Princes Highway Upgrade – Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Strategic Corridor Option Report
20.403 ISBN: 978-1-922463-40-1 November 2020 | Version: v1
Contents
Glossary and abbreviations 5
Executive Summary 8
1. Introduction 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Princes Highway upgrade roadmap 11 1.3 Proposal overview 12 1.4 Study area 12 1.5 Purpose of this report 12
2. Need for the Proposal 15 2.1 Service need / problem statement 15 2.1.1 Road safety 15 2.1.2 Network performance 15 2.1.3 Movement and place 16 2.1.4 Freight accessibility 16 2.2 Customer types and needs 17 2.2.1 Context and overarching factors 17 2.2.2 Shoalhaven local government area key demographics 20 2.2.3 Shoalhaven local government area travel behaviour 21 2.2.4 Emerging trends 23 2.2.5 Key customer groups and needs 24 2.3 Proposal objectives 34 2.4 Strategic alignment 35
3. Proposal considerations and constraints 38 3.1 Statutory and planning framework 38 3.1.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 38 3.1.2 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 38 3.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies 39 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 40 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 40 State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 40 State Environmental Planning Policy Koala Habitat Protection 2019 40 3.1.4 Other relevant legislation and environmental planning instruments 41 Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 41 Forestry Act 2012 41 Crown Lands Management Act 2016 42 Marine Estate Management Act 2014 42 Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997 43 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 43 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 43 Heritage Act 1977 44 Biosecurity Act 2015 44 Fisheries Management Act 1994 44 Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 45 Water Management Act 2000 45 Native Title Act 1993 45 Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 46 Roads Act 1993 46 3.2 Transport considerations 46 3.2.1 Urban centres and townships 46 3.2.2 Public domain environments 49 3.2.3 Roads and intersections 50 3.2.4 Freight routes 50 3.2.5 Public transport 51 3.2.6 Pedestrian and cycling facilities 51 3.2.7 Point to point transport 51 3.2.8 Road safety 52 3.2.9 Accessibility and travel times 53 3.2.10 Network performance 53 3.3 Biodiversity 57 3.3.1 Terrestrial fauna and flora species 57 3.3.2 Threatened fish and key fish habitat 59 3.3.3 Ecological communities 60 3.3.4 Wildlife connectivity 60 3.3.5 Protected wetlands 60 3.3.6 Marine protected areas 60 3.4 Aboriginal heritage 62 3.5 Non-Aboriginal heritage 62 3.6 Landform, geology and soils 63 3.6.1 Landform 63 3.6.2 Geology 64 3.6.3 Soils 65 3.6.4 Acid sulfate soils and acid sulfate rock 66 3.6.5 Contamination 66 3.7 Hydrology, water quality and groundwater 67 3.7.1 Surface water 67 3.7.2 Water quality 68 3.7.3 Flooding 68 3.7.4 Groundwater 70 3.8 Noise and vibration 70 3.9 Utilities 71 3.10 Land use 73 3.11 Emergency response 76 3.11.1 Emergency services 76 3.11.2 Bushfire 77 3.11.3 Flooding 79
4. Community involvement and feedback 81 4.1 Consultation activities to date 81 4.2 Identification of key stakeholders 81 4.3 Future community engagement methods 81
5. Alternatives and options considered 84 5.1 Methodology for selection of preferred option 84 5.2 Assessment of strategic alternatives 84 5.2.1 Evaluation of business as usual alternative 84 5.2.2 Evaluation of minor infrastructure improvements alternative 84 5.2.3 Evaluation of major upgrade alternative 85 5.3 Corridor assessment 85 5.3.1 Key design criteria 85 5.3.2 Key constraints assessment 86 5.3.3 Movement and place 88 5.4 Identification of preliminary options 88 5.5 Evaluation and refinement of corridor options 91 5.5.1 Construction staging 91 5.6 Identification of refined options 91 5.7 Identification of a preferred option 94 5.7.1 Improve network safety for all transport users 96 5.7.2 Improve freight access and efficiency 97 5.7.3 Improve traffic efficiency and connectivity 97 5.7.4 Enable an increase in the use of public and active transport 98 5.7.5 Improve transport network resilience 98 5.7.6 Support sustainability in the region 98 5.7.7 Respect community and the environment 99
6. Preferred option 100
7. Next steps 106
8. References 107
Glossary and abbreviations
Term Meaning
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AC Alternating Current
AEP Annual Exceedance Probability
AHD Australian Height Datum
AS Australian Standard
ASR Acid Sulfate Rock
ASS Acid Sulfate Soils
AusRAP Australian Road Assessment Program
AV Automated Vehicles
BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)
BFMC Bush Fire Management Committee
CAV Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
C-ITS Cooperative-Intelligent Transport Systems
CLM Act Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (NSW)
CM Act Coastal Management Act 2016 (NSW)
CM SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (NSW)
Council Shoalhaven City Council
DBYD Dial Before You Dig
DC Direct Current
D&C Design and Construct
DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries
DPI&E NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority
EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth)
EPL Environment Protection Licence
EV Electrical Vehicle
FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)
FSI Fatal and Serious Injury
GP General Practitioner
HML Higher Mass Limit
HPV Higher Productivity Vehicles
HV High Voltage
Interim Construction Noise Guideline (Department of Environment and ICNG Climate Change 2009)
ISEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW)
ISEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW)
LEP Local Environmental Plan
LGA Local Government Area
LoS Level of Service
LPI Land Property Information
MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis
MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance
NBN National Broadband Network
NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)
NSW New South Wales
PCT Plant Community Type
PEI Preliminary Environmental Investigation
PHUP Princes Highway Upgrade Project
PoEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
Project The Princes Highway Upgrade Program Project
Proposal The Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Project (this project)
REF Review of Environmental Factors
RFS Rural Fire Service Roads Act Roads Act 1993 (NSW)
RUM Road User Movement
SCC Shoalhaven City Council
SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy
SES State Emergency Service
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) SRD SEPP 2011 (NSW)
SSI State Significant Infrastructure
The geographic boundary which defines the extent of the assessment and Study area design (refer Figure 1-2)
TEC Threatened Ecological Communities
TfNSW Transport for NSW
The Proposal The Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Project
Transport Transport for NSW
VMS Value Management Study
WHS Workplace Health and Safety
WM Act Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Executive Summary
Transport for NSW (Transport) is planning for the upgrade of section of a 20 kilometre length of the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road (the Proposal).
The Proposal is intended to improve the road-based transport for this section of the highway to more safely and efficiently move people and goods along the NSW South Coast. A major upgrade to the Princes Highway was found to best meet the service needs for customers traveling the corridor compared to alternatives such as minor localised infrastructure improvements, a business as usual (or ‘do nothing’) approach, or other options focused on alternative transport modes. The proposed major upgrade is expected to result in the best safety and traffic efficiency improvements.
Since 2011 the Australian and NSW Governments have invested $2.5 billion in upgrading the Princes Highway. This has transformed and better connected communities, employed thousands of local workers, improved safety, eased traffic congestion, and grown regional economies. The Australian and NSW Governments have now committed a further $1.5 billion to upgrade the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road at Falls Creek and the Victorian border. This Proposal is one of five priority projects selected to progress to design phase as part of this funding.
The main objectives for the upgrades to the Princes Highway, and subsequently this Proposal, are to provide for:
Safety: A safer corridor for all customers and communities including local traffic, freight, tourists, and public and active transport users
Resilience: A corridor that can be efficiently managed and maintained while adapting to changing social, environmental and economic factors, including the ability to quickly recover from natural disasters and respond to changing land use and technologies
Liveability: A corridor that supports communities by connecting and contributing to attractive and healthy places to live, work and play
Sustainability: A corridor that is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable and unlocks a wide range benefits for communities and other customers
Connectivity and Accessibility: A corridor that has good physical and digital connectivity and accessibility for access to opportunity and services.
The 20 kilometre stretch of the Princes Highway that forms the Proposal encounters a diverse range of local environments, landscapes and different communities. In order to identify a preferred strategic corridor option that would meet the project objectives and best address the constraints of the study area, Transport undertook a rigorous strategic options development and assessment process. This process involved:
Assessment of strategic alternatives – The first step was to consider the overarching strategic alternatives for the project (refer section 5.2)
Corridor assessment – An assessment of key constraints and design constraints was then undertaken to identify corridor features to be considered in the development of the preliminary options (described in section 5.3)
Preliminary options development – Development of six initial alignment options for assessment (described in section 5.4)
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 8
Assessment of preliminary options – At this point construction staging and the potential impacts on key constraints was considered further, and an effort made to refine the six preliminary alignment options and to consolidate similar options (described in section 5.5). This resulted in preparation of a shortlist of four options (described in section 5.6)
Determination of the preferred strategic corridor– Assessment and comparison of the four shortlisted options to identify the preferred strategic corridor (described in section 5.7).
The determination of the preferred strategic option was conducted through a Value Management Study and workshop held in October 2020 (see Section 5). Each option was assessed against the seven criteria as follows:
Improve network safety for all transport users
Improve freight access and efficiency
Improve traffic efficiency and connectivity
Enable an increase in the use of active and public transport
Improve transport network resilience
Support sustainability of the region
Respect the community and the environment
Throughout the Value Management Study, Option 5a and Option 6a preformed consistently well.
Option 5a ranked highest against five of the seven management objectives and second for one of the other objectives. The key features of this option included:
A 1.3 kilometre bridge over Wandandian Creek. The bridge would provide improved resilience to flooding and minimise the risk of construction over soft soils
Off-road construction, allowing the existing highway to remain functional for access to local properties
Full access into and out of Bewong
Complete bypass of Wandandian.
Option 6a ranked highest against one management objective and second for four of the seven management objectives. The key benefit of Option 6a was the alignment of the northern section of the option to the existing Princes Highway corridor, allowing for a shorter overall alignment and reduced impact on forested land in the northern section of the study area.
The Value Management Study concluded that the preferred option would be a combination of both Option 5a and Option 6a, adopting Option 6a from the northern-most extent of the study area until just south of Falls Creek, and adopting Option 5a from south of Falls Creek until the southern-most extent of the study area.
The key features of the preferred option include:
Greater integration of the proposed intersection design for Jervis Bay Road
Improved curve radii allowing for higher speed environments along the Princes Highway
Greater accessibility to existing key intersections
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 9
Greater accessibility to Wandandian and Bewong
Improved intersection performance and access to Sussex Inlet Road.
The preferred strategic option will be placed on public display between Wednesday 25 November 2020 and Sunday 20 December 2020 to provide the community and stakeholders an opportunity to review the preferred strategic corridor and provide feedback.
Transport are investigating opportunities for staged delivery of sections of the proposed upgrade. These investigations will consider the service needs of transport users, construction staging requirements and project funding.
Please visit the project website at nswroads.work/jervisbayroad-sussexinletupgrade for more information and to provide your feedback.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 10
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Princes Highway is critical to a thriving South Coast of New South Wales (NSW).
It helps drive the State’s third largest regional economy, is relied upon by over 500,000 local residents, and welcomes almost four million tourists each year.
It connects regional centres and essential services, and is the main transport corridor for freight to the region.
Since 2011 the Australian and NSW Governments have invested $2.5 billion upgrading the Princes Highway. This has transformed and better connected communities, employed thousands of local workers, improved safety, eased traffic congestion, and grown regional economies.
The focus is now on the future, with the Australian and NSW Governments committing $1.5 billion to upgrade the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road at Falls Creek and the Victorian border.
Five priority projects have progressed to the design phase, including the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection, Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road upgrade, Milton Ulladulla bypass, Burrill Lake to Batemans Bay upgrade, and Moruya bypass.
1.2 Princes Highway upgrade roadmap
Transport for NSW (referred to hereafter as ‘Transport’) has developed a strategic roadmap for the Princes Highway upgrade. It is Transport’s plan for the highway over the next 20 years and identifies what needs to be done in the short, medium and long term to deliver a vision for the Princes Highway as a safe, reliable, efficient and connected network.
It would be a highway that enables the movement of people and goods and supports sustainable growth of the local economy, employment opportunities and population.
It would contribute to the character of the places it serves and be resilient to adapt to natural hazards and climate change, respond to changes in land use, and support new technologies, industries and economic trends.
The roadmap is built on five goals:
Safety: A safer corridor for all customers and communities including local traffic, freight, tourists, and public and active transport users
Resilience: A corridor that can be efficiently managed and maintained while adapting to changing social, environmental and economic factors, including the ability to quickly recover from natural disasters and respond to changing land use and technologies
Liveability: A corridor that supports communities by connecting and contributing to attractive and healthy places to live, work and play
Sustainability: A corridor that is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable and unlocks a wide range benefits for communities and other customers
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 11
Connectivity and Accessibility: A corridor that has good physical and digital connectivity and accessibility, for access to opportunity and services.
The roadmap aligns with the Future Transport 2056 Strategy (TfNSW 2018a) and the Regional NSW Services and Infrastructure Plan (TfNSW 2018b). This will ensure the future of the Princes Highway delivers the key outcomes and priorities for regional transport throughout the State.
1.3 Proposal overview
The Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road is a 20 kilometre section of the highway. It is between the regional centres of Nowra and Milton Ulladulla and is the main transport corridor for local traffic, freight, tourists and public transport users. The section of highway provides the only access to regional coastal and inland towns including Huskisson, Vincentia, Tomerong, Sanctuary Point and surrounding villages, St Georges Basin, Bewong, Wandandian and Sussex Inlet.
The proposed upgrade to this section of the Princes Highway would deliver better connected and more mobile regional centres, deliver a more resilient transport network, improve safety, ease traffic congestion and grow regional economies.
The upgrade would aim to address the 126 crashes, including five fatal crashes and 42 serious injury crashes, on this section of highway in the five years from 2014 to 2018.
1.4 Study area
The location of the Proposal is shown in Figure 1-1 and the study area is shown in Figure 1-2. For the purposes of this Proposal, the study area has been divided into four sections as shown in Figure 1-2:
Section A – The northern extent of the study area, including the Jervis Bay Road intersection with the Princes Highway through to the intersection of Hawken Road and the Princes Highway
Section B – Hawken Road intersection with the Princes Highway through to the Island Point Road intersection with the Princes Highway
Section C - Island Point Road intersection with the Princes Highway through to the Bewong Roadhouse and rest area
Section D - Bewong Roadhouse and rest area to the southern extent of the study area, including the Sussex Inlet Road intersection.
The study area also includes the Jervis Bay Road intersection project which is being developed as part of the concept design of a separate project.
1.5 Purpose of this report
The purpose of this report is to describe how the strategic option for the Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road upgrade of the Princes Highway was selected.
The report identifies the need for the Proposal, examines issues and constraints, describes the assessment of strategic options, and identifies a preferred option to be taken forward for further development, community consultation and environmental investigations.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 12
Figure 1-1: Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road corridor locality
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 13
Figure 1-2: Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Corridor study area
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 14
2. Need for the Proposal
2.1 Service need / problem statement
The Princes Highway and the Princes Motorway together form the primary road transport corridor connecting Sydney and the Illawarra region with the NSW South Coast and beyond into Victoria. It provides a key local connection between villages, towns, and regional centres like Nowra, Batemans Bay, and Bega; and facilitates the movement of freight both along the NSW South Coast, as well as to the west via connections to the Kings Highway and Snowy Mountains Highway.
The Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road is a 20 kilometre section of the highway and predominantly consists of an undivided road with one lane in each direction. This section of the Princes Highway has been identified as a priority for upgrade as it is currently constrained due to a number of issues, including safety and traffic efficiency.
The Proposal is intended to improve the road-based transport link at this location to more safely and efficiently move people and goods along the NSW South Coast. A major upgrade to the Princes Highway was found to best meet the service needs for customers in this area compared to alternative options such as minor localised infrastructure improvements, a business as usual (or ‘do nothing’) approach, or other options focused on alternative transport modes (refer to section 3.2). The proposed major upgrade is expected to result in the best safety and traffic efficiency improvements.
A major upgrade to the Princes Highway also aligns with the initiatives for investigation shown in Future Transport 2056 (TfNSW 2018a), which flags the highway for upgrade between Jervis Bay Road and Moruya. The Proposal therefore provides strategic alignment with the vision for the future transport network.
2.1.1 Road safety
This section of the Princes Highway has a poor safety history, with 126 crashes in the five years from 2014 to 2018, including five fatal crashes and 42 serious injury crashes. The study area has a yearly casualty rate of 0.48 per kilometre per year, which is more than double the State average of 0.195 per kilometre per year. The stretch from Jervis Bay to Sussex Inlet, and beyond to Milton, has had more ‘off road on curve’ crash types than any other section assessed as part of the Princes Highway Corridor Strategy (TfNSW 2016; hereafter referred to as the Princes Highway Corridor Strategy).
In addition, the study area performs poorly against the Australian Road Assessment Program (AusRAP). The star system used by AusRAP provides a uniform safety rating for roads across Australia, with one star being the least safe, and five stars being the safest. The key objective of AusRAP is to achieve a minimum of three stars across the National Highway network as part of the National Land Transport Network throughout Australia. Greater than 90 per cent of the study area has an AusRAP Star Rating of three stars or less.
2.1.2 Network performance
Annual traffic growth is expected to increase for the study area, contributing to increases in traffic volumes and travel times, and a reduction in network performance in future. During
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 15
seasonal peak tourist periods, traffic volumes increase by more than three times the average daily traffic volumes outside of these peak periods. The increased traffic volumes, particularly during peak tourist season, result in reduced safety and increased travel time and driver frustration. These factors contribute to a forecast deterioration of level of service for this section of the Princes Highway over time.
Overtaking opportunities in the study area are limited, with less than 45 per cent of the study area providing overtaking opportunities northbound, and less than 30 per cent southbound. Approximately 38 per cent of the highway in the study area has travel lanes with a width of less than 3.5 metres as recommended in the Princes Highway Corridor Strategy target criteria. Further, about 46 per cent of sealed road shoulder widths fall below the recommended performance target of two metres.
