rutherglen heavy vehicle deviation route study

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Route StudyShortlist Paper

Prepared for: Indigo Shire CouncilSubmission date: 2 June 2009

Leading. Vibrant. Global. www.aurecongroup.com

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study Indigo Shire Council Route Shortlist Paper Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study

FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIATION ROUTE\REPORTS\REPORTSHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER FINAL DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009 ⏐ REVISION 3 ⏐ PAGE i

Contents Section Page

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction and Background 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Possible Heavy Vehicle Routes 3 1.3 History of the Routes 4 1.4 Steering Committee 6

2. Assessment Methodology 7

3. Environmental and Social Assessment 8 3.1 Environmental 8 3.2 Social 11 3.3 Assessment of Options 12

4. Economic Analysis 17 4.1 Land Acquisition 17 4.2 Major Cost Impacts 17

5. Transport Issues 19 5.1 Introduction 19 5.2 Traffic Surveys 20 5.3 Potential Traffic Deviations 26 5.4 Distance 28 5.5 Route Efficiency 28

6. Aurecon Matrix Findings and Conclusions 28

7. Focus and Community Reference Group 28

8. Shortlisted Routes for Detailed Consideration 28 8.1 Preamble 28 8.2 Consolidation of Technical and Community Matrices 28 8.3 Route Short List 28 8.4 Rejected Routes 28

Appendix A Route Maps

Appendix B Aurecon Risk Matrix

Appendix C CRG Matrix

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study Indigo Shire Council Route Shortlist Paper Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study

FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIATION ROUTE\REPORTS\REPORTSHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER FINAL DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009 ⏐ REVISION 3 ⏐ PAGE ii

Appendix D Combined Aurecon and CRG Matrix Results

Indigo Shire Council Route Shortlist Paper Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study

FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIATIONROUTE\REPORTS\REPORT SHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER FINAL

DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009⏐ REVISION 2 ⏐ PAGE 1

Executive Summary The community of Rutherglen has for many years sought to have a truck bypass constructed that would remove heavy vehicles from its central activity street, Main Street. The community and Indigo Shire Council have considered many routes and undertaken a community based assessment of possible routes – a total of 20 routes were originally considered of which 18 warranted detailed consideration by representatives of the community, known as the Community Reference Group (CRG). Aurecon was commissioned by Indigo Shire Council to undertake an independent, technically based assessment of the alternative truck bypass routes round the town. This report sets out the findings of this assessment, summarises the CRG findings and identifies a short list of four routes as approved by a Steering Committee, comprising representatives of Indigo Shire Council, VicRoads and the CRG. The Aurecon assessment covered four areas of assessment:

Environmental Impact; Social Impact; Economic and Costs; and Transport and Traffic Issues.

It should be noted that this assessment is high level and primarily based on desktop studies. More detailed assessment is due to be undertaken on the shortlisted routes as the second part of the study. Based on the Aurecon technical assessment the following four truck routes were considered to be the most viable:

1. Route 2 Reid Street and Butlers Street – 66 points; 2. Route 2A Reid St and Killeens Lane – 63 points; 3. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane – 62 points; 4. Route 4 Herrins Road – 59 points.

With the exception of Route 3, the Railway Reserve, these routes did not coincide with the CRG’s highest scoring routes which were as follows:

1. Route 3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way; 2. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane; 3. Route 7 Kilborn Road & Gooramadda Road; and 4. Route 7A Kilborn Road & Eastern link to Murray Valley Highway

The CRG report concluded that there were 4 routes and their varients worthy of further consideration being Railway Reserve, Kilborns Road, Parkins Road and Kings Road. On the basis of both the Aurecon and the Community Reference Groups analysis, the Heavy Vehicle Bypass Steering Committee identified the four routes for further consideration by equally weighting and combining the Aurecon and CRG ranking of the routes. The final four routes were then identified on the basis that they need to be long term, would not include options of the same route and not result in a significantly and unviable diversion from current truck routes. The final four routes were identified as follows:

1. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane; 2. Route 7 Kilborn Road & Gooramadda Road; 3. Route 9 Herrins Road; and 4. Route 13 Parkins Road to Murray Valley Highway West.


FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIATION ROUTE\REPORTS\REPORTSHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER FINAL DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009 ⏐ REVISION 3 ⏐ PAGE 2

These four routes will be subject to more detailed investigation, including more route specfic planning and environment assessment, concept design and a full economic benefit analysis as the next stage within this study.



1. Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction Aurecon has been commissioned by Indigo Shire Council to undertake a traffic, planning and economic analysis of potential heavy vehicle bypass routes around the town of Rutherglen. The project consists of two stages as follows:

Part I. The assessment of route options and the identification of a short list of three to four possible routes for the heavy vehicle bypass.

Part II. Further assessment of shortlisted options and the subsequent identification of one preferred short list option.

This paper has been prepared to summarise Part I of the project and set out the justification for the selection of the four shortlisted routes for a heavy vehicle bypass. 1.2 Possible Heavy Vehicle Routes A total of 18 routes have been identified for the purpose of this report as summarised in Table 1.1 and illustrated in Appendix A.

Table 1-1: Alternative Heavy Vehicle Routes

Route No Route Description Route Colour

1 Main Street – current route Light green & dark blue

2 Reid Street and Butlers Street Inner Red

2A Reid Street and Killeens Lane Inner Red & red dashed

3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane Pink

3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way Pink & pink dashed

4 Ready Street Light blue

5 Hopetoun Road Light brown

5A Hopetoun Road and Jones Road Orange & light brown

6 Jones Road Link Not shown – see below

7 Kilborn Road and Gooramadda Road Dark brown

7A Kilbourn Road and Great Southern Road Dark brown & dotted

7B Kilbourn Road and East Link to Murray Valley Highway Dark brown & dashed

8 Up River Road Blue

9 Herrin Road Dark green

10 Kings Road to Murray Valley Highway west Outer Red

10A Kings Road & Federation Way to Murray Valley Highway Outer Red and dashed

11 Howlong Road Not shown – see below

12 Murray Street Inner Purple

13 Parkin Road to Murray Valley West Outer Purple

13A Parkin Road to Murray Valley Highway West Outer Purple



It is noted that two routes are not depicted on the route maps provided, these routes are Route 6 (Jones Road Link) and Route 11 (Howlong Road). Jones Road Link The Jones Road link was considered by the Focus Group, however this link would be a short route running from Chiltern Rutherglen Road to Murray Valley Highway, east of Rutherglen. As such, would not, on its own, provide any truck relief to Main Street through the town and was therefore excluded from further analysis. Howlong Road This route would follow Howlong Road and Riverina Highway to Corowa. It comprises designated arterial routes and therefore is anticipated to already cater for any truck traffic that would be likely to divert onto this route. It has therefore not been considered any futher within either the CRG or Aurecon studies. 1.3 History of the Routes The issue of heavy vehicle movements within Rutherglen and particularly along Main Street has been an important concern for the local community for some years. In order to address this community concern Indigo Shire Council formed a focus group to investigate issues associated with a heavy vehicle bypass. This focus group prepared a report which included a number of findings as set out below:

The safety and amenity of Rutherglen’s Main Street will continue to deteriorate as the Logic Distribution Centre continues to grow.

There are a considerable number of apparent alternative heavy vehicle routes, however the majority are not viable due to either adverse community impacts or financial and technical constraints.

All alternate routes considered would require substantial financial outlays. It is not acceptable in the long term to simply relocate the heavy vehicle problem to another

area of Rutherglen. Any alternate heavy vehicle route to Main Street must be a long term solution to properly cater for future community needs and to ensure that available funding is targeted to these long terms needs.

The focus group made a number of recommendations including the following routes for further consideration:

An outer southern route incorporating a link from the Murray Valley Highway generally commencing at the Jones Road area and then proceeding in a south westerly direction across the Chiltern-Rutherglen Road and the Rutherglen-Springhurst Roads towards the eastern most end of Herrins Lane, and then via Herrins Lane and a westerly extension of Herrins Lane to link back to the Murray Valley Highway on the western side of Rutherglen. An outer northern route generally incorporating the Kilborn Road reserve and extension off that road reserve, through to the Murray Valley Highway east and west of Rutherglen. An inner northern route generally incorporating the VLine land and Killeens Lane, to link the MVH east of Rutherglen with the MVH west of Rutherglen.



When a detailed analysis of the preferred routes is undertaken that any other routes considered viable at that time be further investigated to ensure that the final route selected is the most appropriate heavy vehicle bypass of Main St Rutherglen.

Subsequent to the findings of the Community Focus Group, Indigo Shire Council initiated a Community Reference Group (CRG) to look at the alternative heavy vehicle routes in more detail. The CRG prepared a report in November 2008 in which 18 potential routes were analysed and scored within a matrix to identify the most favourable routes by the CRG. Those routes that came out as favoured were:

1. Route 3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way; 2. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane; 3. Route 7 Kilborne Road & Gooramadda Road; 4. Route 7A Kilborne Road & Great Southern Road; and 5. Route 7B Kilborne Road & East Link to Murray Valley Highway.

