NSW - F3 90km/h zone update

Keepleft · 30-12-2005, 05:21 PM

Couple of things are to happen here:-

* The 90km/h speed limit *will* increase to 100km/h, I expect around June 2006.

* RTA is waiting on additional VMS - Variable Message Signs to be installed, part of a wider safety 'program', below.

* The new fixed speed camera residing northbound will come online about that time. We do not expect a southbound camera installation at this point.

* The new 100km/h speed limit, the VMS AND the fixed speed camera will work interfaced as part of a test of variable speed limits for the section. Basically, 'rain' sensors will reduce the 100km/h speed limit in the wet, the camera will then enforce the applied limit as shown on the VMS units as they are activated, and the 100km/h limit at other 'dry' times.

I am studying the possibility of advocating for that geographical region specific 'fog sensors' to be installed, with the view of merely flashing on the immediate VMS "In fog slow down-rear fog lights or hazard warning lights may be used', rather than telling folk to wipe say 10km/h off, which as regular F3 drivers know is insufficient for the seasonal fog conditions.

An earlier pre F3 update plan had a similar design, but was dropped when costs reached $50 million, such systems require power supply and optical cable installation, now the road is upgraded, RTA again study this and progress is being made.

BOSS 540 · 30-12-2005, 07:17 PM

Unbeleivable a speed increase suitable for the road / conditions!!. Comes at the cost a speed camera though, makes you wonder about the motive?. Looks like variable limits combined with punishment may be the future hey. Will the camera flash be a fog light, doubt it will photgraph well then?

Thunder · 30-12-2005, 07:27 PM

And all of this will mean nothing when your southbound on the F3 sitting in a carpark style traffic jam after the Hawksbury bridge where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lane. Traffic is getting worse (and anoying every week) the widening programs is too slow.

For residents of the Central Coast, the time waisted sitting it traffic due to Sydney holiday makers is a real pain. Long weekends a simple 1 hour trip can be a 3-4 hour nightmare. :yeees:

Thunder · 30-12-2005, 07:29 PM

Why the need for 2 cameras in such close proximity northbound and none southbound? It seems like they are less than 1k apart.

:

**Mechan1k** · 30-12-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOSS 540

Unbeleivable a speed increase suitable for the road / conditions!!. Comes at the cost a speed camera though, makes you wonder about the motive?. Looks like variable limits combined with punishment may be the future hey. Will the camera flash be a fog light, doubt it will photgraph well then?

I'd say it will be an infrared camera flash ... similar used on the Safe-T-Cam cameras .. pics up everything in all weather conditions ... I have seen photos from when the infrared cameras were firt installed in heavy hail ... the pictures were perfect.

The flash is like a little red dot that you can hardly see at all.

noboss · 30-12-2005, 07:47 PM

Ok I think im missing something here!!
If they are putting sign's up to tell you that its raining or it's foggy for safety reson's thats great, & a good thought. But then to put a speed camara there to ping you for not obaying the sign, thats blatant reviue rasing & has nothing to do with safety! IMO
It's just a grab for the mighty $$$$$$$

