MOD 1 - Bridge Street traffic lane change

I totally object to the modification proposal to remove any further land from the Thompson square precinct. This is the oldest public remaining square, has historical value and should never have been part of the planned bridge works. After many years of reports into the viability of the existing bridge and new works, public protests via occupation and petition signatures, the RMS and NSW Government have refused to listen to the majority of Hawkesbury residents. From day 1 it has been suggested the solution offered would do nothing to alleviate the traffic congestion in the Hawkesbury and a bypass should be the preferred option. Now at the time when this ridiculous bridge is almost close to joining the other side, suddenly someone has finally realised it is not going to work. Anyone can work our that replacing a 2 lane bridge with another 2 lane bridge will do nothing to help the traffic. In addition, having a set of lights replace a flowing roundabout at George street would obviously change the flow of traffic and would result in a congested effect.
I once again object wholly to the modification. In addition I further request that the existing historical bridge be left as a footbridge or bridge for local traffic and not demolished.
Regards
Tonia Brown

Windsor is a heritage town and you have gone ahead with an inappropriate development in the face of huge local community objections. There were viable alternatives like going straight across the river from the Wilberforce side and coming out alongside Governor Phillip park. Loosing a small part of Governor Phillip Park would have been preferable. But you just set you face against the local people and the heritage and aboriginal significance of the area in an arrogant manner. Now you suddenly realise you have made a mistake and are going to take more of our local Thompsons Square to fix a problem that should never have been made. If you had just taken time to listen to the local community any one on the street could have told you this small roundabout was a problem! Literally anyone you stopped on the street would have told you. The arrogance of your bureaucracy is astounding! don't you realise that without the peoples taxes you wouldn't have anything certainly no jobs. What makes you think you are superior? In the face of objections just push ahead. You should always in the very first instance when planning a significant change in a small community in a significant and much loved local town, meet with the people and float your plans then listen because communities have people with amazing ideas. You would have found a way to have an outstanding bridge in a proper place that met the needs of your department and the local community. What you have done instead is built a little bridge to replace a little bridge, upset everyone in the community and not you have a problem which you should have foreseen.And you plan to fix it will further aggravate the local community and totally destroy the heritage nature of Windsor and Thompsons square basically what you are doing is vandalism on a monumental scale.

For over five years now the Hawkesbury community have had many groups opposing the new Windsor Bridge Project. I personally have been extremely shocked that Australia's oldest town square could so easily have it's heritage listing removed to satisfy the government and the RTA desire to build a bridge that Blind Freddy , or any long time local could see was never going to be a real and long term traffic solution.
A government Inquiry uncovered the deceit that those in the community already understood. The Inquiry fully supported the protection of Thompson Square and the original Windsor Bridge that was deemed to be safe by independent architects, who recommended upgrading the original bridge would see it survive another 200 years. The cost blowout of the new disastrous plan is now $130 million. Now it has been announced that an extra 300 metres will be taken from the Square. How is this protecting heritage? The Government and the RTA have consistently lied to the community about the impact on Thompson Square. These lies were fully recognised by the Inquiry. The call for a bypass has been ignored, despite it being an obvious choice and one supported by the Government Inquiry. obvious solution. I note Barnaby Joyce was instrumental in having a bypass built in his electorate with only a fraction of petitions from his constituents. Windsor has achieved over 40,000 signatures calling for a bypass.
The old Windsor Bridge was also part of the heritage listing of Thompson Square and like the square represents the very heart of not only Windsor but the nation itself. Now we hear that an extra 300 metres will be taken off Thompson Square itself, despite the many assurances from Gladys Berejiklian and Dom Perrottet that history would be preserved. The National Trust also commented during the government inquiry that Thompson Square was, "historically more important than Port Arthur".
I like many others who call Windsor and the Hawkesbury home cannot sit idly by and watch this vandalism continue.
The plan to tear down the old bridge is also flawed as it could well be used as the two new lanes now being proposed. Additionally the locals wish for it to be retained as a cycle path or walkway to enable locals and visitors alike to access the popular Macquarie Park which is popular with families and tourists alike and runs beside the river.
A bypass will eventually be needed and the taxpayers will have wasted $130 million. Waste a shameful waste of heritage, money all forthe vandalism of a significant piece of history.
Catherine Robson
Catherine Robson

