Points raised by the HSAG in relation to the Orange by-pass

Prepared for consultants Woodward Clyde engaged by Orange City Council

20^th July 2000

· The debate about the by-pass has been going for almost 50 years. In 1983 the NSW Department of Main Roads reviewed traffic conditions in a study that concluded the northern route was preferred from a traffic and economic point of view. It is not feasible for Council to go back to the 1983 plan for the northern route and ignore significant expansion of the city, particularly in the northern residential areas.

· In 1993 a report from Travers Morgan was commissioned by the RTA and Orange City Council in attempt to put the matter to rest. The report assessed three proposed by-pass routes, two to the north and one to the south of the city, and concluded that the southern option was the preferred option. The report stated that the southern route offers good prospects for relieving Orange city centre of the effects of through traffic (especially heavy vehicles), and it also provides opportunities for redistribution of traffic on other roads in the southern half of the city.

· In 1999 a report by Hassell & Associates found a northern by-pass route would have implications for urban development in Ploughmans Valley, including major safety, noise and visual amenity impacts for residents.

· Prior to the 1995 State election the HSAG, through ALP candidate Glen Taylor, obtained a commitment that the Carr Government would contribute $18m towards the southern by-pass route in their first four year term if elected.

· To gain this commitment, proof that Council supported the southern route was required.

· Orange City Council owns the majority of land required to proceed with the southern option.

Questions and recommendations

1. When any why did Orange City Council decide to go against its long standing commitment to the southern route in favour of a northern option?

2. As the area to the north of the city is the only feasible direction in which residential development can expand, why is Council bisecting this area with a major traffic route?

3. What is the rationale for establishing another industrial site in the opposite direction to the city when it would seem more logical to expand the Leewood Industrial Estate.

4. As any alternate route will in effect become the Mitchell Highway irrespective of the title given, the cost of constructing this road must be funded by the State Government of NSW not local rate payers.

5. It is imperative that the by-pass must be constructed in its entirety rather than 'a bit now and a bit later' in order to eliminate inconvenience to residents.

6. A by-pass route acceptable to all members of the community and determined outside the 'vested interest process' must the only one allowed to proceed.