wulos · 30-12-2005, 07:50 PM

A couple of questions on this:
- it was quite widely publicised that the higher 100kphspeed limit(& single speed camera installed - the northernmost one) was to have been commisioned & implemented no later the AUGUST 2005.
- There is now 2 speed camera installations present within about 1-2km of one another. One immediately adjacent to each of the VMS & other post/sensors etc. Is this being setup as 2 seperate installations to catch motorists speeding over a rather short section of road (the EXACT reason it was withdrawn from service on the Spit Bridge location in the 1st place - basically the 2 cameras were recording the same incidence of speeding) Will they be set up with 2 different 'trigger' limits? (ie one @ the lower 90kph limit & one at the upper 100kph limit) Or will they be interconnected in a similar way to the truck 'safety cams' in that they'll track each vehicles progress over the section of road & then calculate the speed off of that?
- The fog sensors are a reasonably good idea, the location of the camera site does see some of the thickest fog in the area, would hope that it is intended to allow for alteration of signs well & truely BEFORE that location. Any thoughts re fitting other types of sensors at this location, or others? Any thoughts re sensor installation for prior warning to motorists over the Mooney Mooney ck bridge? BEFORE they start their decent, & find out tooo late that conditions were far from suitable for the posted speeds? Lets face it 90kph at times is still way too quick depending upon conditions. I know of times when even 40kph in certain conditions is quite dangerous.
- Those rear fog lamps can cause as much if not MORE probs then they solve. From experience the globes used in these in my opinion are be over powered & tend to be very distracting. When trying to drive along with that glaring in your eyes in the adjacent lane, it can blind you to what is happening in front of you. Why is it that these hivis fog lamps are brighter then a set of stop lamps? (I won't mention about people feeling the need to use thse when there is no fog about, tis the same old argument with people using front end fog/driving lights)
- With regards to power being available at the said site. I find it a little ironic that somehow the electricity (I do not know about optical cabling req) to power up the camera's was ran in, however it was put off as a 'cost prohibitive' argument to power up the warning signs & safety sensors.
As a concerned motorist that uses this exact section of road (sometimes as many as 4 times a day) I look forward to hearing your comments etc.

Keepleft · 30-12-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder

And all of this will mean nothing when your southbound on the F3 sitting in a carpark style traffic jam after the Hawksbury bridge where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lane. Traffic is getting worse (and anoying every week) the widening programs is too slow.

For residents of the Central Coast, the time waisted sitting it traffic due to Sydney holiday makers is a real pain. Long weekends a simple 1 hour trip can be a 3-4 hour nightmare. :yeees:

WHERE have you been the last year or so sire?

The road is now 3 lanes in each direction Mt Colah through North of Gosford interchange.

I know the old traffic jams were bad, but predicatable - which is why we fought hard to have the old Pacific Highway re-opened after a landslide closed it many years ago, those repairs comprising a bridge cost just over 2 million federal dollars and which saw the Federal LIBS get Hon, Jim Loyd into office and now Roads Minister, a fellow road user advocate! Money well spent back then. This old highway runs alongside the F3 folks.

Thunder - The Mt White camera system is ex Wyong, this is for the NSW/SA Safe T Cam system but will tie in to the new point to point speed enforcement program.

You might recall ex NRMA CEO Carter giving strong NRMA support for *more* F3 cameras, it is appropriate he is not in that position now. Insane idea from the NRMA of the time, damned fools.

Anyhow, I mention this stuff, don't take it to mean I support the program. I am yet to see valid reason why we continue to install cameras, be they point to point or fixed on yet unopened new dual carriageway roads here in NSW, primarily on the Pacific highway upgrade.

Politics, mostly supported by north coast Labour women, see NSW parliamentary hansard on this for further discussion. $$$.

Thunder · 30-12-2005, 08:22 PM

Oh i have been around. The F3 is STILL 2 lanes. Southbound. Although its only 2 lanes for a few kays, its a real pain in the .......you know.

Keepleft · 30-12-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wulos

A couple of questions on this:
- it was quite widely publicised that the higher 100kmh speed limit (& single speed camera installed - the northernmost one) was to have been commisioned & implemented no later the AUGUST 2005.

A few things happened, RTA Traffic directorate created a newish program of variable speed limits, indeed- this is not fully finalised, the Feds have for some time supported the idea, and on the face of it, it look reasonable.... This created the delays owing costs, power, implementation and funding.

- There is now 2 speed camera installations present within about 1-2km of one another.

One immediately adjacent to each of the VMS & other post/sensors etc. Is this being setup as 2 seperate installations to catch motorists speeding over a rather short section of road (the EXACT reason it was withdrawn from service on the Spit Bridge location in the 1st place - basically the 2 cameras were recording the same incidence of speeding).