2.1.3 Movement and place
As well as supporting significant regional travel and transport, the Princes Highway also provides an important link for local access to employment, education and other services. It currently serves as the only access to regional coastal and inland towns including Huskisson, Vincentia, Tomerong, Sanctuary Point, St Georges Basin, Bewong, Wandandian, and Sussex Inlet. Key towns located on the Princes Highway are Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek, all local communities which would be impacted by the Proposal. The needs of these communities are important in regards to place-making, culture and heritage, connectivity and access. The demands placed on the transport system from both local and through traffic can cause congestion, delays and safety risk, and have detrimental impact on local amenity.
Movement throughout the study area is currently predominantly by private vehicles. The public transport mode share is low due to the limited rail and bus networks and services available, resulting in a reliance on passenger cars for customers to access destinations. The active transport mode share is also low due to the limited connectivity of pedestrian and cycling networks, and the highway environment does not encourage active transport. Walking and cycling trips are therefore largely contained within and between local settlements to the east of the highway. There is a need to better facilitate public and active transport trips to support sustainable transport modes in the future.
2.1.4 Freight accessibility
The Bureau of Freight Statistics completed modelling for freight movements along the Princes Highway as part of the Princes Highway Corridor Strategy. The Strategy found that freight volumes within the study area are projected to increase by up to 68 per cent by 2031. This increase in freight volumes showed a corresponding increase in daily truck movements of 66 per cent. This assumes that freight is transported by trucks, however if accessibility along the Princes Highway is improved to better accommodate freight classes such as High Productivity Vehicles (HPV) the expected increase in volumes of freight could be accommodated with fewer vehicles. Most of the increase in freight demand is expected to be accommodated by larger Heavy Vehicle classes rather than smaller vans and trucks.
At present the study area is not approved as a 25 metre B-Double route, further constraining freight accessibility. The bridge over Condies Creek is only seven metres wide and does not meet the target width of 8.4 metres to effectively accommodate HPV (NTC 2007). The existing Princes Highway road geometry does not meet Australian Standards for design for both horizontal and vertical gradients (refer to section 5.3.2). To manage demand, increase freight
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 16
efficiencies and ensure road safety, there is a need to upgrade existing restrictions to heavy vehicles including narrow lanes, bridges, and shoulders. Modern heavy vehicles also have improved features when compared to older freight vehicles, such as more efficient swept paths, improved braking systems, lower engine emissions, and electronic and rollover stability control systems.
The local communities near Jervis Bay are also reliant on the Princes Highway to support First and Last Mile freight tasks. The Princes Highway interfaces with the local road network and therefore needs to provide heavy vehicle access to these communities for freight and to support local businesses.
2.2 Customer types and needs
Customer focus is a core value of Transport, with the customer at the centre of everything. Customers are the end users of transport infrastructure and solutions, and to deliver a high- quality customer experience it is important to understand the customer types and needs for the Proposal and apply this understanding to the investigation, planning and design process. Development of customer types allows for the consideration of service needs for each customer group, which informs the development of design options.
The customer types and needs for the Proposal have been initially identified at an internal stakeholder workshop, and were informed by early activities associated with development of the strategic roadmap for the Princes Highway Upgrade Program (PHUP), which highlighted key customer types and needs for the Princes Highway corridor as a whole.
The following sections provide a summary of the customer types and needs for the study area, including the context, demographics and travel behaviour of the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA).
For further details on the development of the customer types and needs refer to Appendix A.
2.2.1 Context and overarching factors
Contextual factors can include any external factor of significance for transport customers and travel behaviour across socio-economic, geographic, technological, environmental or other domains.
Contextual factors were discussed in a workshop to understand the overarching influences on existing and future customers, their travel behaviour and service needs. Existing factors and possible future trends provide an indication of transport-related driving forces on local, regional and larger scales which inform customer needs and therefore design considerations (for example, accommodating future transport technologies, such as increased use of Electric Vehicles or EVs). Contextual factors are important to help understand who currently uses the corridor and why, and whether this is likely to change in the future.
Contextual factors identified for the study area were categorised into different geographic scales to aid analysis as follows:
Global/Asia Pacific
Australia
NSW/regional
Local/place.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 17
The contextual factors identified are listed in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Contextual factors
Scale Factors
Technological and information changes: Sustainability considerations: Emergence of autonomous vehicles Climate change and climate Emergence of EVs and charging activism stations Increase frequency of extreme Reliance on internet and data weather events. Connected society. Economic factors: Changes in service demands: Changing trade arrangements Mobility as a service Information economy (evolution Global/Asia Transport as a service of economic drivers, how we do Pacific Instant services. things) Supply and demand of exporting goods and services. Population characteristics: An aging population demographic Population growth and distribution.
Natural disasters: Geography: Drought Consideration of Fire telecommunication Floods. infrastructure in regional areas Tourism: Varying population distribution Domestic tourism. between cities and National characteristics and values: regional/country areas Australia Generally prosperous country Variable landscape. Access to health, financial and emergency services Freedom of choice Accessibility to work, places of leisure and households Ensuring legislation in place to ensure the safety of citizens and residents.
Connectivity: Tourism: Desire to review TfNSW strategies to Unpredictable trends (eg improve connectivity (Future Transport glamping) NSW/ 2056, Regional NSW Services and Open space tourism, which regional Infrastructure Plan) support socially distant Not all regional centres coming back to activities such as cycling the city (‘hub and spoke’ model) High volume of tourism. Resilience:
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 18
Scale Factors
Lack of alternative transport options Need for network resilience and choices outside of major cities. Bushfire recovery and planning Geography: Significance of National Parks Varying size/footprint of local road and State Forests to the local networks community in relation to Variable size/footprint of the local road bushfire impacts networks per LGA Extreme weather events. Differences between places that are Customer expectations: located on a corridor vs those accessed Customer expectations: via the corridor and varying places that differing needs for regional vs are desirable to live and/or work city Geography – mountain to ocean. Expectation of consultation and Population and land use characteristics: influence on outcome, and Population density customer resilience Distinct difference from south coast to Robust project justification. north coast Infrastructure considerations: Rural land use/produce/rural settings. Location of essential services Transport trends: (hospitals, schools, Centrelink, Trend towards increasing sustainable service NSW, doctors/GPs) transport Investment campaign (public Regional reliance on private vehicles health, transport) and heavy vehicle freight Cost of maintaining a level of Last mile reliance on roads service in the region. Growing use of services such as Uber.
Local places: Infrastructure and perceptions: Types of coastal villages residential, Future of Main Road 92 tourist, or both: Road safety - St Georges Basin: residential Heightened emotions for - Huskisson: tourism commuters/emotional - Sussex Inlet: both connection to fatalities - Wandandian: mixed Need for improved accessibility commercial/residential to facilitate evacuation during - Nowra: commuter hub for natural disasters, including jobs/regional city hub/centre bushfires which heavily impact Local/place - City of Shoalhaven: city status local communities, National granted on basis of population Parks and State Forests size. Attachment to location. Movement and Place: Defence presence: Bewong – mixed Defence network and the commercial/residential, minor (place transport network between function requires further definition) /connecting Defence sites On/off-highway considerations Airforce, navy, army. Changing place functions – from now to future (eg increased accessibility)
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 19
Scale Factors
Projected land use, limited data Economic growth: Definition of place function for Potential for increased business Wandandian – does it serve tourist during and post-construction by functions? (place function requires workers moving to the area (eg further definition) local services and supply, Residents on the highway/direct permanent relocations). access.
2.2.2 Shoalhaven local government area key demographics
Key demographics for the Shoalhaven LGA were taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census Data 2016 and Household Travel Survey Data from 2016/17-2018/19.
The household composition of residents in the Shoalhaven LGA is shown in Figure 2-1.
One family household: Couple family with no 12% children 34% One family household: Couple family with children 29% One family household: One parent family
18% Lone person household 7%
Data source: ABS Census 2016
Figure 2-1: Household composition
The most common household composition in the Shoalhaven LGA is a one family household with no children (34 per cent of households), followed by a lone person household (29 per cent). This may reflect the attractiveness of the region to retirees, as well as the greater opportunities for young students and professionals in other areas (such as Sydney) leading them to leave home and relocate to areas outside the Shoalhaven LGA. The average household size is 2.3 people per household, with an average of 1.8 vehicles per household.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 20
85 years and over 75-84 years 65-74 years 55-64 years 45-54 years 35-44 years 25-34 years 20-24 years 15-19 years 5-14 years 0-4 years 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 No. people
Data source: ABS Census 2016
Figure 2-2: Age profile of Shoalhaven LGA residents
The age profile for residents of the LGA (refer Figure 2-2) shows that the region contains more residents aged 45-74 that other ages, which reflects the retiree and older couple demographic. The LGA has a growing aging population, and a notable gap is seen from ages 15-24, which may be associated with younger people leaving the area to study or work.
Approximately 51 per cent of residents work full time, and 37 per cent of residents work part time. Six per cent of residents are unemployed and looking for work.
Industries of employment are varied and, contrary to popular belief, the region relies less heavily on tourism than other industries. The top industries of employment are:
Health care and social assistance (15 per cent of workers)
Accommodation and food services (15 per cent)
Retail trade (14 per cent)
Construction (11 per cent)
Education and training (10 per cent).
2.2.3 Shoalhaven local government area travel behaviour
The dominant mode of transport in the Shoalhaven LGA is via private car due to the size and distance between settlements, and limited active and public transport networks. Data from the ABS Census 2016 and Household Travel Survey were analysed to understand travel behaviour throughout the region.
All-day and all-purpose mode share trends for the LGA are shown in Figure 2-3.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 21
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2016/17 1%2% 56% 25% 4% 13%
2017/18 3%3% 57% 22% 5% 11%
2018/19 4%3% 56% 22% 6% 10%
Bus Other Vehicle Driver Vehicle Passenger Walk Linked Walk Only
Data source: HTS 2016-2019, TfNSW
Figure 2-3: Mode share
The train and cycle mode shares were less than one per cent and are not shown in Figure 2-3.
The data shows a high vehicle driver and passenger mode share (greater than 75 per cent combined), which appears generally stable over time. Walking trips are significant, although these are expected to take place within settlements rather than along the highway. There is a low public transport mode share, reflecting the limited rail and bus services available, however the bus mode share is increasing. This appears to be offset by a reduction in walking only trips rather than a reduction in vehicle trips.
Trip purpose is shown in Figure 2-4.
10% 10% Commute Education/childcare 8% 2% Other 21% Personal business 7% Serve passenger Shopping 20% Social/recreation 21% Work related business
Data source: HTS 2016-2019, TfNSW
Figure 2-4: Trip purpose The main purpose of trips within the LGA is for social/recreational purposes (21 per cent), shopping (21 per cent) and serving passengers (eg to drop off or pick up a passenger such as a
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 22
child at school) (20 per cent), although there is a diverse range of trip purposes including commuting and education.
The average trip distance over the last three years varies between 10-20 kilometres, reflecting the long distances between settlements and key services throughout the LGA. Private vehicle trips involve the shortest trips, around 11 kilometres in length due to the convenience of private vehicles. Train trips are the longest, around 50 kilometres in length. While the South Coast rail line services the northern part of the LGA, it does not extend south of Bomaderry and does not serve the study area.
Private vehicle trips are typically the shortest (aside from walking trips within settlements), averaging around 16 minutes in travel time. Bus trips average 20 minutes or longer, and train trips average almost one hour, reflecting the longer distances covered to access centres to the north.
The corridor experiences seasonal travel changes throughout the year due to tourism during holiday periods. Average traffic profiles for Jervis Bay Road, which accommodates a large proportion of tourist traffic accessing the settlements throughout Jervis Bay from the north, are shown in Figure 2-5.
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
Average daily Average daily traffic(vehicles day) per 0
Eastbound Westbound
Data source: Traffic Volume Viewer (07355 – Jervis Bay Road) 2008-2018, TfNSW
Figure 2-5: Average yearly traffic variations on Jervis Bay Road near the Princes Highway
The data shows a significant increase in traffic during the summer months, reflecting the tourist function of the highway. Some intersections along the corridor can experience traffic increases of twice the usual amount or more due to seasonal traffic.
2.2.4 Emerging trends
Emerging technology is also a key consideration for future transport customers, and can include EVs, Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs), and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Although these types of vehicles are currently a small proportion of existing vehicles, these are expected to grow substantially over the next few decades.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 23
Business fleets accounted for 63 per cent of total EV sales in 2018, and private purchases were 33 per cent. Primary concerns for consumers are ‘range anxiety’ (due to a lack of supporting infrastructure) and purchase price. The national road network contained 1,930 EV charging stations as of July 2019, an increase of 143 per cent from June 2018. NSW has 110 DC charging stations at 37 sites and 539 AC charging stations. The Australian Energy Market Operator anticipates that EVs will comprise around one third of the passenger vehicle fleet by 2040. The service need for EVs is therefore expected to grow substantially in coming years, and will need to be considered in the design of the highway upgrade.
Automated Vehicles (AVs) are another emerging technology. In 2016 the Australian transport ministers agreed to a phased reform of current driving laws to enable use of full AVs from 2020. Austroads has also undertaken work focusing on supporting AV operations through machine- readable signage and road markings, and opportunities for automated heavy vehicles in remote and regional areas. The service need for AVs and CAVs is therefore also expected to grow, and these vehicles will play a larger role for both businesses and private consumers.
Hydrogen vehicles are another type of vehicle that is becoming more popular. Hydrogen vehicles use hydrogen fuel as opposed to petroleum, reducing operating pollution. These vehicles are similar to EVs, but require sources of hydrogen to refill. The uptake of hydrogen vehicles is currently slower than that of EVs, but may still be relevant as a consideration for customers.
2.2.5 Key customer groups and needs
The dominant customer types along the Project corridor include:
The local community, which includes retirees, families, retail, education and health consumers, vulnerable communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
Commuters
Tourists
Emergency services
Freight.
The main travel modes along the highway are private vehicles, including passenger vehicles and commercial freight vehicles. Public transport mode share is low due to the lack of services and limited connectivity. Pedestrian access and movement is important at local places such as Wandandian, but is less applicable along the corridor between towns, where the road is focused on accommodating vehicle movement.
Key service needs for the dominant customer types include safety, connectivity, accessibility, traffic efficiency, travel time reliability, resilience and heavy vehicle access. Future service needs may include a greater need to accommodate the potential uptake of technological service types such as EVs, CAVs, and potentially hydrogen-powered vehicles. The design of the highway would need to consider future provisions for these transport modes such as charging stations and wireless communications infrastructure.
The specific customer types and needs identified as a result of the analysis and internal stakeholder workshop are shown in Table 2-2. The characteristics of each type is described in Appendix A. The customer types and needs were categorised into ‘very important’, ‘moderately important’ and ‘less important’ customer types and needs to help inform priorities for the investigation and design development process.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 24
Table 2-2: Customer types and needs Legend:
Very important
Moderately important
Less important
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Universal All. Safety (Safe Systems approach, safe intersections All customers. and access, delineation, safety barriers, audio tactile edge lines, adequate sightlines, illumination/reflectivity for night time periods)
Reliable road infrastructure (structurally adequate and functional)
Accessibility to/from regional centres, settlements and other places
Road quality (road surface, drainage, maintenance, resilient to extreme weather)
Efficient traffic management
Equitable access to road infrastructure
Service centres
Financial and environmental sustainability
Commuters Car Reliable and resilient infrastructure Workers Bus Trades people. Motorcycle Low travel times (eg getting to work as quickly as possible) Bicycle Pedestrian. High travel time reliability
Efficient traffic management
Ability to commute long distances each day (freedom of choice for location of work/residence)
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 25
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Overtaking lanes
Local community Car Equitable access to centres, services, health, education Residents Motorcycle and financial support Retirees/ elderly Bicycle Network resilience in extreme Family members Pedestrian weather events (flooding, Recreation Bus/coach. bushfires) Vulnerable communities Alignment of highway design Aboriginal and Torres with place functions and Strait Islander general amenity communities Access to affordable, Consumers sustainable transport modes - Retail (public and active transport) - Education Integration with and - Health reinforcement of cultural heritage and values - Cultural activities. Increased opportunities for cycling
Consideration for pedestrians/cyclists in areas of potential conflict with vehicles
Sufficient and safe access points to areas along the highway
Confidence (emotions connected to road trauma and bushfires)
Minimal noise/environmental pollution
Separation from heavy vehicles for safety and a sense of place
Reliable, legible and consistent transport network
Short lanes for turning off the highway
U-turn facilities (eg to facilitate left-in-left-out access points)
Minimal disruption from construction activity
Freight Truck Adequate lane widths, curve radii and grades
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 26
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Interstate Multi combination Connectivity between major centres, state roads and Intrastate Heavy combination distribution centres Oversize vehicles Heavy rigid Routes with no height/weight Higher Mass Limit (HML) Medium rigid restrictions, including height vehicles Light rigid clearance for overhead signs Regional deliveries Van. and bridges Local deliveries Accessible bridges (sufficient Couriers/ postal services strength and width) Local agricultural and Clear signage for mass and manufacturing freight length limits/restrictions Long distance and bulk freight. Access to regular heavy vehicle rest areas
Access to coupling and decoupling areas
Alignment of highway design with movement functions
More efficient first and last mile provisions
Skid resistant road surface
Tourists Car Adequate wayfinding and signage for destinations and Local Caravan places of interest Interstate Trailer Access to small towns/tourist International Recreational vehicle destinations Day tripper Camper-van Coach and bus drop-off Longer stay Bus locations in safe and Families with children Coach accessible locations Couples Motorcycle. Access to regular service Solo travellers stations with services and Convoys of friends activities Grey nomads/ campers. Intuitive road network
Rest areas
Variable Message Signs for communication
Information relating to tourist destinations and travel times
Access to, and information on, special cultural areas and events
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 27
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Skid resistant road surface
Short lanes for turning off the highway
Public transport Bus Provision of safe bus bays at bus stops on high speed Users Coach sections of road Drivers. On-demand services. Availability and frequency of services
Service/travel time reliability
Provision of pick-up/drop-off points at origins/destinations (places)
Freedom of choice for transport modes (walking, cycling, rideshare, bus, on- demand) and availability for combining multiple modes to make a single journey
Integration of on-demand services with greater public transport network
Wayfinding to and from bus stops
Emergency services Car Adequate shoulder width for emergency lane Ambulance Service of Van NSW/patient transport Truck. Access to and provision of Variable Message Signs for Rural Fire Service/Fire and incident management Rescue NSW NSW Police Emergency U-turn and contraflow provisions (median Force/Highway Patrol crossovers) State Emergency Services Traffic Commander/ Traffic Connectivity to the wider road network and key population Emergency Patrol centres Tow trucks Ability to travel safely at high Roadside assistance. speed
Provision of overtaking lanes
Digital and mobile connectivity to enable fast responses
Maximised sight distance
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 28
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Skid resistant road surface
Businesses Car Convenient access to/from highway/adjoining roads On-highway Van Off-highway Truck Visibility from highway Local businesses Pedestrian. Strong place function Regional and global (business on-highway) businesses. Wayfinding, particularly for users unfamiliar with the area
Strong movement function (business off-highway)
Directional signage for local commercial centres
Cyclists Bicycle. Safety, including consideration of conflict at Recreational intersections and crossing Clubs/bicycle user groups. locations
Commuters Adequate width of road shoulder
Separation from vehicle traffic
Minimal grade variance
Visibility/sufficient sightlines (eg turning corners at lower speed than vehicle traffic)
Rest areas
Agricultural industry Truck Connectivity between major centres, state roads, origins Farmers Tractor and export locations Producers With implement Sufficient sight distances Machine operators Combine harvester Repairers and mechanics Earthmoving. Adequate lane width, curve Transporters/ freight. radii and grades Heavy vehicle access and sufficient height clearances
More efficient first and last mile provisions
Access to regular heavy vehicle rest areas
Access to coupling and de- coupling areas
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 29
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Skid resistant road surface
Defence force Car Network resilience in extreme weather events Air force (HMAS Albatross) Van Navy (HMAS Creswell) Truck Connectivity to Defence bases Army. Bus Military vehicles. Heavy/oversize vehicle access
Construction/ road crews Car Road shoulder for placement of temporary road works Operations Van signage Maintenance. Truck Geometric allowance for traffic Machinery. control including adequate lane widths and sightlines
Provisions for Variable Message Signs for traffic and incident notification/management
U-turn and contraflow provisions (median crossovers)
Evacuees Car Resilient road network that is functional without reliance on Residents Bus technology for critical Tourists. Military vehicles functions (eg no Trailers. variable/illuminated lane markings)
Sufficient evacuation capacity
Flood immunity
Provisions for Variable Message Signs and static wayfinding signage
Skid resistant road surface
U-turn provisions (median crossovers)
Utility asset owners Car Sufficient width of shoulder to allow for stopping and Underground/ above Van maintenance of assets ground/ overhead Truck Accessible assets for frequent Shoalhaven Water Machinery. and cost-effective - Water supply maintenance
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 30
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
- Wastewater Geometric allowance for traffic control TfNSW - Traffic signals Above ground identification devices to mark location of - Road infrastructure underground assets (eg Councils (local road colour coded infrastructure) markers/conduits) Electricity U-turn provisions (median Jemena (gas) crossovers) Telecomm-unications Sufficient shoulder width for - Telstra anti-gawk screens during - Optus maintenance work - NBN - GRN - Voda (mob) Street lighting.
