WEST BLAXLAND
VEHICLE TRIPS
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW (0 (0 F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION 0) I 1000 1986 ORIGIN - DESTINATION C,) 0 %",%,00 PATIERNS (AM PEAK) H-z 0 Scale EXHIBIT 4.2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS PlY LTD I I Victoria Bridge GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY I
DBATHURST D rH PENTH\ Ii / BLAXLAND
MUP
- 77
GREAT WESTERN HlGHWAY Regentville Bridge I LAPSTONE
EASTBOUND
I Victoria Bridge fT GREATWESTE RNHIGHWAY
OLD BATHURSTRAD
PENRITH
BLAXLAND
GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY Regentville Bridge LAPSTONE I WESTBOUND VEHICLE1RIPS
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS. NSW cc 10000 cc cc
6000 I [4000 cc 0 1200 0 H z 10 Scale
SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTh' LTD I
Voria
GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY
OLD BATHURST ROAD PENrnTH I
I = MITCHELLS PASS ROAD /EMU PLA
BLAXILAND
* GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY Regentville Bodge LAPSTONE I WITH EXTENSION
I Victoria Bridge - 7
- /GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY
OLD BURSTROA0 i PEN R TH
LL MFrCHELLS PASS ROAD EMU PLAINS I B LAX LA N D
GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY Regentville Bridge I LAPSTONE WITHOUT EXTENSION \/ci-lIricTpiPc It DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW 2000 F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION FORECAST 1995
ORIGIN - DESTINATION PATTERNS ~110 ffIO (COMBINED AM & PM PEAKS) 'I Scale EXHIBIT 4.4
SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PlY LTD 5. EXISTING EN\TIRONMIENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
I This section outlines the existing environment within the study area and evaluates the likely social and environmental effects of the proposed development and, where appropriate, specifies the safeguards which will be adopted to mitigate impacts.
5.1 LOCAL ACCESS
The traffic implications of the proposal were discussed in Section 4.0. This section describes the changes in local vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access which will I result.
5.1.1. Vehicular Access
The existing pattern of local vehicular access is a product of topography, and the I positions of the Nepean River and the Main Western Rail Line. The Great Western Highway is the main road artery that connects Glenbrook (and the settlements I beyond) to Lapstone, Leonay, Emu Plains and Penrith. I Two types of access need to be considered; inter-suburban and intra-suburban. In terms of inter-suburban access, there are a range of relevant access routes to 1 consider.
I Access between Glenbrook and Lapstone is available via Governors Drive, connecting with the Great Western Highway. Safer access to Lapstone from the west is I available via Explorers Road which connects with local roads in Glenbrook and to the Great Western Highway.
1 As discussed in Section 3.4, access to Lapstone for east hound traffic on the Highway will no longer be available under the proposed development. This will I constitute an adverse impact. In assessing the significance of the impact, the I following considerations are relevant:
.37 the existing right turn from the Highway into Governors Drive is a hazardous undertaking;
the number of cars making the turn, on the basis of traffic counts, is very low; and,
there is alternative road access to Lapstone via Glenbrook and Explorers Road
For these reasons the discontinuation of the right turn at Governors Drive is considered to be an acceptable impact.
Access between Glenbrook/Lapstone and Emu Plains, Penrith and Leonay is currently available via the Great Western Highway and Russell Street. Under the proposed development access will be available via the extended F4 freeway which will decrease travel times between these areas and hence there will be a beneficial impact.
The present mode of access between Blaxland and Penrith is via Mitchells Pass Road or Old Bathurst Road and this will remain unaffected by the proposed development.
Access between Leonay and Emu Plains will be improved under the proposed development due to replacement of the present F4/Russell Street T - intersection by the Russell Street overpass. in summary, the proposed development will leave the majority of local inter suburban access routes unchanged or will improve them and so the overall effect of the development is seen as being beneficial.
Regarding intra-suburban access (that is, access within the Emu Plains/Penrith area), the main potential change will result from the possibility of Penrith - bound traffic from the F4 diverting off Russell Street and through Emu Plains (Lucas Street, Forbes Street etc) to join River Road as a means of access to Penrith. This already happens to some degree but the tendency could increase under the proposed development due to the increase in north bound traffic on Russell Street with a destination east of Russell Street during the am peak in particular.
38 nt034.eis
1 This is recognised as a potentially significant impact or, more correctly, a worsening of an existing impact. A solution to this would be the installation of 'No r, Right Turn' signs at the Lucas and Forbes Street intersections. Alternatively, these two streets could be closed. The preferred solution would be a matter to be I determined by Council.
in either case a residual impact would be imposed on some residents in the affected Li area insofar as they would not be able to directly access their streets when returning home via the F4. However, indirect access will be available for instance, I by turning south at Russell Street into Leonay Parade and accessing via River Road, beneath the F4. I 5.1.2 Bicycle Access ~I Penrith City Council has developed an extensive bike plan for the Emu Plains, Ernu Heights and Leonay areas. The routes, shown on Exhibit 5.1, link major sources of I bicycle traffic such as schools with major destination points such as parks, BMX tracks and recreational attractions. None of these routes will be affected by the ri proposed development.
I As yet there are no bicycle routes linking to the Blue Mountains area. However, any proposals to establish such a link should not be adversely affected by the I proposed extension since bicycles are not prohibited on freeways.
The proposed development will have a beneficial impact on bicycle safety in some 1 residential areas, particularly Russell Street, due to the substantial reduction in I through traffic volumes on local roads. The aggregate effect on bicycle access is assessed as being beneficial. I 5.1.3 Pedestrian Access
LI While no pedestrian access will be available on the proposed extension to the F4 Freeway, existing and proposed walking tracks (Exhibit 5.3) will not be affected by r the proposal. A more important pedestrian consideration relates to the use of the I 39 I nt034.eis I I area in the general vicinity of Knapsack Gully for recreational walking. Both the Blue Mountains City Council and the Crown Lands Office (CLO) are active in walking track planning and development. The main existing and proposed tracks of relevance to the proposed development are shown on Exhibit 5.3.
The Lapstone Zig Zag walking track is maintained by the CLO and runs from a carpark at the end of Knapsack Street and follows the original Zig Zag railway, past the old Lucasville Station platform, and terminates at a lookout overlooking Knapsack Gully Bridge. Another track runs from the lookout down into Knapsack Gully, under the bridge and joins a Blue Mountains City Council track from Elizabeth Lookout. The Council also has plans to install a track from Knapsack Bridge to the historic house, Green Gables (see Section 5.5.1). Finally, the CLO has a longstanding proposal to link Lapstone and the Nepean River by walking trails.
Clearly, the proposed development has the potential to have an impact on existing and likely future walking trails.
The matter has been discussed with both the CLO and the Blue Mountains City Council. As a result, it is proposed to install a large culvert underneath the extended freeway near the Knapsack Creek crossing (see Section 3.9) to allow walkers unimpeded access from one side to the other.
This solution is considered to provide an acceptable means of ensuring the maintenance of recreational walking opportunities.
5.1.4 Access for Public Transport
Private bus services in the affected area west of the Nepean River are operated by Pearce Omnibus Pty Ltd. Those routes which operate below the escarpment between Emu Heights and Penrith, and between Leonay and Penrith would not be directly affected by the proposed development.
However, the Penrith-Faulconbridge route (shown on Exhibit 5.1) would be directly affected by the proposed extension as it currently proceeds along the Great Western Highway. There are currently 15 services per day (weekdays) in each direction for this route. The alternate routing utilising the F4 Extension would be about 1 to 3 minutes faster than the existing route, and would therefore benefit those passengers whose trip origin/destination is above the escarpment. 40 nt034.eis I Passengers who currently access the route at Grey Street and Brougham Street on the Great Western Highway west of Russell Street will be inconvenienced. They I will have to walk to Russell Street (a distance of 1100 to 300 metres) to access the route. The effort is increased, especially for those carrying packages of with small I children, because the route is at a grade. The number of passengers joining (or leaving) the bus along this section is estimated to be from 100 to 150 persons per 1 day (50 to 75 in each direction). The option of altering the bus route such that it turns left off Russell Street onto U the Great Western Highway, proceeding to Grey Street and Pyramid Street, then rejoining the Highway, would improve service coverage, but would impose a time I penalty of about 8 to 12 minutes on the vast malority of passengers who would have joined the bus above the escarpment. rj Thus it is essentially unavoidable that some adverse impact will be registered on I this aspect of the local transport system. Other intercity coach and tourist bus services would benefit from the development I as they would proceed directly between Lapstone and the F4 without the need to divert along the existing alignment of the Great Western Highway. Those coaches I which do divert through Penrith will enjoy faster travel times utilizing the F4 Extension and Mulgoa Road. I 5.2 SAFETY
I The main safety hazards under the present arrangements are:
I the hazardous intersection between the Great Western Highway and Governors Drive at Lapstone; I high traffic volumes, particularly heavy vehicles, on Russell Street; and,
I the T - intersection at the F4 Freeway/Russell Street junction.
I The last hazard will be eliminated under the proposed development through replacement of the intersection by an interchange incorporating an overpass and I roundabouts. I 41 nt034.eis I I As was discussed in Section 4.2, traffic volumes on Russell Street will reduce by approximately 16 percent and heavy vehicle numbers will reduce by far greater amounts. Consequently there will be an improvement in conditions on Russell Street.
Finally, the Governors Drive/Highway intersection will be replaced by an interchange which will significantly reduce the safety hazard at that location.
The proposed development will therefore eliminate or significantly reduce the three major existing safety hazards. In addition, the higher geometric standard of the freeway extension in comparison to the existing highway alignment will in itself produce safety benefits.
A final observation relates to the interface between the end of freeway conditions at Lapstone and the commencement of a tight curve on the Highway.