In addition to weighting the routes, the CRG report set out a series of 8 recommendations as follows:

CRG.1. That Council seeks VicRoads support for the following short term measures to alleviate traffic safety and amenity issues in Main St prior to the construction of a preferred heavy vehicle deviation route:-

• Reduce Speed limits in Main Street Rutherglen to 40 kph. • A review of the effectiveness of the 40 kmh limit within 12 months of

implementation and further review of the installation of speed management and pedestrian safety devices, if they are considered necessary, to further assist with traffic management.

• Review and apply further restrictions on truck parking in Main Street to maximise sight distance for other users of Main Street.

CRG.2. That following an extensive process of consultation and investigation this Group

considers that the following routes do not provide a solution to the Main St traffic problem that will be acceptable to the Rutherglen community:-

• Options 2 & 2A Reid Street and variants. • Option 12 Murray Street. • Option 9 Herrins Road. • Options 5 & 5A Hopetoun Road and variants. • Option 4 Ready Street.

CRG.3. That Council refer the following routes to VicRoads to undertake benefit/cost ratio

analysis:- • Options 3 & 3A Railway Reserve and variants. • Options 7, 7A & 7B Kilborn Road and variants. • Option 10 & 10A Kings Road and variants. • Option 13 & 13A Parkin Road and variants.

CRG.4. That the Up River Road and Gooramadda Road option be referred to the appointed

consultants for further analysis to determine whether this route could provide a short term reduction of truck movements in the main street prior to an alternative route being constructed.

CRG.5. That Council seek VicRoads advice on the likelihood of funding of routes identified in

Recommendation 6.3 in the short, medium or longer term.



CRG.6. That Council and VicRoads jointly review which routes are to be referred to the

consultants appointed to undertake the detailed assessment on the basis that if the Railway Reserve is ultimately the selected preferred route, then consideration also be given to identifying a second longer-term route outside the residential growth area for preservation for a future alternative bypass route.

CRG.7. That Council seek public submissions on this Report and refer those submissions to

the consultants appointed to undertake the detailed assessment, for their review and consideration.

CRG.8. That a public meeting be convened after the public release of this report to facilitate

informed discussion of the processes and issues and options for further development of this project.

In addition to the Focus Group and the Community Reference Group findings Indigo Shire Council has over a period of 18 months received over 40 submissions on the prospect of providing a heavy vehicle bypass to Rutherglen. Most submissions were positive in respect to the principles of a heavy vehicle route although negative to particular routes. A total of 38 clear objections to particular routes were received with the less popular routes being the use of the Railway reserve and Parkins Road. Only thirteen submissions including positive support for a particular route with the most preferred route being Up River Road. In January 2009 Aurecon was commissioned to provide an independent assessment of all alternative routes. It is noted that, to ensure independence, in the course of this assessment each route was assessed without reference back to either the focus group or the CRG groups’ recommendations. 1.4 Steering Committee To assist Aurecon in the study and to ensure that the study reflects the aims of the local Council and the community, a steering committee was set up. This steering committee consisted of:

Phil Prior, Indigo Shire Council; Tony Plowman, representing the CRG; and Michael Ham, VicRoads.



2. Assessment Methodology In order to assess each route a matrix was set up to consider a number of categories as follows:

Environmental; Social; Economic; and Transport.

The elements of sustainability (also referred to as triple-bottom line reporting) form the first three categories, whilst the fourth addresses technical requirements. The main categories were sub-divided into between two and four different criteria which were then assessed using existing documentation and new traffic data. The assessment matrix and details of the scoring categories are included in Appendix B. The categories and assessment criteria are discussed further within the following sections. Each category was given a weighting to achieve an overall ranking.



3. Environmental and Social Assessment An assessment of each route has been undertaken utilising a variety of information sources and these have included; desktop review of environmental and planning documents, state authority databases, records of consultation with stakeholders and the local community and a high-level assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with each alignment. The following environmental and social factors have been considered during the determination of the preferred routes:

Potential environmental impacts, including heritage items; Community impacts, including proximity to schools, residential properties and community

infrastructure; Property severance and potential land acquisition; and Landscape amenity.

During the assessment we have assumed the following, consistent with the project brief:

Three to four routes shall be identified following the assessment of 18 nominated routes; Main Street (Route 1) is the existing base against which other route options are compared

and is not a long term option; and All routes shall be ranked and weighted against four main categories including:

Environmental, Social, Economic and Transport. This chapter explains the justification behind the scoring of the environmental and social criteria in the assessment matrix (refer Appendix B) and provides details of the features upon which the routes may impact. Brief discussions of the typical actions necessary to address the impacts are also provided. 3.1 Environmental 3.1.1 Flora and Fauna The presence of native vegetation and trees across the study area must be considered when determining the alignment for the preferred route. The location of vegetated areas potentially supporting remnant native vegetation, trees, watercourses, permanent water bodies and sites of ecological significance were given a higher weighting in the Matrix Assessment. Methods The presence of Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC’s) within the study area was reviewed using the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) biodiversity interactive mapping tool, (http://nremap-sc.nre.vic.gov.au), which provides information on the biodiversity of Victoria and displays flora and fauna data. Information referring to matters of national environmental significance (listed taxa and ecological communities and Ramsar wetlands) protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Act was also obtained from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) Protected Matters Search Tool. Assessment Limitations A site assessment documenting flora species and any remnant native vegetation communities within the study area of the proposed routes has not been undertaken at this scoping stage of the study. However, the assessment is considered sufficient to achieve the purposes of this report to prepare a high level review of the subject area impacted by the nominated routes.



Results The project area is located in the ‘Northern Slopes Bioregion’, shown in Figure 3-1 below and is characterised by a landscape consisting of foothill slopes and minor ranges separated by river valleys which typically drain northward from the High Country to the Murray River. The Bioregion is fragmented, partly as a result of the natural topographic dissection of the bioregion by major river floodplains and partly as a result of broadscale clearing for farming practices. The bioregion was once covered with a diversity of drier forest and woodland types, including Box-Ironbark Forest, Granite Hills, Woodland Grassy and Heathy Dry Forest, Herb-Rich Woodlands and Valleys and Riverine Grassy Woodlands. Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) are still present across the area surrounding the township of Rutherglen and beyond. The Box-Ironbark Forest remnants are extremely important for nectar feeding birds including the nationally endangered Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. Other species potentially found in the bioregion include the Squirrel Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Turquoise Parrot, Grey-crowned Babbler, Warby Swamp-gum, Dookie Daisy, Narrow Goodenia, and Cupped Bush-pea. Remnant native vegetation within the study area is considered ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ within the bioregion and remnant scattered trees contain habitat for a variety of fauna species including mammals and birds. These potential environmental factors were taken into consideration during the assessment of the routes. The EPBC Protected Matters Search tool identified the potential for a range of threatened flora and migratory fauna species and species habitat to occur within the location of the route assessment study area. This tool identifies areas where specific species may habitat and includes species such as the Painted Snipe. No Ramsar listed wetlands are located within the project area and the area falls within the Murray-Darling basin catchment. As stated above, all routes fall within the same bioregion and therefore all else being equal would be attractive to the same species and therefore subject to the same high level score within the matrix. However, there are clearly different sub regions within the study area the major being between urban and rural environments. Given that rural environments are generally more likely to support substantial flora and fauna species than urban environments, the routes within the matrix have been scored as follows:

Score of 1 (Least favourable routes) rural routes; Score of 2 routes with urban and rural elements; and Score of 3 (Most favourable routes) urban routes.

Recommendations An assessment of ecological values for each of the four preferred routes should be undertaken in terms of quantifying, managing and mitigating any potential adverse impacts the development of a new road alignment may have on existing terrestrial and aquatic values supported within the study area.



Figure 3-1: Potential Flora and Fauna Issues occurring across the Study Area (not to scale)

3.1.2 Zone and Overlay Provisions A review of the Indigo Shire Planning Scheme identified a range of overlays pursuant to each route option. All of the nominated routes are subject to the provisions of an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3), under the Indigo Shire Planning Scheme. Consideration and weighting was given to the impact future development of a preferred route may have on the surrounding environment. Development of a route should be considered against the environmental objectives to be achieved in accordance with the provisions of the ESO3 including:

Maintaining the quality of water within the catchment. Preventing buildings and works from impeding the flows of water within the Black Dog Creek

catchment and maintain its ability to carry natural flows including floods. Providing a framework to assist in decisions regarding drainage works within the catchment

Routes within heritage overlays received lower scores in the matrix, indicating that additional work may be required to assess the values associated with the locations and that the preservation of sites will impact on the design of the alignments. 3.1.3 Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity The presence of areas of cultural heritage sensitivity, pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, was reviewed using the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) mapping tool (refer Figure 3-2). A review of Map 8125 ‘Wangaratta’ identified the township of Rutherglen as being in proximity to waterways and bodies of water having the potential to support areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity (indigenous). These areas should be considered during the review of preferred options to determine

Source: www.dse.vic.gov.au

Legend Lower slopes of Hills Woodlands Box Iron Forests or dry/lower fertility woodlands Plains woodlands and Forests



the potential for impact to sites of significance. Consultation with Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) is required to determine status of proposed sites.