National Parks Car Minimal impact on the natural environment NSW National Parks and Truck Wildlife Services Machinery. Balance the needs of road users with the needs of the Park rangers environment Field officers Scientists Access to parks from roadway for management and Wildlife rescue services. maintenance
Provision of safe access to parks and trails for tourists
Adequate road shoulder widths for stopping
Variable Message Signs
CAVs Car Compatible and consistent road line marking and signage Driver assistance Van (eg condition, colour contrast, Partial automation Truck. retro-reflectivity, legibility, Conditional automation dimensions) High automation Full Pavement quality and automation condition, including deformation-resistant road Passenger surface (eg asphalt concrete) Freight. Telecommunications coverage (4G/5G) and continuous connectivity
Availability of high-definition mapping
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 31
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Cooperative-Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) infrastructure
Increased frequency of road surface maintenance including line marking
Suitable drainage infrastructure
Safe harbour areas in road shoulder
Digital roadside communications (sensors and internet connectivity)
Considerations for interactions with non-CAVs
Electric vehicles Bicycle Charging stations and power locations All-EVs Car Hybrid EVs. Van Wayfinding signage for charging stations Truck Bus/coach. Charging infrastructure in roadway/roadside for induction charging (currently infeasible)
Hydrogen-powered vehicles Car Hydrogen refilling stations Van Wayfinding signage for Truck refilling stations Bus/coach.
Service providers Car Connectivity to urban centres and residential areas Car share Ride share On-demand transport Bus/coach Access to townships, services and tourist destinations Electric vehicles Van Autonomous vehicles. Bicycle Service and travel time reliability Scooter. Telecommunications coverage (4G/5G) and continuous connectivity
Coach and bus drop-off locations in safe and accessible locations
Wayfinding, signage and provision of service information
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 32
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Provisions for CAVs and EVs (eg charging stations, wireless infrastructure)
Integration with public transport services
Pedestrian residents Pedestrian. Safe provisions at places, including footpaths and crossings
Access to property from
highway
Priority in places/pedestrianised areas
Accessible connections for multi-modal journeys
Adequate lighting and amenity
Safety barriers
Minimal grade variance
Motorcyclists Motorcycle. Skid resistant paint for road markings Locals Tourists. Skid resistant road surface
Sealed road shoulder to avoid loose surfaces
Clear zones in roadside to allow for safe recovery area in shoulder (consideration of roadside furniture to reduce serious injury in the result of a crash)
Ride share/taxi Car Provision of safe drop-off/pick- up locations at Users Van. origins/destinations (places) Drivers. Intuitive road network
Wildlife On foot. Fencing Fauna. Wildlife warning signs for drivers in hotspots
Connectivity, including provision for habitat, food, and minimising clearing
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 33
Service needs/key Customer types Service types considerations
Median strip
Wildlife crossings (underpass/overpass)
Safety barriers
Further details of the customer types and needs are provided in Appendix B.
2.3 Proposal objectives
In 2018 Transport released the Future Transport Strategy 2056 (TfNSW 2018b) as an update to the 2012 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (TfNSW 2020; referred to hereafter as the Master Plan). The Master Plan identified the importance of the Princes Highway as a major connection between towns on the NSW South Coast, supporting tourism, inter-regional business, and freight. The objectives for the Proposal were developed to align with both the Master Plan and Future Transport Strategy 2056 (TfNSW 2018b). The objectives for the Proposal are outlined in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Proposal objectives
Proposal Objectives Description
Improve safety on the transport network and reduce the Improve network safety for all number of Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) crashes by transport users providing a safer road environment that aligns with the PHUP design principles.
Improve freight productivity by eliminating restrictions to Improve freight access and HPV and providing a safer transport network, and efficiency improved heavy vehicle services and facilities.
Increase traffic efficiency and reduce travel times Improve traffic efficiency and during peak periods to support regional economic connectivity development.
Enable an increase in the use of Increase active transport as a mode of travel by active and public transport improving accessibility and connectivity.
Increase public transport use by improving accessibility and supporting the implementation of the Future Improve transport network resilience Transport 2056 Strategy and Regional NSW Services and Infrastructure Plan.
Provide a more sustainable community by incorporating Support sustainability of the region financial and environmental considerations to the development of the Proposal.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 34
2.4 Strategic alignment
The Proposal is consistent with relevant strategic planning documents, as described in Error! eference source not found..
Table 2-4: Strategic need for the Proposal
Strategic alignment of the Strategic plans Description Proposal
The Proposal contributes to achieving several of the key objectives including: Supporting the ‘hub and spoke’ Future Transport 2056 is an update transport network for the of NSW’s Long Term Transport regional city of Wollongong, as Master Plan. It is a suite of well as the strategic centres of strategies and plans for transport to Nowra, Vincentia, Ulladulla and provide an integrated vision for the Batemans Bay state. Future Transport Future Transport 2056 identifies 12 Adopting a safe systems 2056 (TfNSW customer outcomes to guide approach to the delivery of road 2018b) transport investment in Greater safety improvements to Sydney. These outcomes include contribute to achieving the transport providing convenient ‘Towards Zero’ target. access, supporting attractive places Applying the ‘Movement and and providing 30-minute access for Place’ framework to inform customers to their nearest centre by decision-making on the corridor public transport. in a way that supports safe, efficient and reliable journeys while enhancing the liveability and amenity of places.
The Future Transport Regional For regional NSW, Future Transport Infrastructure and Services Plan will 2056 is supplemented by the provide manufacturers and Regional NSW Services and producers with the opportunity to Infrastructure Plan which describes participate in the global economy by the necessary initiative required in Future Transport connecting them to domestic and the short, medium and long term to 2056 – Regional international consumer markets. meet customer needs now and into NSW Services The plan to connect regional NSW the future. The Proposal contributes and Infrastructure will focus on a ‘hub and spoke’ to the commitment of investigating Plan (TfNSW model radiating out from regional duplication of the Princes Highway 2018c) cities rather than a network focused between Jervis Bay Road and on Sydney, this allows regional Moruya. centres to act as hubs for The proposal would also contribute employment and services such as to achieving the target to increase retail, health, education and cultural public and active transport active activities. transport use in Regional NSW.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 35
Strategic alignment of the Strategic plans Description Proposal
Connecting to the Future 10-year Blueprint outlines Transport for NSW ambitions and strategic priorities for the next 10 years to support the Future Transport The Proposal contributes to several Strategy 2056. The Blueprint of the key outcomes including: identifies a framework to deliver Safe, seamless journeys for strategic priorities and ambitions, Connecting to the people and goods structured around four primary future – Our 10 Transport investments and outcomes: Year Blueprint solutions that service the people (TfNSW 2019) 1. For customers: Connecting our of NSW customers’ whole lives Quality assets and efficient 2. For communities: Successful networks, managed at the right places price. 3. For the people of NSW: Strong economy and quality of life 4. For the people of Transport for NSW: Thriving people doing meaningful work.
The NSW Road Safety Strategy 2021 features targeted and proven initiatives that will help NSW The Proposal contributes to the progress towards the goal of commitment of reducing fatal and NSW Road reducing road-related fatalities by serious injury crashes on rural Safety Strategy – 30 per cent by 2021. The Plan is a roads by addressing known safety 2021 (TfNSW priority for the Government to risks within the corridor and 2018d) improve road safety, addressing applying a Safe Systems approach key trends, behaviours and the to transport planning and design. types of crashes occurring on NSW roads.
The NSW Freight and Ports Strategy details how the NSW Government will provide an efficient The Proposal supports the plan by: freight network for the public and Enhancing productivity NSW Freight and private sectors to sustain the local Increasing use of safer and Ports Plan 2018 – economies across NSW. It more productive vehicles 2023 (TfNSW highlights short, medium and long- Enabling regional growth 2018a) term tasks to improve freight Reducing fatalities and serious movement on the network. The injuries from crashes involving Strategy would inform government heavy vehicles or light trucks. and commercial investment decisions across all modes of
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 36
Strategic alignment of the Strategic plans Description Proposal
transport and allow for the alignment of purpose.
The Proposal would support the five The Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional goals set in the Regional Plan for Plan 2036 sets a vision and the Illawarra-Shoalhaven including: direction for the future of Illawarra- A connected and prosperous Shoalhaven. The Plan was economy developed in 2016 and provides the A variety of housing choices, strategic policy, planning and with homes that meet needs Illawarra decision-making framework to and lifestyles Shoalhaven guide the region to sustainable A region with communities that Regional Plan – growth over the next 20 years. The are strong, health and well 2036 (DPE 2015) Plan will be used to drive economic connected growth in the region. It integrates A region that make appropriate economic, social and environmental use of agricultural and considerations in the interests of resource lands achieving ecologically sustainable A region that protects and development for the region. enhances the nature environment.
Tourism and The Tourism and Transport Plan The Proposal supports the plan by: Transport Plan was created in recognition of the Providing greater access to more of NSW (NSW critical interconnection between Government transport and tourism in regional Making transport the attraction 2018a) NSW. A seamless experience.
The NSW South Coast Marine Tourism Strategy identifies NSW South Batemans Bay as a ‘key mid-South The Proposal aligns with Strategic Coast Marine Coast visitor hub complemented by Direction 4: Tourism Activation of Tourism Strategy the tourism potential of the marine the Marine Environment by (NSW park’. The plan identifies the need improving accessibility to the South Government for future infrastructure upgrades to Coast from Sydney. 2019) the area and the key role they will play in improving marine tourism on the NSW South Coast.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 37
3. Proposal considerations and constraints
Investigations carried out by Transport have identified key issues and constraints which have assisted in the development of the Proposal. The key constraints and their implications for the Proposal are described in the following sections.
3.1 Statutory and planning framework
3.1.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the main piece of legislation regulating land use planning and development in NSW. The approvals pathway for development under the EP&A Act is dependent on a number of factors including whether significant impacts are anticipated, whether it is a private or public authority proponent, the capital cost of the Proposal, as well as relevant planning provisions under the related legislation. Assessment of infrastructure proposals undertaken by public authorities is generally in accordance with Division 5.1 or Division 5.2 of the EP&A Act.
Transport prepared a preliminary environmental investigation report (PEI) in September 2020 (TfNSW 2020) which states that the appropriate approvals pathway is to be confirmed during future project stages. It is noted that this would be an ongoing process through not only the strategic options phase (ie the current phase) but also during subsequent activities to further develop and refine the Proposal.
It is likely the Proposal would be assessed under Division 5.1 or 5.2 of the EP&A Act. If the Proposal is assessed under Division 5.1 of the EP&A Act, a review of environmental factors (REF) would be prepared to document the environmental assessment process and outcomes. Transport would be both the proponent and determining authority. If the environmental assessment concludes there is potential for the Proposal to have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact statement (EIS) would be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
If the Proposal is defined as State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) under Division 5.2 of the EP&A Act, an EIS would be prepared in accordance with the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements issued by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPI&E) and the Minister for Planning would be the consent authority.
3.1.2 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) protects matters of national environmental significance (MNES) (as defined under the Act) and the environment of Commonwealth land.
Under the EPBC Act a referral to the Australian Government is required for proposed actions that have the potential to significantly impact MNES or the environment of Commonwealth land. A search of the EPBC Act protected matters search tool was undertaken on 30 August 2020. Table 3-1 identifies the nine MNES and discusses whether they occur, or are likely to occur, in the study area.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 38
Table 3-1: Consideration of EPBC Act MNES
Environmental factor Relevance
World Heritage properties There are no world heritage properties in or next to the study area. Direct or indirect impacts would be unlikely.
National Heritage places There are no national heritage places in or next to the study area. Direct or indirect impacts would be unlikely.
Wetlands of international The study area is not in the catchment of any importance Ramsar wetland.
Nationally listed threatened Several threatened ecological communities and species listed species or ecological under the EPBC Act occur or have the potential to occur in communities the study area. There are two threatened ecological communities in the study area. Threatened species records have identified 10 flora species and 19 fauna species listed under the EPBC Act within a search area centred on the study area, of which five flora species and nine fauna species records were from within the study area (refer to section 3.3).
Migratory species (under There are 16 migratory species which may occur or have international agreements) habitat in the study area.
Commonwealth marine area There are several Defence properties comprising Commonwealth land on the South Coast. However, none of these are in the study area.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Not relevant. Park
Nuclear action (including The Proposal is not a nuclear action. uranium mining)
A referral is not required for proposed road activities assessed under Division 5.1 of the EP&A Act that may affect nationally listed threatened species, threatened ecological communities and migratory species. This is because the requirements for considering impacts to these MNES are the subject of a strategic environmental assessment approval granted to Transport (formerly Roads and Maritime Services) under the EPBC Act by the Australian Government in September 2015.
After completion of more detailed site investigations, Transport would need to confirm whether the Proposal would fall under Division 5.1 or Division 5.2 of the EP&A Act, and whether a referral to the Commonwealth would be required.
3.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policies
The Proposal would require consideration of the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) described below.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 39
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. Clause 94 of the ISEPP permits development on any land for the purpose of a road or road infrastructure facilities to be carried out by, or on behalf of, a public authority without consent. As such, the Proposal could be assessed under Division 5.1 or Division 5.2 of the EP&A Act.
However, the study area encroaches on land reserved under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (ie National Park lands), and under clause 94 of the ISEPP development can be carried out without consent only if it is authorised under the National Park and Wildlife Act 1974. This issue is discussed further in section 3.1.3.
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) identifies development that is SSI. Schedule 3 Clause 1 of SRD SEPP states activities proposed by public authorities for which significant impacts are anticipated constitute SSI and require preparation of an EIS. However, this clause does not apply if the significant impact is limited to a threatened species only (whether or not an EIS is required under section 7.8 of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016).
The Proposal has in the first instance sought to avoid and minimise significant impacts through the optioneering process described in section 5.3.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (CM SEPP) promotes an integrated and coordinated approach to land use planning in the coastal zone in a manner consistent with the objects of the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016.
There is land identified by the CM SEPP as ‘coastal wetlands' and ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ in the study area immediately south of Bottle Brush Avenue. As defined under Clause 10 of the CM SEPP, various activities (including clearing, earthworks, draining of land, environmental protection works and development) proposed to be carried out within coastal wetlands require development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. These activities are designated development for the purposes of the EP&A Act and require the preparation of an EIS.
As identified in section 5.3, coastal wetlands have been identified as ‘No Go’ areas for the Proposal.
State Environmental Planning Policy Koala Habitat Protection 2019
This SEPP identifies land that is potential Koala habitat and land that is core Koala habitat. It provides guidelines and matters for consideration for development that proposes an impact to core Koala habitat. Part 2 of the Koala Habitat SEPP regulates impact on Koala habitats. These requirements do not apply where the Proposal is being assessed under Division 5.1 or 5.2 EP&A Act; nonetheless, the Proposal’s potential impacts on Koala habitat should be considered.
Although some Koala feed tree species (as defined in Schedule 2 of SEPP 44) may be present in the study area, there are no records for Koalas (Pascolarctos cinereus) in the study area.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 40
There is, however, one record for a Koala within a 10 kilometre radius of the study area, around five kilometres to the south. Further assessment may be required to determine the proportion of feed tree species and whether it would be likely to be considered as primary or secondary habitat for the Koala, as identified in the NSW Recovery Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008).
