RMS' statements confusing says resident, mayor attempting to find compromise

Allan Murphy believes statements made by the RMS' Alastair Lunn in the Daily Liberal are contradictory and has called on the council, the state, and federal government to get together and find an alternative to the bridge.

"How can a new bridge provide 1 in 100-year flood immunity if the access roads and approaches are only designed to a 1 in 50 flood level?" Mr Murphy said.

"A bridge is only as good as its approaches and the statements made by Mr Lunn concerning the flood design levels, are confusing, what are the design flood levels for the bridge, approaches and access roads, are they 1 in 20, 1 in 50 or 1 in 100?"

ALSO READ

Dubbo mayor Ben Shields said the council understands there is "unprecedented" public unrest with the RMS proposal and said they are "attempting" to work with the state government to find a suitable compromise to the River Street proposal.

Mr Murphy said much weight seems to be applied to the RMS' survey, which concludes that 90 per cent of all traffic approaching Dubbo, stops in Dubbo.

"The purpose of a ring-road system is to allow all traffic to skirt around the main CBD to arrive at their destinations. Hence, a ring road would benefit many more than 10 per cent of people. All the funding whether council rates, state, or federal taxes comes from "us" the community, and surely our elected members, councillors, and senior department managers can work together to spend this money efficiently and cost-effectively rather than work in separate silos as is the case now.

"As was the case with the Orange Bypass, it takes a Council with the foresight and planning to develop the plan, and then the local members to champion the plan to secure the funding. I understand that the Parkes bypass was a combined effort between Parkes Shire Council and the RMS, and is to be funded by both state and federal government funding.

"So why should Dubbo be so different?"

Dear Editor

I would like to offer the following comments relating to the comments from RMS and others concerning the proposed additional Dubbo Bridge and other options;

* How can a new bridge provide "1 in 100-year flood immunity" if the access roads and approaches are only designed to a 1 in 50 flood level? A Bridge is only as good as its approaches! There seems to be much contradiction and confusion between information provided by the RMS, and the statements made by Mr Lunn in relation to the flood design levels, what are the design flood levels for the bridge, approaches and access roads, are they 1 in 20, 1 in 50 or 1 in 100?

* In relation to responsibility and funding, the bottom line is that all the funding (whether Council rates, State, or Federal taxes) comes from "us" the community, and surely our elected members, councillors, and senior department managers are charged with the responsibility to work together to spend this money in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, rather then work in separate silos! As was the case with the Orange Bypass, it takes a Council with the foresight and planning to develop the plan, and then the local members and others to champion the plan to secure the Funding. I understand that the Parkes bypass, is, in fact, it is a combined effort between Parkes Shire Council and the RMS, and is to be funded by both State and Federal Government funding. So why should Dubbo be so different?

* Much weight seems to be applied to a survey which concludes that 90% of all traffic and 77% of heavy vehicles approaching Dubbo, stop in Dubbo, and that this then means that a ring road system would only benefit 10% of people. This survey seems to be in conflict with the general community observations. Did the survey ask or evaluate whether or not these vehicles (especially the heavy vehicles) would stop in Dubbo if there was a bypass, and did it look at whereabouts in Dubbo the traffic, especially the heavy vehicles, needed to go? The majority of heavy vehicles approaching Dubbo do not need to go into the CBD, but go to three main areas, being the area around the airport, the North Dubbo / Yarrandale Rd area and the saleyards/ Fletcher International areas. The purpose of a ring road system is not just for through traffic, but is also to allow all traffic, local and approaching, (especially heavy vehicles) to skirt around the main CBD to arrive at, and move on, from their destinations. Hence even if the survey is a correct reflection of traffic movements, a ring road system would benefit many more than 10% of people. Also if the bridges and access roads were properly designed (ie in relation to flood levels), such a road system would provide a connection through and around the city in flood events.

* It is a concern to me that unless there is some foresight, and longer-term planning (collectively by Council, State and Federal Governments) is undertaken and the required corridors planned and secured (should have been done 20 years ago), we will end up with a city with a population of greater than 100,000 (likely servicing a population of greater than 150,000) still trying to jam all the traffic from the south along Wylandra St. And when the powers that be, finally decide that we need a bypass, that it will have to be routed halfway to Narromine of Wellington just to get around the city.

Regards

Allan Murphy

Engineer and Concerned Citizen