How long will Bridge Street be closed for whilst the carriage way on Windsor side is installed.
Will the Terrace be used as a detor whilst the carriage way is installed?.
What is the consultation about for area highlighted by broken orange lines on page 17 fig 4-4?.
What specific additional impact on Heritage and the character of the local area would an additional northbound lane on the bridge include?.
How much is the expected additional construction cost and how is that considered small as described on page 14?.
My submission is more time should be granted until my questions are answered and should my questions not be answered actually and fully I can assume the risk of this additional work can only be considered extreme and should not proceed. My opinion.
Kay Wilson
100 Boomerang Drive,
Glossodia 2756
[email protected]
27.10.19

Merging lanes always cause a speed reduction for drivers. The current design successfully allows all traffic in the left lane to turn, and all traffic in the right lane to proceed straight ahead. The final design must retain the current lane arrangement to avoid merging being introduced to the lane orientation.

Submission Application # 20191011001551
I support continuing the second lane up the hill west bound in Bridge Street but only as far as George Street.
Making it a dedicated LEFT HAND TURN ONLY.
I would like to see proof of the idea that a slip lane beyond George St. would increase the number of vehicles through the intersection.
Any benefit of a slip lane is negated by traffic slowing to merge.
The cost of further destruction to Thompson Square is not worth such questionable benefit.
Regards Andrew Stones.

A project of this size must have had some due diligence to ascertain all needs and potential complications that may arise.
I believe an independent enquiry/ investigation should be made to understand where the root cause of incompetence was first realised in this long term project.
It is treating public money with contempt, as well as public opinion with contempt, to suggest that a last minute change such as suggested, with the lack of investigation you are suggesting is even contemplated without investigation.
A halt to further work on the project would not disadvantage the community as the original bridge is still operational to serve as it always has, until clarity can be ascertained.
A response is expected and appreciated.
Regards
David Huxley

The only sensible thing happening here is that it is becoming more and more apparent by the day that the RMS/RTA has no idea what it is doing. In trying to use the “2,000 additional vehicles per day” to justify the changes simply shows that the errors they made in the original assessment (when traffic numbers were already understated by 2,000 per day compared to the traffic counter data) it really does make a mockery of the claims that this modification will future proof the project.

This project has been a disaster since inception, and continues to be so.

To compound matters, putting this out to public consultation, without considering any discussion with Hawkesbury City Council, it is further evident that the RMS has no intention whatsoever of taking any input from the community into consideration. They already have their plan set, and most likely approved, and have known about the need to put bandaids on this amputation for a very long time.

I oppose the modification entirely, as a regular user of the affected parklands and a nearby resident.

The proposed line marking and zip merge lane will do nothing to improve traffic flow, and is more likely to increase the hazard of a merge lane over a blind crest. But you already know that.

You knew when the concept design was approved that the level of service at this intersection was unacceptable. You also knew the intersection just south of this was also at an unacceptable level, but you approved the project nonetheless.

And now you want to make these changes to give us a level of service that is still unacceptable.

When you become serious about fixing the traffic issues in this immediate area, let me know, but until then you can continue polishing that turd as much as you like – it will still be a turd.

