MTAG Westgate ramp coalition

1. dylan Sep 15 2008 / 5pm

   I still think this should only be done with the addition of a bridge across the Maribyrnong (as in the initial submissions by MTAG and the council) and/or associated truck bans on *all other routes*. Without this the residents of the northern section of Whitehall St (and surrounding streets) are likely to experience a large increase in truck traffic.

   The intersection of Whitehall and Footscray Road is already severely congested with Trucks lining up in the right turn lanes heading north. Some (particularly in peak) choose to go straight and turn at Dynon Road instead. Some even decide to do a U-turn on Whitehall St (at Bunbury) so that they can take the easier left-turn back to the port. These ramps would encourage even more Truck traffic than the level that uses Francis St now making this problem even worse.

   Add to this the impact of truck drivers using this route as 24/7 effective east-west truck “by-pass” from Westgate to Citylink at Dynon Road and you get some idea of the impact this would have on residents.

   As such I would like to see inclusion of northern Whitehall St bans included as an integral part of the Westgate off-ramp proposal.
2. Steve Sep 15 2008 / 5pm

   Totally agree with Dylan.

   There’s absolutely no point doing it unless you are going to do a complete job of it.

   They need to seriously look at building a road down the old rail line at Somerville Rd, across the river and into the port. (See link to Google maps).

   The Napier St/Whitehall St and Footscray Rd/Moreland St corners are becoming death traps to cyclists and pedestrians not to mention the noise and pollution problems.

   Footscray Rd has got to be a pain to truck drivers at the moment. I’m sure they would be happy to get off it with a clean uninterrupted route straight into the port.
3. Steve Sep 15 2008 / 5pm

   I don’t think the link worked so here it is again:
   Trucks off Whitehall St and Napier St route
4. adam Sep 15 2008 / 6pm

   20,000 trucks driving within ten feet of my front door step and surrounding residents does sound like a wonderful idea.. Hyde Street (north of Francis Street) is predominantly residential.

   How about providing a resolution to the affected residents? Perhaps a lifetime of gas masks or free health care for life, given that my kids are doomed to cancer.

   There should be 150m buffer around any road constructed to carry such intense truck traffic. This proposal simply passes the problem to other residents. Your throwaway line about affected residents, is disgusting to the extreme.

   At least a number of legal firms are now listening to the concerns whose lives will be imposed by this proposal, as opposed to residents who CHOSE to live on Francis Street.
5. Steve Sep 15 2008 / 6pm

   Adam,

   I don’t believe the proposal involves Hyde St, North of Francis St.

   The route is Hyde St, right into Francis St, left down Whitehall.

   Agree it will effect the 10 houses on Hyde St South of Francis St but they are already within 150m of Francis St.
   Something should be done to compensate or relocate them.
6. Peter Sep 15 2008 / 7pm

   Thanks for your thoughts Dylan. There would have to be a major upgrade of the intersection. Problem with a bridge is that it would land right on top of Coode Island so that won’t work. It’s really tricky around there to make it all work but the Greens are having a good look at that and working hard on ideas as are people at DOT (or so I’m told).
   Adam it wasn’t a throwaway line, in case you hadn’t noticed we are actually putting hundreds of voluntary hours into this. Many of them on working out how to best lobby government so people in Hyde St will not be totally screwed over. There’s good people in MTAG, the Greens, and Labor who are extremely concerned about it. I find it totally mystifying that all of a sudden, according to you, it’s OK for Francis St people to have to put up with truck traffic because they CHOSE it… come on, that’s a crock and you know it. How about some constructive thoughts??
7. paul Sep 15 2008 / 8pm

   Peter, I agree with Adam. It’s not appropriate to dump it on someone else’s doorstep and you haven’t proposed any resolution to the these residents (and yes, that includes me and my family).
   The map presented is very sanitised and doesn’t show the housing and parkland that will need to be acquired in constructing the ramps.
   No one deserves to live with these fumes - Adam’s point is that residents currently living on Francis St knew the trucks were there. Those effected by your proposal had no such foresight.
   I will no longer support MTAG if you support building the off ramp on my front door.
   Paul
8. adam Sep 15 2008 / 9pm

   >it’s OK for Francis St people to have to put up with truck traffic because they CHOSE it… come on, that’s a crock and you know it

   Of course its a crock. And yes I know it. But shifting the problem onto others isn’t??? Your basically saying that the port ain’t going away, so we are shoving the problem into your backyard. I feel its fair to say; that is also a crock.