3.1.4 Other relevant legislation and environmental planning instruments
Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014
The study area is in the Shoalhaven LGA and therefore the provisions of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Shoalhaven LEP) apply to the Proposal. The study area encompasses land with the following zonings:
RU2 Rural Landscape
RU3 Forestry
RU4 Primary Production Small Lots
RU5 Village
R2 Low Density Residential
R5 Large Lot Residential
E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves
E2 Environmental Conservation
E3 Environmental Management
E4 Environmental Living
W1 Natural Waterways
SP2 Infrastructure
RE1 Public Recreation.
Under the Shoalhaven LEP, the Proposal would be permitted with consent in all these zones (with the exception of zone E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves). However, as discussed in section 3.1.2, it is expected the Proposal could be carried out by, or on behalf of, Transport without development consent under ISEPP. Under that circumstance, the requirement under the Shoalhaven LEP to obtain consent would not apply.
There are six heritage items in the study area which are listed as locally significant under the Shoalhaven LEP. These are discussed in section 3.5. Impacts to these local heritage items were considered as part of the options assessment for the preferred option described in section 5.3.
Forestry Act 2012
The NSW Forestry Act 2012 provides for (amongst other things) the dedication and revocation of State Forests in NSW and the regulation of forestry and non-forestry activities in State Forests, timber reserves and flora reserves. The Act also establishes the Forestry Corporation of NSW, which is responsible for the management of forestry activities within State Forests.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 41
The study area encompasses parts of the Yerriyong, Tomerong and Nowra State Forests and includes areas mapped as Zone 3B – Special Prescription Zone, Zone 4 – General Management Zone, and Zone 7 – Non-Forestry Use Zone. Some of the land affected by the Proposal may require revocation of its State Forest status in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Act 2012. This may involve a resolution or Act of Parliament.
Crown Lands Management Act 2016
The NSW Crowns Land Management Act 2016 provides the legislative framework for the administration of land that is vested in the Crown in NSW. Ministerial approval is required to grant a ‘lease, licence, permit, easement or right of way over a Crown Reserve’.
Crown lands are located throughout the study area. If Crown land is impacted by the Proposal, the relevant requirements of the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 and Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 would apply.
Marine Estate Management Act 2014
The NSW Marine Estate Management Act 2014 provides for the management of the marine estate of NSW as well as the declaration and management of marine parks and aquatic reserves.
Section 56(3) of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014 requires that a determining authority must not carry out or approve an activity in the locality of a marine park without considering the on the impact on the marine park. The Upper Currambene Sanctuary Zone in Jervis Bay Marine Park encroaches on the northern section of the study area, north of Falls Road.
Under the Jervis Bay Marine Park Operational Plan (Marine Parks Authority 2003), a permit must be obtained for infrastructure development in a habitat protection zone with a sanctuary zone. Under Clause 1.16(2)(a) of the Marine Estate Management (Management Rules) Regulation 1999, Transport would be required to obtain a permit from NSW Marine Parks for any works in the Marine Park. When considering the permit application, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) would assess the application against the criteria outlined in Clause 9 of the Regulation.
Clause 55 of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014 would apply to the required process for development located within a marine park. Subclause (1) lists the considerations for the consent authority for development applications under Part 4 of the EP&A Act and subclauses (2) and (3) set out the considerations for an activity under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. These considerations are the similar for all pathways, and include the following:
If there are management rules for the marine park or aquatic reserve, the purposes of the zone within which the area concerned is situated as specified in those management rules
The permissible uses of the area concerned under the regulations or those management rules
If a management plan for the marine park or aquatic reserve has been made, the objectives of the marine park or aquatic reserve
Any relevant marine park or aquatic reserve notifications.
Concurrence from the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Primary Industries would also be required if works are proposed within the Marine Park for all scenarios.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 42
Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997
The NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (PoEO Act) focuses on protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment of NSW and reducing potential risks to human health and the environment. It aims to provide opportunity for increased public involvement and access to information regarding environmental protection.
The PoEO Act identifies scheduled activities where an environment protection licence (EPL) is required. The main scheduled activity under the Act that may apply to the Proposal is road construction that results in the extraction or processing during construction of more than 50,000 tonnes of materials (clause 35(3)(a)), and the existence of four or more traffic lanes for a continuous length of at least five kilometres (clause 35(3)(b)). The Proposal is likely to require a substantial volume of earthworks, and at least five kilometres of road with four or more lanes, which would trigger the requirement an EPL under Schedule 1.
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
The NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), together with the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017, provides a mechanism to address impacts on biodiversity associated with development. The BC Act provides protection of threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, and delivers a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation in NSW whilst supporting improved farm productivity and sustainable development.
A total of two threatened ecological communities (TECs), 27 threatened fauna species, and 14 threatened fauna species listed under the BC Act are known to occur within 10 km of the study area.
A biodiversity assessment consistent with the requirements of the BC Act would be required as part of the environmental assessment for the Proposal. If there is potential for direct or indirect impacts to threatened species or populations (or their habitat) or communities as a result of a Proposal, either a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report or a Test of Significance needs to be carried out. If the Proposal is being assessed under Division 5.1 of the EP&A Act, a Species Impact Statement would need to be developed as part of the REF if the Test of Significance identifies a significant impact on threatened species and/or TECs is likely.
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides the basis for legal protection and management of National Parks estate and Aboriginal sites and objects in NSW.
Section 86 lists offences relating to harming or desecrating Aboriginal objects. Under Section 90(1) of the Act, where harm to an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place cannot be avoided, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit is required. There are known Aboriginal heritage sites in the study area, and it is recommended these are avoided where possible.
The following National Parks are within the study area (Figure 3-5):
Jerrawangala National Park
Woollamia Nature Reserve
Parma Creek Nature Reserve
Corramy Regional Park
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 43
Conjola National Park.
Should the proposed works encroach on any of these reserved lands, the conservation agreement for the affected land would likely need to be revoked. Under the NPW Act, an Act of Parliament would be needed for such a revocation.
Heritage Act 1977
The NSW Heritage Act 1977 concerns all aspects of heritage conservation ranging from basic protection against indiscriminate damage and demolition of buildings and sites, through to restoration and enhancement.
Approval under Section 57(1) is required for works to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object, precinct, or land listed on the State Heritage Register. An excavation permit is required under Section 139 to disturb or excavate any land containing or likely to contain a relic.
The PEI (TfNSW 2020) did not identify State heritage listed items located in the study area. The potential for impacts to heritage sites, including previously unrecorded heritage items or archaeological relics, were considered during the environmental assessment of the Proposal.
Biosecurity Act 2015
The NSW Biosecurity Act 2015 specifies the duties of public and private landholders as to the control of priority weeds. Under the Act, priority weeds have been identified for LGAs and assigned duties of control. Under Part 3 of the Act any person who deals with biosecurity matters (ie listed weed species) and who knows, or ought reasonably to know, the biosecurity risk posed or likely to be posed by biosecurity matters has the duty to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the biosecurity risk is prevented, eliminated and minimised.
It is not currently known if Weeds of National Significance or weeds with a control duty under the Biosecurity Act 2015 are located within the study area. The presence of declared priority weeds within the study area would be further assessed and managed during construction of the Proposal as required.
Fisheries Management Act 1994
The NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) aims to conserve, develop and share aquatic resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
Any projects to undertake work in watercourses require assessment against the requirements of the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (update 2013) (DPI 2013) and Why do fish need to cross the road? (Fairfull and Witheridge 2003).
Schedules 4, 4A and 5 of the FM Act list threatened species, populations and ecological communities. In the event a Seven Part Test prepared in accordance with Schedule 221ZW and 221ZX of the Act identifies potential for significant impacts on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, a Species Impact Statement would be required, and the approvals pathway for the Proposal may also change.
Permits are required under the following sections of the Act for the specified activities in watercourses:
Section 219: Works that block the free passage of fish
Section 200/201: Carrying out of dredging and reclamation works
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 44
Section 204: Harm marine vegetation (including mangroves, seagrass, seaweeds and saltmarshes).
The Proposal seeks to avoid or minimise impacts to these matters protected under the FM Act where possible.
Contaminated Land Management Act 1997
The NSW Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) establishes a process for investigating, managing and remediating contaminated land. A search of the List of NSW contaminated sites notified to EPA (as at 9 July 2019) returned the following record from the study area:
Log Cabin Service Station (United Petroleum) – D1300 Princes Highway, Tomerong. Under assessment (the contamination is being assessed by the EPA to determine whether regulation is required).
Where land is identified as being contaminated during the development of the Proposal it would be managed in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
Water Management Act 2000
The Water Sharing Plan for the Clyde River Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources 2016 (NSW Government 2016) applies to the study area. Where a relevant water sharing plan is in place, a person carrying out aquifer interference activities requires a water access licence under the NSW Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). However, a roads authority (within the meaning of the Roads Act 1993) does not need to obtain a licence under Schedule 5 of the Water Management Regulation 2011 when carrying out works for road construction and maintenance.
Under Schedule 4 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2018, a roads authority does not need to obtain an access licence when water is required for road construction and road maintenance. However, potential impacts on groundwater would need to be considered during the environmental assessment of the Proposal. If any dewatering is required, a Crown exemption under Section 112 of the Water Act 1912 would likely apply.
Controlled activities under the Water Management Act 2000 apply to ‘waterfront land’ defined as all land within 40 metres of the top of bank of any river, lake or estuary. This would include work near any creeks in the study area. However, under Clause 38 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 public authorities do not need to obtain a controlled activity approval under the WM Act.
Native Title Act 1993
The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 provides the legislative framework that:
Recognises and protects native title
Establishes ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed
Establishes the National Native Title Tribunal.
A Native Title claim has been registered to the NSW South Coast. Native Title claim NC2017/003, lodged by the South Coast People, was registered with the National Native Title Tribunal on 31 January 2018. The claim extends along the NSW South Coast from southern
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 45
Sydney to Eden and is applicable to Crown land within this area. Consultation with Local Aboriginal Land Councils and the registered Native Title Claimant would be undertaken during the development of the Proposal to determine the potential impact.
Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983
Through the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, vacant Crown land not lawfully used or occupied, or required for an essential purpose or for residential land, is returned to Aboriginal people (and vested in Aboriginal Land Councils). In accordance with Section 42B of the Act, land vested in an Aboriginal Land Council can only be acquired by Transport through an Act of Parliament.
A search of the Aboriginal Land Claims Register should be conducted to confirm the existence of any Aboriginal land claims over the potentially affected land parcels in the Proposal footprint.
Roads Act 1993
The Roads Act 1993 (Roads Act) provides for the classification of roads and the declaration of Transport and other public authorities as roads authorities for both classified and unclassified roads. It also regulates the carrying out of various activities in, on and over public roads.
Under Section 71 and Section 73 of the Roads Act, Transport may construct the Proposal. Before construction, a notice must be placed in the local newspaper allowing for any submissions to be made by any person in accordance with the following sections of the Act:
Section 22 – Preparation of road widening plan
Section 29 – Fixing the levels of public road
Section 35 – Closing a non-council public road.
The preferred option would likely have impacts to traffic along the Princes Highway and other road networks during the construction, the need for a Road Occupancy Licence would be considered during the environmental assessment and detailed design stage.
The Roads Act also provides for the entry into land for inspection and investigation purposes.
3.2 Transport considerations
The following sections describe the key transport considerations for developing the strategic design options. Appendices C and D provide further details, including information on the movement and place characteristics considered as part of the assessment.
3.2.1 Urban centres and townships
Key urban centres and townships
The Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road does not pass directly through or adjacent to many regional centres or towns, however it does provide access via local roads to regional centres and towns to the east.
The key regional centres and towns are shown in Figure 3-1 along with key local roads used to access the Princes Highway.
The corridor passes through three small villages – Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek. These are small villages providing some accommodation and local services, and the dominant
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 46
tourist destinations and towns with key services are located to the east. Nevertheless, businesses in Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek rely heavily on passing highway trade. In these small villages there is a need to consider local traffic accessibility and visibility of businesses at the same time as the efficient movement and safety improvements for highway traffic.
Shoalhaven City Council has identified the community’s desire to retain the character, look and feel of Wandandian and Bewong (Arup 2020a), which has been considered during the optioneering and design development.
Access points
There is a total of 154 access points located directly on the highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road. These are primarily clustered around Wandandian, Bewong, and south of Jervis Bay Road, and include:
23 commercial access points
23 local access roads
92 residential accesses
Four rest areas
12 undefined access points (eg leading to fire or logging trails, or for other uses).
These direct access points have potential to create conflicts and result in safety concerns. The opportunities to consolidate or reconfigure these access points, whether by realignment of the highway or converting them to left-in left-out only access points (potentially supported by U-turn facilities at various intervals along the highway) were considered as part of the option development. The potential safety benefits were also considered in the context of potential negative impacts on local access and travel times.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 47
Figure 3-1: Key urban centres and townships on / near the highway
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 48
3.2.2 Public domain environments
The townships in the Shoalhaven LGA have unique characters, features and functions. The quality and character of the public domain therefore play a significant role in the experience of each town. The community considers it important that the existing character is maintained and enhanced so as to reinforce the existing sense of place (Arup 2020b).
The key public domain environments located on the existing Princes Highway corridor are the villages of Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek. A preliminary description of the significance of the character and place of these villages is provided in Appendix B, along with a review of the public domain elements.
The realisation of public domain opportunities would depend on the alignment of the Proposal and whether or not these towns are bypassed. Although the Princes Highway interfaces directly with these towns, with potential conflicts with direct access points and pedestrian movements, the community has expressed a desire for the villages of Wandandian and Bewong to not be bypassed by the Proposal (Arup 2020b). Businesses located on the highway rely on passing traffic and residents rely on the highway for convenient access to other centres such as Vincentia and Huskisson. There is a need for minor realignment to improve safety outcomes and efficiency for through traffic, but this needs to be balanced with accessibility for local residents and visibility and access to local businesses. The preferred option has attempted to support or improve the existing public domain environment in these towns.
Wandandian public domain review
Wandandian is a village that is located on the Princes Highway. The village is centred around Wandean Road, which meets the Princes Highway at a priority-controlled T-intersection. Residences and industrial businesses have street frontages and access points directly off the highway.
Public domain elements are limited, and no infrastructure such as footpaths or bus stops are provided. There is opportunity to introduce these elements to improve provision for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and to provide gateway treatments or signage to support a sense of arrival, to improve the design of the Wandean Road/Princes Highway intersection, and to generally support the character and identity of Wandandian.
Bewong public domain review
Bewong is a small village north-east of Wandandian that is located on the Princes Highway. The village is largely south of the highway, with a rest stop on the opposite side of the highway for northbound vehicles. A Caltex service station dominates the highway frontage, and residential areas, accommodation and other parts of Bewong are accessed via Bottle Brush Avenue.
Opportunities for improvement to the public domain include upgrades to pedestrian, cyclist and public transport infrastructure, gateway treatments or signage to support a sense of arrival, and general support for the character and identity of Bewong.
Falls Creek public domain review
Falls Creek is a small rural village located on the Princes Highway south of Jervis Bay Road. Rows of rural residential lots are located next to, and have direct access to, the highway. A timber supply store, olive farm and service station are also located on the highway. Other parts of Falls Creek are accessed by minor local roads leading off the highway.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 49
Opportunities for improvement to the public domain include upgrades to cyclist and public transport infrastructure, gateway treatments or signage to support a sense of arrival, and general support for the character and identity of Falls Creek.
3.2.3 Roads and intersections
The communities in the study area are reliant on the Princes Highway for connectivity and for access via side roads, particularly coastal towns to the east. Towns near Jervis Bay are accessed primarily via Jervis Bay Road from the north and Island Point Road from the south. Sussex Inlet Road provides access to Sussex Inlet and coastal towns further south.
The roads servicing these communities are a mix of State, regional and local roads, and their classification is based on each road’s connectivity and importance to the broader road network. State roads are managed and funded by Transport, and regional and local roads are managed and funded by Council. Roads that have a high volume of freight movements are generally assigned a State road classification. Regional roads perform an intermediate function and due to their network significance, Transport provides financial assistance to councils for their management.
The key road classifications within the study area and their functions are listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Road hierarchy classification guidelines
Road Road types Function classification
Forming connections between urban centres Freeways/motorways such as Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and State Roads and primary arterials the Central Coast, running through major regional towns.
Provide the main connections between smaller Secondary or sub- Regional Roads regional towns and districts with the main State arterials Road network.
Roads providing local access to residential Collector and local Local Roads properties, as well as connections to arterial access roads roads.
3.2.4 Freight routes
The corridor is important for freight movements, including by heavy vehicles and oversized vehicles. Major towns such as Vincentia and Huskisson provide a range of services that have freight requirements.
The design of the preferred option has considered provision for future accessibility for 19 metre B-double heavy vehicles making turns into local roads including Jervis Bay Road, Island Point Road, Hawken Road, The Wool Road and Sussex Inlet Road. The design has also considered provision for heavy vehicles turning onto/off the highway at other intersections, however these would only need to cater for heavy vehicles smaller than 19 metre B-doubles.
A heavy vehicle rest area is provided at Bewong for northbound traffic on the Princes Highway, with sufficient space for multiple large vehicles as well as benches, toilets and bins. It is located opposite a service station and café.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 50
3.2.5 Public transport
Public transport along the corridor is provided by private bus and coach operators. School bus services in the region are provided by Shoal Bus. School students often catch these buses in combination with other school buses to access schools in Bomaderry, Nowra, Milton and Ulladulla.
The 22 bus stops in the study area located on the Princes Highway are on partially sealed or unsealed shoulders. Signage, shelters and seating are generally not provided. This discourages public transport use, particularly for people unfamiliar with the area.
Aside from the regular bus stops along the highway, a formal, sealed ‘Park and Ride’ commuter car park with 13 spaces is located at Sussex Inlet Highway Interchange, providing local residents with the option of driving to the interchange to catch a bus to major centres or to car pool with others. Many bus routes use this stop as they travel along the Princes Highway. People might use this facility to avoid driving on the Princes Highway during peak commuter periods and also where parking may not be available at their final destination.