Figure 3-2: Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity

3.2 Social 3.2.1 Community Impacts Heavy vehicle routes can have a range of impacts on communities, including noise, light spill, pedestrian amenity and safety and cycle safety impacts. As the assessment matrix is a high-level assessment, these impacts have been grouped into one criterion. Routes which pass through more densely populated areas, in particular residential, business and educational land uses, as identified through an analysis of the Planning Scheme zones, are more likely to adversely impact on communities and the matrix reflects this accordingly. Design features available to mitigate adverse effects on communities include traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings, pedestrian over/underpasses, noise barriers, improved noise insulation of buildings, and the provision of fencing or plantings to reduce light spill and noise. 3.2.2 Impacts on Schools Whilst the community impacts criterion includes consideration of educational land uses, the particular sensitivity of schools to heavy vehicle movements warrants additional recognition in the assessment matrix. The mitigation measures identified in Section 3.2.1 above can also be employed at schools, however the safety of students must remain paramount and the avoidance of any impacts may be the most appropriate approach and as such, this has been given the highest weighting. 3.2.3 Landscape Amenity The Indigo Shire Planning Scheme contains a Significant Landscape Overlay which protects areas with important visual amenity values. The routes have been assessed to determine whether any fall within such an overlay. As none fall within this overlay, all have received the same score for landscape amenity impacts in the goals achievement matrix. There may be localised visual impacts with the routes, however landscaping and other mitigation measures can be implemented to address these.

Areas of cultural heritage sensitivity Source: DPCD



3.2.4 Property Severance Routes which require land acquisition will involve a degree of property severance. Routes which involve the acquisition of land adjacent to existing road corridors will generally have lesser severance impacts compared to routes which cut across existing land parcels, leaving parts of properties isolated from each other. In rural areas this would have an impact on local farming activities including stock movements. 3.3 Assessment of Options The assessment matrix attached as Appendix B provides details of the scoring, weighting and ranking of each option. The following lists the key features which may be affected by each route based on an assessment of the relevant zones and overlays in the Planning Scheme. Further discussion of the scores attributed to each of the following features is provided in Appendix B. 3.3.1 Existing Route (Base Case) - Main St Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) • Urban environment

Heritage

• Heritage Overlay (HO628 – Rutherglen Conservation Area) Social

• The route passes through Rutherglen’s commercial area and also residential areas and thus will impact on the community

3.3.2 Route 2 - Reid St and Butlers Lane Environment


Heritage

• Heritage Overlays (HO628 – Rutherglen Conservation Area; HO571 Ready Memorial, HO608 John Wallace Memorial)

Social

• The route passes beside Rutherglen’s commercial area and also residential and recreation areas and thus will impact on the community

3.3.3 Route 2A - Reid St and Killeens Lane Environment


Heritage

• Heritage Overlays (HO628 – Rutherglen Conservation Area; HO571 Ready Memorial, HO608 John Wallace Memorial)

Social

• The route passes beside Rutherglen’s commercial area and also residential and recreation areas and thus will impact on the community



3.3.4 Route 3 - Railway Reserve & Killeens Lane Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) • Urban and Rural elements

Heritage • Heritage Overlays: HO628 – Rutherglen Conservation Area; HO579 Rutherglen Railway

Station and Gates Social

• The route passes through residential areas and thus will impact on the community • Development Plan Overlay (DPO3)

3.3.5 Route 3A - Railway Reserve and Federation Way Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) • Urban and Rural Elements

Heritage • Heritage Overlays: HO628 – Rutherglen Conservation Area; HO579 Rutherglen Railway

Station and Gates Social


3.3.6 Route 4 - Ready St Environment


Heritage

• Not applicable Social

• The route passes through residential areas and thus will impact on the community • The route adjoins the high school and thus could impact on the safety of students

3.3.7 Route 5 - Hopetoun Rd Environment


Heritage

• Heritage Overlays (HO109 – Campbell St and Carlyle St Water Tower) Social




3.3.8 Route 5A - Hopetoun Rd and Jones Rd Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3)R • Urban and Rural Elements

Heritage

• Heritage Overlays (HO109 – Campbell St and Carlyle St Water Tower) Social

• The route passes through residential areas and thus will impact on the community 3.3.9 Route 7 - Kilborn Rd and Gooramadda Rd Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3)R • Rural Environment

Heritage

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) Social

• The route passes through rural areas and thus will have lesser impacts on the community compared to options which impact on urban land uses

• The route will impact on rural industry and farming

3.3.10 Route 7A - Kilborn Rd and Great Southern Rd Environment


Heritage

• Heritage Overlays (HO550) Social


• The route will impact on rural industry and farming 3.3.11 Route 7B - Kilborn Rd East link to MVH Environment


Heritage



• The route will impact on rural industry and farming



3.3.12 Route 8 - Up River Rd Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3)R • Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) • Rural Environment

Heritage



3.3.13 Route 9 -Herrin Rd Environment


Heritage


• The route passes through rural residential areas and thus will have lesser impacts on the community compared to options which impact on urban land uses but greater than purely rural areas

• Development Plan Overlay (DPO4)

3.3.14 Route 10 - Kings Rd to MVH west Environment


Heritage



3.3.15 Route 10A - Kings Rd & Federation Way to MVH Environment


Heritage





3.3.16 Route 12 - Murray St Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3)R • Urban Environment

Heritage


• The route passes through residential areas and thus will impact on the community • The route adjoins the primary school and thus could impact on the safety of students

3.3.17 Route 13 - Parkin Rd to MVH west Environment


Heritage



3.3.18 Route 13A - Parkin Rd to Federation Way Environment

• Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) • Rural Environment

Heritage





4. Economic Analysis 4.1 Land Acquisition The costs of land acquisition cannot be assessed until concept designs are available for the routes and the area and zoning of land to be acquired is more accurately known. To this end, a high level assessment of the amount of land likely to be acquired has been undertaken. The matrix delineates between routes which require no acquisition, routes which require the acquisition of land less than 1km in length and routes which require the acquisition of land greater than 1km in length. The width of road reservations will need to be considered in detail in later stages. 4.2 Major Cost Impacts A high level cost estimate has been undertaken by Aurecon. This was done by categorising Council and VicRoads roads as either:

Rural; or Urban.

Roads were then further divided into the following sub-categories:

Existing sealed road to be upgraded; Existing unsealed road to be upgraded; or New road to be constructed.

Each route was then separated into segments according to the relevant categories and sub-categories. The following assumptions have been made in the course of preparing these high level cost estimates:

VicRoads roads: o Have sufficient pavement strength for new truck loading; o If there are no existing sealed shoulders, shoulder sealing shall be required; and o Intersection improvement works as necessary.

Council roads: o Do not have sufficient pavement strength for new truck loading and therefore require

full reconstruction. Rural standard road requirements:

o 2 x 3.5m lanes with sealed shoulder on either side. Urban standard road requirements:

o 2 x 3.5m lanes, o 2 x 2.5m parking lanes, o Street lighting, o Noise attenuation in high impact locations; and o Underground drainage.

General construction costs per kilometre of road for each of these options has been developed using the VicRoads risk based cost estimate spreadsheet. The cost of upgrading intersections with major roads with turn lanes, street lighting etc. has also been included.



Table 4-1: Construction costs per kilometre of road

Existing Condition Urban Rural

Sealed $1.90M $1.01M Unsealed $2.07M $1.41M

New $2.31M $2.50M

The cost for each route was then calculated and placed into a category, according to relative costs. These categories are as follows:

1 More than $10 million; 2 $3 - $10 million; and 3 Less than $3 million.



5. Transport Issues 5.1 Introduction In order to assess the likely deviation of trucks and other through traffic using Rutherglen’s Main Street, an understanding of the origin and destinations of truck movements on the road network is required. The principal road network of interest is the arterial route through Rutherglen, as indicated in orange and yellow within Figure 5-1 below.

