COLAC and district will have to wait at least another month for a decision on Colac’s bypass route after the issue divided civic leaders.
Bypass decision delayed again
Colac and district will have to wait at least another month for a decision on Colac’s bypass route.
2 Responses to “Bypass decision delayed again”
Comments are closed.
Ya spot on Bill and you’ve just backed up what I’ve been saying to people for years… But too many people around here can’t see this town having a future regardless let alone see past their own nose.
Look at the history of the Highway coming into Colac from the east, the current is its 3rd route from the Pioneer days and even back then the big knobs in power didn’t listen to the community…
I know the bypass will effect farming land, but there wont be as much need for the farms if the town doesn’t grow.
So Cr Smith wants to waste more time and more money because he won’t accept the decisions made, won’t accept the community has already loudly spoken against the route going through the township ? And he’s basing his opposition on his “belief” rather than facts ?
The simple fact is there isn’t a route through Colac that wouldn’t cost massive amounts in relocating families, schools, and/or cost massive amounts in extra separated rail crossings.
Council has already given their word, voted and given a solemn undertaking the bypass won’t go through the residential areas of Colac. Cr Smith needs to accept that. If he wanted to make that an issue he should have at last election. He didn’t.
Unlike Cr Smith, Michael Delahunty did make his preference for using the rail corridor known prior to the last election, so his stance is understandable, and is at least consistent with the platform he ran on. I too use to think the rail corridor was the way to go, until I looked at the bigger picture.
The rail corridor would divide Colac, and put pollution at it’s highest concentration around schools and families. It would be cost prohibitive, requiring land acquisitions at every intersections to allow on/off ramps, require lights at every rail crossing and/or overpass bridges. If there’s lights, an stop start traffic, we haven’t achieved ANYTHING, we’ve just moved it two blocks South.
Heavy traffic, traffic carrying hazardous chemicals and residential areas and schools don’t mix !!
As for the Lake option, it is the shortest route by far, has the ability to remove the rail crossings, no start an stop, ability to improve the lake both environmentally and for recreation.
Yes the Lake option will be high construction cost per Kilometre, but there is less costly acquisition, less distance, and a massive saving for maintenance and for transport industries. Cr Smith should know “belief” doesn’t come into it, he’s just guessing and failing to see the big picture