Although we feel this is a futile exercise, because we know it is just a “tick a box” exercise that consultation has occurred we still want to register our objection to the proposal to add a slip lane to the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project.
We have had insufficient time to fully read all the documentation due to the short consultation period despite attempts by CAWB, who represent the local community, to have this consultation period extended.
Throughout this project, the RMS have not been able to put forward a solution to the current and future traffic problems that only a bypass of Windsor and the retention of the original bridge would overcome. They have known right from the inception of this project that the proposed new bridge was going to do nothing to alleviate the already congested river crossing.
The new claim that a slip lane will solve the problem of expected traffic numbers is not realistic, and they know it. Neither slip lanes on Windsor and Richmond Roads on the approaches to the Hawkesbury where two lanes merge into one have been effective rather they exacerbate the traffic issues congesting the traffic even further causing a bank up of traffic before the merge, which is what we feel this proposal of a slip lane will also do.
Perhaps a site visit in peak afternoon traffic times on both these roads and on the approaches to the new bridge is in order. Visually you will see that what is proposed merging from two lanes into one on top of the bridge entrance through two sets of traffic lights will not solve anything, not to mention the traffic turning left from both Macquarie and George Streets onto already blocked intersections (this happens now at Macquarie Street backing up the traffic on that road). You don’t need to be a traffic planner to see it is not going to solve anything.
We also question how traffic is going to get to Governor Phillip Park and the boat ramp. It is ludicrous to suggest they will cross the bridge and return via the roundabout whilst towing a boat and the Court Street intersection will become problematic as traffic backs up there whilst waiting for people to turn right. Just as it does at the Pitt Town /Windsor Road right hand turn which cant take the volume of traffic turning right.
The whole of the area needs a proper traffic management plan. Throughout this project the RMS have made continual false claims about this Replacement Bridge Project solving traffic congestion and replacing an unsafe bridge. Both claims are false as the bridge is not unsafe as we still have unrestricted traffic crossing abridge which has no maintenance by the RMS for many years. This is the final straw as they have known since its inception that what they were proposing was also not going to fix any traffic problems and now at the last minute this proposal appears once the bridge spans have been put in place.
If the Department of Planning agrees with the RMS you are just as complicit in the bad planning and lies that have been sold to the community since the start of this project. The community will hold you both responsible for the traffic chaos that is going to happen on a daily basis due to this inept project plan.
John and Gae Parmenter.

BACKGROUND
I have lived in the Hawkesbury LGA since 1972. During that time I have witnessed a significant growth in local industry and a significant increase in population density.

However, other than the addition of electrified rail to Richmond, the construction of Hawkesbury Valley Way and the sealing of most local roads there has been no significant infrastructure to improve resident or commercial vehicle access to or through Windsor and surrounds.

The current Windsor Bridge replacement project and proposed modification is flawed and will provide no significant improvement to traffic management or flood mitigation but comes at the cost of local heritage and amenity.

In summary, this project and proposed modification (why the very late afterthought for the latter?) fails to:
1. recognise the significant heritage value of Thompson Square;
2. address any mid-to-long term traffic improvement, or
3. provide significant flood immunity.

THE ISSUE
In 2011 The NSW Transport Roads and Traffic Authority Community Update August provides justification for the preferred “to improve traffic and transport efficiency by minimising queue length/delays ... and ... to meet community needs for the long term by providing an efficient connection for local and regional traffic”. Pg 4

However, the Hawkesbury Gazette, January 15, 2014, quotes the RMS as stating “that in 2026 the performance of the Bridge St/Macquarie St intersection at the evening peak will be poor, indicating the intersection would be operating at capacity. The project has never claimed to solve all traffic problems in this area.” Pg 11

How will this project, even with the proposed modification, change that overall assessment of improved traffic flow?

It is evident that the current project does not bring any benefit to traffic flow to and through the Hawkesbury area in the immediate and long term, with the proposed modification further destroying the heritage value of the historic Macquarie town of Windsor.
The Legislative Council Report 48, August 2018, found: “That the flood mitigation impacts of the new bridge design will be minimal, and traffic congestion will remain an issue in the streets leading to and around Windsor Bridge. While the project to replace the bridge may never have provided the necessary panacea to address these issues, the committee agrees with stakeholders that the opportunity to creatively address these issues has now been lost”.
The RTA/RMS got it wrong from the start, and now a late scramble to patch-up a debacle only serves to amplify the incompetence of the RMS planners, further amplifying the ineptitude that has been on display from the very beginning of the planning and implementation process.
Why is there is a need for a significant change in planning at this final stage given the RTA started its planning prior to 2008? Why has the RMS been so ineffective?

The rationale for the addition of a slip lane is based on false assumptions. The RMS is required to model options. There are more options available than one.

In the current proposal the RMS evaluated two options - its preferred option of a slip lane or a ‘do nothing’ option. The RMS has not indicated an evaluation of other options.

One option is a contra flow between a.m. and p.m. as happens on some other bridges in NSW.

