Southern Berry bypass review

Q. Is Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) reviewing a southern bypass of Berry?

A. Yes. RMS is costing a southern Berry alternative to compare with the cost of the preferred northern bypass alignment. Understanding the relative cost difference between the two will assist in determining the viability of the suggested southern Berry bypass route. More investigations are needed to better understand the infrastructure required and costs associated with the suggested southern Berry bypass route.

Q How is the decision going to be made?

A. RMS has established a technical investigation group of people with different expertise from a range of organisations that meet weekly to critically question the design. This gives a strong level of assurance about the robustness of the design.

The notes from this group will be posted on the project website. The brief for the technical investigation group as well as its weekly reports is also on the website.

RMS will publish the full cost estimates for the two routes including details behind the cost categories, such as structures and embankments.

The decision process is:

• RMS will examine the costs and provide the Minister for Roads and Ports with this information and, possibly, a recommendation.
• The Minister's decision will be announced to the community. 

Q. Who is on the technical investigation group and who makes what decisions? 

The technical investigation group consists of RMS personnel, RMS's engineering consultants AECOM and independent experts in the field of construction, bridge design, geotechnics and estimating.

Decisions are made on the basis of evidence gathered from fieldwork and desk top research for design elements such as the concept road height above sea level, the type of structures carrying the roadway, the allowances for flooding, and the draft cost estimate assumptions.  For example the 7.5 RL was determined from the flooding and hydraulics studies, and this information was discussed by the technical investigation and felt to be reasonable.

Q. RMS has mentioned an independent check of the outputs generated by the technical information group. What would that include?

A. A twofold check is being carried out by:

• An internal RMS review team totally separate to the technical investigation group and its process.
• An external independent reviewer (SMEC).

Broadly, the scope of the reviewers covers testing the robustness of the information in the report published by the technical investigation group.  In doing so the reviewers:

• Have access to all information sources the technical investigation group use.
• Will be able to request meetings with any of the technical investigation group to interrogate and challenge assumptions made.
• Produce their own report on the information contained in the technical investigation group report (for publication on the RMS website when available).

To make best use of the time available, the reviewers will be able to attend technical investigation group meetings as required, community meetings and any other meetings they feel best during the investigation process.

Q. Has the appointment of an external independent reviewer been made?

A. Yes. SMEC has been appointed.

Q. Who is paying for the external independent reviewer?

A. The external independent reviewer has been employed by RMS. This process has been successfully adopted on other RMS projects, for example the Seacliff Bridge was closed on the advice of an independent review team engaged in a similar way.

Q. When will the independent reviewers be involved in the process?

A. The independent reviewers will have ongoing involvement throughout the preparation of the technical investigation group report (to challenge ideas, decisions and assumptions made) and will also undertake a final review after the report has been submitted by the technical review group.

Q. When will the reports by the technical investigation group and the independent reviewer be made availableto to the community?

A. The community will be given access to all documentation for the southern Berry bypass cost review after the Minister for Roads and Ports has made his decision.

Q. What happens after relative costs are compared?

A. The costs will be shared with the community and will help RMS and the NSW Government reach a decision on whether to proceed with finalising the environmental assessment and seeking planning approval for the preferred northern alignment or further investigating the viability of the suggested southern Berry bypass.

If the suggested southern Berry bypass route is found to be financially viable and warranting further investigation, there would need to be discussions with the community to consider a wider range of impacts.

Q. Does this mean the southern Berry bypass review could be a waste of time?

A. No. In preparing the environmental assessment of the preferred northern alignment for the proposed Foxground and Berry bypass feasible alternatives for the Berry bypass must be considered.

Q. How are you considering non cost factors such as amenity, heritage and noise during the review?

A. These issues will be dependent on the outcome of the cost review if a decision is made to continue investigating the suggested southern alignment then RMS would need to consider a range of critical non-cost factors such as amenity, heritage, noise impacts and ecological impacts. We have to understand costs first before a decision is made on whether or not it is prudent to investigate non cost factors.