It has been argued that a high standard Freeway should not end at a substandard curve and that the transition from freeway to highway standard should occur elsewhere, for example, at Emu Plains at the foot of the hilt.
This view however does not withstand any analysis. For east bound traffic, the safety of the curve is not dependent on conditions after the curve (that is, on whether or not a freeway commences around the corner). For west bound traffic, there will be a need to decelerate from freeway speed (100 kph) to a suitable cornering speed (80 kph) but cars will be travelling against the 7.4 percent grade and the end of freeway conditions will be adequately signposted.
Furthermore, adoption of the freeway standard provides a basis for developing an interchange at the Governors Drive intersection which, amongst other things, will reduce the safety hazard associated with the Lapstone curve.
Accordingly, it is concluded that, on safety grounds, the proposed development will have only beneficial effects.
42 nt034.eis 1 5.3 IMPACTS ON BUS1NESS
Fi Concern has been expressed about the possibility of the F4 Freeway Extension providing easier access from the Blue Mountains to centres such as Parramatta and Blacktown, thereby encouraging shoppers to by-pass Penrith. This question is raised I in the light of the finding that there is very significant use made of Penrith and I Emu Plains shopping centres by Blue Mountains residents (Reference 4). For a number of reasons, it is considered that these concerns are without I substance. Firstly, and as was discussed in Section 4.1, origin-destination surveys show that the biggest single group of travellers crossing Victoria Bridge into L Penrith (50 percent) comes from the base of the escarpment (Eniu Plains) and will not be affected by the proposed development in any way.
I Secondly, and as discussed in Section 4.2 those travellers presently using Mitchells Pass Road and Old Bathurst Road to access Penrith will probably continue to do so I since there will be no travel time benefit in using the F4 Extension. Finally, for those travellers presently accessing Penrith via the Great Western Highway, travel I time will be reduced under the proposed development whether they choose to exit at I Russell Street or Mulgoa Road. Under these circumstances, it is considered unlikely that consumers who presently shop at Penrith would be motivated to travel the additional 30 to 50 kilornetres to I the next comparable shopping centre. On the contrary, the proposed development will result in two equally efficient ways of accessing Penrith shopping centre in I comparison to the one presently available. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to expect that the proposed development could actually increase visitation levels in I Penrith. I A second level of concern has been expressed about loss of passing trade for businesses fronting onto the Highway west of Penrith, and for those west of Russell Li Street in particular. I There are only three businesses in the latter category: a restaurant accessed off Grey Street; I a fruit market approximately 150 metres from the Russell Street intersection; and, 43 I nt034.e is I a lighting shop on the south western corner of the Russell Street/Great Western Highway intersection.
It is considered quite likely that these businesses will see a major fall off in that component of their business attributable to passing trade. This will constitute an unavoidable adverse impact against which the many benefits of the proposed development will have to be weighed.
Businesses east of Russell Street (several Real Estate Agents, a liquor shop, Lenox Shopping Centre, a service station) will not be affected to the same extent since the net effect of the development will be a lesser reduction in the traffic which would otherwise pass through. The extent of the reduction will depend on the number of Penrith-bound travellers who choose to exit at Mulgoa Road rather than Russell Street.
Again, to the extent that there will be a reduction in trade at these premises, its significance has to be weighed up against the other demonstrable benefits arising from the development.
5.4 IMPACTS ON LAND ZONING AND LAND USE
5.4.1 Zoning
The existing pattern of town planning zones is shown on Exhibit 5.2. The area is covered by Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan No 4 and Penrith City Council IDO No 2.
The majority of the land affected by the proposed development has already been zoned for expressway purposes by both Blue Mountains and Penrith City Councils. However, the expressway zone under the Penrith City Council's planning scheme was made to cater for the DMR's initial plan to utilise Mitchells Pass Road (see Section 6.1).
The route presently proposed crosses land within Penrith City zoned 2(a) Residential, 1(a) Rural, 5 (Special Uses) Sewage Treatment, and 6(c) Open Space. The extension will also cross the main Western Railway zoned 5(b) Special Uses Railway under LEP No 4.
44 nt034.eis I The proposed development is not prohibited in any of the zones crossed.
I The significance of zoning impacts is as lol l( )ws:
2(a) Residential I An area of approximately 1.7 hectares of zoned iesidcntial land will he sterilised. The loss will not be significant within the context of the total stock (If zoned 1 residential land in the Penrith City area.
I 5 (Special Uses) Sewage Treatment There are no known plans to use this area br its designated purpose. I .xistilig I treatment facilities at North Penrith are believed to he adequate for present Clemafl(l and there is capacity at the site for expansion to cater for foreseeable future I demand. The impact of the loss of this land is not considered to be significant.
6(c) Open Space I Approximately 0.2 hectares of this zoned area will he sterihised, comprising partly Crown Land (Reserve for Water Access) and partly private land ( Leonay (jolf I Course). In addition, approximately two hectares of land presently zoned 1(a) rural but reserved for future public requirements will be used (this land is located I between Bedford Street and the Main Western Rail Line). For this development, and consistent with the State Government's policies directed at maintaining and protecting the stock of zoned open space land, the L)epartment wishes to make large I parts of land which it presently owns, available for public recreation purposes provided satisfactory arrangements can he made. The area, which is shown on I Exhibit 5.3 is a large parcel of hushland parallel and immediately adjacent to the western side of the Main Western Rail Line in the vicinity of Knapsack Gully. The I land which could he made available has it total area of 9.4 hectares comprising 2.5 hectares south of the freeway and 6.9 hectares to the north. This proposal would I increase the area of land available for public recreation by a nett 8.5 hectares.
As discussed in Section 2.5, following determination of the proposed development by the Department, an amending Local Environmental Plan will be prepared to vary I affected zonings as required. I
45 1 nt034.eis I 5.4.2 Land Use
The pattern of existing land uses is shown on Exhibit 5.3. As shown, the major land uses in the vicinity are: urban, recreational and public utilities.
Urban land usage is centred in areas both north (Emu Plains) and south (Leonay) of the proposed Freeway extension.
Recreational land uses include both formal and informal activities. Amongst the formal activities are those centred on Leonay Golf Course, immediately south, a football ground used by the Emu Plains Junior Rugby League Football Club immediately south west of the Russell Street intersection, and the various walking areas discussed in Section 5.1.3. Informal recreational activities take place throughout unused land in the vicinity, including the proposed development site. On the evidence, trail bike riding would rank highly amongst such uses.
The proposed development will not have any significant effect on use of the golf course. Regarding the football oval, correspondence was received from the Football Club voicing concern about the possibility of flooding of the ground and associated facilities due to inadequate sizing of culverts to be installed under Russell Street interchange. As was discussed in Section 3.9 all culverts have been or will be designed to pass flows from a storm with a 100 year recurrence interval. This will provide a very high level of protection to football club facilities.
Impacts on walking trails and their use were discussed in Section 5.1.3.
Finally, it can be expected that the proposed development will have some effect on informal recreational land uses, particularly those centred on the proposed development site. However, and as was discussed in Section 5.4.1, there will be an overall increase in the area of land made available for public recreation due to the Department's intentions in connection with Skarratt Park. The full range of existing recreational uses may not be permissible in the extended recreational area (trail bike riding is likely to be one important exclusion) but for the majority of informal uses the proposed development should increase opportunities.
Impacts on public utilities are discussed in Section 5.9.
46 nt034.eis I 5.5 VISUAL IMPACTS
Li Reduction of potential visual impacts was an important consideration in formulation of the development plan. A number of visual safeguards are proposed. In summary I they are:
the design of the Freeway Extension so as to minimise the extent and size of I fill embankments (see Section 3.1);
I provision for tree and shrub plantings on cut batters to soften their appearance (see Section 3.14.2); and, I provision for planting tall trees around the Russell Street interchange to [I reduce its visual accessibility (see Section 3.14.2). P~ These safeguards will have a significant ameliorating effect. In assessing the likely residual impact of the proposal on the landscape, account must be taken of:
I the likely effect of the proposal on views from the road; and, I the likely effect of the proposal on views from the surroundings. Views of the escarpment are currently afforded drivers travelling west on the I existing F4 Freeway, from a point approximately two kilometres east of the Russell Street intersection. This view will be enhanced by the extension of the Freeway, I as drivers are brought close to the escarpment providing less confined and more panoramic views. Strategic planting alongside the proposal in existing grass areas I and in disturbed areas (see Section 3.11) will improve continuity in the landscape towards the escarpment and prevent degradation of the landscape in cut and fill I areas, for drivers travelling in both directions. Views of the road from surrounding areas will be softened by the proposed r landscaping. The extension to the Freeway will be visible however from the Forbes/Brougham Street area, from the playing fields and the Leonay Golf Course I immediately to the south of the proposal, from the proposed new railway bridge and from Marges Lookout, Elizabeth Lookout and other high points, to the west. Some 47 I nt034.eis I I dwellings in the northern part of Leonay will get intermittent views of the proposal, but most will be protected by vegetation screening. Views from some walking tracks will be adversely affected. The major effect will be near the proposed pedestrian underpass at Knapsack Creek.
A final consideration relates to the potential night-time effect of street lights associated with the development. As discussed in Section 3.10 and shown on Exhibit 3.7, lighting will only be provided at the two interchanges. The design of the lights is such as to restricts the illuminated area to the immediate vicinity of the fixture. There will be no direct illumination of residences in adjacent areas. However, some residual glow will be visible in surrounding areas. The effect is not expected to be intrustive.
In conclusion, the main adverse visual impact will be registered at short range and is essentially unavoidable. The visibility of the proposal will diminish over time as the landscaping vegetation grows and this will provide a lessening of impact. The impact on longer distance views and on the visual quality of the escarpment will not be significant, primarily due to the substantial cut in which the extension will be placed.
