Following
the 31st August public meeting on the threat the proposed Clarence
Valley Pacific Highway upgrade will have to the Coastal Emu, John Edwards wrote
to Bob Higgins on behalf of the Clarence Environment Centre. Bob Higgins is General
Manager, Pacific Highway, Roads and Maritime Services of NSW (formerly
the Roads and Traffic Authority).
Below
is an edited extract from the letter which questions the RMS' plans for the proposed route
for the highway through the Clarence Valley.
The North Coast Environment Council(NCEC),
the Clarence Environment Centre (CEC), and other local conservation groups, have always claimed
that the 'motorway' concept for the Clarence Valley is 'over-kill'. The section
of highway between Coffs Harbour and Ballina undeniably carries the lowest
traffic volumes of anywhere along Highway One from Warrnambool in Victoria to
Gympie in Queensland. So why a separate motorway?
We have always asserted that a simple
addition of two more lanes to the current highway is all that is needed, and
would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There would need to be
minor straightening, and diversions around South Grafton and the hamlets of Ulmarra
and Tyndale. There are already two sections of divided road, at Shark Creek and
Cowper, that are perfectly adequate for the amount of traffic using the highway
for the foreseeable future, and provide the safety levels demanded by the
public.
We also assert that if that course of
action had been pursued, the section of highway upgrade from Wells Crossing to
at least Maclean could now have been completed at minimal cost. We acknowledge
that that route has flooding problems, something that is likely to worsen over
time with predicted sea level rise. However, I point out that the preferred route
is only flood-proofed to a one in twenty year flood level, which means traffic
would sometimes need to transfer to the New England Highway for 2 or 3 days, as is
already the case; hardly an insurmountable problem.
To support our argument even further,
the RTA (now the RMS) has identified that 70% of Pacific Highway road-users in
the Clarence Valley are local commuters that will continue to use the existing
highway, and that the existing road will also be upgraded to 4 lane status for
safety reasons, bypassing Ulmarra in the process. So where is the logic for
building a totally separate, highly environmentally damaging motorway, to cater
for just 30% of the total traffic volume?
We believe the current bypass plan
will not only be a disaster for the Coastal Emu and the scores of other
threatened species that will be directly impacted (See CVCC Blog on Coastal Emu) , but will also be disastrous
for Grafton, with the longest off-ramps in the country (12km from the south,
and a further 30km to the north).
Finally, we also believe it is not too
late to reassess the entire Clarence Valley proposal.
- John Edwards
