Two different subjects.
The closure was due to engineering/drainage problems, as I understand it. That's a contractual/professional matter, just as it would be when building a new house.
The track design issues are - as always - a function of the club and the authority deciding what to do. We know they are not too sharp because they had already decided to shut down a couple of trips - those being some but not all of the bend starts.
These days, the wild card is how much, or if, UTS got involved but that has been usually after the event, not in the original layout design.
In any event, while UTS people have some brilliant skills they are not dog folk but are furiously analysing what has happened and what might happen in various scenarios. They have also called for more experimentation with different concepts - eg lure types and so on.
What we really need nationally is an expert unit of which the UTS contribution is part. Ideally, such a unit would also absorb mistakes from the past and ensure they are not repeated.
The current situation where club/authority decides things around a boardroom table is a nonsense - they are all amateurs.
The next stage (for a new track) is to then give an engineering mob a brief and hope a good outcome emerges. Rarely is that so - usually the engineers don't understand dog racing either. (Newcastle/Gardens would be a classic bad example).
Having said that, there is a third issue - the nature of the surfacing and related substrata and its maintenance. That does not require much specific dog knowledge but it does need expertise and must follow broad guidelines set by the track designer.
Progress will ensue only when each and all states recognise they lack expertise and when they agree to set up the expert group, and when they accept the umpire's decisions.
Meantime, Rafferty's Rules apply. Every time.
I could offer pages of hard evidence - and have done so to authorities and clubs - but nobody takes any notice so I have given up.
PS: For whatever reasons, my observations are that the running on NZ tracks is superior to that in Oz - ie more interference free. I can't add more to that as I do not collect NZ data to analyse. It's just an impression.
PS2: The only Oz trip to which I would give a pass mark is Hobart 461m - but I suspect that was an accident, not by design. The simultaneous building of the new Launceston track was a horror.