3.2.6 Pedestrian and cycling facilities
A cycleway from Nowra is provided in the road shoulder of the Princes Highway north of Jervis Bay Road. Off-road cycling infrastructure is available via shared paths between Huskisson and Sanctuary Point, and between Basin View and St Georges Basin. However, these two off-road paths do not connect, nor do they connect to the Princes Highway. The only eastbound cycling route connected to the highway is along the shoulder of Island Point Road. While signage is provided, line marking is generally absent along shared paths.
Pedestrian access along the Princes Highway is limited. It is possible to walk in the road shoulder in some places at Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek, but no formal infrastructure is provided. In the southern section of the study area (section D) there are narrow bridges that lack shoulders and do not provide for pedestrians. This means that some residential properties between Wandandian and Bewong are only accessible by vehicle.
There is no pedestrian access provided to townships east of the highway.
Public and active transport networks are limited, and there is an opportunity for the Proposal to provide improved connectivity and accessibility for buses and cyclists, which would enable an increase in the use of public transport options. A continuous, safe cycleway could be provided along the length of the highway and integrate with existing facilities at The Wool Road to ensure cyclists have a safe and efficient facility, and encourage the use of active transport in the study area. Safe and accessible bus stops should be accommodated along the highway, and the design should facilitate efficient travel by bus that is comparable with journey times by private vehicles. Pedestrian access should be accommodated at Wandandian and Bewong to service bus stops and businesses, but is generally inappropriate along the highway and key access roads in the study area as much of the land adjacent to the highway is bushland with and there is no demand for pedestrian access.
3.2.7 Point to point transport
Ride share and taxi services are limited along the corridor and in surrounding townships. St Georges Basin Taxi Service is the only taxi operator in the study area. It services St Georges Basin, Basin View, Sanctuary Point, Tomerong, Erowal Bay, Hyams Beach, Vincentia and Huskisson.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 51
Community transport is also available in the study area. Shoalhaven Community Transport Service services the entire LGA, providing local transport as well as long-distance transport to Sydney, Canberra, the Southern Highlands and Bega. Transport is available for individuals, groups or bus hire, and registration is mandatory before using the service. Services do not run to a timetable or route, and are as per requested bookings.
Sussex Inlet Community Health Bus also services the Sussex Inlet area. It provides local transport on Wednesdays and to Nowra on all other weekdays.
3.2.8 Road safety
The Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road is considered dangerous due to its relatively high crash rate. Data on crashes between 2014 to 2018 for the corridor were reviewed and analysed. The average crash rate is 1.28 crashes per year per kilometre, significantly higher than the NSW average of 0.4. The crash severity index is 1.41, higher than the NSW average of 1.33. Approximately 35 per cent of crashes over the period resulted in a fatality or serious injury. The most common crash types were right turns, rear ends and head on crashes.
The existing highway contains sections with limited sight distances and curve radii below the recommended figure. Separation of north and southbound traffic via a median is also very limited and only provided for the 1.5 kilometres between Tullawalla Trail and Sussex Inlet Road. Lane widths are also less than is recommended.
Crash data provided by Transport was analysed for the five-year period between January 2014 and December 2018 by the type of crash movement is summarised in Table 3-3. A total of 126 crashes occurred in the study area, including five fatalities.
Table 3-3: Crashes by movement type
Crash RUM Number of Crash movement Percentage Code crashes
Right through 21 19 15%
Rear end 30 19 15%
Head on 20 15 12%
Right near 13 11 9%
Right rear 32 7 6%
Left off carriageway into object 71 7 6%
Off carriageway right on left bend into object 85 6 5%
Right off carriageway into object 10 5 4%
Off carriageway right on right bend into object 83 5 4%
Cross traffic 81 4 3%
All other crash movements 28 22%
TOTAL 126 100
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 52
3.2.9 Accessibility and travel times
Travel times for private vehicles using the corridor show that the:
Travel time from Hyams Beach to Sussex Inlet is about 30 minutes
Travel time from Bomaderry to Lake Conjola is about 30 minutes.
Analysis of public transport accessibility shows that:
It takes longer than 30 minutes to reach most other settlements around Jervis Bay from Vincentia and Huskisson
It takes longer than an hour to travel to Vincentia from Sanctuary Point and St Georges Basin
Old Erowal Bay, Sanctuary Point, St Georges Basin and Woollamia can be reached from Vincentia or Huskisson in under an hour
Public transport accessibility is very limited, and effectively only serves local areas in Jervis Bay rather than centres such as Nowra and Ulladulla.
Based on this review, it is clear that private vehicle access is much faster than public transport around the study area. This issue is compounded by the low frequency of public bus services.
3.2.10 Network performance
Traffic models of the study area were developed to replicate existing traffic conditions in 2019 and develop a better understanding of the performance of the road network, particularly during peak periods. The following three peak periods were considered:
Typical weekday (data gathered on Thursday 20 June 2019) - AM peak (7.15am – 9.15am) - PM peak (3.30pm – 5.30pm) Holiday period (data gathered Friday 27 December 2019) - HOL peak (9.30am – 11.30am). The following performance indicators were used in the analysis of intersections:
Delay time: Average delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection
Level of service (LoS): An intersection performance measure that is based on delay per vehicle.
Table 3-4 shows the LoS categories for intersections in NSW from Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002).
For signalised intersections, LoS is based on the weighted average delay of all approaches. For unsignalised intersections (priority intersections and roundabouts), LoS is based on the maximum average delay of all movements. Note that there are no signalised intersections in the study area.
Intersections operating at LoS C or better are considered satisfactory. LoS D indicates that the intersection is approaching capacity and an accident study may be required. LoS E indicates that the intersection is at capacity, and this level of service is generally unsuitable for
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 53
unsignalised intersections. LoS F indicates that the intersection is failing and requires additional capacity.
Table 3-4: Level of Service criteria
Level Average delay Traffic signal and Give way and stop sign of per vehicle (sec) roundabout operation operation Service
A <14 Good operation Good operation
Good with acceptable Acceptable delays and B 15 to 28 delays and spare capacity spare capacity
Satisfactory, but accident C 29 to 42 Satisfactory study required
Near capacity and accident D 43 to 56 Operating near capacity study required
At capacity; at signals, At capacity, requires other E 57 to 70 incidents will cause control mode excessive delays
Unsatisfactory and requires Unsatisfactory and requires F >70 additional capacity additional capacity Source: Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002)
The network performance analysis showed that for the typical weekday, the busiest times of day are between 7.15am-8.15am during the AM peak and 3.30pm-4.30pm in the PM peak. When compared to the rest of the AM and PM peaks, these times of day have a higher total traffic demand, a higher number of total kilometres travelled and total vehicle travel time, and a greater number of stops. The 7.15am-8.15am hour of the AM Peak has a considerably higher number of stops compared to the PM peak hours, even though the traffic demand is less. This is because of the heavy congestion experienced at the Princes Highway/Island Point Road intersection during the AM peak, with queues along Island Point Road, the eastern approach to the highway, extending beyond the roundabout at Grange Road.
For the holiday peak period, the critical peak hour is 9.30am-10.30am, with a higher number of total kilometres travelled and total vehicle travel time, and a greater number of stops when compared to the 10.30am-11.30am interval. The holiday peak is also the critical peak when compared with the typical weekday and holiday periods.
The findings of the analysis of the performance of key intersections is shown in Figure 3-2. The intersection performance results show that:
During the AM peak: - Traffic modelling for the Princes Highway/Jervis Bay Road intersection was undertaken as part of investigations to identify a preferred option for the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection upgrade project. The modelling results show that, based on a standard gap acceptance of seven seconds, the intersection operates at LoS E from 7.30am–8.30am with average delays of 68 seconds. . For further information on the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection upgrade visit the project webpage at:
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 54
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/princes-highway-and-jervis-bay- road/index.html - Traffic modelling for the Princes Highway/Island Point Road intersection was undertaken as part of investigations for the Island Point Road and Princes Highway intersection improvement project. The modelling results show that the upgraded roundabout intersection performs at LoS A with a maximum average delay of 14 seconds in the AM Peak. . For further information on the Island Point Road and Princes Highway intersection upgrade visit the project webpage at: https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/princes-hwy-island-point-rd- tomerong/index.html - All other intersections perform adequately (LoS C or better) in both hours of the AM peak. PM Peak: All intersections perform adequately (LoS C or better) in both hours of the PM peak
Holiday Peak: - Traffic modelling for the Princes Highway/Jervis Bay Road intersection was undertaken as part of investigations to identify a preferred option for the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection upgrade project. The modelling results show that the intersection operates at LoS F in from 3.30pm-4.30pm during the holiday peak, with average delays of 472 seconds. - The performance of the intersection of the Princes Highway/Sussex Inlet Road has a LoS D from 9.30am–10.30am during the holiday period with a maximum average delay of 54 seconds, however performance is LoS B during 10.30am– 11.30am - All other intersections perform acceptably (LoS C or better) in both hours of the holiday peak.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 55
Figure 3-2: Base Model intersection performance (first hour of peak periods)
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 56
3.3 Biodiversity
This section of the report has been prepared based on a review of the outcomes of field investigations undertaken in 2020 to validate the existing NSW Government vegetation mapping and target priority flora and fauna species listed under the BC Act and/or the EPBC Act that are likely to occur in the study area (Niche 2020).
3.3.1 Terrestrial fauna and flora species
Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 provide a summary of records for threatened flora and fauna species listed under the BC Act and/or EPBC Act within 10 kilometres of the study area based on records held in the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (searched 30 August 2020). These records are also mapped in Figure 3-3. Hollow bearing trees, which are potential habitat for several threatened species, are also identified in Figure 3-3. An EPBC Act protected matters search undertaken for the PEI (TfNSW 2020) returned 16 records for listed migratory species.
Table 3-5: Threatened flora species records for the study area
Status* Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act
Hibbertia puberula# E -
Hibbertia stricta subsp. E - furcatula#
Acacia bynoeana# Bynoe’s Wattle E V
*Eucalyptus langleyi Albatross Mallee V V
*Melaleuca biconvexa Biconvex Paperbark V V
*Rhodamnia rubescens Scrub Turpentine CE -
*Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly Pilly E V
*Calochilus pulchellus Pretty Beard Orchid E -
*Cryptostylis hunteriana# Leafless Tongue Orchid V V
Genoplesium bauera# Bauer's Midge Orchid E E
*Pterostylis ventricosa# CE -
Pterostylis vernalis# CE CE
Eastern Australian *Rhizanthella slateri# V E Underground Orchid
Solanum celatum# E -
*V= Vulnerable, E=Endangered, CE = Critically Endangered. * Within the study area # Cryptic species – targeted surveys of known populations in the region would be required to ensure that these are flowering/visible during surveys.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 57
Table 3-6: Threatened fauna species records for the study area
Status* Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act
Green and Golden Bell Litoria aurea E V Frog
Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-Dove V -
Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle V -
Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle V -
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite V -
Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo V -
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V -
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet V -
Neophema pulchella Turquoise Parrot V -
Ninox connivens Barking Owl V -
Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V -
Tyto tenebricosa Sooty Owl V -
Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird E E
Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow V - cyanopterus
Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin V -
Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll V E
Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus E E (eastern)
Petaurus australis Yellow-bellied Glider V -
Petauroides volans Greater Glider - V
Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed Potoroo V V
Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus V V
Eastern Coastal Free- Micronomus norfolkensis tailed Bat V -
Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V V
Southern Myotis Myotis macropus V -
Scoteanax rueppellii Greater Broad-nosed Bat V -
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 58
Status* Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act
Pseudomys New Holland Mouse - V novaehollandiae
Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Bat V - oceanensis
*V= Vulnerable, E=Endangered, CE = Critically Endangered.
The threatened species Bioconvex Paperbark (Melaleuca biconvexa) has been confirmed within the study area (Niche 2020), with individuals and populations recorded adjacent to the existing road alignment. It is recommended that impact to the Bioconvex Paperbark be avoided where possible.
Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus) breeding habitat was identified in a drainage scupper under a bridge along the alignment (Niche 2020). It is unlikely that it would be possible to avoid direct impact to this habitat as a result of the Proposal, and the impact would require consideration in the environmental assessment. Niche (2020) also identified dams and waterbodies that are potential habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea); these locations should be avoided if possible.
3.3.2 Threatened fish and key fish habitat
The PEI (TfNSW 2020) undertook a search of data from the NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries (DPI – Fisheries) Spatial Data Portal which identified the following:
Wandandian Creek is a freshwater fish community in good condition while all other watercourses traversing the investigation area are identified as being in fair condition
The section of Wandandian Creek within and adjacent to the study area is identified as habitat for the Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena) (listed as Endangered under the FM Act). The following watercourses within the study area are mapped as key fish habitat:
Currambene Creek
Parma Creek
Tomerong Creek
Suffolk Creek
Wandandian Creek
Condies Gully
Gnatilla Creek
Bollerang Creek
Bewong Creek. Key fish habitat should be avoided if possible, or the impacts to these watercourses minimised as much as possible, due to the potential for impacts to protected aquatic species.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 59
3.3.3 Ecological communities
Two TECs listed under the BC Act and/or EPBC Act occur in the study area (Niche 2020).
The first is the Illawarra Lowland Grassy Woodland TEC (PCT number – 1326), which is listed as endangered under the BC Act and critically endangered under the EPBC Act. Vegetation with potential to comprise the TEC occurs in section A. This TEC is likely to continue to the north and further investigation is currently underway to determine its extent.
Vegetation mapped as Swamp Oak Flood Plain Forest TEC, which is listed as endangered under the BC Act and EPBC Act, occurs adjacent to the current alignment.
Impacts to these TECs should be avoided where possible.
3.3.4 Wildlife connectivity
There are no regional biodiversity corridors in the study area (TfNSW 2020). However, mapping of Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) activity indicates multiple locations in the study area that are likely to be used by this species (Niche 2020). The presence of large areas of native vegetation suggests there would be frequent movement of fauna within the study area, and optioneering and detailed design should consider fauna movement and the need for fauna crossing structures.
3.3.5 Protected wetlands
The study area includes land adjacent to Wandandian Creek mapped under the CM SEPP as ‘coastal wetlands’ and as ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ (TfNSW 2020). It is recommended the Proposal avoid direct impacts to the ‘coastal wetlands’ as it comprises a sensitive receiving environment and has implications for the planning approvals pathway (refer section 3.1.2).
3.3.6 Marine protected areas
As discussed in section 3.1.3, the study area is in the catchment of the Jervis Bay Marine Park and encroaches on the Upper Currambene Sanctuary Zone. It is recommended that direct impacts to the Marine Park be avoided where possible.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 60
Figure 3-3: Threatened flora and fauna
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 61
3.4 Aboriginal heritage
In preparing the PEI (TfNSW 2020) an extensive search of the NSW DPI&E Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System was completed to identify the location and types of listed Aboriginal heritage items in the study area. A total of 19 listed sites were identified.
Five of the nineteen identified sites are located right next to the existing highway (52-5-0465, 52-5-0285, 58-2-0273, 58-2-0274, and 58-2-0275).
The geology of the study area (refer to section 3.6.2) indicates that low density scatters of archaeological objects would likely occur along the higher elevations, with increased density of objects situated near watercourses, and a high potential for archaeological objects to occur near undisturbed sections of Wandandian Creek (TfNSW 2020). Outside of these areas, the potential for impacting upon Aboriginal heritage items is considered low.
Investigations will be undertaken to ensure Aboriginal heritage sites be avoided where possible.
3.5 Non-Aboriginal heritage
The PEI (TfNSW 2020) reported the results of searches of the following databases for listed non-Aboriginal heritage items:
NSW State Heritage Inventory
NSW State Heritage Register
Transport Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register
Australian Heritage Database
Australian Heritage Places Inventory
Shoalhaven LEP.
Seven locally significant heritage items are located in the study area (refer to Table 3-6). The database searched did not identify any other listed heritage items in the study area. It is recommended that the Proposal avoid impacts to these heritage sites, where possible. The study area has a long history of forestry activity, and there is potential for previously unidentified heritage items associated with the history of forestry and other industries to occur in the study area.
Table 3-7: Known heritage items within study area
Heritage Item Listing Location Significance ID
Federation weatherboard Farmhouse (McDonalds) Princes Highway, 115 Shoalhaven LEP Shoalhaven LEP Local Bewong Princes Highway, Bewong Local
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 62
Heritage Item Listing Location Significance ID
Shoalhaven LEP Falls Creek Public Department of 26 Vidler Road, Falls 193 Local School Education Section Creek 170 register
Colonial Road – The Wool Road, Local 218 Remnants (Former Shoalhaven LEP Wool Road) Jerrawangala
‘Parma Farm’ - 269 and 383E Parma Local 438 Dairy Farm Shoalhaven LEP Complex Road, Parma
Wandandian Post D2625 Princes Local 503 Office (former) and Shoalhaven LEP Highway, Residence Wandandian
‘Dalton Park’ - Local Farmhouse and 10 Windley Road, 504 Wandandian Shoalhaven LEP Cricket Ground Wandandian (former)
Wandandian Creek Transport Section Princes Highway, Local n/a Bridge 170 register Wandandian
3.6 Landform, geology and soils
3.6.1 Landform
A review of the available topographical data was undertaken to determine the landform in the study area. Aerial data indicates the elevation of the study area varies between two metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) and 103 metres AHD. The study area is characterised by rolling hills in the north-western portion of the study area with increasing elevation along the existing Princes Highway alignment towards Hawken Road. The south-eastern portion of the study area is characterised by low-lying land, particularly near St Georges Basin.
The existing Princes Highway appears to be largely constructed to the natural landform. The alignment has cuttings usually less than three metres and at a low grade (1.5H:1V or flatter), with residual soils and low-medium strength sandstone and siltstone (as described in section 3.6.2). Three locations with significant cuts of greater than three metres in height occur on both sides of the existing Princes Highway (TfNSW 2020):
Large sandstone rock cutting located slightly north of Turpentine Road – The cut is about 16 metres high and at an angle of 1H:1V, the rock in the cutting ranges in strength from low to high. This cutting has had a number of risk reduction measures applied to it, such as shotcreting of seams and a catch fence on the bench and at the toe on the verge
Cutting located along Island Point Road – The cut is about seven metres high, with an angle of about 1.5H:1V. The cutting is composed of predominantly siltstone with sandstone
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 63
interbedding; the upper part of the cutting is extremely weathered-highly weathered, very low-low strength rock, increasing to moderately weathered/slightly weathered and medium to high strength lower in the cutting
Cutting located just north of Condies Creek – The cut is about four metres high at an angle of 1H:1V. The cutting is composed of interbedded siltstone and sandstone that is extremely- highly weathered and very low to low strength. The rock is horizontally bedded with limited jointing. The cutting is currently not showing any failures but has a primary hazard of fretting/ravelling of gradually weathering material.
