Windsor Bridge Replacement

I note that the EIS bridge concept is for an incrementally launched bridge. The indications are that the bridge is to be supported on piers with up to four columns.

This makes no hydraulic and structural sense. The piers for this bridge should be modelled on Colo River bridge on Putty Road. The superstructure shoul likewise be based on Colo River. Bridge Branch of RMS has the drawings.

This would provide a better aesthetic design as well as a design more suited to flooding.

I agree with the proposal as the new bridge is urgently required. I am concerned that the approaching road from McGraths Hill will continue to be part of the bottle neck to the new bridge unless an upgrade in undertaken at the time of the bridge construction.

JUST DO IT

To Whom It May Concern
In my option yes we need a new bridge but you are only looking at this for the short turn to please the people ,look ahead in the future with more and more people coming to the area and that means more vehicles and possibly more trucks, it should have 4 lanes yes OK the cost will be greater but the cost now will be cheaper than in the next 10-20 years you only have to look at freeways built back 10-20-30 years earlier now you have to spend triple the cost due to high demand.
The other thing is FLOODS yes may be the bridge is out of the floods but no one is able to cross due to the road to Wilberforce will be under water and also the flats between Windsor and mcgraths hill also under water so the bridge is no good for people on the northern side they still are not able to get to work and into town so it would be a lot cheaper to lift them roads also out of FLOOD areas so there is access for all the people from the north side also and also truck movements.
Regards
Peter

The historical background of Windsor township is too important from a State and National perspective to be protected from a large development such as that proposed.
Serious consideration needs to be given to an alternate bi-pass option that is enjoyed by other historic towns

After looking at drawings and being a regular user at peak times, and having been caught up in major traffic due to breakdowns and accidents, I think that 3 lanes at least are needed on a basis of one each way and a timed contra lane which can be used going east in the AM and going west in PM. Coming East in the morning a lot of traffic peels off at Macquarie street lights and there is already two lanes there and of an afternoon at Freemans Reach Road so having two lanes coming across bridge at these times would not be a problem. If this extra lane is not put in place there really is not much use in spending all this money when the traffic situation will only be improved in a flood situation, which doesn't happen all that often but the traffic situation happens every day morning and night.

I am very concerned about the roundabout you plan at the end of Freemans Reach and Putty Roads. Having two lanes heading into the roundabout and only one lane on the bridge is of great concern to me. Whilst your people may have driven in traffic during peak times in the area I don't believe they could have been in the heavy loads both roads carry, as well as the flow from the Windsor side of the bridge. Two vehicles whether small or large coming to gether on the single lane bridge approach will cause blockages across the road therefore stopping flow both directions, this would be the safe scenario, the other would be two vehicles colliding with possible disastrous effects.

I have been told in the future there will be three lanes, what I can't understand, why is it in the future, and will you take responsibility for any damage or lives lost whilst waiting for the future.

Kay Wilson.

In your EIS you state that you have consulted local residents and business owners regarding construction of the new Windsor Bridge. I am one of the local owners and buisness people and no one from the RMS has spoken to me or requested my opinion on this project. As part of the consultation process it is important to speak to those who may have legitimate objection to the proposed works. speaking to the converted is not consultation it is delusion. How about consulting with me?

I have a thorough understanding of the proposed ereplacement bridge for the Hawkesbury river crossing at Windsor. I ahve attended both of the displays at Windsor Shopping cemtres on 24/11 and 8/12/12. I support the river crossing as proposed by the RMS as the most logical and best for the commuinty of the Hawkesbury. Acess to the business areas of Windsor has been preserved and traffic flow will be smother and safer. The increased height will allow better access during times of increased river levels during potential floods.

*The proposed windsor bridge will destroy the early colonial Thompson`s Square precinct * alternative routes should be found * A tunnel could be examined

The EIS at many stages recognises and pays tribute to the historical value of Thompson Square. However it fails to grasp the fact that the very placement of this option1 bridge will forever change the character of the oldest town square in Australia. Such will be the dominance of this larger bridge that the surrounding Georgian buildings will loose their significance. Yes the buildings will still be there, but the charm of the area will be lost forever, with a major thoroughfare passing through it.

There are today (2012) 19,000 vehicles per day using the existing bridge, this number will increase with future development north of the river and this emerging highway will put greater strains on this sensitive heritage area.
Option 1 is only a short term fix, it does nothing to solve Windsor's longer term traffic problems, it is as the EIS says a replacement, whereas it should be an opportunity to grasp the real problems ie, the restoration of Thompson Square and Windsor's traffic woes and to do something about it.

To claim that the option 1 site is the historical river crossing site is ridiculous, it was the case for horse and cart but there were no semi-trailers then.

The existing bridge is nowadays considered too narrow for trucks and does not meet current design standards and a replacement bridge would need to be much wider. It is for this reason that I believe that the bigger replacement bridge can not be successfully placed in Thompson Square without suffering the aforementioned consequences.

To achieve the results of a restored Thompson Square and a better traffic flow for Windsor we need a proper by-pass bridge route, our existing bridge repaired and used for light traffic and Thompson Square relieved of its current large volumes of traffic.

I therefore urge the RMS to reconsider this project and direct their efforts towards providing a by-pass bridge.