The court outcome was appropriate. The camera system at Mt White forms part of the Safe T Cam system, but can operate with the regular point to point speed enforcement program.

Will they be set up with 2 different 'trigger' limits? (ie one @ the lower 90kph limit & one at the upper 100kph limit) Or will they be interconnected in a similar way to the truck 'safety cams' in that they'll track each vehicles progress over the section of road & then calculate the speed off of that?

Eitherway, the wet weather program could mean a lower speed than 90km/h on that section, the fixed speed camera will detect at point of install. Remember this is for the existing 90km/h zone only. Point to point enforcement 'potential' starts at Mt White for northbound up to QLD border. Similar runs for Southbound ending at Mt White. That said future development could mean further link-up on Sydney motorways.

The fog sensors are a reasonably good idea, the location of the camera site does see some of the thickest fog in the area, would hope that it is intended to allow for alteration of signs well & truely BEFORE that location.

REM, the delay as to the fixed camera installation at Nth Jolls is owing the need for additional VMS. Further signs are planned before wet weather implementation.

Any thoughts re fitting other types of sensors at this location,

Yes, aside from the rain sensor which will detect 'wet' roads, I am pushing fog sensors (cheap). These would be the only two sensors for this length. RTA's TMC-Traffic Managment Centre can be notified of other situations.

Further, the road will have additional online cameras for members of the public and RTA TMC to access. Issue again of power and telematics.

Any thoughts re sensor installation for prior warning to motorists over the Mooney Mooney ck bridge? BEFORE they start their decent, & find out tooo late that conditions were far from suitable for the posted speeds? Lets face it 90kph at times is still way too quick depending upon conditions. I know of times when even 40kph in certain conditions is quite dangerous.

Yes, the site is recognised. Top, before decent.

- Those rear fog lamps can cause as much if not MORE probs then they solve. From experience the globes used in these in my opinion are be over powered & tend to be very distracting. When trying to drive along with that glaring in your eyes in the adjacent lane, it can blind you to what is happening in front of you. Why is it that these fog lamps are brighter then a set of stop lamps?

The rear fog lamp is the worlds only standardised defence against rear-end crashes in heavy fog conditions. They are also suited to use in torrential rain, particularly in daylight, in bushfire smoke-indeed they are mandatory on NSWFB vehicles for that reason, in falling snow, when driving on dirt roads and so on. Be assured your 5 watt taillights are utterly useless in such conditions, AND that the hazard warning lights alternative allowance is illegal at International law, the are not prescribed for that purpose.

(I won't mention about people feeling the need to use thse when there is no fog about, tis the same old argument with people using front end fog/driving lights)

* The lights appearing bewlow the bumper of 99% of cars and 4WD's are not 'driving' or 'daytime running lamps', they are ADR designated front fog lights.

The Australian Road Rule 217 tells us the rear fog light is restricted to hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility, I had proposed we adopt the continental enforcement measure of a 50 metre 'visibility maximum' for these. I will do so again, even if NSW goes it alone. This would mean visibility would have to be down to 50 metres before you could use the rear fog lamp.

It is my view that the rear fog light should have been mandated for the entire vehicle fleet, including box trailers many years ago - along with a determined enforcement program to aid implementation. The Federal DOTARS ask that I complete an RIS on the matter for NEW market vehicles, and one day I will do so. I consider the optional nature of ADR 52 to be serious negligence on part of the State and any manufacturer who chooses to save a buck by not equipping their models with at least one, these items are very very cheap to implement, you can buy your own for as little as $15 (LE Perie-Mt Waverly).

The Bargo fog and bushfire crash cost Australia over 12 million dollars in the space of a few minutes. The largest fog crash ever recorded in NSW was on the F6 where we had 86 car piled up (1987), other multi-vehicle crashes have occured as well. Remember too, these lamps are intended for torrential sudden downpours, the type we get in summer too.