The optioneering considered the engineering implications of the landform in the study area. The locations of embankments and cuttings were carefully considered in determining the preferred option with respect to the local geology and soils (refer to sections 3.6.2 to 3.6.3), as well as groundwater levels (refer to section 3.7.4). This requires further consideration at the Proposal progresses through concept and detailed design.
3.6.2 Geology
The study area is located in the Sydney basin regional geology, specifically the Shoalhaven Group. The Shoalhaven Group is comprised of marine sedimentary sequences; common rock types include sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate.
There a number of Quaternary alluvial gravel and swamp deposits along major watercourses throughout the study area. The Ulladulla 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet S1 56- 13 (Geological Survey of NSW 1966) indicates that the geology of the study area consists of three primary geological formations which includes: Nowra Sandstone
Wandrawandian Siltstone
Conjola/Snapper Point Formation.
Permian sedimentary rocks consisting of quartz sandstone in the north and north-east of the study area, siltstone and silty sandstone of the Wandrawandian siltstone stone formation in the west and north-west, and conglomerate with thin shale inter beds of Snapper Point/Conjola formation in the south. A summary of geological units is provided in Table 3-7. Table 3-8: Geological formation summary
Geological formation Key features and characteristics
Quartz Sandstone (Quartzose) Fine to coarse grained sandstone (fining upwards marine sequence) Nowra Sandstone (depth White quartz pebbles in bands are common ranges 0 – 1800 mm) Shelly fauna is abundant Bedded in lenticular units several metres thick Cross bedding is common Weathers to yellow brown sandy clay.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 64
Geological formation Key features and characteristics
Quartz lithic silty sandstone and micaceous siltstone Mid to dark grey (fresh) Fine grained siltstone (coarsening upwards marine sequence) Wandrawandian Siltstone Scattered pebbles are common (depth ranges between 1800 Flat indistinct bedding –17,200 mm) Bioturbation very common, destroys bedding Close spacing and irregular discontinuous joints Potential inclusions of ice rafted random boulders (granite) Weathers to red brown to yellow brown silty clay Weathers rapidly and deeply, forming fertile soil.
Lithic and quartzose sandstone Grey and yellow brown Predominately sandy, fine to coarse grained (coarsening upwards) Minor interbeds of siltstone and conglomerate layers Some pebble and conglomerate facies Conjola/Snapper Point Can become predominately silty Formation (depth ranges Flat bedding - variable thickness and no more than several between 17,200–19,600 mm) metres thick Low angle crossbedding Scour and fill structures Rich with faunal assemblages (fossils) At marginal outcrop boundary locations evidence of woody materials preserved in sediments.
3.6.3 Soils
The study area has varying degrees of highly erodible, weathered soils, with shallow residual and topsoil layers. Generally, embankments along the Princes Highway in the study area are sparsely vegetated, and prone to erosion from uncontrolled stormwater runoff. A review of the NSW Soil and Land Information eSpade data portal identified 25 sampling sites in the study area that characterise the soils as follows:
Fine clay loam sandy soil with moderate erosion hazard
Loamy sand with moderate erosion hazard
Sandy clay loam with slight to high erosion hazard
Silty loam with slight erosion hazard
Loamy sand with slight to moderate erosion hazard.
No saline soils have been identified for any of these samples.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 65
3.6.4 Acid sulfate soils and acid sulfate rock
Acid sulfate soils (ASS) occur predominately on coastal lowlands with elevations generally below five metres, such as those in the southern part of the study area. The ASS Risk Maps from the NSW Natural Resource Atlas database indicate the risk of encountering ASS in the study area is generally low. An area near Wandandian Creek is identified as high (>70 per cent) probability of occurrence.
Acid Sulfate Rock (ASR) is rock that contains metal sulfide minerals (typically pyrite) that may oxidise when exposed to both water and oxygen, leading to the generation of acidic leachates. The Proposal is likely to encounter the Conjola/Snapper Point Formation towards the southern part of the study area, which is a known a source of ASR. Fresh rock of the Wandrawandian Siltstone geological unit may also contain ASR.
The design life of infrastructure can be impacted if acidic conditions are not considered during detailed design. To reduce this risk, the Proposal should, where possible, avoid excavating into ASR.
3.6.5 Contamination
A search of the list of NSW contaminated sites notified to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) conducted on 14 August 2020 returned one record for the study area:
Log Cabin Service Station (United Petroleum) – D1300 Princes Highway, Tomerong. Currently under assessment by the EPA to determine if regulation and remediation is required.
A desktop search of the study area was undertaken to identify areas of potential concern with respect to contamination based on historic land uses. Fourteen sites have been identified with potential risk of contamination ranging from low to high (refer to Table 3-8).
Further investigation is required during concept design to better understand the contamination risk and the implications for the Proposal.
There remains potential for previously unidentified contaminated sites in the study area.
Table 3-9: Potential contaminated sites within the study area
Potential for contamination Address Suburb Land use at the site
2720 Princes Wandandian Shell service station Moderate to high Highway
~2660 Princes Automotive repair and Wandandian Moderate to high Highway wreckers yard
2591 Princes Wandandian Sawmill Moderate Highway
Princes Bewong Caltex service station Moderate to high Highway
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 66
Potential for contamination Address Suburb Land use at the site
33 Grange Tomerong Timber/firewood yard Low Road
1/5 Grange Tomerong Mechanic Moderate Road
Blackbutt Tomerong HV electrical substation Low Range Road
Lot 6 Princes United Petroleum service Tomerong Moderate to high Highway station
989 Princes Falls Creek Timber yard Moderate Highway
North of Falls Creek Wreckers yard, car dump Moderate to high Peterson Road
-35.099 Dams, drying Wandandian Moderate 150.489 ponds/aquaculture?
37-51 Wandean Landscaping/storage Wandandian Low Road yard
Off Gorindah Road Landfill/quarry/laydown Falls Creek Moderate to high -35.007 yard 150.588
Barron Road -35.011 Falls Creek Property with cars, waste Low 150.584
3.7 Hydrology, water quality and groundwater
3.7.1 Surface water
The existing Princes Highway and the study area more broadly is generally aligned on a north- south orientation parallel to the coastline. The study area encompasses several catchments and a number of watercourses are present, as shown in Figure 3-4. The larger watercourses include Currambene Creek, Tomerong Creek, and Wandandian Creek. Currambene Creek drains to Jervis Bay whilst Tomerong Creek and Wandandian Creek drain to St Georges Basin.
There are a number of watercourses that cross the study area, ranging in size from small drainage depressions and ephemeral watercourses to permanent waterbodies and large creeks. Should the Proposal follow the alignment of the existing Princes Highway, upgrades of watercourse crossings would likely be required to accommodate the upgraded highway. Where possible, the Proposal seeks to avoid impacting previously undisturbed watercourses, in
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 67
particular those that comprise key fish habitat (refer to section 3.3.2). It would be desirable to rationalise the number of watercourse crossings and to avoid crossing watercourses on a skewed alignment so that the length of the structure is minimised.
3.7.2 Water quality
The study area includes sensitive receiving environments such as watercourses including key fish habitat, estuarine and floodplain wetlands, reservoirs and the Jervis Bay Marine Park. The management of water quality during construction and operation of the Proposal would need to be considered in the development and assessment phase due to the potential direct and indirect impacts on these sensitive receiving environments.
Stormwater runoff from the Princes Highway would likely include contaminants gross pollutants and litter, sediment and suspended solids, toxic organics, nutrients, heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Drainage requirements and water sensitive urban design would be considered in the concept and detailed design phases. However, it is recommended the preferred option consider impacts during concept design with the Marine Park as these would likely trigger engagement with DPI - Fisheries (and potentially a permit or other approval under the Marine Estate Management Act 2014 (or Regulation), refer to section 3.1.3) and it is possible DPI – Fisheries would require that the design achieve a higher level of treatment of stormwater prior to discharge to the Marine Park.
3.7.3 Flooding
The Currambene and Moona Moona Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Plan (Lyall and Associates 2016) and St Georges Basin Floodplain Risk Management Plan (Webb, Mckeown and Associates 2006) identify flood prone land in the study area. In a one per cent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood (a one-in-one hundred year flood) the following parts of the existing highway and study area are inundated (see also Figure 3-4):
Immediately downstream of the Princes Highway crossing of Currambene Creek (Lyall and Associates 2016)
Some smaller tributaries of Currambene Creek that cross Jervis Bay Road in the east of the study area (Lyall and Associates 2016)
Immediately downstream of the Princes Highway crossing of Wandandian Creek in the south of the study area, including several locations further downstream where the creek and its tributaries are in close proximity to the highway (Webb, Mckeown and Associates 2006).
Flooding has previously been recorded immediately upstream of the Princes Highway crossing at Currambene Creek, but did not overtop the highway.
The optioneering considered the implications of flooding where the Proposal intersects flood prone land. The preferred option would need to avoid flood impacts on adjacent properties during concept design, as well as ensuring suitable freeboard and trafficability requirements can be met. Should there be a need to raise the alignment of the preferred option in flood prone areas, this has implications for the design and therefore the cost of the preferred option.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 68
Figure 3-4: Watercourses and flood prone land
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 69
3.7.4 Groundwater
The Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Atlas shows several groundwater dependent ecosystems located throughout the study area. These ecosystems are sensitive to changes in surface and groundwater hydrology. It is recommended the Proposal avoid direct impact to groundwater dependent ecosystems and consider the potential indirect impacts in the event the preferred option travels near such an ecosystem.
Transport should review the risk to groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems and arising from the Proposal and consider the need to undertake either a detailed assessment of the potential impact on groundwater as part of the environmental assessment and to inform the detailed design and construction planning.
3.8 Noise and vibration
A review of the PEI (TfNSW 2020) for information on the proximity of the existing highway alignment to noise sensitive receivers in the study area was undertaken to identify:
The dominant noise sources
The location of key noise sensitive receivers
Potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Proposal.
The dominant noise source in the study area is road traffic noise from the Princes Highway and aircraft noise associated with HMAS Albatross, which is located 2.7 kilometres north-west of the study area.
The noise sensitive receivers in the study area are mostly large lot rural residential dwellings, as well as low and medium density residences adjacent to the Princes Highway and collector roads, particularly in Wandandian and Bewong and in the township of Tomerong. One child care centre is located in the study area along Gardner Road, just to the south-east of the Princes Highway/Jervis Bay Road intersection. One place of worship and one educational institution are located on Hawken Road. These noise sensitive receivers were considered as part of the options assessment.
No other types of key noise sensitive receivers, such as urban centres, recreational areas, aged care institutions and health care centres were identified in the study area. Other key noise sensitive receivers outside the study area are shown in Table 3-9.
Table 3-10: Location of other key sensitive noise receivers outside the study area
Noise sensitive receivers outside the study Distance from the study area area
Tomerong School of Arts 0.06 km
Tomerong Public School 0.12 km
Basin View Town Centre 1 km
St Georges Basin Public School 1 km
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 70
Noise sensitive receivers outside the study Distance from the study area area
St Georges Basin Medical Centre 2.5 km
The additional road capacity, traffic growth and adjustments to intersections arising from the Proposal would change road traffic noise impacts to sensitive receivers located along impacted roads. The implications of different route options were considered with respect to potential noise impacts on receivers. There may be a need to find a compromise between achieving the desired level of service and functionality of the Proposal and the potential noise impacts. Where there is potential for noise impacts in the operational phase of the Proposal, noise mitigation measures may need to be considered as part of the design.
3.9 Utilities
The utilities constraints assessment for the Proposal considered the location of utilities in the study area and these are summarised in Table 3-10.
Where utilities are located near the options considered for the Proposal (refer to Section 5) there is a risk of a potential clash requiring relocation or protection of utilities, which would have implications for the design, program, safety, risks and cost of the Proposal.
Utilities in the study area were identified from Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) plans, aerial imagery and liaison with utility authorities. Utility authorities would continue to be consulted during the design and environmental assessment to determine potential impacts and requirements for protection or relocation of utilities where necessary. Existing utilities within and near the study area are described in Table 3-11.
The primary utility conflict occurs at the high voltage overhead power lines along the electrical easement that travels adjacent to the existing Princes Highway alignment. The overhead power lines towards the northern extent of the study area are owned by Essential Energy, whereas the overhead power lines are owned by Endeavour Energy in the southern extent of the study area. An electrical substation owned and operated by Endeavour Energy along Blackbutt Range Drive is located about 200 metres to the west of the existing Princes Highway. The substation provides a crossover link to the electrical easement to the east of the existing Princes Highway. Clearance requirements were considered for the preferred option design. Clearance requirements would need to be maintained during the construction and operation of the Proposal.
Table 3-11: Utility asset owners within the study area Asset owner Asset type
Essential Energy Overhead and underground electricity
Overhead and underground electricity, Endeavor Energy electrical substation
National Broadband Network (NBN) Communications
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 71
Asset owner Asset type
Optus Communications
Telstra Communications
Shoalhaven City Council (SCC) Water, stormwater and sewer
Other utility conflicts include Shoalhaven City Council’s underground water and stormwater mains along the existing Princes Highway alignment and at several key intersections. Water and sewer adjustments or relocations may be required if clashes are confirmed for the preferred option. These would be dependent on available grade and location for new pits.
Potential options to avoid, protect or relocate utilities would be further investigated in consultation with the relevant utility providers and asset owners during concept and detailed design of the preferred option.
Table 3- 12: Utility asset description Type / Asset owner Description Location and consideration
Two sets of Essential Energy overhead High-Voltage (HV) powerlines up to 132kV cross the existing Princes Highway alignment within the study area and within the easement.
An electrical substation owned and operated by Endeavour energy is located about 200 metres west of the existing Princes Highway alignment along Blackbutt Range Drive. Electricity – Essential Twin overhead Energy and transmission lines and Power poles are located along the Endeavour Energy poles easements. There are areas of the existing Princes Highway alignment where overhead transmission lines cross over the Princes Highway.
Relocating HV transmission lines should be avoided as extensive and unforeseen delays are common with these works. Minimum clearance requirements would need to be maintained both during construction and operation of the preferred option.
Throughout the Proposal boundary, there are widespread communication Telecommunications Underground cables, conduits impacted by the strategic – NBN, Optus and property connections, local design. These range from property Telstra reticulation connections, local reticulation to major conduits. Similar to the electrical assets, the cover to communication conduits needs to be understood to
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 72
Type / Asset owner Description Location and consideration
determine the best method for protection.
Water mains and stormwater mains have been identified along the exiting Princes Highway alignment and at several key intersections which includes: Jervis Bay Road intersection Peterson Road / Mortimer Road Sinclair Road / Pepper Road Ulandi Close Hawken Road / Kells Road Island Point Road The Wool Road Water, stormwater Underground stormwater Wandean Road and sewer – SCC mains and watermains Wandypark Road. There is water main located along the electrical easement corridor which connects from Peterson Road. The water main is underground and terminates slightly south of Blackbutt Range Road. Towards the south of the study area about 500 m west of Bellabimbi Way, the water main splits form the Princes Highway and continues along the easement for about 570 metres, terminating just before areas mapped Coastal Management under the CM SEPP.
3.10 Land use The primary land uses in the study area are mapped in Figure 3-5 and include industrial and primary production and parkland (ABS 2016). Throughout the study area there is land owned by the Forestry Corporation of NSW, and some of the land affected by the Proposal would require revocation of the State Forest status in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Act 2012. It is recommended that Transport consult with the Forestry Corporation of NSW during the environmental assessment of the preferred option. The majority of the 913 lots adjacent to the road reserve in the study area are freehold lease, with a small number of parcels of Crown land and local and state government-controlled land (refer Table 3-12). The PEI (TfNSW 2020) did not identify any key social infrastructure and/or community facilities within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The environmental assessment would further investigate the potential impacts to surrounding land uses of the preferred option.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 73
Table 3-13: Summary of key land owners Key Land Owners Description
Private land owners Multiple lots of freehold land
Transport for NSW State Government
The State of NSW State Government
Shoalhaven City Council Local government
Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council Aboriginal Land Council
Wandandian Progress Association Industrial Incorporated
Industrial land owners Multiple lots of freehold land including industrial, commercial and small businesses.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 74
Figure 3-5: Land use and ownership
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 75
3.11 Emergency response
The Proposal is situated in an environment that can experience emergencies due to natural hazards such as floods and bushfires, as well as incidents relating to operation of the highway (eg crashes). The existing Princes Highway fulfils an important function during emergencies for continuity of service and in facilitating an emergency response, particularly due to the isolated nature of the towns and villages in the study area and their reliance on the highway for access to emergency services and for evacuation.
A review of the following information was undertaken to understand the emergency response requirements within the study area:
Location of emergency service locations, with respect to the current Princes Highway alignment and the access points from adjoining intersections
NSW Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) Bushfire Prone Land Map (NSW RFS 2020)
The Shoalhaven Bush Fire Management Committee (BFMC) Fire Access and Fire Trail Plan 2020 (SBFMC 2020).
3.11.1 Emergency services
The existing Princes Highway is critical infrastructure which connects various towns and villages. The key emergency services in and near the study area and listed in Table 3-14 rely on the Princes Highway for access and connectivity.
The preferred option considered the connectivity between villages to allow for the safe and effective access of movement for emergency services.