Figure 5-1: Road network through Rutherglen From Figure 5.1 it is apparent that there is one arterial route passing through the centre of Rutherglen, being the Murray Valley Highway (also known as Main Street), which is fed by five feeder routes. These feeder routes are:

Murray Valley Highway to the east of the town, also known as Howlong Road; Chiltern-Rutherglen Road also known as Main Street; Rutherglen – Springhurst Road also known as Fortune Street; Murray Valley Highway to the west of the town, also known as Main Street; and

N

Main Feeder Routes into and out of Rutherglen



Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road also known as Scott Street. As evident from this list, the use of the terms “Main Street” and “Murray Valley Highway” for various sections of the roads could lead to confusion, therefore for simplicity this report adopts the nomenclature listed in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Nomenclature utilised in this report

Name used in report Other Names Location

Murray Valley Highway East (MVH-E) Howlong Street

B400 East of Rutherglen and the intersection of

Chiltern-Rutherglen Road

Main Street Murray Valley Highway

B400

Between the intersection with Rutherglen-Chiltern Road and the intersection with

Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road

Murray Valley Highway West (MVH-W) Main Street

Moodemere Street B400

West of the intersection with Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road

Chiltern-Rutherglen Road Main Street

C377 South-east of the intersection with Rutherglen-

Springhurst Road

Rutherglen-Springhurst Road Fortune Street

C376 South-east of the intersection with MVH-E

Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road Scott Street

C376 North of the intersection with MVH-W

5.2 Traffic Surveys 5.2.1 Traffic Movements To obtain an understanding of traffic movements through Rutherglen, Aurecon undertook a series of Origin and Destination (O-D) surveys on the main truck entry and exit points either side of Main Street. The O-D check points were:

• Chiltern-Springhurst Road, north of the intersection with Chiltern-Rutherglen Road; • Murray Valley Highway East, east of the intersection with Chiltern–Springhurst Road; and • Main Street, east of the intersection of Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road and Murray Valley

Highway West. These surveys were supplemented by tube count data collected by both Indigo Shire Council and Aurecon at the following locations:

• Murray Valley Highway (Moodemere Street) (B400), between Killeens Lane and Butler Street; • Murray Valley Highway (Main Street) (B400), between Drummond Street and Bowling Green

Lane; • Murray Valley Highway (B400), between Gills Road and Indigo Gooramadda Road; • Up River Road, just east of All Saints Road; • Rutherglen - Wahgunyah Road (C376), between Three Chain Road and Jacks Road; • Reid Street, at Warrens Lane; • Springhurst Road (C376), between Parkins Road and Kings Road; • Chiltern - Rutherglen Road (C377), between Jones Road and Cornishtown Road; • Chiltern - Howlong Road (C381), between Gooramadda Road and Weidners Road;



• Chiltern - Howlong Road (C381), between Murray Valley Highway and Barnanwartha Road; • Gooramadda Road, between Mia Mia Road and Chiltern - Howlong Road; and • Barnanwartha Road (C378), between Stewarts Road and Bay Road.

The surveys were all undertaken in February 2009. The results of the survey information are set out within the Existing Traffic Conditions Paper. This paper also takes into consideration future truck and traffic volumes on the network due to both natural growth and growth due to the full development of the Logic Centre in Barnawartha to the east of the town. The paper concluded that without the development of an alternative truck route, by 2030 approximately 12,000 vehicles per day would be entering and exiting Rutherglen by the five main feeder routes, of which approximately 3700 vehicles would be “through” movements. Truck traffic would equate to approximately 1200 vehicle movements into and out of the town, with approximately 380 trucks undertaking through movements. Further analysis of the traffic data gathered identified the through truck movements presented in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Surveyed through traffic factored up to account for Logic traffic and growth to 2030

Through Route Total Daily Through Traffic Movements

Daily Through Truck Movements

Murray Valley Highway (Howlong Road) East and

Murray Valley Highway / Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road

2360 325

Main Street South of Rutherglen and

Murray Valley Highway / Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road

883 34

Main Street South of Rutherglen And

Murray Valley Highway (Howlong Road) east of Rutherglen

450 17

Total Daily Through Movements 3693 376 Since undertaking the existing conditions paper a number of additional issues have emerged and need to be factored into future traffic volumes. These issues are discussed in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 below. 5.2.2 Truck Seasonality Aurecon has been advised that a significant contributor to truck movements through Rutherglen is the Baker Seed Co. located approximately 6km to the south of the town on Springhurst Road. We have also been advised that truck movements generated from this site exhibit clear seasonal peaks and troughs. Aurecon contacted Ashley Fraser, of Baker Seed Co, and discussed typical truck movements to and from the facility. Based on these discussions the following is noted:

In February, when the surveys were undertaken, truck movements into and out of Baker Seed Co are limited;



Peak truck movements into and out of the site occur over three distinct periods of the year as follows:

− November and December - deliveries into the facility; − March to May - despatches out of the facility; and − June to September – stockfeed.

At peak truck movement periods of the year the facility generates approximately 150 truck movements a week through Main Street – assumed to equate to approximately 30 truck movements per weekday.

• To the west of Main Street, trucks are roughly split in accordance with the traffic splits on Rutherglen-Wahgunyah Road and Murray Valley Highway West.

Clearly the truck movements recorded in February would be lower than much of the year. Therefore for the purpose of this study to provide peak truck movements through the town the traffic and truck movements set out in Table 5-2 have been increased to include 30 trucks per day from Baker Seed Co. as indicated in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3: Anticipated 2030 through traffic movements including Baker Seed Co Traffic

Through Route Total Daily Through Traffic Movements

Daily Through Truck Movements

Murray Valley Highway East and Murray Valley Highway West / Rutherglen-

Wahgunyah Road 2360 325

Rutherglen – Springhurst Road and Murray Valley Highway West / Rutherglen-

Wahgunyah Road 913 64

Rutherglen – Springhurst Road and Murray Valley Highway East 450 17

Total Daily Through Movements 3723 406 From Table 5-3 it is apparent that by 2030, 406 through truck movements per day are anticipated to pass through Rutherglen and its surrounds, which will have significant effects on the community, especially in the vicinity of Main Street. Conservatively assuming that the trucks would be evenly spread across a 10 hour period, this would equate to on average 40 trucks an hour, or between 1 and 2 trucks a minute. 5.2.3 Feeder Routes The OD survey was designed to identify through movements on Main Street from the arterial routes. However, it does not differentiate between all the different feeder routes, of which there are 6 as indicated within Figure 5-2.



Figure 5-2: Feeder routes. To assess the number of truck movements linking between each feeder route, a sample travel survey was undertaken on Wednesday 28th April 2009. During the travel survey Indigo Shire Council representatives followed and tabulated truck movements between each feeder route. The results of these surveys are set out in Table 5.4.

E

E

D

D

C

C

F

F

A

A

B

B



Table 5-4: Feeder Routes

Entry Feeder Exit Feeder Total Trucks Followed

Percentage Distribution

Chiltern – Rutherglen Road 3 1%

Rutherglen – Springhurst Road 6 3%

Murray Valley Highway West 77 31%

Murray Valley Highway East

Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road 12 5%

Murray Valley Highway East 1 1%



Chiltern – Rutherglen Road





Rutherglen – Springhurst Road





Murray Valley Highway West





Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road


Truck and traffic movements have been split in proportion to figures identified within the Indigo Shire Council. Applying the percentage split to the anticipated 2030 volumes in Table 6.5 the future through movements on Main Street have been separated out into the separate feeder routes in Figure 5-3 and Table 5-5. From Figure 5-3, it is apparent that through movements on Main Street are travelling along one of six possible routes as indicated in Table 5-5.



Table 5-5: Anticipated Through Traffic Volumes 2030 per Feeder Routes

Route Through Route Daily Traffic Movements Daily Truck Movements

A Murray Valley Highway East and Murray Valley Highway West 2358 258

B Murray Valley Highway East and Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road 237 25

C Chiltern – Rutherglen Road and Murray Valley Highway West 238 26

D Rutherglen – Springhurst Road and Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road 134 14

E Rutherglen – Springhurst Road and Murray Valley Highway West 192 21

F Chiltern – Rutherglen Road and Rutherglen – Wahgunyah Road 89 9

3248 353

NB: Through movements that do not pass along Main Street in the centre of Rutherglen are not shown.

Figure 5-3: Feeder routes with traffic volumes, (truck volumes in brackets).

Traffic (trucks)

E

E

D

D

C

C

F

F

A

A

B

B 237 (25)

89 (9)

134 (14)

2358 (258)

238 (26)

192 (21)



5.3 Potential Traffic Deviations The number of traffic (both total and truck) movements which could divert onto each route has been assessed based on the following assumptions:

Measures would be put in place along Main Street to discourage all through movements along this street;

The alternative route would not result in vehicles travelling significantly back on themselves; and

For every 100m additional distance required to travel 1% of traffic would not re-route to the alternative.

It is noted that the 10km threshold cut off and the 1% drop in diverting traffic for every 100m of additional distance are values which have been discussed with the steering committee to provide a relative measure of how vehicles would be less likely to divert the further the diversion would take them off their intended route. Based on these assumptions, Table 5-6 sets out the potential percentage truck and traffic deviation onto each of the bypass routes. Total traffic anticipated to use each route was then calculated to provide an overall percentage of the total through traffic that would divert away from Main Street. These percentages were then categorised as follows:

1 less than 50% of trucks; 2 Between 50% and 80% of trucks; and 3 More than 80% of trucks.



