I'm sure you'll see the dredges if they are in the vicinity, but just in case you want to know what it's all about:

http://www.portofmelbourne.com/global/docs/133T-08.pdf

Thats rubbish!!! Why do they need to ruin more of our bay!

GRR!!! Shall we protest?[}:)]

The guy who wrote that document needs to go back to school to learn grammer and spelin.

Hope the dredgers can understand long/lat coordinates better than the author can write a report otherwise we might have a new canal running through Luna Park!

Select to expand quote

sflack said...

Thats rubbish!!! Why do they need to ruin more of our bay!

GRR!!! Shall we protest?[}:)]

Guys, i think all they are doing is trying to build up the sand on middle park beach again after a storm washed it all away a coupla years ago. thats a good thing. As opposed to dredging a channel up the bay for ships to come in to the docks which is a bad thing for so many reasons i reckon...dont get me started!

Select to expand quote

Guys, i think all they are doing is trying to build up the sand on middle park beach again after a storm washed it all away a coupla years ago. thats a good thing. As opposed to dredging a channel up the bay for ships to come in to the docks which is a bad thing for so many reasons i reckon...dont get me started!

The beach at Middlepark was perfectly fine for the last few years (I sail there multiple times per week). There was some restoration work done a few years ago, but it has been good since then.

However, this winter one part of the beach (in particular) did dissapear... which seemed to coincide nicely with the increase in size of the mini-breakwater things, and with the bay-dredging in general -> make of what you will.

I seems that everytime the "fix" something, say by adding a breakwater, something else is affected as well, eg: loss of beach elsewhere.

Matt, you're spot on.

Our launch point was fine last summer. Now it's rock central.

The breakwater they've constructed at Middle Park is deliberately there to catch the movement of sediment heading towards St. Kilda in order to build up a beach. The phenomenon of this movement is called long-shore drift (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-shore_drift). By capturing the long-shore dift, it builds up a beach on the far side (Port Melbourne side) of the breakwater to the immdiate detriment of the beach at our launching point.

Illustrated nicely here:


Sometimes, this intervention in the natural processes works out ok. However, most of the time it creates more problems than it solves because the rate of erosion is increased on the downdrift side due to a lack of supply of sediment - hence the problem is just transferred. This necessitates the construction of more groynes to be constructed to protect that area.

The UK has been experimenting with (and making an absolute mess of) groynes for a long time, and some of the constructions have actually caused villages further down the coast to fall into the sea...

Dumb, badly thought out plan, done for aesthetic purposes. Shoulda learnt from the Poms - we've been making a mess of this stuff for a LONG time (Barmston and Mappleton on the East Coast of the UK being two of the better examples of why this stuff should be left alone)

...and the damn thing limits the sailing angles!!! I might seriously have to get a bigger fin to ensure I can stay upwind and away from that hideous collection of rocks...

I was wondering what that was all about. First thing I thought was what a pain it will be to stay upwind of that groyne particularly when the wind has some west in it.

Is the groyne going to be permanent?

I wonder what the objectives of the project are? Has anyone seen any council plans in the local rag?

Do they want the big sandbar south of the groyne (where the kiters ride) to join up to the new groyne (and extend out to sea). Is this a evil ploy by the kiters to extend their riding area?



I think one modification that we would all agree is a sandy point styled low spit/breakwall that went approximately from the shore and curved to the shipping channel. Next would be to blow up the heads so you could surf in the bay. that would be sweet!

Getting around that groyne in a SW isn't a problem. Last sat when it was mildly breezy I launched just to the south of those trees, rather than the usual "no windsurfing sign" area. A reach from here takes you well beyond the groyne. It was also nice and flat inside the harbour. If I launched from the usual spot, the waves (which people were surfing at Kerferd Road) would have pushed me into the groyne.

All they need to do is knock down the concrete wall which runs the length of the beach and replace it with a grassy expanse and get rid of St Kiting harbour. This would stop erosion, eliminate the need for groynes and provide endless grassy rigging areas along the beach.

Went to St Kilda yesterday, that groyne is already fing up the st kilda beach launch spot.
What a great achievement, $Millions spent to stop the Middle Park beach from being swept away and instead have the st kilda beach swept away.
I predict that it's also going to decrease the flow of water in and out of st kilda harbour making the water in there dirtier than it already is.

Who can I write to? This is bullst.