5.6 HERITAGE
5.6.1 Transport History
The area through which the proposed extension passes is rich in transport history being the area through which the original railway crossing over the Blue Mountains was forged in the 1860's. The Knapsack Viaduct (Figure 5.3), an impressive sandstone structure over Knapsack Creek, was built to carry the railway line in 1867. It is an excellent example of Victorian bridge construction (Reference 5.2) and has been classified by the National Trust.
Just beyond the Knapsack Viaduct the Lapstone Zig Zag (Figure 5.3) was also constructed in the 1860s to ascend the escarpment. Evidence of the original Zig Zag route on Lapstone Hill is a reminder of the skills of John Whitton, Engineer- in-Chief of the NSW Railways at the time and designer of the Zig Zag and the Knapsack Viaduct.
48 nt034.eis I
I By the 1890s increased rail activity had made the Zig Zag Railway unworkable and a new route incorporating a tunnel through Lapstone Hill was opened. Further 1 modifications to the rail route took place in 1913 when a new tunnel and a new brick viaduct across Knapsack Gully were opened. The old Knapsack Viaduct was incorporated into the Great Western Highway in 1926 and widened in 1939 to I provide for safer movement.
I The Blue Mountains City Council plans to reinstate the Lapstone Zig Zag as a tourist attraction, but the proposed development will not interfere with these plans. I The F4 Freeway as a whole will facilitate access to the Blue Mountains from the Sydney region, promoting its attractiveness as a tourist destination.
I John Whitton also built and lived in the cottage "Green Gables" which is shown on Exhibit 5.3. The cottage is classified by the National Trust. Blue Mountains City I Council has plans to more fully utilise the Green Gables site as a tourist attraction. Access at present is via the Great Western Highway, which under the new scheme I will have significantly reduced level of usage. As such the site, along with the Knapsack Viaduct, should be more attractive as tourist destinations due to increased I amenity, the reduction in traffic noise and increased safety of access. These are assessed as being additional beneficial effects of the proposed development.
I 5.6.2 Archaeology
I An archaeological survey has been carried out and the text of the report is I contained in Volume 2, Working Papers. As shown on Exhibit 5.5 two sites are located near the proposed development area: I an aboriginal camp site on Knapsack Creek downstream of the proposed I Freeway extension (NPWS Site No. 45-5-222); and, a surface scatter of artefacts located 250 metres north of Knapsack Creek and 1 to the north of the Freeway route.
I The camp site has been the subject of intensive archaeological investigation since 1979. it has been shown to contain substantial and long term occupation deposits. I It is of great archaeological significance as it is one of very few extensive and datable open camp sites on the Cumberland Plain. in addition, its proximity and 49 I nt034.eis I I relationship to sheltered camp sites in the Blue Mountains foothills allows archaeological investigation of aboriginal movement and exploitation patterns between these adjacent resource zones.
The surface scatter site has been disturbed by bulldozing associated with timber clearing. The artefactual material is damaged, fragmented and widely (thinly) scattered. The artefacts are located over an area of 50 x 10 metres but may extend slightly further. This site was not considered to be of archaeological significance.
Arising from the investigations, a series of recommendations were made, all of which will be adopted. The recommendations were as follows:
if any alteration to the proposed freeway extension route is planned the archaeological sensitivity of the area should be considered and further archaeological survey undertaken (no such alteration is intended);
caution should be exercised during earthworks and road construction between Russell and Grey Street. Access to the route should be from Brougham or Grey Street. Construction and excavation equipment or vehicles and construction material stockpiles should be deployed from the north side of the route. Construction workers should be made aware of the presence of the camp site, its archaeological importance and the above restrictions to avoid indirect damage;
caution should be exercised during earth works and road construction in the vicinity of Bedford Street to avoid indirect damage to the surface scatter site. Bedford Street should not be used as access to the route, nor for storage of equipment or stockpiles. The southern boundary of the site could be fenced during the construction phase to make its limits clearly visible to construction workers and surveyors;
copies of the report should be forwarded to the Regional Archaeologist, Central Region Office, NPWS, Parramatta, NSW and to the Site Officer, Daruk Local Land Council, for information (this has been done).
50 nt034.eis I
5.6.3 Natural Heritage
The eastern escarpment of the Blue Mountains is of flatural heritage significance. The clarity of the monocline which fornis the eastern escarpment and, in particular, its exposure just south of the Knapsack Viaduct, is considered of scientific and educational value (Reference 5).
The Lapstone monocline exposure will be affected by the proposal. However, of all the options available, the proposed development interferes least with the exposure. I The proposed development will not destroy the principal physical elements of the exposure which make it of interest. I 5.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION
1 5.7.1 Noise
Existing Situation
To provide a basis for assessing the acoustic impacts of the proposed development, noise surveys were undertaken on 4 and 5 November, 1986 to determine existing I noise levels at four locations. The locations, shown on Exhibit 5.4, were:
Location 1 - Grey Street, near Forbes Street. I Location 2 - Northern end of Sanctuary Drive. . Location 3 - Russell Street, near Lucas Street. I - Location 4 - Great Western Highway near Walkers Crescent.
A full report of the noise monitoring programme and acoustic impact assessment procedures is contained in Volume 2, Working Papers.
At each monitoring location two noise measurements were taken:
exisiting traffic noise, being the 1-10 (18 hour) noise level. This noise level is an 18 hour average of levels exceeded for 10 percent of the time and is a standard measure of traffic noise;
existing background noise, being the L90 noise level, or the noise level exceeded for 90 percent of the time. 51 1 nt034.eis
I
I The results of the monitoring programme are shown in Table 5.1. I TABLE 5.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS LI
Location L1O (18 hour) Background (1-90) Main Background dBA dBA (time) Noise Source
1 49 40 (1200 hrs) Traffic, trains 2 48 40 (1230 hrs) Traffic, trains, birds 3 71 46 (0900 hrs) Traffic 4 74 51(0930 hrs) Traffic, trains
The Table shows that the dominant noise sources at all four locations are traffic and trains. However, there is a distinct difference in the quality of the existing acoustic environment between sites 1 and 2 which are comparatively well removed from the existing major traffic thoroughfares (Russell Street, and the Highway) and sites 3 and 4 which are on the major thoroughfares.
The L90 levels at sites 3 and 4 are typical of what is referred to as an R3 noise environment (Reference 6) whereas sites 1 and 2 are an R2 noise environment.
Assessment Criteria
The basis of the operational phase noise impact assessment is the predicted change in the L10 (18 hour level). The change can be calculated from the change in traffic movements which have been predicted from the traffic modelling study summarised in Section 4.0.
The significance of the predicted changes in L10 (18 hour) levels has been assessed in accordance with Department of Main Roads criteria. The Department will give consideration to noise attenuation measures if either of the two following conditions are met at residences existing before public knowledge of the route:
52 nt034.eis I The L1O (18 hour) noise level adjacent to the new Extension is greater than 68 dBA and this level represents an increase of 2 dBA or more on the pre- 1 existing Li0 (18 hour) level, or
The L10 (18 hour) noise level adjacent to the new Extension lies between 63 I and 68 dBA and this level represents an increase of 15 dBA or more on the I pre-existing L10 (18 hour) level. Assessments have also been made of the likely noise impact of construction I activities. Construction noise levels have been predicted on the basis of the type of construction equipment likely to be operating on site, their likely locations and I noise generating characteristics.
The significance of calculated construction noise levels has been assessed according [1 to the State Pollution Control Commission's Environmental Noise Control Manual. P These guidelines suggest the following limits: Where the construction period is four weeks or less, an Li0 level (generated I by construction activities) equal to the background level plus 20 dBA. I Where the construction period is greater than four weeks and does not exceed 26 weeks, an L10 level (generated by construction activities) equal to the I background noise level plus 10 dBA. The time restrictions for construction operations are Monday to Friday, 7.00 am to I 5.00 pm and Saturday, 7.00 am to 5.00 pm with approval, with no road construction work to take place on Sundays and Public Holidays. However, limited Sunday work I will be required on the railway bridge at Lapstone to meet the track possession times permitted by the SRA. I Predicted Operational Noise Levels
I The noise predictions have been based upon the CORTN method developed by the I UK Department of Environment. The CORTN method uses traffic forecasts to calculate a basic Li0 (18 - hour) I traffic noise level which is adjusted for the following parameters.
53 Traffic flow speed.
Percentage of heavy vehicles.
The gradient of the road.
Quality of road surface.
Distance from the location to the road including ground cover.
Barriers.
Restricted angle of view.
Facing and/or opposing building facade reflection effects.
Curved road.
The traffic flows used were those developed from the traffic study (Section 4) and the predicted 1-10 (18 hour) noise levels at the four noise monitoring sites are displayed in Table 5.2.
TABLE 5.2 PREDICFED L1O (18-HOUR) NOISE LEVELS
Location Predicted L10 (18-Hour) dBA 1 57 2 49 3 69 4 58
Contours of predicted noise levels adjacent to the freeway extension, the existing Highway and Russell Street are shown on Exhibit 5.4.
The Table shows that in the subdivisions situated north and south of the F4 Extension, traffic noise levels at houses near the proposed extension will increase due to the introduction of the new road. The increase becomes less significant as the Extension approaches Russell Street and the Great Western Highway at Lapstone, due to the traffic noise already experienced from Russell Street, the 54 nt034.eis I Great Western Highway and, in some cases, the existing F4 Freeway. Houses adjacent to the proposed F4 Extension also experience the occasional train noise El emanating from the Blue Mountains Line.