   The part I find ABSOLUTELY mystifying is that for years MTAG has argued that trucks should be moved due to noise and health dangers etc, yet when the problem is moved to an alternate location, your completely supportive of the proposal.

   >There’s good people in MTAG, the Greens, and Labor
   I can also point out a large number who are happy for the affected residents to suffer without a second thought.

   >Constructive thoughts…
   The only solution which will not affect any residents is to move the Mobil Plant (or build a tunnel under) and direct the traffic directly up Whitehall. The Eddington’ arguments against a tunnel are poor. The effected homes (about 6), on Hyde Street (south of Francis Street) should be generously compensated for the (probable) loss of their home.

   The alternate, regardless of alignment, is to impose a mandatory buffer of 150m from the nearest residential housing.

   >Many of them on working out how to best lobby government so people in Hyde St will not be totally screwed over

   I would LOVE to see SOME evidence. As this is COMPLETELY contrary to my research and discussions with other parties. Either way they will be screwed, so why should any of the affected residents be supportive?

   BTW, are you sure your maps are the most current.
9. Peter Sep 15 2008 / 10pm

   >it’s OK for Francis St people to have to put up with truck traffic because they CHOSE it… come on, that’s a crock and you know it

   Of course its a crock. And yes I know it. But shifting the problem onto others isn’t??? Your basically saying that the port ain’t going away, so we are shoving the problem into your backyard. I feel its fair to say; that is also a crock.

   – I can totally appreciate what you’re saying. There is no perfect solution and we have tried to make recommendations for a practical way forward that produces the best results for the greatest number of people.

   The part I find ABSOLUTELY mystifying is that for years MTAG has argued that trucks should be moved due to noise and health dangers etc, yet when the problem is moved to an alternate location, your completely supportive of the proposal.

   – If you look at what’s possible carefully this is the best solution. This is not just my view but the view of the whole MTAG organising committee who have worked on this for years. It’s also the view of numerous others highly experienced in this area. I have no direct interest in any particular outcome as I don’t live on a truck affected street and this is true for quite a few of the MTAG committee.

   >There’s good people in MTAG, the Greens, and Labor
   I can also point out a large number who are happy for the affected residents to suffer without a second thought.

   Well yes of course… so it’s our job to follow up whatever ensues.

   >Constructive thoughts…
   The only solution which will not affect any residents is to move the Mobil Plant (or build a tunnel under) and direct the traffic directly up Whitehall. The Eddington’ arguments against a tunnel are poor. The effected homes (about 6), on Hyde Street (south of Francis Street) should be generously compensated for the (probable) loss of their home.

   – They won’t do it… so it’s either leave things as they are or try to deal with the possible.

   The alternate, regardless of alignment, is to impose a mandatory buffer of 150m from the nearest residential housing.

   >Many of them on working out how to best lobby government so people in Hyde St will not be totally screwed over

   I would LOVE to see SOME evidence. As this is COMPLETELY contrary to my research and discussions with other parties. Either way they will be screwed, so why should any of the affected residents be supportive?

   –What do you think Colleen Hartland has been doing?
   Did you go to her forum?

   BTW, are you sure your maps are the most current.
   –Yes
10. adam Sep 15 2008 / 10pm

    >What do you think Colleen Hartland has been doing?

    Tried contacting four times. Have not had a response, as yet. Although, I gather she is very busy.
11. adam Sep 15 2008 / 11pm

    BTW, are you sure your maps are the most current.
    –Yes

    Are they proposed MTAG’s or VicRoads?
    Have you knowledge of the VTA push to remove the curfews off Francis Street?
12. adam Sep 16 2008 / 12am

    Steve,

    Every single plan I have seen differs CONSIDERABLY from the one published by MTAG. Obviously regarding the Hyde Street realignment.

    Regardless, IMHO, there really is no difference. If the trucks have access to Hyde, north of Francis Street, they will use it. An imaginary, fairy land curfew will have minimal impact. For example, Hyde Street currently has a 24-hour truck curfew (as confirmed by VicRoads), yet Maribyrnong Council staff have not re-erected the sign despite a direct request six months earlier. [Happy to forward supporting correspondance from VicRoads on request.]

    My understanding is that the desired traffic speed will dictate the alignment. This will prevent the Hyde Street, right onto Francis Street, left into Whitehall route you mentioned.

    —
    Paul,

    Thanks for the comments and support. Its a terribe situation for those currently affected and those soon-to-be-affected. Whilst I disagree with MTAG’s plan (and specifically the lack of support and sympathy to affected residents), I do support their overall aim of improving amenity in the West.