Q. Will all the costs regarding height changes, noise, entry and exits, environmental issues and land acquisition etc be taken out of the preferred northern alignment to make it a fair comparison?

A. The cost comparison is scrutinising quantity estimates and costing assumptions to ensure a 'like for like' comparison.

Q. How can a fair and equitable comparison be made now that the preferred northern alignment has progressed so far compared to a southern suggestion?

A. We are working on a design cost for the suggested southern Berry bypass route so that costs can be compared. We are doing field work such as geotechnical investigations to ensure important engineering factors that influence cost, such as ground conditions, are better known allowing cost estimates to be more robust.

Q. Why is RMS reviewing the feasibility of the suggested southern Berry bypass route now? What changed?

A. RMS received a submission in December 2011 from a local resident challenging some of the estimates and assumptions used to discontinue investigations in 2007. In early 2012 the NSW Government asked RMS to investigate the cost and viability of the suggested southern Berry bypass route. View submission.

Q.  Has planning work stopped on the preferred northern alignment?

A. No. We are continuing work on the environmental assessment. Community working groups will help identify additional mitigation measures for specific issues.

Q. What meetings are taking place with residents about Bruce Ramsay's submission?

A. Bruce Ramsay approached RMS staff about his submission before Christmas. Subsequent meetings were held with Bruce Ramsay and Stuart Coughlan on 24 January, 1st February and 15 February along with phone conversations in between. We will publish a register of Southern Berry review meetings.

Bridge over Woodhill Mountain Road and Broughton Mill and Bundewallah Creeks

Q. Is the design of the bridge finalised?

A. No.  As with most road and bridge proposals, design of the bridge is being carried out in two stages, with a concept design followed by a detailed design.

The concept design of the bridge is being finalised in preparation for the public display of the environmental assessment of the Foxground and Berry bypass. The community will be able to make submissions about all aspects of the bridge design (as well as the whole proposed project) including:

• Shape and spacing of bridge piers
• Deck joints and safety railings
• Noise mitigation measures
• Landscaping
• Pedestrian amenities
• Final shape of cuttings and embankments

RMS will consider submissions received before finalising the concept design.

Once RMS has considered all the submissions and project approval has been gained, the detailed design process can begin in preparation for construction.

Q. What are the dimensions of the bridge?

A. Based on the concept design the bridge dimensions are:

• Approximately 600 metres long
• Approximately 25 metres wide
• Approximately 12 metres above the Broughton Mill Creek bank level to the bridge deck as it leaves the ridge
• Approximately 6.5 metres above Woodhill Mountain Road to the bridge deck
• Approximately 3.5 metres to the bridge deck at the southern abutment

Q. Would it have visual benefits to build Woodhill Mountain Road over the bypass, based on the current concept design, therefore lowering the bridge?

A. No. A bridge of this nature would need to be of a similar height to a bypass bridge to accommodate flooding and truck clearances for the highway and the large approach embankments would also have a negative visual impact.

In addition, the two approach ramp embankments would:

• Be in the order of 250 metres long and potentially impact flooding patterns.
• Would adversely impact access to the Camp Quality Park

Q. Am I able to get a copy of the bridge concept design?

A. Yes, these can also be viewed at RMS' Berry project office.

Concept design of the Foxground to Berry bypass

Q. When will the community be able to offer their opinions on the final concept design?

A. Community feedback on the concept design is essential. Comments can be made at any time by email, phone call or in person at the Berry project office while the design is being developed. The last opportunity to comment will be when the completed concept design is placed on public display for at least a 30 day period during the display of the environmental assessment.

Q. When would the detailed design start?

A. If the proposed upgrade is approved by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and funding is available, the detailed design will follow.

