Rethinking Surf Parade

Four Inverloch residents take on the challenge of this vexed section. Have they cracked it?

By Glenn Morris
 
COMPLETION of the shared pathway along Surf Parade to the Surf Club has taxed the minds of Bass Coast Council and the local community for over 10 years now.
 
The council has decided to proceed with the pathway extension and provide additional carparking by changing Surf Parade into a one-way street from Ozone St to Goroke St.
 
Further community feedback on this decision has been sought, sparking yet another objection from a large group of community members opposed to the one-way proposal. A recently formed One Way No Way campaign has already obtained over 800 signatures to a petition calling on the one-way scheme to be scrapped in favour of a two-way road solution.

It begs the question of whether alternative options exist which achieve a sensible solution involving the pathway extension, carparking and a two-way traffic flow.
 
The answer is yes according to assessments carried out by several local community members who independently from each other have proposed alternatives which council appears not to have considered.
 
All four members will be lodging separate submissions to the council in response to the consultation process.
 
Community members Jim Higgs (a traffic engineer with 40+ years’ experience), Glenn Morris (civil engineer/project manager with 30+ years’ experience), Trevor Forge and Aaron Platkowski (traffic engineer with 20+ years’ experience) have also raised some valid questions about the proposed one-way scheme.
 
The council proposal is a result of consultation with DEECA that suggested any works must be contained to the Surf Parade Road Reserve and not encroach into the foreshore reserve. This in itself is being challenged by the One Way No Way campaign.
 
Jim, Trevor and I each started with the same question: assuming that works cannot extend into the foreshore reserve, what can be built within the Surf Parade road reserve?
 
We have a 15.24m road reserve in which to accommodate a two-way road, carparking and shared pathway. It’s wide enough for all this to fit in and therefore satisfy the community’s requirements.
 
It’s even more practical if you apply acceptable design standards for the road width (5.5m) and carparking bay width (2.1m) as your standard cross-section.
 
Once we became aware we were proposing similar ideas, Jim and I have been working closely together on this. Jim has taken this standard and developed a design concept which demonstrates how the proposal can fit into the road reserve.

Extending the road pavement on the north (residential) side of Surf Parade by approximately 2m still leaves a nature strip of approximately 4m in front of the houses. Minimal vegetation has to be removed to accommodate the road pavement extension. We have a letter of support for the proposal from South Gippsland Conservation Society as it avoids the need for any works to encroach into the beachside foreshore reserve.
 
The proposed road trafficable carriageway width of 5.5m is an acceptable design standard. Traffic will slow, which is not a bad thing! Surf Parade east of Abbott St and at certain recently built sections between Ozone St and Veronica St has a trafficable carriageway width less than 5.5m for a considerable length and two-way traffic generally manages to safely navigate this section of road.
 
Jim’s design concept is at a conceptual stage. Like any project of this nature, detailed design will refine the scheme in response to other constraints, local feedback and operational matters that will be fleshed out during the design process.
 
We believe the design concept meets the needs of the broader community. We have forwarded the proposal to councillors and relevant council officers. We hope it is given fair consideration and we are given the opportunity to address any points of concern.

Q&A
We have pre-empted some concerns and have addressed them.

• Q: Can the northern road pavement extension be built over the existing underground water,sewer and gas services?
• A: Our preliminary enquiries say YES, that the services can be built over.

 

• Q: Will it provide enough car parking along Surf Parade?
• A: The concept will result in 50 new car park spaces along the south side of Surf Parade which is similar to the number of spaces possible with the one-way scheme.
• It also shows concept plans for additional future staged parking spaces along the eastern side of Goroke Street. These can be built at a future date if demand warrants but for over 85 per cent of the year, the parking along Surf Parade will be under-utilised.

 

• Q: How will residents on the north side of Surf Parade feel about the loss of 2m of nature strip?
• A: Clearly, these residents need to be consulted about the proposed scheme.
• Jim, Trevor and I have walked the whole length of the northern side of the road and compiled a photographic record. Minimal vegetation needs to be removed.

 

• Q: Will residents prefer to turn left out of their driveways to go into town rather than have to travel westwards to Goroke St?
• A: I can see a scenario with the one way scheme where certain householders will look to shorten such a trip by heading down Wave/Lohr/Ozone Streets. This will mean possible local traffic control measures will need to be in place and that costs money and creates inconvenience.

 

• Q: Are the design standards for parking bays and road pavement width used in the design concept acceptable?
• A: The parking bay width of 2.1m is a change from the 2.5m adopted in the previous built section of shared pathway on Surf Parade. It is acceptable provided the parking bays are made longer, which is what Jim’s design concept shows. This is also a standard applied by Aaron Platkowski in his submission.