    Peter is one of the most passionate activists I have ever met, and someone I greatly admire. He has only disappointed me in that, his attitude (and MTAG’s) is (seemingly) to ignore those so adversely effected. Even when asked, he could offer no evidence to dispell my suspicion. Surely those adversely impacted should be the FIRST people considered, not the last (if at all).
13. Peter Sep 16 2008 / 12am

    You’re exactly right Steve… and thanks for your thoughts about the Footscray Rd/Whitehall route.

    Paul, I think I answered your comments in my previous response to Adam. We all really sympathise with your situation and will be going in to bat hard for you whatever the outcome.

    Adam, the maps our ours based on the latest advice directly from VicRoads.

    Yes we are aware of the VTA call for curfews to be removed… it’s a joke. The only support they have is with trucking companies who are not only happy to push their drivers to the point of exhaustion, but who would also be happy if curfews were removed. Most people seem to realise the VTA is kind of extreme and they don’t have a great deal of credibility.
14. Peter Sep 16 2008 / 12am

    Thanks Adam, I really appreciate your words here. I’ve been copping it from left right and centre lately so thanks for that.
    Nothing I have heard suggests trucks will be allowed to use Hyde St North of Francis. If you know something I don’t, please let us know.
    Also it would be good to get those signs back up. What’s the latest?
15. adam Sep 16 2008 / 12am

    >Also it would be good to get those signs back up. What’s the latest?

    The signs still have not been erected. I have given up on council - I hand over my rates and keep quiet.
16. Luke Sep 30 2008 / 1pm

    I think this a great proposal as it is realistic and achievable. It has the support of residents, Noonan, the TWU, Greens. It would help my family a great deal. The people living south of Francis Street on Hyde should have their property acquired at a value enabling them to stay in equivalent accommodation in Yarraville. Imagine being able to have a street festival out front of the old school on Francis street without bringing Melbourne industry to its knees.
17. adam Sep 30 2008 / 8pm

    It concerns me most that people ACTUALLY believe that it will effect only Hyde Street residents south of Francis Street (and surrounding areas).

    If Hyde Street (North of Francis Street) is accessible from this ‘route’ then a significant number of vehicles (i.e. trucks) will use this street, which will impact on all residents in this area.

    Do you honestly believe that the proposed route is for a sharp right turn at Francis Street, followed by a sharp left into Whitehall Street? I ain’t a road engineer but to perform this route would require heavy vehicles to travel at 20km. How can anyone support a proposal that has no ACTUAL FACTS and ALIGNMENT.

    Please, forgive me, but when you say residents, I think you mean the residents whom the proposal will benefit, not the ones which will incur 20,000 trucks roaring past their door step.

    Furthermore, what makes people so confident that Francis Street will not be used by excessive trucks regardless of the new route. Many trucks originate from the western end of Francis Street and Millers Road. Given that the existing curfews result in 0.4 trucks per night being charged with breaking the law, what body of evidence exists to suggest that any ‘new’ curfew will be policied better and more effective?

    As I have said, to Peter privately, I do support the ‘idea’ of Westgate off ramps, but too many facts are not being publicly presented to make an informed decision of the routes effectiveness and to address the potential negative impact on hundreds of other Yarraville residents. Quite frankly, anyone who has opinion on this matter is basing it purely on personal interests (including me).
18. Peter Sep 30 2008 / 9pm

    Just for the record (again) I have no personal interest whatsoever and will not be affected whichever route is decided on. I live in a quiet street away from trucks and am involved in this campaign only because I wanted to contribute something to the community in which I live. The same is true for Martin, Vicki, and quite a few others who have done a lot of the work in MTAG.
    I have not read anything that proposes trucks use Hyde St North of Francis St. If the ramps are built then there will be a ban on trucks using Francis St that is much clearer cut than the current curfews. Much of Francis St traffic that comes from the Western end comes from Chalmers and Maersk… both of these container yards are about to become residential developments.
19. adam Sep 30 2008 / 9pm

    For many ‘personal interest’ expands far more than current housing arrangements. Surely some people involved with MTAG has kids attending schools/care on major truck routes?

    >I have not read anything that proposes trucks use Hyde St North of Francis St.

    And I have not read anything, that proposes a structural measure to prevent traffic (including trucks) driving along Hyde Street between the Westgate and Somerville Road.

    Surely, you must have considered that many people will simply exit the Westgate at these off-ramps and use local Yarraville streets as a short cut to the city?