The existing predicted LiO (18-hour) noise level at Location I is 47 dBA (measured I 49 dBA) and it is expected to rise to 48 dBA in 1995 without the Extension. The L1O (18-hour) noise level in 1995 at this location will he 57 dBA if the Extension is I constructed, which is below the lowest design criterion of 63 dBA laid down by the Department of Main Roads. I Therefore, a significant impact will not occur from noise levels generated by the I new road upon residences located on Grey and Forbes Streets and surrounding areas. Location 1 is representative of approximately 27 residences and the future noise levels at the building line will vary from 51 - 59 dBA, all below the design I criterion.
[] The traffic noise level at the building facade of Location 2 will also increase due to the introduction of the new road. The existing L10 (18-hour) noise level as I measured and predicted is around the 47 - 48 dBA. In 1995 the L1O (18-hour) noise level will remain the same without the Extension and will increase by only 1 dBA to I 49 with the introduction of the new road.
Therefore, a significant impact will not occur from noise levels generated by the I new road to residences located on Sanctuary Drive and surrounding areas. Location 2 is representative of approximately 25 residences at which the future noise levels I will fall in the range 49 dBA up to 58 dBA. In all cases the design criteria laid down by the Department of Main Roads will have been met and noise control I measures are not required.
A corollary to the traffic noise increases in the vicinity of the proposed extension I will be traffic reductions near residences adjacent to the by-passed section of the Great Western Highway and in Russell Street as typified by Locations 4 and 3 I respectively.
I The predicted L1O (18-hour) noise level at Location 3 in 1995 with the Extension is 69 dBA which is 1 dBA below the 1995 predicted level with no Extension. This I reduction is below the 2 dBA perception limit adopted as the basis of assessment
55 and therefore, the reduction in L10 (18-hour) noise level will not be significant in terms of noise impact for residences adjacent to Russell Street should the Extension be introduced.
The predicted noise level at the building line for residences adjacent to the Great Western Highway between Russell Street and Lapstone (Location 4) is 58 dBA compared to 73 dBA should the Extension not be adopted. This represents a 15 dBA decrease in traffic noise level and a significant reduction for residences adjacent to this section of road.
In summary, it is expected that there will be minor increases in L1O (18-hour) noise levels at residences adjacent to the proposed freeway extension, but the increases will not by large enough to justify the application of noise control measures.
There will be major noise level reductions at residences adjacent to the by-passed section of the Great Western Highway.
Finally, while there will be reductions in traffic movements in Russell Street due to the proposed development the reductions will not be sufficient to produce significant reductions in traffic noise levels.
Predicted Construction Noise Levels
Construction noise levels at Locations 1 and 2 were based on construction activity scenarios considered to reflect the actual situation. It was assumed that, on average, construction activities would be unlikely to be concentrated at any one point for longer than four weeks. Hence, the noise level design goal is the background level plus 20 dBA.
The section of the F4 Extension adjacent to Location 1 will be in a cutting and therefore will provide some shielding to residential boundaries. This location will experience two major stages of construction noise, as follows:
Noise from earth moving operations. Noise from paving operations.
56 nt034.eis The cut and fill operations would utilise up to two scrapers and one dozer in addition to service trucks, cranes and other earth moving equipment. It is expected that the construction noise levels will be dominated by scraper pass-by's operating in the cutting to the areas of fill, resulting in an L10 level of approximately 57-59
dBA. I This is 1-3 dBA below the design goal of 60 dBA (ie background plus 20 dBA). Following earth moving operations, the Extension will be paved, using a concrete I paving machine. This operation will require eight passes of the paver with respect to each residence (2 passes per carriageway) with each pass taking approximately 2- 3 days. It is expected that noise levels resulting from such passes will be less than 49 dBA at Location 1, which is less than the design goal.
The residential building facade at the most northern end of Sanctuary Drive (Location 2) is situated approximately 180 m east of the F4 Extension. This I location will experience three major stages of construction noise, as follows:
I . Noise from earth moving operations. Noise from paving operations. I - Noise from construction of railway bridge over F4 Extension.
As with Location 1, it is expected that earth moving L10 construction noise levels will be dominated by scraper pass-by's. The resultant L10 level is expected to be approximately 50-52 dBA which is below the 60 dBA (background plus 20 dBA) I design criteria.
I It is expected that the paving machine will result in an L10 level of approximately 42 dBA for each pass-by, which does not represent an exceedance of the design I criteria.
The time to construct the railway bridge is likely to be longer than four weeks with noise levels in the early stages being caused by the laying of concrete footings, construction of formwork and arrival and departure of trucks to site. These operations are expected to result in L10 levels less than 50 dBA (the long term construction design goal).
57 1 nt034.eis I However, for approximately four weeks the noise environment is likely to be dominated by a crane (sound power level approximately 106 cIBA) which will be used in later stages of bridge construction. This will result in an L10 level of approximately 48 dBA which is below the 60 cIBA design criteria.
In summary, the construction noise level design goals should be achieved at all locations and it is unlikely that noise control measures will be required to reduce construction noise. No significant adverse impact is expected.
5.7.2 Vibration
Account has also been taken of the likely effects of any blasting (luring the construction phase both on nearby residents and on the historic Knapsack Gully Bridge. The assessment takes account of two forms of blasting impact; ground vibration and overpressure (or air blast).
Regarding potential impacts on residents, the State Pollution Control Commission recommends the following residential limits to avoid disturbance:
Vibration - 5 mm/s Overpressure - 115 dBL (linear)
The protection of structures is based on consideration of the Australian Standard 2187, 1983, 'SAA Explosives Code, Part 2 - Use of Explosives', which recommends a vibration limit of 10 mm/s from blasting. In addition, bridges (listed as reinforced concrete or steel structures in the standard) should not experience maximum velocities exceeding 50 mm/s.
Impact Assessment
The need for and extent of blasting required cannot be determined until construction has been commenced. If blasting is required, there are a variety of techniques available to limit ground vibration and overpressure effects if required. Controls include limits on maximum instantaneous chargeweights, delay blasting techniques and variations in blast designs.
58 nt034.eis L Preliminary assessment based on distances from construction areas to surrounding residences and other structures and taking account of the recommended acceptable levels for the protection of structures and the maintenance of comfort levels I indicate that if blasting is required, satisfactory control can be achieved.
Li Consequently it is considered unlikely that adverse blasting impacts will be I registered. 5.8 VEGETATION I As noted in Section 1.5, a detailed vegetation survey was undertaken in the area through which the proposed extension to the F4 Freeway passes. it is included in I full in Volume 2, Working Papers.
I The survey identified two distinct groupings of vegetation in the study area which differed in structure, iloristics and habitat. The distribution of these communities I is shown on Exhibit 5.5. The largest community is the open forest/woodland dominated by Eucalyptus punctata. This community occurs in wetter, more sheltered I areas found along Knapsack and Jamison gullies and creek lines. The second community is woodland dominated by E examina, E beyeri and E eugenoides. This community occurs on drier, more exposed sites to the south of the Knapsack Gully. I These communities were considered to be fairly typical of vegetation found on Hawkesbury sandstone although some species had a particular association with the I eastern escarpment of the Blue Mountains along the Lapstone Monocline.
I No rare or endangered plant species were observed during the course of the survey despite an intensive search of vegetation along the preferred route. I Both communities showed evidence of past disturbance and were found to be in I poorer condition than vegetation stands elsewhere along the Lapstone monocline. It was concluded that the proposal would not significantly affect the conservation 1 status of the communities affected or of individual plant species. No alterations to the preferred route were considered necessary based on this vegetation survey. I it was noted that additional disturbance as a result of road construction was likely to lead to further degradation of vegetation along Knapsack Creek through weed I invasion. This could reduce the attractiveness of the walking track which leads to the Knapsack Viaduct. I 59 I I 5.9 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
There is one main utility service that will be affected by the proposal.
Telecom operates a junction cable servicing the Blue Mountains area from Penrith which will require relocating. The junction cable consists of two separate cables which can be moved independently ;thus relocation can be made without disruption to services.
Prospect County Council and MWS&DB facilities at Russell Street will require minor relocation under the freeway.
Costs associated with relocation of services will be borne by the DMR.
5.10 OTHER IMPACTS
5.10.1 Water Quality
The proposed construction areas are well removed from the Nepean River and the risk of adverse impacts on water quality in the River is assessed as being very low.
The extensive temporary erosion controls for the construction period and the landscaping and other planting proposals will limit the risk of sediment laden runoff entering local watercourses. For a short period during construction, there will be a high risk of sediment loss into Knapsack Creek as the culverts are installed and earthworks developed. The risk of any long term adverse impact is low.
During the operational phase, the main potential source of water pollution would be runoff from the pavement, containing traces of grease, oil and type rubber. This is unavoidable. However, in general terms the improved geometric design of the freeway extension in comparison to the existing situation and the consequent smoother flow of traffic suggests that pollution from these sources should actually decrease.
As with all roads there is always a finite risk of accidental spillage of materials, which could result in contamination of the local watercourses. It is not possible to remove this risk. However in this instance the risk is assessed as being relatively low because of the standard of highway conditions to be provided. 60 nt034.eis 5.10.2 Air Quality
I The operation of the Freeway extension will result in only a comparatively niinor relocation of vehicle emission sources from present routes.
U It is likely that there will be some increases in the principal vehicle emissions (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and fine particles) in the vicinity of Leonay and I reductions in Emu Plains particularly at houses fronting Russell Street and the I Great Western Highway. However, the improved vehicle operating conditions in the extended freeway are I likely to result in a nett reduction in emissions for the same level of traffic throughout the general area. I 5.11 ENERGY STATEMENT
I It is estimated that construction equipment will use the following amounts and types I of fuel. Diesel fuel oil (distillate) 300 000 litres I . Petrol 10 000 litres
The nature of materials actually encountered in excavation will influence the above I figures. Other variables include plant type and construction methods. In addition to fuel for construction, there will be a relatively small energy input I required for maintenance.