Table 5-6: Potential Truck Deviation to Alternative Heavy Vehicle Routes

Route No

Route Description Route Colour A B C D E F Total

1 Main Street – current route

Green n/a

2 Reid Street and Butlers Street

Red 95% 100% 95% 100% 95% 100% 96%

2A Reid Street and Killeens Lane

Red plus dotted red 92% 100% 92% 100% 92% 100% 93%

3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane

Pink solid 92% 100% 91% 99% 91% 99% 93%

3A Railway Reserve and

Federation Way Pink plus

pink dotted 74% 100% 74% 99% 74% 99% 78%

4 Ready Street Light blue 97% 70% 100% 78% 100% 80% 95%

5 Hopetoun Road Orange 88% 97% 81% 90% 79% 88% 89%

5A Hopetoun Road and Jones Road

Orange plus light orange 88% 97% 85% 94% 57% 65% 87%

6 Jones Road Link Light Orange only n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

7 Kilborn Road and Gooramadda Road

Brown 43% 98% 0 [1] 0 [1] 0 [1] 0 [1] 39%

7A Kilbourn Road and Great Southern Road

Brown and dotted Brown 46% 100% 23% 78% 0 [2] 50% 47%

7B Kilbourn Road and East Link to Murray

Valley Hwy

Brown and thin dotted

brown 71% 100% 0 [1] 0 [1] 0 [1] 0 [1] 59%

8 Up River Road 20% 67% 0 [2] 30% 0 [2] 20% 22%

9 Herrin Road Dark Green 88% 61% 95% 69% 100% 79% 87%

10 Kings Road to Murray Valley Highway west

Red 44% 5% 74% 36% 100% 80% 48%

10A Kings Road &

Federation Way to Murray Valley Hwy

Red plus dotted Red 31% 5% 62% 36% 100% 80% 38%

11 Howlong Road 0 [2] 5% 0 [2] 1% [0] 1 [0] 1 1%

12 Murray Street Pastel pink 100% 74% 100% 74% 100% 74% 96%

13 Parkin Road to Murray Valley Highway West

Purple 75% 37% 100% 67% 100% 76% 76%

13A Parkin Road to Federation Way Only

Purple 63% 37% 94% 67% 100% 76% 67%

[1] Route does not provide direct link into either Rutherglen-Springhurst or Chiltern-Rutherglen Road [2] Diversion would increase journey length by more than 15km



5.4 Distance In addition to estimating traffic volumes expected to use the proposed deviation routes, the distances of the deviation route were compared against the distance of the existing through route. These distances were estimated via Google Earth and are set out in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7: Journey Length Difference for Each Alternative Heavy Vehicle Route In Metres

Route No

Route Description Route Colour A B C D E F

2 Reid Street and Butlers Street

Red 460 -80 460 -80 460 -70

2A Reid Street and Killeens Lane

Red plus dotted red 820 -80 820 -80 820 -70

3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane

Pink solid 820 40 850 100 850 100

3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way

Pink plus pink dotted 2,590 40 2,620 100 2,620 100

4 Ready Street Light blue 340 2,960 -405 1,995 -625 2,185

5 Hopetoun Road Orange 1,195 305 1,880 1,210 2,100 995

5A Hopetoun Road and Jones Road

Orange plus light orange 1,195 305 1,530 3,450 4,340 645

6 Jones Road Link Light Orange only - - - - - -

7 Kilborn Road and Gooramadda Road

Brown 5,709 169 N/A N/A N/A N/A

7A Kilbourn Road and Great Southern Road

Brown and dotted Brown 5,420 -120 7,660 4,965 10,50

5 2,170

7B Kilbourn Road and East Link to Murray

Valley Hwy

Brown and thin dotted

brown 2,875 -2,665 N/A N/A N/A N/A

8 Up River Road 7,980 3,250 N/A N/A N/A N/A

9 Herrin Road Dark Green 1,220 3,870 485 2,095 -555 3,140

10 Kings Road to Murray Valley Highway west

Red 5,620 9,470 2,560 1,985 -1,865 6,415

10A Kings Road &

Federation Way to Murray Valley Hwy

Red plus dotted Red 6,850 9,470 3,790 1,985 -635 6,415

11 Howlong Road 23,461 18,406 N/A N/A N/A N/A

12 Murray Street Pastel pink 100 2,590 105 2,590 100 2,600

13 Parkin Road to Murray Valley Highway West

Purple 2,450 6,305 -610 2,415 -1,440 3,250

13A Parkin Road to Federation Way Only

Purple 3,680 6,305 620 2,415 -210 3,250

To provide a single distance measure for each of the potential bypass routes the total diverting trucks per day (calculated within Section 5.3) have been applied to the relative additional distance travelled. This has then been summed to produce the total additional kilometres travelled per day by trucks diverting from each alternative route through Rutherglen.



The additional distance vehicles would have to travel on the proposed deviation route compared against the existing through route was calculated. This was then divided by the number of trucks that would use the deviation route (calculated within Section 5.3). Each of the routes was then placed in a category according to the sum of the ratios of additional metres per truck. The categories are as follows:

1 More than 1000 additional metres per truck; 2 400 – 1000 additional metres per truck; and 3 Less than 400 additional metres per truck.

5.5 Route Efficiency The route efficiency was measured through calculating the difference in time taken to travel the deviation route versus the existing route. This was achieved by multiplying the distance (as calculated in Section 5.4) by the posted or anticipated speed limit for each section of road. If along the route an intersection was encountered, where the affected traffic would not have right of way, a penalty was applied. The intersection penalties were based on the number and type of roads intersecting. The penalties used are as follows:

Two intersecting arterial roads or roundabout: 10 seconds; A minor road intersecting an arterial road: 8 seconds; and Two intersecting minor roads: 6 seconds.

The additional time for vehicles to travel on the proposed deviation route compared against the existing through route was calculated. The additional time for the route with the highest amount of deviated trucks was taken as a reflection of the route efficiency (as calculated in Section 5.3). This value was categorised as follows:

1 More than 5 additional minutes; 2 2 – 5 additional minutes; and 3 Less than 2 additional minutes.



6. Aurecon Matrix Findings and Conclusions The scoring of each of the categories discussed above has been added together within a matrix to provide an overall score for each route. This matrix is attached as Appendix B. From Appendix B it can be seen that the total score of the routes range from 45 to 66 with the top four routes obtaining scores of between 59 and 66. The top four routes are therefore:

4. Route 2 Reid Street and Butlers Street – 66 points; 5. Route 2A Reid St and Killeens Lane – 63 points; 6. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane – 62 points; 5. Route 4 Herrins Road – 59 points.

Overall it is noted that the matrix identified all northern routes with the exception of Herrins Road that runs to the south of the site. It is noted that this matrix is a high level technical matrix which indicates the highest rated routes based on technical parameters. It does not identify the four shortlisted routes to be selected for more detailed assessment. Council elected to combine the results of the Aurecon and CRG matrices to identify the shortlisted routes.



7. Focus and Community Reference Group Whilst Aurecon can undertake a ‘technical’ assessment of the alternative routes, it is important for a project such as the Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass that it has the support of the local community. Community support per se is generally difficult for consultants to quantify at a high level in a technical matrix such as that undertaken by Aurecon. It is clear from public submissions that most members of the community support the principal of removing heavy vehicle from Main Street, however there is a lot of public consternation regarding the best route. In the first instance, a Focus Group was formed by Indigo Shire Council to consider and develop a number of potential solutions to the issue of heavy vehicles through Main Street Rutherglen. The focus group contained 19 members as followed:

Cr. Peter Graham Cr. Frances Walsh Ken Jasper MP Sgt. Brian Curran, Rutherglen Police Michael Ham, VicRoads Phil Prior, Assets Manager, Indigo Shire Council Transport operators- 3 representatives Chamber of Commerce/business interests-3 Tourism industry-2 Schools-2 Cyclists and walkers- 1 Rural community-2

The focus group considered the broad strategic issues that impact on the viability of individual routes for heavy vehicles and following a process of route identification and elimination the Group recommended the following: - An outer sourthern route incporporating a link from the Murray Valley Highway generally

commencing at the Jones Road area and then proceeding in a south westerly direction across the Chiltern-RutherglenRoad and the Rutherglen-Springhurst Roads towards the eastern most end of Herrins Lane, and then via Herrins Lane and a westerly extension of Herrins Lane to link back to the Murray Valley Highway on the western side of Rutherglen

- An outer northern route generally incorporating the Kilborn Road reserveand extension off that road reserve, through to the Murray Valley Highway east and west of Rutherglen.

- An inner northern route generally incorporating the VLine land and Killeens Lane, to link the MVH east of Rutherglen with the MVH west ofRutherglen.

- When a detailed analysis of the preferred routes is undertaken that anyother routes considered viable at that time be further investigated to ensure that the final route selected is the most appropriate heavy vehicle bypass of Main St Rutherglen.