    >built then there will be a ban on trucks using Francis St that is much clearer cut than the current curfews

    And who will police this curfew? What makes you believe that it will be more effective than the existing curfews? The height detection cameras have proven to be useless.You cannot argue with the current FACTS based on policing of EXISTING curfews, they are obtained directly from VicRoads. Much of the dialogue in MTAG submissions states that the curfews are not working.

    >Much of Francis St traffic that comes from the Western end comes from Chalmers and Maersk… both of these container yards are about to become residential developments

    And what of the SIGNIFICANT industrial development on the corner of Millers Road and Francis Street, that only has direct access to Francis St?. But I agree the residential development will improve the situation greatly - although I am unaware of any recent progress.
20. Peter Oct 01 2008 / 9am

    I haven’t got a kid in school or childcare that is affected neither does Martin or Vicki. Really, no personal interest here… hard to believe? Well don’t think I haven’t wondered why the hell I am doing all this work at times. Other MTAG committee members do have personal interest but I don’t believe that is what motivates them.
    I really do believe we’re doing the right thing and, having looked hard at the facts and at the options on the table that we’re doing the right thing in recommending these ramps.
    As for your other misgivings, all I can say is that MTAG will keep working to achieve good outcomes and we believe that good outcomes will be achieved. Anything else and I’ll just be repeating myself.
    As for residential development: I think it has received approval and is going ahead.
21. Luke Oct 10 2008 / 2pm

    Some local trucks are OK. It’s inner Melbourne. But the tens of thousands rattling past my place are insufferable. Ideally it would go over the river, but if it goes along the expected route, the right-left stretch can be widened and the Hyde to the north of Francis street can be made inaccessible to trucks by a variety of cheap options. This should be supported with minor caviets such as chicanes on Hyde.
22. adam Oct 11 2008 / 10pm

    >This should be supported with minor caviets such as chicanes on Hyde.

    Don’t think this would work. Hundreds of trucks won’t even stop for a red light. The road would need to be COMPLETELY inaccessible by a median diverter.

    A chicane is designed to slow cars, not stop them from travelling on an inappropriate road.
23. Luke Oct 23 2008 / 5pm

    A median diverter it is then, or big fat round about.
24. Emily Oct 27 2008 / 7pm

    I have a lot of respect for the tireless campaigning that MTAG do, and I turn up to all of your protests and follow your site closely.

    But I have to agree with Adam that from personal experience (I watch from my front home office) trucks currently flout the 24hr ban on the section of Hyde St from Napier right through to Francis St. On one day I counted over 30 trucks in a few hours. If they ignore the ban now, I have absolutely no confidence that they will respect a ban when a ramp channels them directly onto Hyde.

    This will not only be past many residential properties but also a popular park and playground, tennis courts, primary school, child & maternal health service and the council itself. I see countless people crossing Hyde to get to the park with dogs, tricycles and carrying children. It is also a popular bike route. Without effective measures to keep traffic off that section it will only be a matter of time before there is a fatality on my doorstep.

    I would like to hear from MTAG what they are recommending in terms of explicit roadworks to stop this happening, both with trucks and cars. Because a ban does not work, even with the goodwill and follow up at VicRoads (yes I have reported the offenders).
25. Peter Oct 27 2008 / 8pm

    Yes you make really good points here.
    OK here’s what we are doing:
    We have a commitment from council that the truck ban signs on Hyde St north of Francis will be put up in the next couple of weeks so that should help the problem in the short-term and also reinforce the precedent that trucks should not be using this street (with or without ramps).
    If (and it’s still a big if) the ramps are built then the turn into Francis St will be reconfigured, according to our sources, so the intersection will not be a right angle turn but something with more of a sweep to it. If this project goes ahead it will be reasonably major infrastructure it’s not as if they’ll build these whopping great big ramps then leave everything else as it is.
    Even Adam has admitted that this solution to the problem of trucks more generally is the best one on the table, we are committed to making sure that if it goes ahead we will coordinate lobbying to ensure that it does so will minimal impact on residents. Reconfiguring the Francis St intersection is the top of this list.
26. adam Oct 27 2008 / 10pm

    > so the intersection will not be a right angle turn but something with more of a sweep to it.

    Yep, this is my information. The problem is that the proposed sweep will worsen the impact on a greater number of residents, the entire south-east corner of Yarraville will be affected. And the number of RESIDENTIAL properties affected will increase from about ten to one hundred.