I The freeway extension will reduce the distance between Lapstone and the end of the existing F4 by 1.8 kilometres and will provide a much freer flow of traffic at I more efficient vehicle operating speeds with consequent reductions in fuel consumption. The actual level of reduction cannot meaningfully be assessed since the proposed development is only one component of an overall traffic system which I includes numerous alternative routes. However, for the purposes of illustration, if it is assumed that vehicles using the extension will have a fuel saving of 20 percent I over the distance (a conservative assumption), the energy consumed in buildling the Li expressway would be saved within any six month period of operation.
61 LEGEND
BIKE PLAN
PROPOSED ON ROAD
00 PROPOSED OFF ROAD
: A TRIP ATTRACTORS I. BMX TRACK *
BUS ROUTES
MAJOR ROUTE -
•..0000 : I
/ / 9 4 4 9 9 9 / 4 9 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 * I 9 4 9 4 4 9
ki
1000000,0.
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION I LOCAL ACCESS I EXHIBIT 5.1 0M, 0 z I 0 I I I I I I I I I DEFENCE I / I LEGEND 2(a) RESIDENTIAL I 1(a) RURAL 5 SPECIAL PURPOSES
6 OPEN SPACE
EXPRESSWAY
I ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ZONE
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
I LAND ZONING
I EXHIBIT 5.2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PJY LTD I I 0
200 I 9 uyO Scale
GREEN GABLES GATEHOUSE I / AND MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY I / W ESTERPJ Marges /1 Lookout
I ( RESIDENTIAL AREA // 1 \ • \ // I \/ • /1
Elizabeth EMU PLAINS 'N., Lookout Railway TO NEPEAN RIVER I JUNIOR RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB
)KnaØs ck Knapsack Gully V/aduc I Lookouts / \
RESIDENTIAL LEO NAY I Lucasville - / AREA Platform GOLF CLUB RESIDENTIAL / AREA I I ' POINTSMAJS LEGEND COUAG
SKARRATT PARK Picnic Area POSSIBLE EXT. TO SKARRATT PARK
I WALKING TRACKS COMPLETE
WALKING TRACKS PROPOSED • TRACK HEAD I 330kV TRANSMISSION LINE
TELECOM JUNCTION CABLE
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW co F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
LAN DUSE
EXHIBIT 5.3
SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PTh' LTD I L C 0 200 400r Scale I I I I /0
I r I I I I I I I
NOISE MONITORING SITES
I PREDICTED 1995 NOISE CONTOURS 55 [dB(A)] FOR Li 0(18 HOUR) LEVEL I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
I NOISE MONITORING SITES
1 EXHIBIT 5.4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS PlY LTD I 0
200 Sca a 1 I I
/\ \ SURFACE• I SCAUER
IIIIfllrT I
ABORIGINAL U I CAM PSITE I / I I I
LEGEND
I E. eximia E. eugenoides - E. beyeri I E. punctata I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION I VEGETATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
I EXHIBIT 5.5 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS P1y' LTD I
I 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 I 6.1 INTRODUCTION This section outlines alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the proposed L development. The implications of the "no development" option (that is, to leave I existing arrangements unchanged) are also examined. in determining development alternatives, consideration has been focussed only on I those options which have the same terminal points as the proposed development, that is, at the F4 Freeway/Russell Street intersection to the east and the Great I Western Highway at Lapstone to the west. The only feasible alternative to this development scheme is to extend the freeway I directly west from the Russell Street intersection along the present alignment of Mitchells Pass Road and intersecting the Great Western Highway between Glenbrook I and Blaxland. Such a scheme, at one time, was considered to the extent of suitable lands being rezoned to permit it to proceed. However, the development would have resulted in severe adverse impacts on ecological, recreational and historical values I in Mitchells Pass and the concept is no longer considered suitable for serious I consideration. The terminal points of the development being essentially fixed, the options available I essentially relate to how the major design problems can be solved. The two most I important design problems to be addressed are: how to cross the Main Western Rail Line; and I where to locate entry and exit ramps.
In connection with the former problem, the proposed solution is for the Freeway I extension to pass beneath the Rail Line. The obvious alternative is for the extension I to pass over the rail line. This option, Option 1, is addressed in Section 6.2. I I 62 1 I In connection with the latter problem, several options arise. The proposed development provides both exit and entry ramps for east and west bound traffic at Russell Street, Emu Plains with no exits or entries to the Great Western Highway at Lapstone. Several options arise:
the first is to provide exit and entry ramps at Lapstone. This option, Option 2, is addressed in Section 6.3;
the second is to provide only an exit ramp for east bound traffic at Lapstone with an entry ramp for west bound traffic at Russell Street. This option, Option 3 is addressed in Section 6.4.
Finally, an entirely different approach to the design problem arises if the problem is redefined. This option requires termination of the F4 Freeway at Russell Street and the connection to Lapstone being achieved with a road of a lower design standard. There would be numerous sub-options available under this scheme, but the particular one addressed, which has been suggested by Blue Mountains City Council, provides for separate carriageways of highway standard. This option, Option 4, is described in Section 6.5.
In Section 6.6 the implications of the no development options are discussed. Section 6.7 sums up the evaluation.
6.2 OPTION 1- ROAD OVER RAIL
This option is shown in plan on Exhibit 6.1. The development as shown is the proposal initially planned by the Department. The particular option shown on the plan includes provision for entry and exit ramps at both Lapstone and Russell Street but other ramp arrangements could just as easily apply.
The major implication of this option is that very large fill embankments are required to elevate the carriageway sufficiently to take it over the rail line. The total quantity of imported fill required would be in the order of 600 000 cubic metres, equivalent to approximately 30 000 semi-trailer loads.
63 nt034.eis The principal problems with this option are:
1 the major fill emhankments would niaxirnise the visual impact of the development;
I traffic noise impacts on residences in both Leonay and Emu Plains would be I maximised by the elevated carriageway position; construction phase noise, traffic and dust impacts would be niaximiseci by the I need to import 600 000 cubic metres of fill;
I a major relocation of the City East 330 kV transmission line would be required due to inability to maintain adequate clearances for the transmission line I conductors over the elevated carriageway;
the cost of crossing the rail line in this manner would be considerably greater I than the presently proposed method.
I For the reasons outlined above and due to the high level of public concern, this option was discarded in favour of the proposed development. I Subsequent reconsideration of this option as part of preparation of this document I confirmed the earlier decision.
6.3 OPTION 2- EXIT AND ENTRY RAMPS AT LAPSTONE
This option is shown in plan on Exhibit 6.2. Under this option, the existing east I facing ramps at Russell Street are maintained but the west facing ramps are deleted and replaced by ramps at Lapstone. The entry ramp for west bound traffic crosses I the Freeway extension on a bridge and substantial earth fill.
This option had also been considered in detail by the Department to the extent of I it being placed on public display as the proposed scheme in September, 1985. The proposal was subsequently withdrawn for cost, environmental and engineering I reasons which are outlined below. However, in response to the presently proposed scheme, Penrith City Council has indicated a preference for Option 2 for reasons I primarily related to traffic management and traffic movenients, particularly as these may affect businesses in Penrith. (:i4 I nt034.eis 1 The main advantages that Council sees with Option 2 are:
by providing an exit at Lapstone for east bound traffic, motorists will be more likely to continue to use Penrith facilities rather than travelling on to Blacktown or Parramatta;
it would not encourage higher levels of traffic on Old Bathurst Road as would, it is claimed, the proposed development.
The evaluation of these concerns was one of the objectives of the traffic study which is summarised in Section 4 of this document.
In evaluating the significance of the risk of loss of business and custom in Penrith, it was first appropriate to put the scale of the likely problem into perspective. The traffic study showed that, at present, the traffic travelling across the Victoria Bridge into Penrith has the following characteristics:
50 percent comes from Emu Plains and Leonay and will not be affected by the proposed development in which ever form it proceeds;
20 percent comes from the Blue Mountains, most probably from Blaxiand and Glenbrook via Old Bathurst Road or Mitchells Pass Road and will probably continue to do so regardless of how the F4 is extended; and
the remaining 30 percent come from the Blue Mountains via the Great Western Highway.
Consequently, the evidence suggests that only a minority of motorists going to and from Penrith are likely to have their travel patterns affected by the proposed development. For these motorists, the effect of the proposed development will be to reduce their travel times to Penrith (from Blaxland) by between one and two minutes. Under Option 2, their travel times would remain unchanged. Consequently, Option 2 offers no travel time benefit for these people.
Furthermore, it is considered extremely unlikely that motorists who presently travel to Penrith would be motivated by the proposed development to travel on to Blacktown (25 to 40 minutes) or Parramatta (35 to 50 minutes).
65 nt034.eis I Consequently, there does not appear to be any substance to Council's concerns about the effect of the development as proposed on visitation levels to Penrith. It I follows that the principal claimed advantage of Option 2, that it will prevent motorists by-passing Penrith, is in fact not an advantage.
I The second of Council's concerns related to the possibility of the proposed development promoting increased usage of Old Bathurst Road. As discussed in I Section 4.2.1, the proposed development will have no affect on relative travel times between the various access routes to Penrith. At present, Old Bathurst Road and I Mitchells Pass Road are the quicker routes down from Blaxlancl and they would remain so in the future under either the proposed development or Option 2. However, under the proposed development, the travel time disparity will decrease I with the Highway/F4 route actually becoming significantly quicker during peak conditions. If the proposed development has any effect on traffic volumes on Li Mitchells Pass and Old Bathurst Roads, it is likely to be a decrease. Option 2 on I the other hand holds no promise of any change. It is therefore concluded that Option 2 has no advantages over the proposed I development in terms of traffic flows and accessibility to Penrith. However, it has a significant number of disadvantages.