Following on from the Focus Group and to provide a wider representation of the general community’s wishes, Indigo Shire Council formed a community reference group (CRG) prior to the involvement of Aurecon. It is understood that this group was formed by the appointment of a chairman independent of



Council. Council then advertised for the remaining members of the CRG. The members of the CRG are set out below:

Tony Plowman, Independent Chairman; Arthur Jones; Malcolm Campbell; Dale Bridge; Ashley Fraser; Damien Adams; Danny Glasgow; Dough Hyslop; Edward Shanks; Glenda Mackay; Ian Lobban; Mary Dunn; Philip Trimble; Greg Duncan; Councillors Jenny Dale and Bill Hotson as Council representatives (replaced by Councillors

Barbara Murdoch and Vic Issell in December 2008); Michael Ham as the representative of VicRoads; and Phil Prior (Indigo Shire Council General Manager Operations and Assets) as the Council

technical representative.

The CRG undertook their own investigation of the 18 routes and prepared a matrix which ranked the routes in accordance to their ratings. The full findings of this assessment process are set out within the Findings and Recommendations of the Community Reference Group Initial Report dated November 2008. The CRG matrix is attached for information as Appendix C. The CRG matrix scored the 18 routes in a different manner to the Aurecon matrix with total scores for each route ranging from 224 to 370 with the highest score representing the CRG’s most favoured route, as follows:

1. Route 3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way; 2. Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane; 3. Route 7 Kilborn Road & Gooramadda Road; and 4. Route 7A Kilborn Road & Eastern link to Murray Valley Highway

It is noted that the CRG report recommended that the following routes should be refered to VicRoads for more detailed consideration:

Options 3 & 3A Railway Reserve and variants. Options 7, 7A & 7B Kilborn Road and variants. Option 10 & 10A Kings Road and variants. Option 13 & 13A Parkin Road and variants.

These routes are considered at this stage to most accurately reflect the concerns of the community but may not be appropriate in terms of the achievabilty of the project.



8. Shortlisted Routes for Detailed Consideration 8.1 Preamble The Aurecon matrix was presented to the Community Reference Group and the methodology and findings discussed in principle. Following this presentation, the CRG had an internal meeting which made recommendations as to the method to proceed. These recommendations were then discussed by the steering committee (with the exception of Aurecon) and Aurecon instructed as to how the shortlisted routes should be determined from the technical and community matrices. 8.2 Consolidation of Technical and Community Matrices To provide a technical and community element to the development of the four shortlisted routes it was decided that the Aurecon and CRG matrices should be combined. However as the two matrices adopted different scoring methods these needed to be normalised to provide equal weighting. It was noted that the total final score for the routes within the Aurecon matrix equated to approximately 19% of the total final score for the routes within the CRG matrix. Therefore the CRG scores were factored by 0.19 to produce the same total as the Aurecon matrix. The factored scores were then added together to produce a total new score which was then ranked as indicated within the matrix attached as Appendix D. Table 8.1 summarises the consolidation of the ranking.

Table 8-1: Consolidated Route Ranking

Route Description Route Colour Consolidated Ranking

2 Reid St and Butlers St Red 4

2A Reid St and Killeens Ln Red plus dotted red 5

3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Ln Pink solid 1

3A Railway Reserve and Federation Way Pink plus pink dotted 2

4 Ready St Light blue 17

5 Hopetoun Rd Orange 14

5A Hopetoun Rd and Jones Rd Orange plus light orange 16

7 Kilborn Rd and Gooramadda Rd Brown 3

7A Kilbourn Rd and Great Southern Rd Brown and dotted Brown 12

7B Kilbourn Rd and East Link to Murray Valley Hwy Brown and thin dotted brown 9

8 Up River Road 6

9 Herrin Road Dark Green 10

10 Kings Rd to Murray Valley Hwy west Red 13

10A Kings Rd & Federation Way to Murray Valley Hwy Red plus dotted Red 14

12 Murray St Pastel pink 11

13 Parkin Rd to Murray Valley Highway West Purple 7

13A Parkin Rd to Federation Way Only Purple 9



8.3 Route Short List The consolidated matrix provided a ranking for each of the routes considered by Aurecon and the CRG. To identify the final four routes for further consideration the steering committee revisited the principal goals of the study and reviewed the combined matrix findings on the following basis:

A short listed route must provide a suitable long term solution; A short listed route must not be a variation of another shortlisted route; and A short listed route must allow a reasonable diversion for the main traffic route between

Murray Valley Highway east and west. Based on the consolidated matrix and the above rules the following routes have been identified by the Project Streering Committee for further detailed investigations by Aurecon:

Route 3 Railway Reserve and Killeens Lane (Pink solid) Route 7 Kilborn Road and Gooramadda Road (Brown) Route 9 Herrins Road (Dark Green) Route 13 Parkins Road to Murray Valley Highway West(Purple)

These routes will now be considered in more detail and the full level of assessment will be reviewed against the brief. Any amendments to these routes will require approval by the Project Steering Committee. 8.4 Rejected Routes Routes that as a result of the process undertaken to date that have been rejected for further detailed consideration are set out and discussed in Table 8.2.



Table 8-2: Rejected Routes

Route Description Reasons

2 Reid St and Butlers St

2A Reid St and Killeens Ln

Reid Street is considered as a reasonable short term solution but does not present a long term solution

3A Railway Reserve and Federation

Way This is a variation of Route 3 and although will not be

considered in detail will be referred to within the next stage as an additional possibility

4 Ready St Ranked as 17th

5 Hopetoun Rd Ranked as 14th

5A Hopetoun Rd and Jones Rd Ranked as 16th

7A Kilbourn Rd and Great Southern Rd

7B Kilbourn Rd and East Link to Murray Valley Hwy

These are variations of Route 7 and although will not be considered in detail will be referred to within the next stage

as an additional possibility

8 Up River Road Would not cater for the major through movement without a significant deviation

10 Kings Rd to Murray Valley Hwy west

Ranked as 13th

10A Kings Rd & Federation Way to Murray Valley Hwy

Ranked as 14th

12 Murray St Murray Street is considered as a reasonable short term solution but does not present a long term solution

13A Parkin Rd to Federation Way

Only This is a variation on Route 13 and although will not be

considered in detail will be referred to within the next stage as an additional possibility



Appendix A Route Maps



Appendix B Aurecon Risk Matrix

A score of 3 indicates that the outcome is likely to be favourable for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion.

A score of 2 indicates that the outcome is likely to be neutral (ie neither favourable nor unfavourable) for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion.

A score of 1 indicates that the outcome is likely to be unfavourable for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion.

Inner /Outer

Criteria Inner Score Reason for score

Environmental Aboriginal heritage* Inner 1 Route in an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity as shown on the DPCD maps

Inner 2 Not used

Inner 3 Route not in an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity as shown on the DPCD maps

European heritage Inner 1 Route is in a Heritage Overlay

Outer 2 Not used

Outer 3 Route is not in a Heritage Overlay

Terrestrial flora 1 Route is in a Vegetation Protection Overlay

Outer 2 Not used

Outer 3 Route is not in a Vegetation Protection Overlay

Terrestrial fauna Outer 1 Route is in an Environmental Significance Overlay and is in an urban area

Outer 2 Route is in an Environmental Significance Overlay and is in a partially urban area

Outer 3 Route is in an Environmental Significance Overlay and is in a rural area

Social Community impacts Outer 1 Route affects land zoned Residential, Public Use Zone - Education, and/or Business

Outer 2 Route affects land predominantly zoned Residential

Outer 3 Route affects land predominantly zoned Farming

Landscape amenity Inner 1 Route is in a Significant Landscape Overlay

Outer 2 Not used

Outer 3 Route is not in a Significant Landscape Overlay

Impacts on schools 1 Route passes the primary school

2 Route passes the secondary school

3 Route does not pass the primary or secondary school

Property severance 1 More than 5 properties likely to be severed

2 1 to 5 properties likely to be severered and/or acquisition to be parallel to existing road corridor

3 No properties severed

Economic Land acquisition 1 More than 1 linear km of land likely to be acquired (Public Use Zone excluded)

2 Less than 1 linear km of land likely to be acquired (Public Use Zone excluded)

3 No land to be acquired

Major cost impacts 1 High cost impact

2 Medium cost impact

3 Low cost impact

Transport Traffic volumes 1 Less than 50% of trucks would use the deviation

2 Between 50 - 80% of trucks would use the deviation

3 More than 80% of trucks would use the deviation

1 More than 1000 additional metres per truck

2 Between 400 - 1000 additional metres per truck

3 Less than 400 additional metres per truck

1 More than 5 additional minutes

2 Between 2 - 5 additional minutes

3 Less than 2 additional minutes

* This also covers the waterways, hence freshwater flora and fauna have not been assessed under a separate criterion

Route efficiency

Goals Achievement Matrix - Scoring

Additional length

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Route Traffic and Planning Study

P:\C&I\39504.002 Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Route\39504-003 PLANNING\Service Delivery\Reporting\Risk Matrix_V6.xls

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Indigo Shire Council

Aurecon Matrix Assessment of Alternative Heavy Vehicle Routes

Route number Route description

Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score Raw score Weighted score

Inner /Outer 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2

Route 2 Reid St & Butlers Lane Inner 3 6 1 2 3 6 3 6 1 3 3 9 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 6 66 1

