EDITOR, The draft Annual Report (2023-24) delivered in councils business paper of the November 2024 meeting made a statement relating to the Avonside Road upgrade, stating that “Council completed significant upgrades to Avonside Road, with six kilometres of previously unsealed road now sealed and paved. This transformation of Avonside Road from a rough unsealed surface to today’s high-quality sealed road was made possible through the NSW Government’s Fixing Local Roads Program. Council completed this project within the approved scope, timeframe, and budget set by Transport for NSW.” Now, I don’t know if the writer of that report has actually looked at the finished product but the reality is far from what has been reported to Council and ratepayers in the annual report. Yes, the road has certainly been transformed from a previously rough unsealed road to a sealed road but the “high quality” road statement is very questionable. I am appalled that a newly sealed road has been constructed to a standard that is not in keeping with acceptable design and construction standards of this day and age. The alignment of the road is such that a 100kph design speed should be expected but the new road has a 70kph posted speed limit even though most of the alignment is within 100kph design parameters. Within the first kilometre, a crest exists that is designated as 60kph safe travel simply because the designer did not apply an acceptable design principle to allow the crest to be eased by the “cut and fill” technique in order to allow for safe stopping sight distance on what should have been designed as a 100kph design speed road. This may have been a design factor in order to get the maximum amount of road reconstructed but the principle if flawed. One section of the road within the 70kph posted speed limit has a straight alignment with oodles of sight distance which would allow for safe overtaking even at 100kpk but has been line marked with double barrier lines which makes any overtaking on that section illegal. To add to the woes is the fact that the pavement is falling apart within 6 months of the work being sealed. The reason for that is either the base material was poorly compacted or did not meet the pavement standards necessary or the sub base layer was inferior or insufficiently compacted. I am advised that the survey and design work was done by a consulting engineering firm to a brief which was supplied by council. For whatever reason, that brief is not available to the public I am told. So much for transparency and trust. The engineering consultants also supervised the construction and were also responsible for the quality certification so what has gone wrong in that department? What testing and analysis was done by the consultants on the pavement materials and how much compaction testing was carried out to ensure compliance with councils construction standards? The project is an excellent example of trying to seal a previously unsealed pavement to get best “bang for the buck” but in doing so the result has delivered a road that will require millions of dollars to be spent over time correcting faults that should not have been created in the first place. It is important that council reviews its policy (if there is one) on how it accepts grant funds and the standards to which those funds are required to be applied. To build inferior infrastructure is inferior policy. If the grant funding authority requires substandard construction then the grant should not be accepted and additional funding sourced to ensure quality work. That way current design and construction standards can be achieved. I will comment next week on the newly sealed section of the Dry Plains Road.
Phil Daley Berridale