Q. How was the 'preferred route' of the upgraded highway decided?

A. The preferred northern route was determined by an open and transparent process, with community consultation. The process commenced in March 2006 when RMS advised the community it was undertaking an options and route selection process within a defined study area. RMS refined a long list of options through a qualitative comparison to produce a short list of options for display and community comment. The results of the public submissions were considered with the environmental and technical studies to compare the options through a value management process.

(Further clarification - 29/02/12). As a result of community comment, and requests for a southern bypass of Berry to be considered in the shortlisted process, RMS conducted a peer review of the short listing process.  This report is now on the website.  RMS conducted a value management workshop to compare only the shortlisted routes and advise next steps.  Strategic costs on a suggested southern Berry bypass route were prepared from existing information.  RMS then considered these studies and selected the preferred alignment and design. The then Government announced the preferred route in 2009.

During this process RMS conducted 34 public meetings and workshops and received over 1,000 submissions which were considered in response to the display of the route options.

Q. If the preferred route was announced in 2009, why is the preferred alignment around Berry being reviewed?

A. In August 2011, Member for Kiama Gareth Ward announced a review of the Berry bypass in the area immediately north of Berry township noting that not enough had been done to maintain noise and visual amenity close to Berry.

RMS committed to a process to re-examine the concept design in this area with the community and invited interested members of the community to be part of a community review group. RMS agreed to work through options in more detail with the community, with a focus on improving the aesthetics and form of the Berry bridge and aiming to keep the overall alignment as low as possible to minimise environmental and community impacts.

The revised Berry bypass option was presented to the community on 6 December 2011 and the community was invited to provide feedback during a two week display period from 1 December 2011 to 14 December 2011. The Berry bypass alignment issues report provides a summary of the issues raised during the public display.

The Berry bypass update to the preferred alignment and Berry (south) interchange was announced on 11 January 2012.

Q. What do the poles along North Street represent?

A. These poles have been put in place to help the community visualise the height of the proposed noise wall and its distance from homes along North Street.

This is in line with the revised Berry bypass alignment which has been lowered by up to two metres between Alexandra and George streets adjacent to North Street. This lowering reduces the visual impacts of the noise wall.

RMS has placed eight white poles on the northern side of North and George streets. The poles have been placed approximately (to within half a metre) on the line of the proposed noise wall between Berry and the new road.

Based on a four metre high noise wall, the top of each pole indicates the height the noise wall.

Q. Are there any environmental (flora and fauna) impacts associated with the diversion of Town Creek?

A. RMS appointed specialists will undertake studies into the impacts on water quality, flooding and aquatic and terrestrial ecology in relation to both Town Creek and Bundewallah Creek in early 2012. Findings from these studies will be documented as part of the environmental assessment.

Q. When will RMS talk to me about purchasing my property?

A. Normally RMS would commence negotiations for property purchases once project approval has been achieved and funding is available for detailed design and construction.

More detailed information on the RMS' land acquisition process is contained in its publication "RMS land acquisition information guide, February 2012".

Q. Is RMS listening to all members of the community?

A. Yes.  RMS' community consultation demonstrates that there is a range of groups and individuals who hold strong views on the project. RMS has a responsibility to consult with the whole community to identify all issues relating to the project, not just those presented by the loudest groups and individuals. RMS will continue to offer the following as part of our ongoing community engagement:

• Project information line 1800 506 976
• Project email foxgroundandberrybypass@rms.nsw.gov.au
• Project website www.rms.nsw.gov.au/fbb
• Berry project office (Broughton Court) shop 3.113 Queen Street Berry (open on Fridays 10am – 5pm)
• Regular contact with the project email database
• Letterbox drop project updates
• Meetings on request with individuals, groups and stakeholders

Q. Am I able to have a look at a copy of the draft concept design?

A. Yes, come in to the Berry project office between 10am – 5pm on a Friday and we can give you a copy of the particular parts of the project you are interested in, alternatively contact us and we can make arrangements to assist your request.