Route 2A Reid St & Killeens Lane Inner 3 6 1 2 3 6 3 6 1 3 3 9 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 9 3 3 3 6 63 2

Route 3 Railway Reserve & Killeens Lane Inner 3 6 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 6 3 9 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 9 3 3 3 6 62 3

Route 3A Railway Reserve & Federation Way Inner 3 6 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 6 3 9 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 6 3 3 2 4 57 6

Route 4 Ready St Inner 3 6 3 6 2 4 2 4 1 3 2 6 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 6 3 9 2 2 2 4 56 8

Route 5 Hopetoun Rd Outer 3 6 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 6 3 9 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 9 2 2 3 6 58 5

Route 5A Hopetoun Rd & Jones Rd Outer 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 6 3 9 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 9 2 2 3 6 54 11

Route 6 N/A

Route 7 Kilborn Rd & Gooramadda Rd Outer 3 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 2 4 56 8

Route 7A Kilborn Rd & Great Southern Rd Outer 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 45 16

Route 7B Kilborn Rd & east link to MVH Outer 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 6 3 3 1 2 46 15

Route 8 Up River Rd Outer 3 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 50 13

Route 9 Herrins Rd Outer 3 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 9 2 2 3 6 59 4

Route 10 Kings Rd to MVH west Outer 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 47 14

Route 10A Kings Rd & use Federation Way to MVH Outer 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 45 16

Route 11 Howlong Rd (NSW) Outer

Route 12 Murray St Inner 1 2 1 2 3 6 3 6 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 9 2 2 3 6 57 6

Route 13 Parkin Rd to MVH west Outer 3 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 1 1 3 6 55 10

Route 13A Parkin Rd to Federation Way Outer 3 6 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 1 1 2 4 53 12

Existing Route

Route 1 Main St 3 6 1 2 3 6 3 6 1 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 9 3 3 1 2 64

Scoring (see appended spreadsheet for further details on scoring)A score of 3 indicates that the outcome is likely to be favourable for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion. 45

A score of 2 indicates that the outcome is likely to be neutral (ie neither favourable nor unfavourable) for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion.A score of 1 indicates that the outcome is likely to be unfavourable for ISC/VicRoads for the criterion.

WeightingA weighting of 3 indicates that the criterion will have a significant impact on the project's successA weighting of 2 indicates that the criterion will have a medium impact on the project's successA weighting of 1 indicates that the criterion will have a lower impact on the project's success

Community impacts (includes

pedestrian impacts)Flora Major cost impacts

Option

Aboriginal heritage

Environmental

European heritage Fauna Traffic volumesLandscape amenityImpacts on schools

TransportSocial Economic

Additional length Route efficiencyProperty severance Land acquisitionAurecon

RankingAurecon Total


Error! Reference source not found. Indigo Shire Council Route Shortlist Paper Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study

FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIAROUTE\REPORTS\REPORT SHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER F

DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009⏐ REVISION 2 ⏐ P

Appendix C CRG Matrix

Results Weighted Scores Version 20080815

Weighting Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Option 3 Option 3A Option 4 Option 5 Option 5A Option 6 Option 7 Option 7A Option 7B Option 8 Option 9 Option 10 Option 10A Option 11 Option 12 Option 13 Option 13A

Weighting Main St Reid St & Butlers Lane Reid St & Killeens Lane Railway Reserve &

Killeen's Lane

Railway Reserve &

Federation Way

Ready St Hopetoun Rd Hopetoun Rd & Jones Rd Jones Rd Link Kilborn Rd &

Gooramadda Rd

Kilborn Rd & Great

Southern Rd.

Kilborn Rd & east

link to MVH

Up River Rd Herrin Rd Kings Rd to MVH

west

Kings Rd & use

Federation Way

to MVH

Howlong Rd Murray St Parkin Rd to MVH

west

Parkin Rd to

Federation Way

1.1 Urban Traffic Impact. (What is the risk to urban township traffic by the implementation of

this route? This includes interaction with local business vehicles, cars, buses, motor bikes,

bicycles and handicap scooters.)

6.1 13.481 12.627 13.969 24.4 26.169 10.919 12.2 15.25 N/A 29.219 29.219 29.646 25.254 16.531 27.877 27.45 N/A 9.15 25.681 26.169

1.2 Pedestrian Safety. (What is the risk to pedestrian safety by the implementation of this

proposed route? This includes interaction with walkers, joggers, elderly, children and

handicapped.)

7.6 17.936 14.136 12.996 29.336 28.804 12.464 15.2 17.936 N/A 36.404 36.404 37.468 32.604 21.204 34.732 34.732 N/A 11.4 31.464 31.996

1.3 Major Accident Exposure. (What is the risk to the community in the event of a major

accident on this proposed route. This includes access to accident zone for emergency

vehicles.)

2.2 3.454 3.454 3.938 7.062 7.546 3.454 5.038 6.138 N/A 9.592 9.746 9.9 7.854 5.346 9.262 9.262 N/A 3.454 8.338 8.646

1.4 Rural Traffic Safety. (What is the traffic risk to rural traffic safety by the implementation of

this route? This includes interaction with rural vehicles, school buses, wildlife collisions,

machinery and stock movements?)

6.1 17.873 15.677 15.25 20.069 20.069 15.25 14.823 14.396 N/A 13.481 13.969 14.823 10.004 13.969 10.431 10.919 N/A 16.104 11.773 11.773

1.5 Road Safety Improvement. (What impact will the implementation of this route have on

currently recognised Black or Grey accident points)

6.5 17.16 15.795 16.25 22.295 25.545 13.455 14.885 15.795 N/A 24.115 25.09 27.365 20.865 17.16 19.955 21.385 N/A 13 21.385 22.295

Total Safety Issues 69.904 61.689 62.403 103.162 108.133 55.542 62.146 69.515 N/A 112.811 114.428 119.202 96.581 74.21 102.257 103.748 N/A 53.108 98.641 100.879

2.1 Impact On Native & Other Vegetation. (What is the impact to native & other vegetation by

the implementation of this proposed route? This includes trees, shrubs and ground cover.)

1.5 4.71 4.29 3.54 3.75 4.395 3.645 3.645 3.435 N/A 3.645 3.96 3.96 3.315 2.46 2.895 3 N/A 4.395 2.685 2.685

2.2 Impact On Native Wildlife. (What is the impact to native animal and bird wildlife by the

implementation of this proposed route?)

1.5 4.71 4.395 4.065 3.855 4.29 4.185 3.54 3.435 N/A 3.75 3.435 3.54 3.645 2.895 3 3 N/A 4.71 2.685 2.685

2.3 Impact On Native Wildlife Corridors. (What is the impact to native animal and bird wildlife

corridors by the implementation of this proposed route?

5.1 15.3 14.943 13.821 13.821 14.586 14.229 12.393 12.393 N/A 12.393 12.036 12.036 11.271 8.007 9.843 9.843 N/A 15.3 9.129 9.129

2.4 Urban Area Pollution or Contamination Impact. (What impact does the implementation of

this route have on the urban township area? This includes fuel fumes, noise, spills and

rubbish.)

3.3 8.481 5.907 5.643 7.557 7.788 5.412 6.831 7.062 N/A 14.388 14.619 14.619 14.388 8.019 14.619 14.619 N/A 5.412 13.893 13.893

2.5 Rural Pollution or Contamination. ( What impact does the implementation of this route

have on rural landholdings? This includes fuel fumes, noise, spills and rubbish.)

2.9 8.7 8.294 7.859 8.091 8.7 8.497 7.859 7.25 N/A 5.597 4.959 4.553 4.959 5.597 4.756 4.959 N/A 8.903 4.959 4.959

Total Environment Issues 41.901 37.829 34.928 37.074 39.759 35.968 34.268 33.575 N/A 39.773 39.009 38.708 37.578 26.978 35.113 35.421 N/A 38.72 33.351 33.351

3.1 Impact on Main Street Business. (What is this route's implementation impact to Main

Street business?)

2.5 7.5 8.4 8.575 10 10 8.225 8.025 8.025 N/A 8.225 8.225 8.225 6.775 8.225 7.325 6.775 N/A 8.575 7.325 7.325

3.2 Impact on Township Based Business. (What is this route's implementation impact to

township businesses outside of the Main Street area?)

1.5 4.5 3.315 3.435 4.815 5.145 4.185 4.185 4.29 N/A 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.645 3.855 3.75 3.75 N/A 3.855 3.855 3.855

3.3 Impact on Farms and Other Rural Business. ( What is this route's implementation impact

on farms and rural businesses?)

2.2 6.6 6.6 6.6 7.062 7.546 7.546 5.5 5.5 N/A 3.454 3.454 3.3 3.608 5.038 4.554 4.554 N/A 7.062 4.092 4.092

3.4 Impact on Tourism.( What is this route's implementation impact the future growth of

tourism within the community.)