The proposed modification involves building a wider approach road to the bridge by carving off more of the heritage parkland at the heart of Thompson Square. The claim by RMS that the area to be used for the slip lane is 160 sq.m. This figure needs verification as it seems to be closer to 300 sq.m.
As a consequence of the proposed slip lane, two lanes of traffic heading north would have to merge between the George Street traffic lights and the southern bridge abutment, squeezing into the one lane heading north across the river. How will this slightly extended merge result in improved traffic flow, rather than simply resulting in pushing the problem to the southern bridge abutment?
In any event, how will any merging lanes together with two set of traffic lights within a couple of hundred metres alleviate any traffic congestion?

CONCLUSION
The need for this late remedial action in an attempt to salvage what has always known to be a flawed project serves only to further highlight the incompetence of the Road and Maritime Services agency.

I object to this proposal, the proposed redevelopment to take away more public space to attempt to alleviate the traffic congestion caused by the ill designed original plan does not justify the taking of the extra space. It is an irreversible action and the benefit does not outweigh the negative impact this further place on the historic Windsor area.

I have waited until the last possible moment to make my submission because in order to make an informed opinion I wish to view all relevant documents. Unfortunately you have neglected to make the 2019 Traffic Study available for viewing at time of writing. For that reason I object. I cannot possibly support anything without viewing appropriate documents.

If the traffic going North on the new Windsor bridge has to negotiate a filter lane to cross this will cause delays as it is only one lane on the bridge. The ideal situation would be to make two lanes going North. The two lanes coming South are 3.25m each and the lane going North is 3.5m. The pedestrian shared path is a minimum of 3.0 m. If this shared path was removed then there would be enough room on the bridge to provide two lanes of at least 3.25m each. There would be no need to build a new pedestrian shared path as the old bridge would fulfill that need. This idea would take away a lot of the congestion and also the people using the old bridge as a shared path would not be subject to toxic exhaust emissions.

See attached

Comments on behalf of Defenders of Thompson Square Inc. are included in the attached submission

The Environment, Energy and Science (EES) Group of DPIE (formerly OEH) is satisfied from an archaeological perspective with the management measures recommended by AAJV to address the potential impact of the proposed modification. If any further excavation work is to occur in the vicinity of test pit SA11 further archaeological salvage may be required. If further archaeological excavation or monitoring is required for historic archaeology as a result of the proposed changes, then Aboriginal heritage should also be considered as part of those works.

EES Group notes there is no mention of consultation with the registered Aboriginal parties (RAPs) regarding the proposed modification. EES Group recommends the proposed modification and management measures be discussed with the RAPs and that their views considered before any plans are finalised.

Thank you for allowing me to make this submission in objection to this project that will rip an extra 300 mtrs away from an area that is still is very precious to Australia. Australians young and old, deceased and newborns this place was the essence of a Fair Go . Governor Macquarie in naming Thomson Square along side (King) George St Windsor set a new precedence and set about a new direction of this great nation. Being the third settlement of the colony, it is an absolute travesty that this project was allowed to proceed through Thompson Square when a bypass downstream could have saved the massive destructive footprint left behind by the monstrosity concrete blight. If Heritage Laws needed to be bypassed, which they have been. It should have sent alarm bells in relation to the sensitivity of this area instead of telling the people who know (the locals) what the area needs (new 3 lane bridge) simply could have been solved through listening to what was actually needed a bypass for heavy vehicles and passing traffic with the retention of existing bridge for local traffic. A government enquiry showed the whole project borders on corruption, has massive question marks hanging over this redundant before complete project, A 3 lane bridge in this modern day unless a contraflow is useless with the amount of morning traffic that needs to return in the afternoon. This (Contraflow) has never been mentioned anywhere as original project had one lane each way with a breakdown to be changed to a third lane east when they reach traffic numbers in 2026. No traffic count was complete before this new works to remove even more of what is almost unrecognisable Thompson Square was completed making the general public even more sceptical of the flawed process this area has been subject to. I dare say Hyde Park Sydney or Macquarie St Parliament House, The Rocks would be thrust with this destruction. Every attempt over many, many years from a large concerned community base have been ignored, dismissed and lied to. Jack Munday tried his best and declared the area a Green Ban this saved the Rocks and we are so lucky for this today. Greed has won this battle. Massive pools of water sit along a mass of view obstructing concrete all along where once trees and grass and an amazing unchanged view since colonisation. You could look out and see what our Forefathers and Mothers once gazed upon. Unfortunately Glady's lied when in Windsor Library declaring she was saving the areas Heritage, this is on film. I would hate to see what she means if she was going remove or destroy our Brick Barrel Drainage System ( Smugglers Tunnels) or any of our concerns that we had. She refused to even visit the area when there to see a painting of herself. We where as locals denied the chance to see these marvels that our grandparents stories had told us and the experts could not locate them with today's equipment. This project will go ahead as the whole system is broken and our once beautiful country is being stolen for greed. A Fair Go died along with Thompson Square RIP AUSTRALIA . May as well destroy the Heritage Cumberland Area whilst you are at it. Other states and countries value Heritage but NSW has done away with this whole Department? There is so many reason why this should not go ahead , all are basically in the section that says to proceed. Any person with any compassion for the truth and a Fair Go would have this whole project looked into with the respect that is warranted. Please do not approve this flawed design even further destroy our shrinking Heritage area. Heritage has been getting destroyed before our very eyes it is heartbreaking to watch such unneeded destruction.