I remember the bitter battles that were fought to save the `Rocks' area of Sydney. At the time there was great pressure on getting rid of all the old buildings in town and replacing them with high rise buildings. We were told that this was progress and it was too costly to keep those `old buildings'. Now, of course, we understand the importance of the `Rocks' and all it represents of our European history in Australia. We also benefit greatly from the tourists that flock to visit the area.
I know that the same thing applies to the beautiful historic town of Windsor. The Hawkesbury area is very susceptible to flooding and this is one of the reasons that Governor Macquarie deemed it necessary to lay out five towns in the Hawkesbury area in 1810. He knew that it was important that food be grown on this fertile floodland. It was also important for the farmers of the land to be able to retreat to the high ground within the towns when the waters rose.
The curse of flooding has been a mixed blessing for Windsor because it has meant that the town has survived the perils of overhousing because of the building restrictions on the height of land above flood level. There is very little land left within the township which can be developed because of the building level restrictions and the result is that we have this beautiful little historic town just an hours drive from Sydney laid out in much the way the Governor Macquarie decreed with open plains all around.
We are lucky that Windsor sits on the fringes of the urban growth of Sydney and so was saved from the ravages of the 1970's when so many important buildings were lost. Every weekend people come to visit Windsor. They stroll through the township; gaze at the historic buildings, including two Greenway buildings still being used as a church and a court house as was their original intention. Many of the visitors have lunch or dinner in Thompson Square listening to the music provided by the Macquarie Arms Hotel (the oldest continuously operating pub in NSW) and watching the horse and coach clop slowly past on its rounds of Windsor.
I have lived in the Hawkesbury district for almost 30 years and in that time I have come to appreciate what a truly significant piece of history we have preserved in the small township of Windsor. I know that the introduction of a high level bridge directly beside Thompson square will destroy the beautiful ambience of this historic town. It will split the town in half and completely alter the experience of visiting the town. Imagine if we put a road directly through the middle of the `Rocks' area and encouraged the trucks to run through day and night, how this would impact on the experience of visiting that historic precinct. Financially there are benefits to keeping Windsor as it is in the long term. Tourists have to have destinations to visit, and Windsor is now, and will continue to grow, as an important tourist destination.
Please listen to the recommendations of the National Trust and the many concerns raised in the Environmental Impact Statement about the detrimental effect this new bridge will have on the historic aspects of Windsor township and consider the possibility of providing a bypass around Windsor, whilst keeping the existing bridge for light traffic.
It is important to understand that the historic value of Windsor to NSW and the rest of Australia will be realized in future years. There is more to history than buildings and lawns, we have a living, working historic town that future generations will appreciate, just as we now appreciate the value of the `Rocks' area. If we consider this in a purely financial level today we will lose something of inestimable value in the future, and we will never be able to restore this loss.

as an owner/occupier/business person in thompson square windsor i would have thought i would have been one of the, "interested parties" who were "all' contacted in relation to the work to be carried out in thompson square. i have never heard from anyone at any time re this "development".
judging by the proposal put forward my property value is about to plummet and any development of my property will be useless as who will want to live or work adjacent to a major highway. (and an ugly elevated roadway at that!) take away the historic precinct and you will take away the tourists. take away the historic precinct and you take away much of the value of the properties facing thompson square.
i for one will be seeking compensation from the dept. responsible for any desecration of the area and in particular,
the value lost on my property.

I would like to thank the RMS on consulting with our community and taking on board the worthwhile submissions as a whole.

Unfortunately, there was a group of a few that were very loud and not forthcoming about the truth of Thompson Square and the bridge. I sinceley hope that the RMS dismiss their petition as the public that has signed same was not made FULLY aware of the proposals being put forward.

Again I thank the RMS on taking on and making some considerations as suggested by our community.
Thank you

I would like to thank the RMS on consulting with our community and taking on board the worthwhile submissions as a whole.

Unfortunately, there was a group of a few that were very loud and not forthcoming about the truth of Thompson Square and the bridge. I sinceley hope that the RMS dismiss their petition as the public that has signed same was not made FULLY aware of the proposals being put forward.

Again I thank the RMS on taking on and making some considerations as suggested by our community.
Thank you

I am so happy that the bridge will be replaced. After viewing the presentation at the Bridge To Bridge Ski Race, I can see how the new bridge will be much wider and safer for passing traffic. Many times I have crossed the bridge with heavy vehicles passing in the opposite direction, hugging the gutter as close as I could. Bring it on.

XXXXX. From when Ray Williams met with RTA officials in 2008 and gave his support to the Option 1 bridge 3/4 of a year before the very first public consultation process in July 2009, all the way to now where the legislation has been changed to remove the right to appeal the EIS in the Land and Environment Court and, after having two whole years to prepare this document, only allow the absolute minimum time for anyone to make a reply. Any requests for extensions are refused.

There is no benefit to Windsor in this project, there is only detriment. This bridge will hurt Windsor at its core - its heritage. The heritage which brings tourist trade out every weekend will suffer, and hence the trade will drop. Stores will close, the town will suffer irrecoverably.

The numbers in this document are massaged, manipulated and altered to fit their own ideas. They refuse access to the raw data as they know it will prove otherwise. Just try to request it, you won't get it.

ABSOLUTELY NO BRIDGE IN THOMPSON SQUARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Save Australia's FIRST and OLDEST town square from destruction

It shouldn't be allowed to go ahead, I use the square all the time with my family. It has been around for so long and it's a great place to spend the day with family or friends listening to music that is put on