Table 3-14: Emergency services within the study area
Emergency service type Location Access points
Falls Creek Rural Fire In the study area Jervis Bay Road Services (RFS)
William Bryce Road
Tomerong RFS 0.07 km east of the study area Hawken Road
Island Point Road
NSW RFS Basin View 1 km east of the study area The Wood Road Brigade
NSW SES St Georges Basin The Wool Road 2.3 km east of the study area Unit Hawken Road
The Wood Road St Georges Basin RFS 3.3 km east of the study area Island Point Road
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 76
Emergency service type Location Access points
Shoalhaven District 10.7 km north of the study area Bridge Road Memorial Hospital
Sussex Inlet Police Station 10.1 km east of the study area Nielson Road
Huskisson Police Station 7.1 km east of the study area Tomerong Street
Bay and Basin Police 7.2 km east of the study area Paradise Beach Road Station
15 km north east of the study Culburra Police Station Culburra Road area
3.11.2 Bushfire
About 90 per cent of the Shoalhaven LGA is identified as bushfire prone land, with around 70 per cent of this land comprising State Forest, National Park, unoccupied Crown land or Commonwealth land (NSW RFS 2020). During the 2019-2020 fire season, about 80 per cent of the Shoalhaven LGA was severely impacted by the bushfires and the existing Princes Highway formed an important access route for emergency services and evacuation route.
The NSW RFS Bushfire Prone Land Map in Figure 3-6 shows that the land in the study area is classified as Vegetation Category 1 bushfire prone land, which is land with the highest risk for bushfire.
Fire trails are critical for emergency response by NSW RFS and other emergency services to fight bushfires and coordinate the emergency response. Fire trails are also used as fire control lines and for regular management of bushfire risk across the landscape.
Figure 3-7 shows the existing fire trails from the Fire Access and Fire Trail Plan 2020 (SBFMC 2020) for the Shoalhaven LGA, indicating three tactical fire trails (Categories 1 and 7) in the study area and four fire trails outside the study area. NSW RFS Fire Trail Standards (NSW RFS 2017) classify fire trails based on the type of firefighting vehicle required to access an area. The preferred option accounted for the existing fire trails in the study area and ensured access and connectivity would not be restricted during construction and operation of the Proposal.
While the upgrades to Princes Highway would increase the safety and efficiency of the road network for local traffic, as well as improving emergency services access and the reliability of travel through Princes Highway, bushfire events may impact emergency services response times.
Further assessment would be undertaken during the environmental assessment and development of the concept and detailed, including design considerations (access connectivity, firefighting vehicle specifications and U-turn areas for emergency vehicles) and consultation with emergency services.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 77
Figure 3-6: Bushfire prone land within the study area
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 78
Figure 3-7: Fire access and trail routes
3.11.3 Flooding
As described in section 3.7.3, parts of the study area are affected by the one per cent AEP flood event. While the Proposal objectives aim to provide greater safety and journey reliability, flood events may impact emergency services response times. Further assessment and consideration
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 79
should be given during the concept and detailed stages to ensure response times for emergency services are not impacted from flood event.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 80
4. Community involvement and feedback
4.1 Consultation activities to date
Community consultation for this Proposal has not yet been carried out. A period of consultation will be carried out on release of this Strategic Options Report.
A project webpage has been published, and stakeholders initially identified by Transport have received an email notification of the Proposal. Social Media (Facebook) was also used in August 2020 to notify the wider community of the Proposal.
4.2 Identification of key stakeholders
The following key stakeholders have been identified, and will be further engaged as the Proposal progresses:
Shoalhaven City Council
National Parks and Wildlife Services
DPI&E
Emergency services agencies
Community groups.
Additional key stakeholders may be identified as the Proposal progresses.
4.3 Future community engagement methods
Communication with the community and other stakeholders will continue as the Proposal approaches key milestones. Communication will include information materials (such as community updates), updates to the website and interactive portal, feedback surveys, media releases, announcements/photo opportunities, advertising and information sessions as required.
The preferred option outlined in this report will be on public display for community feedback from Wednesday 25 November to Sunday 20 December 2020.
A summary of community engagement methods to be used for the Proposal are included in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Community engagement methods
Engagement Method Details
Princes Highway Upgrade portal Digital portal including interactive map of all (princeshighway.nsw.gov.au/tfnsw/phu) work activities as part of PHUP. The purpose of digital portal is to explain the scope of the program, program benefits, objectives and provide up-to-date information
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 81
Engagement Method Details
Website Details of the Proposal are provided on the (rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/princes- Transport for NSW website. The website also highway/jervis-bay-road-to-sussex-inlet- includes a subscription form for members of upgrade) the public to sign up to project updates and nominate how they would like to receive project information.
Project email Dedicated Princes Highway Upgrade program ([email protected]) email address to provide alternative means of submitting written feedback submissions. The project email enables contact with project team.
Project information line (1800 719 759) Project information line to answer questions from the public and obtain feedback from community members unable to submit feedback online or via email.
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions document accessible via the project website to answer common project questions.
Postcard distribution Postcards distribution to households in and around the project area, to announce release of Strategic Options Report.
Social media Facebook will be used to raise awareness of the project and announce release of the Strategic Options Report. Facebook posts will be geo-targeted to reach Facebook users in the region.
Advertising Print and digital advertising is used to announce the Strategic Options Report and encourage feedback from the community.
Media release Media releases will be issued to announce project milestones.
Facebook Live Q&A session A 30-minute online Q&A session via Facebook will be held to answer questions from members of the community to help inform and encourage feedback.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 82
Engagement Method Details
Emails to stakeholder list and subscribers A subscription database will be established using known contacts and expanded via an email subscription form available on the project website.
Survey and feedback form A digital survey and written feedback form will be made available to the community. Transport will seek the community’s feedback on the preferred strategic option and ask questions to gain an understanding of highway use and how the upgrade would fit with the existing movement and place functions and transport user needs in the study area.
Face to face door knocking Direct contact would be made to residents and property owners potentially impacted by the project.
Phone call If unable to make direct contact with potentially impacted residents and property owners, the project team would seek to contact via phone.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 83
5. Alternatives and options considered
5.1 Methodology for selection of preferred option
In order to identify a preferred option that would meet the Proposal objectives, Transport undertook a rigorous strategic options development and assessment process. The key steps undertaken are summarised below and detailed in the following sections:
1. Assessment of strategic alternatives – The first step was to consider the overarching strategic alternatives for the Proposal (refer section 5.2)
2. Corridor assessment – An assessment of key constraints and design constraints was then undertaken to identify corridor features to be considered in the development of the preliminary options (described in section 5.3)
3. Preliminary options development – Development of six initial alignment options for assessment (described in section 5.4)
4. Assessment of preliminary options – At this point construction staging and impacts on key constraints was considered further, and an effort made to refine the six preliminary alignment options so as to consolidate similar options (described in section 5.5). This resulted in preparation of a shortlist of four options (described in section 5.6)
5. Determination of preferred option – Assessment and comparison of the four shortlisted options to identify the preferred option (described in section 5.7).
5.2 Assessment of strategic alternatives
A number of strategic alternatives for the upgrade of the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road were considered by Transport. These strategic alternatives represent overarching approaches to the Proposal, and included:
Business as usual – the ‘do nothing’ option
Minor infrastructure improvements – the ‘do minimum’ option
Major upgrades of the Princes Highway.
Each of these alternatives are discussed below.
5.2.1 Evaluation of business as usual alternative
The business as usual option involves maintaining the Princes Highway in its existing design and alignment. This alternative was not considered for further assessment as it fails to address any of the Proposal objectives, and does not improve safety, improve traffic and freight efficiency and connectivity, enable increases in the use of active and public transport, or improve network resilience and support sustainability of the region.
5.2.2 Evaluation of minor infrastructure improvements alternative
The minor infrastructure improvement option involves potential minor improvements to existing intersections, localised safety improvements, and the provision of overtaking lanes. Minor infrastructure improvements were not considered for further assessment; although they would
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 84
result in some localised safety and efficiency improvements, this approach is considered unsuitable as it fails to achieve the long-term safety and traffic efficiency objectives for this section of the Princes Highway.
Minor infrastructure improvements would also have limited benefit in improving resilience of the road, supporting sustainability of the region, or in achieving desirable movement and place outcomes at the local townships.
5.2.3 Evaluation of major upgrade alternative
This alternative would involve major upgrades of the Princes Highway along its current alignment or on another alignment (eg bypasses), providing a new design with two travel lanes in each direction. This would provide a substantial improvement to safety and efficiency, while allowing for increased resilience and improved movement and place outcomes due to the ability to bypass townships and provide alternative routes to the existing alignment.
Transport considered that this alternative best met the service needs and objectives for the Proposal, providing a safe systems design approach (reducing the likelihood and severity of all crash types) and providing improved traffic efficiency when compared to the other alternatives considered.
A series of design options (potential alignments) were developed for this alternative and progressed for further assessment, as documented in this report.
5.3 Corridor assessment
Having determined the best approach would be to provide a major upgrade of the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and Sussex Inlet Road, it was then necessary to identify some potential corridors for the upgrade. A methodology for assessing each of these corridors was developed based on a combination of design criteria and key constraints. This enabled the development of a series of preliminary options, described in section 5.4.
It is noted that this corridor assessment was undertaken at a strategic level, and the design criteria and constraints would be further considered at the concept and detailed design stages and during the environmental assessment of the preferred option.
5.3.1 Key design criteria
The design criteria considered included:
A typical cross section of a four-lane median divided road with 3.5 metre traffic lanes, three metre wide median with a central wire rope, and three metre outside shoulders. Wire rope has been included on the outside shoulders with a 1.5 metre verge
The absolute minimum horizontal curve radius of 530 metres in accordance with Austroads AGRD Part 3A (Austroads 2017) and the Proposal design criteria. This enabled identification of sections of the current Princes Highway alignment which do not achieve the target radius
A maximum vertical grade of six per cent. This enabled identification of sections of the existing Princes Highway that would require cut or fill and associated embankments due to the topographical relief. At these locations it was considered desirable to separate from the existing highway
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 85
Movement for vehicles up to and including a 30 metre A-Double on the Princes Highway and Arterial Road intersections
The need to provide connectivity and access to the existing road network
The requirements for bridges at larger watercourse crossings where culvert structures would not be practical
Construction requirements, in particular opportunities to allow continuity of traffic flow while construction is underway.
5.3.2 Key constraints assessment
There are a number of other constraints that may influence the selection and assessment of corridor options. The key statutory, social, environmental and economic features of the study area were identified via a desktop review of publicly available information and a review of the findings of the PEI (TfNSW 2020). The outcome of this review was a list of key constraints, each of which was then mapped for consideration during the corridor options development and assessment process.
Each of the key constraints was allocated to one of the three categories, listed below in order of importance:
1. No go zone – This category was allocated to constraints which should be avoided due to the level of significance of the potential impacts to the environment or for project delivery
2. Avoidance preferred – Critical constraints which should be avoided where possible to limit potential impacts to the environment and preserve the existing values of the area. An attempt was made to avoid these constraints in the first instance, noting avoidance may not be possible due to the potential for complex or costly consequences
3. Avoidance where achievable – These constraints would have some impacts or have some potential for impacts to the environmental values of the area as well as project delivery, and would therefore be desirable to avoid if possible taking into account project complexity and cost.
The key constraints adopted for the assessment are summarised in Table 5-1. The constraints were used to guide the development of corridor options, whereby the desired outcome was to select corridors (preliminary alignment options) that minimised impacts on the environment and/or project delivery.
Table 5-2: Summary of key constraints
Constraint Rating Justification/Consequence of constraint
Coastal No go zone Trigger for an environmental impact statement wetlands under Clause 10 of CM SEPP (refer section 3.1.3). Based on proximity to the study area complete avoidance of this constraint was identified as achievable if identified as a No Go zone.
National Park/ Avoidance preferred Complex acquisition process involving Act of Nature Reserve Parliament; higher likelihood of impact to biodiversity (refer section 3.1.4).
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 86
Constraint Rating Justification/Consequence of constraint
Major Avoidance preferred Relates to critical infrastructure such as infrastructure electricity substations and132 kV transmissions lines which would require relocation and/or upgrade with associated increase in project complexity and cost (refer section 3.9).
Illawarra Avoidance preferred Impacts to this EPBC Act listed Critically Lowland Grassy Endangered Community could require a referral Woodland to the Commonwealth (refer section 3.1.3). If Critically determined a controlled action, a Endangered Commonwealth approval would be required. Community There may also be a requirement for offsetting. (moderate and This would have implications for the Proposal high class) approval and cost.
1% AEP (1 in Avoidance preferred It would be desirable for the design to achieve 100 year) flood flood immunity for purposes of trafficability, extent particularly for evacuation purposes. This would require consideration during design and would have cost implications (refer section 3.7.3).
Potential Area Avoidance preferred Introduces risk to Proposal due to need to of manage potentially unknown contamination Environmental issue (refer section 3.6.3.2). Concern - contamination
Sites notified to the EPA - contamination
Known Avoidance preferred Listed species or populations for which the BC threatened flora Act requires demonstration of avoidance in the populations, first instance, and for which offsetting may be including required (refer section 3.3). Impact would be Biconvex detrimental to the biodiversity values of the paperbark region and have associated environmental approval and cost implications for the Proposal.
Known sites of Avoidance preferred Sites of potential sensitivity requiring further Aboriginal investigation and thus trigger the need for an cultural heritage additional approval and consultation for the significance Proposal (refer section 3.4). This would result in (AHIMS a loss of heritage values in the area and have records) associated cost and program implications for the Proposal.
Crown Land Avoidance where There is potential for a Native Title claim for any achievable such land (refer section 3.1.4), which would introduce additional cost and program risk for the Proposal.
Key Fish Avoidance where Potential for protected aquatic species. May Habitat achievable have implications for the design and approvals process (refer section 3.3.2).
Businesses Avoidance where High acquisition cost, would result in social and achievable economic impacts (refer section 3.10).
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 87
Constraint Rating Justification/Consequence of constraint
Soft soils Avoidance where Engineering risk resulting in design complexity achievable and potentially additional time and costs (refer section 3.6.3).
Acid Sulfate Avoidance where Engineering risk resulting in design complexity Rock achievable and potentially additional time and costs (refer section 3.6.3).
Dams Avoidance where Engineering risk resulting in design complexity achievable and potentially additional time and costs (refer section 3.10). Potential social or business impacts.
Swamp Oak Avoidance where Direct impacts to this EPBC Act listed TEC could Floodplain achievable cause a loss of biodiversity value in the region Forest and require a referral to the Commonwealth Endangered (refer section 3.3.1). If determined a controlled Ecological action, a Commonwealth approval would be Community required. There may also be a requirement for (moderate and offsetting. This would have implications for the high class) Proposal approval and cost.
State Forests Avoidance where Complex acquisition process, higher chance of achievable ecological impact (refer section 3.3.1).
5.3.3 Movement and place
‘Movement and place’ refers to an integrated approach to road planning, balancing the efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within and through areas with the amenity and quality of places to achieve sustainable and liveable outcomes. Movement and place outcomes were a key consideration as part of the design process, aiming to balance movement functions through and within the corridor. The townships of Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek influenced the options with respect to the relative benefits of maintaining the existing alignment versus bypasses, and considering also local access, connectivity and other factors.
Multi-modal provisions were considered as part of the options assessment process, accounting for the need to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in relevant areas along the corridor. The objective to increase the use of public and active transport was a key consideration for the preliminary alignment options.
Each option was developed with a view to maximise the potential to accommodate active and public transport, and support place values of local townships along the corridor. The potential impacts of each design option on movement and place outcomes, and the potential provisions for all transport modes, were assessed as part of the value management workshop.
5.4 Identification of preliminary options
Based on the corridor assessment, six preliminary alignment options were identified. These are presented in Figure 5-1 and include:
Option 1 – Provides for major upgrade of the existing Princes Highway, widening on both sides within the geometric and environmental constraints of the Proposal.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 88
Option 2 – Provides for major upgrades to the west of the existing Princes Highway within the geometric and environmental constraints of the Proposal. This option generally follows the existing alignment except where it deviates to the east to bypass Wandandian. The option would avoid any impact to the United Petroleum service station near Sinclair Road.
Option 3 – Provides for major upgrades to the east of the existing Princes Highway within the geometric and environmental constraints of the Proposal. This option generally follows the existing alignment, including where it travels through Wandandian.
Option 4 – Provides for a major upgrade that deviates from the alignment of the existing Princes Highway to the west of Falls Creek and follows a natural valley until the southern extent of Falls Creek. This option then re-joins the existing Princes Highway near Gorindah Road and generally follows the existing alignment until Hawken Road. The option deviates to the west avoiding the curves between Sinclair Road and Turpentine Road. The option then follows the existing Princes Highway widening to the east, before switching just before Island Point Road to widen to the west. The alignment then generally follows the existing alignment until south of Bewong. South of Bewong the alignment deviates to the west of the township of Wandandian and the Conjola National Park. The option then follows the existing Princes Highway until around 700 metres south of Sussex Inlet Road.
Option 5 – Provides for a major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating to the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the existing intersection with the Princes Highway. The alignment continues to the east of the developed areas adjacent to the existing highway and crosses Mortimer Road before re-joining the Princes Highway near Gorindah Road. The option then follows the alignment of the existing highway, widening to west or east as required to ensure the highway can be kept open during construction. The option continues along the existing alignment of the Princes Highway from just before Island Point Road, and then across Wandandian Creek at Bewong and to the east of the township of Wandandian.
Option 6 – Provides for a major upgrade immediately to the east of the existing highway between Jervis Bay Road and Gorindah Road, and to the west of Princes Highway immediately past the Falls Creek service station near Sinclair Road. The alignment then continues, widening to the west or the east through the curves between Hawken Road and Turpentine Road as required to provide a straighter alignment. The alignment crosses back to the western side past Island Point Road, then switches back to the eastern side between Island Point Road and The Wool Road. The option then provides for widening to the west of the existing highway alignment past Bewong, follows the existing alignment until Bollerang Creek, then crosses to the east past the township of Wandandian. The alignment re-aligns with the existing highway south of Wandandian Creek and continues to the east of the existing highway until Sussex Inlet Road.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 89
Figure 5-1 Preliminary options
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 90
5.5 Evaluation and refinement of corridor options
As well as being evaluated against the design criteria and other key constraints, each of the six preliminary alignment options were assessed in a constructability and safety in design workshop. Following these assessments, it became apparent that several of the preliminary alignment options were not able to be readily differentiated due to the similarities of the alignment locations and features. Option 2 and Option 3 provide an upgrade following the existing highway via an upgrade immediately to the west or an upgrade immediately to the east respectively, with the exception of Option 2 that included an eastern diversion from the existing highway at Wandandian. The evaluation process identified that features of the preliminary alignments in Option 2 and Option 3 were similar to features of the preliminary alignments proposed for investigation in Option 4, Option 5 and Option 6, and could not be readily differentiated. As such, it was decided that Option 2 and Option 3 would not proceed for further investigation and evaluation.