The project has been flawed from the beginning and keeps being changed as it evolves with very little or no consultation with the residents and general public. The change at this late stage of wanting to add a slip lane has no merit and will severely impact on the the green space of Thompson Square which has already been earmarked for a considerable change to the area, gradient and usable space available for recreation use. I also demand the Government and the RMS support leaving the historic Bridge for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to link to the Macquarie Park area. There is a demand for local walking trails and this could be linked to these to enable people to leisurely cross the river without the necessity of being on a large bridge with traffic whizzing by. As identified in your reports of traffic monitoring from 2017 and 2019 there is very little difference in traffic flows and in most instances the traffic has been slightly less. Therefore there is no merit in adding this slip lane.

Submission re modification to Windsor Bridge Replacement Project

I object to the proposed modification in the strongest possible way.

I write this submission in the knowledge that anything I say will be completely disregarded, that any objection by the community will be swept aside. It is disappointing, indeed, to have so little faith in the government agencies who are supposed to work for the people of NSW.

The initial consultation for the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project sought to divide the local community and force the, then RTA’s, preferred option. No doubt proponents will be ecstatic that their tactics were successful. Sadly, I have to continue to live in this divided community, and not only that, have the prospect of increased traffic - increased heavy vehicles - only metres from my front door. Where we could have had the potential to generate heritage tourism, we now only have trucks and dogs.

As I understand it, this proposed modification was sprung upon both Hawkesbury City Council and the community less than two weeks ago, and aside from promotion by CAWB, there has been no notification to the community regarding the changes. This appears to be in complete contradiction to Item 5-1 in your documentation. There has certainly been no notification of the modification been delivered to my home either via email nor letterbox flyer.

While objectors to this project have long been saying that it is essential to move heavy vehicles out of such a sensitive precinct, that the intersections are currently not coping and will only continue to worsen, that the new bridge will not improve traffic flow, that our fragile heritage is worth more, we have been shouted down. Yet suddenly, with less than two weeks notice, we are told that the planned intersections are insufficient, that traffic congestion will not improve. Quelle surprise! Not only this, but the solution from your agency, is to carve away more space from the useable green space in Thompson Square.

It is clear that the artists who have created the wonderful vistas 6-12 to 6-15 have not spent a minute in either Bridge Street, nor Thompson Square, where one would need both earmuffs and masks to be so close to the pervasive traffic dominated by heavy vehicles.

The community has been told that the bridge is a replacement for a worn out asset and not supposed to fix traffic congestion, yet it is suddenly supposed to fix congestion by destroying what is special to Windsor even further? What exactly is the purpose of the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project? And how is any of this going to address the issue of the Macquarie Street/Bridge Street intersection?

At this point, one must ask the question, are the proponents of this project incompetent or corrupt?