I Environmentally, Option 2 has two major disadvantages. Firstly, in terms of visual impacts, a substantial fill embankment would be required for the entry ramp at the L Lapstone interchange. This would partially reintroduce an aspect that led to conclusive rejection of Option 1, namely highly visible embankments in an area with I high visual accessibility and sensitivity. The second is that under Option 2 comparatively high traffic volumes will be maintained on the Great Western Highway I between Lapstone and Russell Street with attendant prolongation of existing adverse noise and safety impacts.
I The major engineering disadvantages with Option 2 relate to cost and traffic management. In Table 6.1 a cost comparison between Option 2 and the proposed I development is shown. The comparison indicates that the major cost differentials I between the two options are in the areas of: I 1 66 I I earthworks - with Option 2 requiring more fill for the entry ramp at Lapstone;
bridges - Option 2 requires an additional bridge for the entry ramp overpass at I Lapstone; and,
other costs - primarily for the installation of gabions to control slope stability problems associated with the Lapstone interchange.
TABLE 6.1 - COST COMPARISON - PREFERRED SCFIEME AND OPTION 2 ($m)
I Item Option 2 Preferred Scheme
Earthworks 3.600 2.400 Pavement 3.315 3.510 Bridges 2.600 2.100 Drainage/Culverts 0.810 0.805 Other Costs 6.075 5.390
Total Cost 16.400 14.200
The main traffic management problem arises due to the interaction between the Governors Drive interchange and the Lapstone entry ramp. As shown on Exhibit 6.2, a grade separated interchange at Governors Drive is not part of Option 2. Consequently, traffic entering the freeway, travelling west will be accelerating and merging right in the same area that freeway traffic exiting via Governors Drive will be decelerating and merging left.
The resultant interweaving of accelerating and decelerating traffic is an acceptable but not desirable arrangement and is not favoured if avoidable.
In summary, Option 2 offers no real advantages over the proposed scheme and in fact has several substantial disadvantages on economic, environmental and engineering grounds. Option 2 is therefore rejected.
6.4 OPTION 3- EXIT RAMP ONLY AT LAPSTONE
Option 3 is a variant on Option 2 insofar as a connection to the Great Western Highway is again provided at Lapstone but only for east-bound traffic. A plan of Option 3 is shown on Exhibit 6.3.
67 nt034.eis I Option 3 was formulated during the environmental studies programme but before the traffic study was completed. It represented a response by the Department to I Council's expressed desire to see an interchange at Lapstone. Option 3 is directed at resolving the principal economic, environmental and engineering disadvantages of Option 2. I
In terms of environmental impacts, the unsightly fill batter for the entry ramp at I Lapstone no longer occurs clue to deletion of the ramp. However, the problem of the continuation of noise and safety impacts on the Highway between Knapsack Bridge I and Russell Street remains. I Cost estimates prepared for Option 3 show that it would be approximately $665 000 more expensive to build than the proposed scheme. Additional estiniated costs include: I
$715 000 for construction of the off ramp at Lapstone (excluding rock I stabilization); plus,
I $350 000 for rock removal and rock bolting which would be required to stabilize the rock faces at Lapstone; minus. I a saving of approximately $400 000 through non-construction of an exit ramp I at Russell Street. Consequently, a cost penalty remains albeit, smaller than for Option 2. In terms of I traffic management, the problem of interweaving west bound traffic near the Governors Drive exit is removed, however interweaving problems for eastbound I traffic are created between Governors Drive and Knapsack bridge. I it can therefore be concluded that, if there was anything to be gained from providing access to Penrith via an exit at Lapstone, Option 3 is the more acceptable I way of achieving it. However, as was discussed in Section 6.3, the traffic study has shown that there is I nothing to be gained by providing such an exit. Therefore, there is no justification for adopting Option 3 and it has been rejected I
68 6.5 OPTION 4- DUAL CARRIAGEWAY OPTiON
As discussed in Section 6.1 this option, which is shown in plan on Exhibit 6.4 derives essentially from a redefinition of the problem being solved. The proposed development is directed at extending the F4 Freeway to its planned termination at Lapstone. Option 4 requires termination of the Freeway at Russell Street, Emu Plains with connection to the Highway at Lapstone via two separate carriageways built to a highway standard. Provision is included for three lanes west bound and two lanes east bound. Option 4 was devised by staff of the Blue Mountains City Council. The claimed advantages of the scheme are:
retention of direct access to Emu Plains and Penrith by maintaining the Highway open through to Penrith;
improved safety for the public (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians);
flexibility in highway operations in the event of lane blockages;
improved aesthetics including enhanced views of Knapsack Bridge;
less environmental disturbance of Knapsack Gully;
provides more appropriate speed zoning in the vicinity of the Governors Drive intersection; and
improved noise and ecological impacts.
Option 4 has been been assessed against these criteria plus cost considerations.
Direct Access to Penrith Option 4 shares this characteristic with both Options 2 and 3. However, as was discussed in Section 6.3 traffic studies show that there is no reason to suspect that any advantage is provided.
Increased Safety Option 4 would be built essentially to a standard not considered satisfactory by the DMR while the proposed development would be built to a freeway standard. All other things being equal, freeways are demonstrably safer than highways. This is 69 nt034.eis I likely to be true of this situation particularly since Option 4 does not provide for a grade separated interchange at Governors Drive (of course, this could be included, I but at a substantial cost penalty). I The safety argument favours the proposed development. Flexibility I For the 800 metre section of Option 4 which has separate carriageways there is a clear advantage in highway operations insofar as no single accident can conceivably I block both east and west bound lanes. The argument does not hold for the remaining 600 metres where the Option 4 carriageways are combined. I Under the proposed development, the carriageways will be combined throughout but separated by a New Jersey type barrier which serves the dual purpose of I significantly reducing the risk of head on collisions and of incidents on one I carriageway blocking the other. It is concluded that Option 4 has the advantage of better operational flexibility but I the extent of the advantage is limited.
Improved Aesthetics I A substantial proportion of Option 4 will be constructed on fill which, as was discussed in Section 6.2 is not a design approach consistent with the maintenance of I ambient visual quality on the escarpment sides.
I Secondly, unless the bridge over Knapsack Gully on the west bound carriageway of Option 4 was built as a viaduct of sandstone block or similar, it is quite likely that I the development would detract from the appearance of the existing Knapsack Gully Bridge due to a clash of engineering styles.
I Option 4 would marginally improve views of Knapsack Gully Bridge only for west bound travellers due to closer proximity. The proposed development, by cul-de- I saccing the highway at Knapsack Bridge, will open up a completely new set of opportunities for recreational development and viewing the bridge at close range I without intereference from through traffic. This would not be possible under Option 4. I
70 On the basis of aesthetics, the proposed development is considered to be greatly superior to Option 4.
Environmental Disturbance of Knapsack Gully Option 4 requires construction of a viaduct across Knapsack Gully whereas the proposed development will cross an earthf ill. Option 4 will have the lesser impact.
More Appropriate Speed Zoning at Lapstone Option 4 would have an 80 kph maximum speed throughout while the preferred scheme would have a 100 kph maximum. Both speed limits are suitable for the respective geometric standards and so it is not correct to say that one is necessarily more suitable than the other.
Under the proposed scheme, a grade separated interchange will be provided at the Governors Drive interchange with a deceleration lane for exiting vehicles. This arrangement will be substantially safer than the at grade intersection provided for under Option 4 regardless of the speed differential between the two alternatives.
Improved Noise and Ecological Impacts Regarding noise, it is likely that the impact of the proposed development would be substantially less than for Option 4 due to the former being substantially in cut which will provide acoustic shielding while the latter will be either on fill or at grade with no acoustic shielding.
In terms of general ecological impacts, the proposed combined carriageway development will require less clearing than the separate carriageways of Option 4. On the basis that area of disturbance for roadway construction is broadly proportional to ecological impact, the proposed development is likely to have the lesser impact and is to be preferred.
Cost Cost estimation for Option 4 cannot be as accurate for previously considered options since the design has not been detailed to the same extent. However, an estimate based on costs apportioned from consideration of the length and area of paving and bridgeworks required have been prepared. These estimates take no account of any additional costs involved in importing additional fill which would be required. On this basis, the estimated cost for Option 4 is in the order of $16.0 million which compares with $14.20 million for the proposed scheme. 71 nt034.eis I In summary, Option 4 when compared with the proposed scheme offers the following I benefits: a minor improvement in operational flexibility; I less short term environmental disturbance of Knapsack Gully;
I Against this have to be weighed the following disadvantages:
a lower safety standard;
I . greater adverse visual impact; and I • greater cost of construction.
On this basis, Option 4 is not considered to be a feasible alternative.
6.6 THE NO DEVELOPMENT OPTION
The no development option would result in continuation of routing of high volumes I of through traffic including heavy vehicles along a residential street (Russell Street) which is not designed for the task and along a section of the Great Western Highway which already provides a lower standard of service than is desirable for a I major highway and which can be expected to deteriorate as traffic volumes increase.
I Associated with the existing substandard level of service is an elevated safety hazard which will increase as traffic loadings increase. There have been numerous I studies which demonstrate the substantial cost to the community of road accidents. Clearly, a continuation of the existing sub standard situation implies a continuation
I of the associated monetary and human cost.
The existing arrangement is also imposing an impact on the amenity of residents fronting Russell Street and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Great Western Highway west of Russell Street. This impact can be expected to grow in the future unless corrective action of the type proposed is taken.
For these reasons there is no case to be made for the no-development option.