You might be pleased that newer cars have these switching off automatically once the ignition has been switched off.

http://www.thecourier.com.au/detail....ory&class_id=7

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...55E421,00.html

- With regards to power being available at the said site. I find it a little ironic that somehow the electricity (I do not know about optical cabling req) to power up the camera's was ran in, however it was put off as a 'cost prohibitive' argument to power up the warning signs & safety sensors.

The only fixed camera system operating is at south Ourimbah, it took 'some time' and money to get power running to that site, and RTA wanted, but found power supply costs too high to install one opposite.

The F3 upgrade means the potential for new VMS, sensors and the like has opened new possibilities, including the variable speed zoning test program.

As a concerned motorist that uses this exact section of road (sometimes as many as 4 times a day) I look forward to hearing your comments etc.

And so it goes squire...

Keepleft · 30-12-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder

Oh i have been around. The F3 is STILL 2 lanes. Southbound. Although its only 2 lanes for a few kays, its a real pain in the .......you know.

We have (your money thank you very much:-) just spent over $100 million upgrading the F3 between Jolls and Mooney Mooney bridge to three lanes of traffic in each direction, it is this section the thread primarily concerns.

Yes of course the other section you mention has two lanes and naturally has the problem you mention, fun isn't it? This WILL be the next stage for upgrading right through to Asquiths existing 3 lane section. This will then give us a 3-lane run Sydney through Gosford North region. Have you ever tried to get off the F3 when driving southbound to use the old Pacific Highway? "Great Pie In The Sky" shop on route! Beef and Burgundy Mmmm!

It took some serious effort you know to have the mountain drains modified or replaced with SK (form drainage) to better aid vehicle recovery and road user safety, AND to widen the left breakdown lane from it's original 0.5 metre to 1.8, still well below standard AND to upgrade the median drains and barrier. This will be fixed as required.

Anyhow, we will then fill-in the missing portion between Gosford to the top of Ourimbah Hill or 'The mad mile' as truckies call it.

A fear I have, is of course that the proposed F3-M2 link will be back to two lanes, and sadly built to existing NSW tunnel design, that is - no breakdown lane and a 70km/h or 80km/h speed limit.

We must change this, but will likely fail-the plans and outcome were long recognised.

Thunder · 31-12-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

.......................Have you ever tried to get off the F3 when driving southbound to use the old Pacific Highway? "Great Pie In The Sky" shop on route! Beef and Burgundy Mmmm!.............................

Yes i have on many occasions used the old Hwy. But im the one who always entres through the exit ramp

_ Because when you come down the hill (southbound on the F3) and take that final sweeping bend to the right onto the Hawksbury Bridge, you end up missing the entry to the Old Pacific Hwy by the time you notice the traffic jam. Thats where (and dont tell anyone) i go down where cars enter the F3 from the Hwy. :evil_laug

Yeh its a great winding run (love it) Hawksbury to Asquith, but it forces me to put the peddle to the metal cause of such a wonderful road. One day i will stop for a pie.

The G6ET Spot · 31-12-2005, 09:50 AM

Strikes to me pretty strange that they put the speed cameras on the northbound side going up the hill when 90% of the accidents there seem to be on the southbound side. where all of the vehicles are travelling above the speed limit.And the point to point cameras wont work cause all you do is organise that you take a meal break in between the cameras. As so many people do now.

wulos · 31-12-2005, 10:03 AM

- The F3 is 3 lanes from Cowan(just north of the northern Berowra interchange) - Somersby interchanges (not Mt Colah - that is a good 10k? further south) The Mt Colah - Cowan stretch is notorious for backing up of traffic in high usage times often coming to a complete standstill at times. Simply not enough lanes for the volume of traffic. A fix has been talked about for a long time.
- The 2 camera locations that I was refering to are completely seperate entities to the safety cam installation @ Mt White. I will take a 'trip meter' reading next time I am on that section of road (should be by end of next week as I have local work scheduled on coast for 1st few days of 2006) I believe it would be 1-1/2k south of the original site which you refer to as Nth Jolls Bridge.