    >Even Adam has admitted that this solution to the problem of trucks more generally is the best one on the table

    I do not endorse any proposal without facts and particularly an exact ALIGNMENT. And I definately DO NOT endorse the proposed sweep, as this is SHIFTING the problem onto another community.
27. Peter Oct 29 2008 / 6pm

    Not sure how you get those figures AdamI thought it was more like 20. Anyway we could go back and forth like this for as long as we like I guess…
    Some good news:
    The signs have been erected that enforce the ban on trucks going North along Hyde St. Hopefully this will lessen the numbers of trucks using this part of the street illegally. Would be good to have a bit of citizen policing happening. I’ll be down there with my mobile phone camera. If anyone else has the time to photograph and record details of offenders please put them on this site and or send them through to us and we’ll pass them onto VicRoads and follow it up. Here’s the email that came through from council….

    Hi Peter

    No Truck signs were installed a few days ago at the intersection of Hyde Street & Somerville Road, for southbound vehicles along Hyde Street and at the intersection of Hyde Street & Francis Street, for northbound vehicles along Hyde Street.

    Regards

    #######
    Transport Engineer

    MARIBYRNONG CITY COUNCIL
    Napier Street
    (PO Box 58)
    Footscray VIC 3011
    Tel: 9688 0205
    Fax: 9687 7793
28. Luke Oct 30 2008 / 1pm

    30 Trucks in a few hours: as many as that you say….
    What is the time frame for this proposal?
    Thanks.
29. adam Oct 30 2008 / 4pm

    Luke - Emily is referring to Hyde Street (north of francis street). Essentially, no trucks are allowed on this road.

    Peter- 29th Oct. about 3pm. Truck travelling north along Hyde Street. Turned right into somerville road. Reg No 52557-S. Have photo if required.

    Peter- re: numbers. Its all dependent on alignment. Are you able to email the proposed alignment you refer to? I’d like to perform some analysis.
30. dylan Nov 12 2008 / 10pm

    I received a policy broucher from one of the local council candidates today which mentioned that they would support pushes for truck bans in residential streets and the Westgate ramps to help this (which is good) but also happened to refer to the route as directing trucks along Whitehall to Dynon Rd as well (not just Footscray Rd).

    This is not the first comment of this kind I have read in the Eddington debate and I am getting increasingly concerned that the fact that Whitehall St north of Footscray Rd is mostly residential is lost on a lot of people. It is just in the unfortuante position of being the continuation of a road that is mainly industrial further south. The residents already have an unacceptable number of trucks and no curfew of any kind and it could quite likely get many more if explicit bans are not included and enforced as part of any Westgate ramps.

    Do you think there is any chance that trucks will be banned from this residential street as well if the ramps are built or is there no hope?
31. Peter Nov 13 2008 / 10am

    I’m not sure about that one, I’ll have to check it out
    Which candidate?
32. Peter Nov 13 2008 / 10am

    I’m not in Melbourne much at the moment so it’s a bit hard to research these things but I’ll do what I can
    Cheers
33. adam Nov 13 2008 / 6pm

    Hi Dylan

    I agree with you. This section of Whitehall, should not be used so heavily by truck traffic, its essentially 100% residential. Can you confirm that truck traffic can access Dynon Road via Sims Street from Whitehall/Footscray Road?

    Some truck traffic will still need to use this portion of Whitehall Street to access Hopkins/Moore Street.

    cheers
34. dylan Nov 14 2008 / 6am

    Hi Adam,

    Yes it is possible to access Dynon Road from Footscray Road via Sims Street but my guess is it is not preferred by drivers due to 1) the congested right turn at Footscray road; and 2) it is longer and not as easy (no signals at Sims to Dynon, etc.). The reverse is possible to.

    It is correct that it is not possible to Access Hopkins/Moore from Footscray Rd via Sims St as Sims St feeds onto Dynon eastbound only. The reverse direction, however, is possible.

    It is possible however to access Hopkins/Moore from Footscray Rd via Dock Link Rd which was completed to run all the way from Footscray to Dynon. So by a combination of these two roads both of those routes are already possible in both directions without use of Whitehall.

    From my qualatative observations I believe Hopkins->Sims->Port is used quite a bit (that direction) but in the other direction there isn’t much use of Docklink, rather Port->Footscray->Whitehall->Hopkins. The use of Docklink (a specific truck route) might be somewhat hampered by the freight rail crossing on it, or it could just be because it is slightly longer and what is the incentive for drivers when they can use Whitehall?

    On the note of Moore St, that is residiential too and I would hope that if the proposed by-pass of that (Newall’s paddock) does not proceed that there is still a downgrade of the route in favour of others.

Admin. Powered by Wordpress. Design by Big Trousers. Copyright 2007 Maribyrnong Truck Action Group.

Entries RSS Comments RSS