72 1 nt034.eis
I 6.7 CONCLUSION
The considerations outlined in preceding sections show that of all the options available, the proposed scheme provides the best means for achieving the objectives of the proposed development (see Section 2.2) in a way which provides an optimum balance between environmental, economic and practical considerations. On this basis there is sufficient justification for the project to proceed.
73 nt034.eis
II/j/I) c' aauf/i/I' jicT iiii__ \ 4 / 1' --
______'0- L TY \ I 100 Sca'e I I FREEWAY ON FILL TO CROSS RAIL LINE I I I
\
I I I I
I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION RUSSELL F STREET U PLAN OF OPTION I Ui
EXHIBIT 6.1 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PW LTD I TO KATOOMBA I r KNAPSACK GULLY INTERCHANGE
I 100 200m Scale
I FREEWAY IN CUT PASSES BENEATH RAIL LINE I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION RUSSELL
CC) STREET F PLAN OF OPTION 2 0 0
0 0 Iz EXHIBIT 6.2 0 SINCLAIR KNIGHT& PARTNERS PlY LTD 10 EXIT ONLY AT KNAPSACK GULLY
100 200c Scale
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION RUSSELL
STREET PLAN OF OPTION 3
EXHIBIT 6.3 SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS P1/ LTD ft At I 1: "- TO KATOO
I 0 100 2O0r ------Scale I I I II I I I I I I I I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NSW F4 FREEWAY EXTENSION
STREET Ico PLAN OF OPTION 4 1) C
cc C IH-z EXHIBIT 6.4 C SINCLAIR KNIGHT & PARTNERS PlY LTD I I
I REFERENCES I Department of Environment and Planning (1986) I Draft Regional Environmental Plan (Commercial Centres) Department of Environment and Planning (1985) I Population Growth Projections (Appendix 1.2)
NAASRA (1980) I interim Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads
I James Coleman Pty Ltd and Sinclair Knight and Partners Pty Ltd (1980) Penrith City Centre. 1980 Plan Reassessment and Related Matters 1 Report prepared for Penrith City Council Department of Environment and Planning and Blue Mountains City Council (1983) I Blue Mountains Heritage Study
I Australian Standard 1055 - 1984 Noise Assessment in Residential Areas I Standards Association of Australia I I I I I I I
74 I nt034.eis I I I I Li I I APPENDIX I DIRECTOR'S REQUIREMENT
I I I I I I I I I I a U I I - / SoLJ V%"'-des Gu'L- nnrit AM 1 Department of Environment and Planning I Centre L erpoot Street Sydney 2000 The Secretary, C/ 2927 (2P 0 Sydney 2001 Department of Main Roads, C> Sydney I 309 Castlereagh Street, SYDNEY. N.S.W. 2000 Jeephcne. (02) 266 71 11 Ex234 I Catac1 S. Jones Attention: Mr. T. McCoy 0r reference 81 / 7815 'r'eur reterence ILI EP F4/358.1614
I Dear Sir,
PROPOSED F4 FREEWAY EXTENSIONS FROM RUSSELL STREET EMU PLAINS F TO STATE HIGHWAY NO.5. AT LAPSTONE Thank you for your letter of 2 October, 1986 indicating that you are consulting with the Director with regard to the I preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the above development. The delay in replying to your I consultation is regretted. 2. An EIS is required to be prepared where the proposal is an activity referred to in Section 112(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The EIS shall be prepared I in accordance with clause 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1980, as amended and shall bear a I certificate required by clause 59 of the Regulation. 3. In addition, pursuant to clause 58 of the Regulation, the Director requires that the matters listed on Attachment No.1 I are specifically addressed in the EIS. 4. Attachment No.2 is a guide to the type of information most likely to be relevant to the development you propose; not all I of the matters raised therein may be appropriate for consideration in the EIS for your proposal; equally, the I guide is not exhaustive. s. When an adequate EIS has been prepared for the subject proposal, as determining authority, you should then proceed I with the matter in accordance with Sections 112 and 113 of the Act, and place the document on public exhibition. The procedures for public display that are to be followed by the proponent and/or determining authority are as in clauses 60 I to 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1980. I 6. When the EIS is completed, three copies should be forwarded to the Secretary pursuant. to Section 112(2) of the Act, as well as details of the exhibition period and public I display locations. I Should any submissions be made during the period of public exhibition, it is advised that such submissions should be forwarded to the Secretary in accordance with Section 113(3) of the Act. In the event of issues of interest to the Department being raised in any submission received, the Department will advise you accordingly.
Reference is made to the archaeological report provided by DNR. As it is predominantly related to an analysis of Aboriginal sites, it should be forwarded to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has jurisdiction over Non-European arechaeological sites, if same has not already occurred. The coverage given to European remains of heritage significance is not considered adequate. Hence the Director's requirements, as attached, have specified an analysis of and measures proposed to protect nearby items of Aboriginal and European heritage. It is noted that on heritage grounds, the route of this proposed freeway extension is preferred to others previously considered.
Should you require any further information regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Yours faithfully,/ / (I H C J .Wright Manager, Assessments Branch Delegate for the Director DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROPOSED F4 FREEWAY EXTENSIONS FROM RUSSELL STREET, EMU PLAINS TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 AT LAPSTONE
DIRECTORS REQUIREMENTS FOR EIS
The following matters should be specifically addressed in the EIS:
I a full description and justification of the complete freeway extension, including all earth works, traffic I management arrangements and associated facilities; . a full assessment of alternatives considered in the selection of the proposed freeway route including impacts I of same and reasons for rejection of alternatives;
. relationship of the proposal to the existing and proposed region and local road system, including for relevant I traffic management aspects and anticipated effects on access to residential, commercial and shopping areas, with particular regard for Penrith Town Centre and any I socio-economic impacts thereon; . provision for on/off loading ramps and reasons for I location of same; . anticipated effects of the proposal both during and after construction, on existing residential amenity particularly I in the Emu Plains Area including for noise and air pollution (day and night), lighting effects, severance, and provisions I for pedestrian access; assessment of safeguards and potential for environmental impact on the ecosystems and drainage characteristics of I the locality, eg loss of vegetation, effects on existing fauna and effects on run-off both during and after construction;
investigations of potential for visual impact and means I of ameliorating same, particularly proposed landscaping plans and provisions for tree planting;
I impact on existing open space areas; consideration should be given to Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy F No. 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas; analysis of and measures proposed to protect nearby items of Aboriginal and European heritage;
I identification of any sections of the proposal which would require development consent under Part IV of the Environmental I Planning and Assessment Act. I I DLPACTMENJ' OF ENVIRONMENT AND DLJ\NN INC ATTACHMENT No. 2
ADVICE ON THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMETAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR A MAJOR ROAD DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBAN/SUBURBAN ENVIRONMENT
Pursuant to SI 1 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act., 1979, where a proposal is a prescribed act ivit.y or where a proposal is likely to significantly affect the environment, a determining authority must., be. fore deciding whether to proceed with the proposal, consider an EIS prepared in respect of the proposal.
It is the responsibility of the determining authority to decide whether an EIS is required (unless the proposal is a prescribed activity) . While the site characteristics largely determine the need for an EIS to be prepared, in general major road developments in an urban/suburban environments have the potential to create problems for local residents and landholders due to land resumption/demolition, loss' of access, noise generation, lighting problems, impact.s on urban bushland, visual amenity, traffic arrangements during construction, local and regional traffic flows, and local commercial interests.
The purpose of this paper is to outline various issues relevant to the preparation and consideration of an EIS for such major road developments. It is intended to assist the preparation of the EIS. IL is the applicant's responsibility to identify and address, as fully as possible, the matters relevant to the specific development proposal in complying with the statutory requirement.s for LIS preparation (see Attachment. No. I
The matters nominated in this paper are not intended as a comprehensive identification of all issues which may arise in respect of such a major road development. Some of the issues nominated may not be relevant to a specific proposal. On the other band, there may be other issues, not included, that are appropriate for consideration in the EIS.
Information provided should be cleat, succinct and objective and, where appropriate, he supported by maps, plans, diagrams or other descriptive detail. The purpose of the EIS is to enabl.e members of the public, the determining authority and the Department of Environment, and Planning to properly under stand the environmental consequences of the proposed development.
I. Description of the proposal.
The description of the proposal should provide general background information on the location of the proposed road wo ks, particularly in relation to, and compatibility with,
2/. I
hO 01 lE ial and ]Ot al cad Hk'tWO1 k and any traffi(' n1anagE-aIe1)t. schemes in for- co or proposed and iricl udiiig the cr i ter i a used for r onto s] oct i ni . I t should pr ov de an indication of adjacent developments, and land use act lvi ties, as well as details of Llie site, land tenure, Zon I rcjs and relevant, forward planning proposals, and any other land use constraints including natural and built. environmental I features sensitive to the impact of the proposal.
It may also he appropriate for the EIS to describe statutory I procedures for implementing the proposal.
This sectjon should provide specific information on the I nature, intent and form of the development. Particular details that may generally he relevant include:
The form and physical dimensions of the proposed I roadworks, mc] uding locations and dimensions of bridge and elevated or subsur face structur es and associated facilities including proposals for drainage I and ventilation. Earthworks involved including details of cut and fill and balancing of volumes proposed. Presence of median strips, barriers to pedestrians, I and grade separation proposals at. intersecting roads. Alterations t.o ac:cess to adjoining properties. Resumptions and or dnioli t ions required of existing I development, to accommodate the proposed road. Construction problems envisaged including staging of works, source and transport. and assembly of plant and I materials, employment detai's, access arrangements, alternative routes and traffic management proposals for local and through traffic, and hours of operation for demolition/construcLion works etc. I Provision of facilities for under/over passes for pedestrians, cyclists etc. flood prevention measures I Safeguards to control erosion and siltation. rehabilitation proposals on completion including any relevant landscape plans.