Following this evaluation process, the list of six preliminary options was reduced down to four refined options for the Proposal. These were based on the four distinct sections within the larger study area which were defined based on key intersections of deviations in options, as follows:
Section A – The northern extent of the study area, including the intersection of Jervis Bay Road with the Princes Highway through to the intersection of Hawken Road and the Princes Highway
Section B – From the intersection of Hawken Road with the Princes Highway through to the intersection of Island Point Road with the Princes Highway
Section C – From the intersection of Island Point Road with the Princes Highway through to the Bewong Roadhouse and rest area
Section D – From the Bewong Roadhouse and rest area to the southern extent of the study area, including the Sussex Inlet Road intersection.
5.5.1 Construction staging
The delineation of the corridor into the sections outlined in section 1.4 may provide the opportunity for staging of the construction of different sections at different times. This may assist in minimising the impact of construction, opportunities to deliver partial upgrades sooner, or allow construction to commence based on each section’s alignment with project approval processes. The potential opportunities for construction staging will be investigated for the preferred corridor option.
5.6 Identification of refined options
The four refined options are presented in Figure 5-2 and include:
Option 1a – Provides for major upgrade of the existing Princes Highway, widening on both sides within the geometric and environmental constraints of the Proposal.
Option 4a – Provides a major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road, where it deviates to the west and follows the creek immediately west of Falls Creek. The refined option then follows a valley and passes west of the Tomerong service station near Sinclair Road. This option realigns the existing highway, reducing curves between Sinclair Road and Turpentine Road, then follows the existing highway, widening to east up until just before Island Point Road. At this
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 91
point the option follows the existing highway alignment, widening to the west until just past Bewong. From Bewong the option generally follows the alignment of the existing highway before deviating to the west of Wandandian near Condy’s Creek. The option then remains west of Wandandian, following the eastern edge of the Wandandian Creek valley before re- joining the existing Princes Highway around one kilometre south of Sussex Inlet Road.
Option 5a – Provides a major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating to the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway. The alignment of this option continues to avoid existing development, crossing Mortimer Road 900 metres east of the existing highway. The option then deviates back to the west, joining the existing Princes Highway near Blackbutt Road up until the Tomerong service station. Through this section the option improves the existing highway alignment, which winds between Sinclair Road and Turpentine Road, to meet the new geometric requirements for road design. South of Turpentine Road the option is to the east of the alignment of the existing highway, before switching to the west before Island Point Road, and remaining to the west of the existing Princes Highway before crossing Wandandian Creek with a long bridge between Bewong and Wandandian. The option runs parallel to the existing highway east of Wandandian, then follows the existing highway to Sussex Inlet Road.
Option 6a – Provides a major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road, at which point it switches to the west. Through this section the option improves the existing alignment, which has three reverse curves between Sinclair Road and Turpentine Road, to meet the new geometric requirements for road design. The option is located to the east of the alignment of the existing highway from south of Turpentine Road up until just before Island Point Road, where it switches to the west of the existing Princes Highway. The option is aligned to the west of Bewong, generally following the existing highway alignment before switching to the east near Bollerang Creek. The option runs parallel and to the east of the existing highway east of Wandandian, then follows the alignment of the exiting highway down to Sussex Inlet Road.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 92
Figure 5-2 Refined options
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 93
5.7 Identification of a preferred option
Stage 5 of the options assessment (refer section 5.1), the preferred options assessment, was undertaken through a Value Management Workshop (VMW) to determine the preferred option for the Proposal. Value Management is a process used for integrating the Proposal objectives and stakeholder needs into the design optioneering process, with the intent of achieving a high value outcome. The VMW considered a range of factors and focused on criteria that related closely to the Proposal objectives and that would best enable differentiation between options.
This section summarises the outcomes of the VMW.
The project team held a value management workshop with key stakeholders to assess each of the shortlisted options against a series of weighted selection criteria. The criteria correspond to Key Result Areas (KRAs) derived from the Proposal objectives, which are to:
Improve network safety for all transport users
Improve freight access and efficiency
Improve traffic efficiency and connectivity
Enable an increase in the use of active and public transport
Improve transport network resilience
Support sustainability of the region
Respect community and environment.
The criteria or KRAs were developed during an earlier workshop on the constraints and characteristics of the study (as described in Section 3 of this report). Each KRA was assigned a weighting based on the relative importance of the corresponding objective and its relative importance in differentiating between options. These criteria are summarised in Table 5-2, which also indicates their assigned weighting for the options assessment.
Table 5-2: Preferred option selection criteria
Relates to Differentiates Objectives Key Result Area Weighting Proposal between objectives options
Improve operational safety Improve network safety for all Enable staged construction 25% transport users and maintenance (including operation)
Improve freight Improve freight access access and 10% efficiency Improve freight efficiency
Improve travel times on the Improve traffic Princes Highway efficiency and 10% connectivity Improve intersection performance
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 94
Relates to Differentiates Objectives Key Result Area Weighting Proposal between objectives options
Improve network efficiency
Minimise impact on existing connectivity at places
Support an increase in active transport use by improving Enable an increase accessibility and facilities in the use of active 10% and public transport Support an increase in public transport use by improving accessibility and facilities
Improve resilience to flood events
Improve resilience to bushfire events Improve transport 15% network resilience Ensure ability to respond to emergencies
Consider future-proofing for unexpected future land use changes
Support movement and place functions in the study area
Support Support economic and sustainability of the tourism growth of local 10% region businesses
Support township amenity and liveability
Respect community Minimise impacts and environment on terrestrial ecology
Minimise impacts on aquatic ecology
Minimise heritage impacts 20% `
Minimise social impacts
Minimise disruption to the community
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 95
Relates to Differentiates Objectives Key Result Area Weighting Proposal between objectives options
Impacts on incompatible land uses
Each of the shortlisted options were then evaluated by participants of the value management workshop against each of the criteria during the value management workshop, with participants split into four work groups. Each work group:
Discussed and agreed on the weighting of each KRA for their assigned objective(s)
Scored each option against each KRA documented the rationale behind the scoring
Identified if there were any potential improvements that could be made to any of the options to enable them to perform better against the KRAs.
Following completion of this activity, the participants came back into a single group to discuss and agree the outcomes. The assessment of the four strategic options against each of these KRAs or criteria is described in the following sections.
The outcomes of the VMW, including a summary of the performance of the shortlisted options against all the KRAs, is provided in Section 6.
5.7.1 Improve network safety for all transport users
As discussed in section 3.2, communities in the study area are reliant on the Princes Highway for connectivity and for access either via direct driveways on the highway (Wandandian, Bewong and Falls Creek) and side roads (coastal towns to the east). The KRAs for the improvement of network safety include improvement in operational safety and allowing for the safe construction and maintenance of the preferred option.
Data on crashes between 2014 to 2018 for the corridor (refer section 3.2) were reviewed and analysed to assist in the assessment. A comparison of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to review their relative performance with respect to the KRAs assigned to improving network safety for all transport users (refer Table 5-2). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road 2. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating to the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 3. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 4. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway. All options would facilitate improved safety along the Princes Highway through improved sight lines and curve radii. However, Option 4a and Option 5a ranked the highest for operational safety by allowing for improved safety at key intersections such as Hawken Road, The Wool Road and Sussex Inlet Road, and by providing safer connectivity to existing road networks.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 96
5.7.2 Improve freight access and efficiency
The Princes Highway is a key road corridor for freight movements, including by heavy vehicles and oversized vehicles.
A comparison of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs developed to assess freight access and efficiency (refer Table 5-1). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 2. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 3. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road 4. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway. Option 5a and Option 6a are preferred for freight because the design of key intersections reduces changes in gradient or curves that would require heavy vehicles to slow down, resulting in a net increase in heavy vehicle travel times. Option 1a and Option 4a ranked lower as the grades and/or curve radii at key intersections are not minimised as much as for Options 5a and 6a.
5.7.3 Improve traffic efficiency and connectivity
Traffic models were established in order to develop a better understanding of the performance of the existing road network, particularly during peak periods (refer section 3.2.10 and Appendix C). The traffic efficiency of the shortlisted options was evaluated by analysing each of the options in the traffic model and comparing their performance to both that of the existing road network and relative to each other.
A comparison of each of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs developed to assess traffic efficiency and connectivity (refer Table 5-1). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 2. Option 6a – Major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 3. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road 4. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway. As discussed in section 3.1, the existing Princes Highway operates at LoS D or LoS F at several key intersections during the AM peak, PM peak and Holiday peak periods. Modelling showed that each of the four options would generally improve levels of service at key intersections, achieving the minimum LoS C for the AM peak, PM peak and Holiday peak periods for the year 2036. However, Option 6a provides the greatest improvement with respect to travel time savings during AM and PM peaks and the Holiday peak. Option 5a and Option 1a generally performed the same with respect to travel time savings, and Option 4a had the lowest improvement in travel times. From a Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) and Vehicle Kilometres
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 97
Travelled (VKT) perspective, Option 5a performed the best of all four options, and Option 1a showed the lowest improvement in VKT and VHT.
5.7.4 Enable an increase in the use of public and active transport
Provision for public transport and active transport within the existing highway corridor is limited, as discussed in sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6.
A comparison of each of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs developed to assess the objective, enabling an increase in the use of public and active transport (refer Table 5-1). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 2. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road 3. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 4. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway.
5.7.5 Improve transport network resilience
The study area is affected by a range of hazards including bushfire and flooding, as described in section 3.7.
A comparison of each of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs developed for improving transport network resilience (refer Table 5-2). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 2. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road 3. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 4. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway. Each of the options would be trafficable in the one per cent AEP flood event. The entire study area is mapped as bushfire prone land. Option 5a is ranked highest when considering bushfire risk as it travels through less dense and continuous bushland than the other options. This means that the option provides improved access for emergency services to the Princes Highway, while at the same time avoiding impacts to detour routes, ensuring there is enough network capacity to accommodate vehicles during an emergency event.
5.7.6 Support sustainability in the region
The land use in the study area is discussed in section 3.10.
A comparison of each of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs developed for supporting sustainability in the region (refer Table 5-2). The options were ranked as follows:
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 98
1. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating to the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 2. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 3. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway 4. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road. Option 5a performed the best of all four options on supporting movement and place functions, while at the same time performing best in terms of minimising negative impact on commercial and tourism access. Option 4a had the greatest negative impact on commercial and tourism access. Option 1a had the highest impact to tourism access and did not achieve a reduction in traffic in local settlements, which would result in more sensitive receivers being potentially impacted during weekday peak and holiday peak periods.
5.7.7 Respect community and the environment
Due to the topography and presence of dense vegetation in the study area, the shortlisted options would have a large construction footprint. Construction of each of the four options would require additional clearing beyond the operational footprint to enable safe access and work areas.
A comparison of each of the four shortlisted options was undertaken to assess their relative performance with respect to the KRAs for respecting the community and the environment (refer Table 5-2). The options were ranked as follows: 1. Option 6a – major upgrade to the east of the existing Princes Highway up until a point just past the Tomerong Log Cabin service station near Sinclair Road 2. Option 1a – duplication of the existing Princes Highway 3. Option 5a – major upgrade that commences immediately south of Falls Road, deviating the east and crossing Jervis Bay Road 1.2 kilometres east of the current intersection with the Princes Highway 4. Option 4a – major upgrade that follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway up until immediately south of Falls Road. In terms of differentiating the four options, Option 6a and Option 1a would the greatest impact on native vegetation and fauna connectivity, and the least noise and air quality impacts. Option 1a would require the least property acquisition as it follows the alignment of the existing Princes Highway, resulting in lower social impacts than other options.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 99
6. Preferred option
Table 6-1 summarises the outcomes of the Value Management Workshop (VMW), recording the rankings for how well each of the shortlisted options performed against the Proposal objectives.
Option 5a and Option 6a preformed consistently well when compared against the Proposal objectives.
Option 5a ranked highest against five of the seven Proposal objectives and second for one of the other objectives. Option 5a would divert east of Falls Creek and Wandandian, and includes a potential 1.3 kilometre bridge over Wandandian Creek. The bridge provides improved resilience to flooding and minimises the risk of construction over soft soils, while providing an improved corridor alignment when compared to the small radii curves on the existing highway between Bewong and Wandandian. Option 5a would enable the majority of construction to be undertaken off-line, thereby minimising risk associated with construction adjacent to live traffic. The remaining sections of the existing highway could be used to better facilitate access to local properties. An important feature was that it would allow full access into and out of Bewong, while the bypass of Wandandian would support placemaking, access and connectivity within the town of Wandandian.
Option 6a ranked highest against one Proposal objective and second for four of the seven objectives. In the northern section of the study area, Option 6a would travel adjacent to the existing Princes Highway corridor. The alignment is shorter compared to the other options and minimises traffic noise impacts on inhabited areas that do not currently experience noise from highway traffic. Constructability for Option 6a would potentially be more challenging in the northern section due to the large number of private accesses fronting the existing Princes Highway. Possible improvements to Option 6a through the Falls Creek area were discussed during the value management workshop, including whether it would be best to widen the highway to the east of the existing Princes Highway, to the west, or by widening the existing Princes Highway on both sides.
Table 6-1: Option assessment ranking summary
Objectives Option 1a Option 4a Option 5a Option 6a
Improve network safety for all transport 4 1 2 3 users
Improve freight access and efficiency 4 3 1 2
Improve traffic efficiency and 4 3 1 2 connectivity
Enable an increase in the use of active 4 3 1 2 and public transport
Improve transport network resilience 4 2 1 3
Support sustainability of the region 1 4 1 2
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 100
Objectives Option 1a Option 4a Option 5a Option 6a
Respect community and environment 2 4 3 1
The participants of the VMW recommended that the preferred option for further consideration would be a combination of both Option 5a and Option 6a, adopting Option 6a from the northern- most extent of the study area until just south of Falls Creek, and adopting Option 5a from south of Falls Creek until the southern-most extent of the study area (Figure 6-1).
Key features of the preferred strategic corridor option are shown in Figure 6-2 to 6-4 include:
Greater integration with the proposed Jervis Bay Road intersection upgrade
Improved safety and traffic efficiency via improved curve radii allowing for higher speed environments along the Princes Highway
Greater safety, performance and accessibility to existing key intersections, including Sussex Inlet Road
Greater accessibility to Wandandian and Bewong via a diversion from the existing highway alignment to the east of Wandandian.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 101
Figure 6-1 The preferred option overview
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 102
Figure 6-2 Preferred option – North
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 103
Figure 6-3 Preferred option – Central
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 104
Figure 6-4 Preferred option - South
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 105
7. Next steps
The preferred strategic corridor option will be placed on public display between Wednesday 25 November 2020 and Sunday 20 December 2020 to provide the community and stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback.
Transport will use this information to further refine the preferred strategic corridor option. Transport for NSW will start work on the concept design and environmental assessment for the Proposal which will have more detailed information about the design features, potential benefits and impacts, as well as investigating opportunities for staged delivery of the proposed upgrade. These investigations will consider the service needs of transport users, construction staging requirements and project funding.
Please visit the project website at nswroads.work/jervisbayroad-sussexinletupgrade for more information and to provide your feedback.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 106
8. References
ABS (2016). Australian Census of Popular Housings (Census), Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Arup (2020a). Setting the Scene Report, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
Arup (2020b). Shoalhaven City Council Place Assessment Workshop, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
Austroads (2013). Guide to Traffic Management Part 3: Traffic Studies and Analysis, Austroads, Sydney.
Austroads (2017). Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design, Austroads, Sydney.
Commonwealth of Australia (2019). Princes Highway Corridor Strategy, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
DECCW (2008). NSW Recovery Plan for the Koala, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.
DPE (2015). Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan 2036, Department of Planning and Environment, Wollongong.
DPI (2013). Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (update 2013), Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.
Fairfull and Witheridge (2003). Why do fish need to cross the road: fish passage requirements for waterway crossings, Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.
Geological Survey of NSW (1966). The Ulladulla 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet S1 56-13, Geological Survey of NSW, Hunter Region.
Lyall & Associates (2016). Currambene and Moona Moona Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra.
National Transport Commission (2007). Performance Based Standards Scheme Network Classification, National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, Australia.
Niche (2020). Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Targeted biodiversity field investigations, Transport for NSW, NSW.
NSW Government (2019). NSW South Coast Marine Tourism Strategy, NSW Government, NSW.
NSW RFS (2017). NSW RFS Fire Trail Standards, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW.
NSW RFS (2020). Bushfire Prone Map NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW.
QRMC (2020). Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Value Management Study Report, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
RTA (2002). Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney.
SBFMC (2020). Fire Access and Fire Trail Plan 2020, Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra.
TfNSW (2012). NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 107
TfNSW (2016). Princes Highway Corridor Strategy, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2018a). NSW Freight and Ports Plan 2018-2023, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2018b). Future Transport Strategy 2056, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2018c). Regional NSW Services and Infrastructure Plan, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2018d). Road Safety Plan 2021, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2018e). Tourism and Transport Plan, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2019). Connecting to the Future – Our 10 Year Blueprint, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2020a). HW1 - Princes Highway - Jervis Bay Rd to Sussex Inlet Rd - Pavements and Geotechnical Desktop Study, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
TfNSW (2020b). Princes Highway Upgrade, Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road: Preliminary Environmental Investigation, Transport for NSW, Sydney.
Webb, McKeown & Associates (2006). St Georges Basin Floodplain Risk Management Plan, Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra.
WMA Water (2006). St Georges Basin Floodplain Risk Management Plan, Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra.
WMA Water (2016). Currambene and Moona Moona Creeks Floodplain Risk Management Plan, Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra.
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 108
Contact Us Ph: 1800 719 759 Email: [email protected] Web: nswroads.work/jervisbayroad-sussexinletupgrade
November 2020 20.403 ISBN: 978-1-922463-40-1
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 109
Jervis Bay Road to Sussex Inlet Road Upgrade| November 2020 110