1.8 5.148 4.878 4.626 6.174 6.174 5.022 5.4 5.652 N/A 6.3 6.3 6.174 5.4 5.4 5.922 5.778 N/A 4.5 5.922 5.922

Total Business Issues 23.748 23.193 23.236 28.051 28.865 24.978 23.11 23.467 N/A 21.729 21.729 21.449 19.428 22.518 21.551 20.857 N/A 23.992 21.194 21.194

4.1 Impact On Community Lifestyle.( What is this route's implementation impact on the

lifestyle aspects of the town. For example current or proposed bike and walking routes, pet

exercise areas or routes, recreational areas and access to facilities.)

1.8 4.572 2.484 2.484 6.228 6.372 2.214 3.042 3.042 N/A 7.47 7.47 7.758 7.758 3.6 7.614 7.614 N/A 1.944 7.056 7.47

4.2 Impact of Acquisition on Community Landholdings or Residences by the implementation

of this route.

3.6 14.112 8.028 8.028 10.512 12.168 6.084 8.856 7.488 N/A 10.512 11.088 7.74 14.94 4.14 9.684 9.684 N/A 9.684 9.144 9.144

4.3 Impact on Property Valuation. (What impact will the implementation of this route have on

adjacent properties?)

4.4 12.54 5.412 5.412 8.8 10.164 5.412 5.412 5.412 N/A 9.812 9.46 9.46 9.46 6.776 11.836 11.528 N/A 6.072 9.812 9.812

4.4 Will the proposed route be acceptable to the community? 4.2 5.502 4.83 4.83 11.004 12.264 4.536 5.166 5.166 N/A 14.868 15.204 15.204 16.17 8.064 16.8 17.136 N/A 4.2 15.204 14.196

Total Community Issues 36.726 20.754 20.754 36.544 40.968 18.246 22.476 21.108 N/A 42.662 43.222 40.162 48.328 22.58 45.934 45.962 N/A 21.9 41.216 40.622

5.1 What is the approximate calculated cost of this route? 4.9 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 14.7 14.7 14.7 N/A 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 N/A 24.5 4.9 4.9

5.2 What is the expected implementation timeline for this route? 7.2 36 36 36 36 36 21.6 21.6 21.6 N/A 21.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 21.6 7.2 7.2 N/A 36 7.2 7.2

5.3 What is the percentage of trucks we expect to deviate from Main St as a result of the

implementation of this route? (Trucking industry feedback and traffic data counts must be

taken into consideration.)

8.3 8.3 33.781 33.781 38.512 38.512 27.307 29.631 30.793 N/A 34.362 34.943 36.769 29.05 34.362 32.038 33.2 N/A 32.038 32.619 32.619

5.4 Does the proposed route incorporate all feeder routes? 7.2 33.912 28.296 28.296 32.904 33.408 23.688 25.704 25.704 N/A 23.112 22.104 23.112 17.496 24.192 24.192 24.192 N/A 25.2 26.208 26.208

5.5 Does this route present an opportunity to improve the travel efficiency of this section of

the MVH? (Based against the current section of MVH utilising Main Street)

0.4 1.172 0.944 0.944 1.516 1.484 0.972 0.972 1 N/A 1.428 1.428 1.772 1.144 0.972 1.228 1.228 N/A 0.856 1.228 1.228

Total - Will the proposed route work? 103.884 123.521 123.521 133.432 133.904 88.267 92.607 93.797 N/A 95.202 70.575 73.753 59.79 95.826 69.558 70.72 N/A 118.594 72.155 72.155

6.1 Is the proposed route a long term township solution? (How many years do we believe

that this proposed route allows for in terms of town growth and expansion.)

7.2 0.576 2.376 2.376 16.2 18.576 0.576 3.6 3.6 N/A 22.824 26.424 27.576 23.4 5.976 30.024 30.024 N/A 1.224 23.4 23.4

6.2 What potential cost impact will this proposed route have on ratepayers? N/A N/A

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE 100 276.739 269.362 267.218 354.463 370.205 223.577 238.207 245.062 335.001 315.387 320.85 285.105 248.088 304.437 306.732 257.538 289.957 291.601

Important Note : The scoring has been structured to provide a guideline to potential bypass route

options by isolating them through issue scoring. Likely unsuitable options will be highlighted by lower

scoring.

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Assessment Tool for Nominated Potential Routes.

CRG Appendix 6

Error! Reference source not found. Indigo Shire Council Route Shortlist Paper Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Bypass Study

FILE P:\C&I\39504.002 RUTHERGLEN HEAVY VEHICLE DEVIAROUTE\REPORTS\REPORT SHORTLIST\SHORTLIST PAPER F

DRAFT.DOC ⏐ 2 JUNE 2009⏐ REVISION 2 ⏐ P

Appendix D Combined Aurecon and CRG Matrix Results

Rutherglen Heavy Vehicle Deviation Indigo Shire Council

Combined Aurecon and CRG Matrix Results

Route number Route description

Inner /Outer

Route 2 Reid St & Butlers Lane Inner 66 1 269 11 51.2 117 4 Not viewed as a long term bypass. Considered an existing route able to be utilised for short term truck alternate route. Consequently not to be included in Aurecon detail study

Route 2A Reid St & Killeens Lane Inner 63 2 267 12 50.8 114 5 Not viewed as a long term bypass. Considered an existing route able to be utilised for short term truck alternate route. Consequently not to be included in Aurecon detail study

Route 3 Railway Reserve & Killeens Lane Inner 62 3 354 2 67.3 129 1 Top ranking route. Phil to follow up with Victrack and DOT and reaffirm approval to consider usage. To be included in detail assessment

Route 3A Railway Reserve & Federation Way Inner 57 6 370 1 70.3 127 2 As per route 3 plus to be reffered to in the Aurecon study and reviewed but only in the broader context.The detail study of Route 7 will consider the intersection of MV Hwy and Fed Way.

Route 4 Ready St Inner 56 8 224 17 42.5 99 17 No further consideration

Route 5 Hopetoun Rd Outer 58 5 238 16 45.3 103 14 No further consideration

Route 5A Hopetoun Rd & Jones Rd Outer 54 11 245 15 46.6 101 16 No further consideration

Route 6 N/A

Route 7 Kilborn Rd & Gooramadda Rd Outer 56 8 335 3 63.7 120 3

Review in Aurecon study. Consider two options for Springhurst rd and Chiltern Rd traffic 1. direct new link via land acquisition along a similar route to the Herrins rd linkage. 2. allow to direct

Springhurst and Chiltern Rd traffic via Reid St as a permanent solution and in recognising that this traffic will never link to Kilbourne then make improvements to the link from MV Hwy to Kilbourne by

taking a north westerly greenfield route from MV hwy. The linkage with Federation Way should be considered as part of the study as should existing intersections at Wahgunyah rd /Fed Way and MV

Hwy Fed Way as the priority at these intersections will change.

Route 7A Kilborn Rd & Great Southern Rd Outer 45 16 315 5 59.9 105 11 An alternative for future consideration and to be refferred to in the study but not analysed in detail.

Route 7B Kilborn Rd & east link to MVH Outer 46 15 321 4 61 107 8 No further consideration of east link.

Route 8 Up River Rd Outer 50 13 285 10 54.2 104 13As this is an existing route already well utilised by trucks (with the exception of B Doubles) it could be opened up to all truck traffic by an agreement between Council and VicRoads and to study it in

detail as part of the shortlisted routes would not be a sound investment of funds.

Route 9 Herrins Rd Outer 59 4 248 14 47.1 106 9 the fourth ranked route, to be analysed by Aurecon in detail study

Route 10 Kings Rd to MVH west Outer 47 14 304 7 57.8 105 12 No further consideration. Clearly not financially achievable.

Route 10A Kings Rd & use Federation Way to MVH Outer 45 16 307 6 58.3 103 14 No further consideration. Clearly not financially achievable.

Route 11 Howlong Rd (NSW) Outer

Route 12 Murray St Inner 57 6 258 13 48.9 106 10Not viewed as a long term bypass. Considered an existing route able to be utilised for short term truck alternate route. Consequently not to be included in Aurecon detail study. Considerable

community facilities along this route effectively make this non-viable.

Route 13 Parkin Rd to MVH west Outer 55 10 290 9 55.1 110 6The third ranked bypass route, to be analysed by Aurecon in detail study. Concerns on environmental issues along this route. Discuss with Aurecon depth of analysis allowed in tender. Need to

ascertain if any issues would in practical terms rule this route out .

Route 13A Parkin Rd to Federation Way Outer 53 12 292 8 55.4 108 7 An alternative for future consideration and to be refferred to in the study but not analysed in detail.

929 4923

Existing Route

Route 1 Main St 64 CRG to Aurecon Factor 0.19

CRG RankingCombined

RankingTotal Score

CRG Score

Factored to

Equal

Weighting with

Aurecon Score

Option

Aurecon

RankingAurecon Total

Steering Committee Findings

(Phil Prior (Indigo Shire Council), Michael Ham (VicRoads), Tony Plowman (CRG Chairman)

CRG Weighted

Score


rutherglen heavy vehicle deviation route study

Documents