F 2. Description of the Environment..
This should provide details of the environment in the I vicinity of the development area and also of aspects of the environment likely to he affected by any facet of the proposal. In this regard, physical, natural, social and I economic aspects of the enviromniierit should he descr ibed to the extent necessary for assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed development. In particular:
I Geography, topography, geology and geot.nchnical data, meteorology, hydrol.ogy etc. Noise and air quali t.y where apprc>priate for impact I consideration Aesthetics. I I F] ore and fauna inn] uding cn space- and u Pal bushland dc:. Ut. iii ties and c:omrriun icat ions Buildings having architectural/heritage significance. Existing traffic levels and traffic flow patterns. Socio economic aspects including local coiiuunr cial activities.
Assessment of Alternative Routes.
The EIS should include a proper assessment of the alt.ernat.i vu routes considered in the feasibility study for the proposal including the key physical and engineering coiistrai nt.s as well as the environmental and economic factors pertinent to same including clear reasons for reject ing such alternatives in favour of the recommended proposal . Reference should be made herein to any existing road reservations and background decisions relating to their location.
Analysis of Environmental impacts.
Environmental impacts usually associated with a major road development in an urban/suburban environment and related activities listed below. Where relevant to the specific proposal, these should he addressed in the EIS, taking into account the adequacy of safeguards proposed to minimise theni both during construction and wheri in use after completion
Likely noise disturbance caused by the construction of the road, and by traffic operating on the completed roadway, on any nearby residential and commercial buildirigs; A map depicting anticipated noise c o n t o u r levels in relation to residences and inhabitants involved may be necessary. Consideration should he given to both existing arid proposed residential developments for such an analysis. Eniissiori of air pollutants from vehicular traffic affected by the proposal, arid their impact on the local and regional environment. Storrnwater runoff and erosion and siltation potential. Impact on natural vegetation and faunal movement, flood plains, drainage patterns, (particularly sedimer]tation from construction activity). Subsidence potential. Visual impact, particularly on • residential developments by both day and night taking into account. the following effects of the proposed road
- Scale in relation to the natural landscape and adjacent residential and commercial development - Appearance from nearby and afar. - Lighting effect.s on existing and proposed residential/commercial buildings. I I ri
I Cart' iage of ha zardous goods on veb id Cs , spi I. lage potential and provisions for emergency clean up. Changes in traffic patterns and improvements to limit I accident potential Impact.s of traffic at entry/exit. points. Impact on historic buildings and matters of heritage/ archaeological interest. I Effect on commercial operations changes in community characteristics caused by severence.
I In addition, any potential for hazard or risks to public safety and any proposal to monitor and reduce environmental I impacts should be included. 5. Contact with relevant Government Authorities.
In preparing the EIS, it is suggested that authorities, such I as those listed below, should be consulted and their comments taken into account in the EIS. I The State Pollution Control Commission in regard to air, water and noise impacts and relevant pollution control legislation requirements. The Traffic Authority with regard to traffic and road I development aspects and the Urban Transport Authority with regard to public transport aspects. Any servicing authorities which may be required to supply I water, power, etc. The Heritage Council of NSW if the proposal is likely to affect. any place or building having heritage significance I for the State. Local Councils t.hrough whose areas the road passes.
It is the responsibility of the person preparing the EIS to I determine t.hose Departments relevant to the proposed development.
I 5. Supporting information.
The EIS should refer by suitable appendices to all relevant [ studies/investigations that have been carried out in suppott of the proposals. This supporting documentation should be made available during the period of public display of the I EIS. 1 I I I I LI I F I I APPENDIX 2 LIAISON WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES I I I I I I I I I I I E I I
I APPENI)IX 2 LIAISON WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES I
I A number of public and private bodies were contacted with regard to the proposed F4 Freeway Extension development. Listed below are a summary of the responses I received prior to the printing of this document.
I Local Government I Penrith City Council
I Council advised of a number of concerns and issues including:
I the need for a detailed traffic impacts analysis regarding the use of residential I streets, inter regional and local access and specific effects on Penrith; the effectiveness of Mulgoa Road and associated ramps as an alternative entry I and exit to Penrith;
the alleviation of present traffic delays experienced in crossing the Victoria 1 Bridge; and,
I the potential for east bound traffic from the Blue Mountains destined for Penrith remaining on the Freeway and travelling instead to other large centres I such as Parramatta. I Council advised that it supports Blue Mountains City Council's alternative scheme and this scheme should be fully addressed in the environmental impact statement. Council also provided additional planning information which has assisted in the I preparation of this document.
I Blue Mountains City Council
I Council provided information regarding an alternative scheme as well as other issues of concern. Issues raised include: 75 I nt034.eis I I the scientific significance of the Lapstone monocline formation and the need for its preservation. Also the possibility of geological instability problems associated with cut batters steeper than the natural dip of existing sedimentary strata;
the significance of the Knapsack viaduct as an item of heritage and cultural significance and its value as a tourist destination. The need to preserve suitable access to this structure including vehicular, pedestrian and visual was of express concern; and.
the need to provide 3 west bound lanes to alleviate conjection caused by slow heavy vehicles ascending the steep grade.
Council also provided valuable information on additional items of heritage and cultural significance and tourist destinations including the Lapstone Zig Zag railway, existing and proposed walking trails, and the Green Gables site.
Commonwealth Government
Telecom
The Commission advised that the proposal will affect two trunk cables between Penrith and Glenbrook via Lapstone RAAF Base providing important telecommunication links to Sydney. it will be possible however to relocate these cables without interruption to normal services.
State Government
Board of Fire Commissioners
The Board advised that it has no objection to the overall proposal. However, concern was expressed regarding access to affected local streets and associated traffic issues and in particular access to a water hydrant system for fire fighting purposes within the area.
76 nt034.eis Crown Lands Office
The Office advised of areas of Crown Land which will be affected by the proposed development. Details of existing and proposed walking trails were also provided. The Office advised that a final comment on the proposal will be made after review of the EIS.
I Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board
The Board advised that a watermain in Russell Street will be affected by the proposal and will require re-routing.
Department of Mineral Resources
The Department advised that there are no mining objections to the proposal.
I. Public Works Department
The Department advised that the proposal does not appear to affect any of its interests. i State Pollution Control Commission
The Commission advised that the proposal does not affect any of its works, property or activities. The Commission also advised of a number of matters of I relevance to its statutory responsibility including:
conformity to the Clean Air, Clean Waters and Noise Control Acts; and,
suitable noise control measures should be employed, such as: access roads for heavy vehicles be located away from noise sensitive areas, low noise enhitting 1 equipment used in noise sensitive areas, blasting activities to be controlled and restricted site working hours to 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays, 7.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays, with no work on Sundays or public holidays when I working near residences.
I
1 77 nt034.eis
I Urban Transit Authority
The Authority has no objection to the proposed extension and advised that bus services in the area would not be adversely effected although minor adjustments to bus routes resulting in some delays could be expected.
Non Government
AGL Sydney Limited
AGL advised that it has no gas mains in this area.
NRMA
The Association strongly supports the construction of the F4 Freeway Extension from Emu Plains to Lapstone.
Emu Plains Junior Rugby League Football Club
The Club expressed concern arising from possible inundation of their newly constructed playing field amenities building and car park as a result of insufficient drainage culverts. The Club also advised that the proposed development works will significantly reduce the runoff concentration time within the Knapsack Creek catchment resulting in an increase in peak discharge traversing the site. The effect being that the playing field and portions of the adjoining golf course could be subject to inundation from even moderate storms.
Pearce Omnibus Pty Ltd
The Company advised of bus routes that will be affected by the proposed development. The main effect being the closure of the Great Western Highway at Knapsack Bridge resulting in bus services from the west bypassing the Glenleigh Housing Estate. Delays and additional costs will therefore be incurred to resume services to the closed section of the Great Western Highway. In addition the no right turn at Gough Street at the intersection of Russell Street will require minor re-routing.
78 nt034.eis I I
I APPENDIX 3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS i I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 APPENDIX 3- STUDY PARTICIPANTS
I This Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared by Sinclair Knight and Partners Pty Ltd, Consulting Engineers and Environmental Consultants, for the NSW I Department of Main Roads.
The Consultant's study team members responsible for both inputs to and the preparation of this document were as follows:
Mr RD Crooks (SKP) - Study Director/Manager Mr RJ Byrnes (SKP) - Environmental Scientist Mr N Nielsen (SKP) - Traffic Study Mr N Nielsen (SKP) - Economic Analysis Ms BJ Brown (SKP) - Artwork and Graphics Co-ordinator MsAJ Young (SKP) - Artwork and Graphics Mr J Carigliano (Wilkinson - Murray Consulting) - Noise Assessment MrR Lembit (Mount King Ecological Surveys) - Flora Survey Mr RMS Bowker (Colona Printing) - Document Printing
In addition Ms M Dallas carried out an archaeological survey and investigation.
Departmental officers who were involved in the co-ordination and management of I the study included:
Mr BJ Watters (Principal Planner) Mr GSJ Glazier (Acting Environmental Planner) I Mr TP McCoy (Engineer) Mr W Gordon (Divisional Engineer, Blacktown) Mr T McGrath (Supervising Engineer) Mr T Swindlehurst (Senior Draftsman)
Many others contributed to the study, including all the authorities mentioned in Appendix 2 who provided information essential to completion of the study. The I assistance of all those who have contributed to this document is gratefully acknowledged. I nt034.eis I
I r4 EiS NEW SfYJTH WLES tEPRTMENT F NM 34.
F4 trea Eu Pj1ns ic Lcct3fle
Pcrrcwer's name Date Ext
rz1cco