Windsor Bridge Replacement

There is a clear need to deliver a transport solution that facilitates connectivity between Sydney and the Hunter Region and an opportunity exists to achieve a truly visionary planning solution. The proposed option to consolidate the route to Singleton through Thompson's Square appears to be short sighted. The inevitable increase in through traffic and heavy vehicles will destroy the heritage and public amenity - a far greater long term cost to the State through the degradation of a community asset than finding the funding for a more sustainable solution today. We need leadership to determine the long term vision, not short term cost efficiencies. The Square was listed on the Register of the National Estate and had a permanent Conservation order placed on it by the NSW Liberal Government in 1982 as a place of State significance. Thompson's Square is the only Georgian Square in existence in Australia and is a place of National significance for its association with Governor Macquarie and the Convict Andrew Thompson. It is the centre of one of the earliest settled districts in Australia and its collection of colonial buildings has remained largely intact since being built in the period between 1815 and 1880. It is the only remaining civic space laid out by Governor Macquarie and is a crucial precinct in the preservation of the early colonial character of Windsor. The proposed Option 1 will cause long term irrevocable and negative impact on Windsor as a whole and Thompson Square in particular.
I would urge the Government to provide the leadership needed to find a better solution. Windsor needs a bypass to preserve Thompson's Square and ensure Windsor's significant community value and heritage tourism potential for present and future generations is preserved.

looking at the plan on the community update November 2012
it shows that FREEMANS REACH road comes in to the roundabout as dual lanes ,I hope that the left lane is a left turn only as this will give the traffic on WILBERFORCE road a .chance to get on roundabout

Overview -

We write as property owners directly affected by this project and in regard to our involvement in the process over the last four years.

Personally we know our heritage building will be "negatively impacted" by this proposal.

"Negatively Impacted" is such a clinical phrase. "Ruined" is better. "De-valued" is another. "Stuffed" is more appropriate

However, if such things occur for the greater good of the community then fair enough.

The problem is that this isn't occurring for the greater good of the community. It is occurring to the greater detriment of the community.

$60million of taxpayer's money will spent and it will benefit no-one. The proposed bridge of itself does not provide one iota of everyday benefit. What it does is destroy the Heritage value of one of the rarest places in Australia.

We know that the preferred option - Option One - was always going to be given approval. We were told this by RTA staff in 2008 and 2009. Other people were also witnesses to these statements by RTA staff.

When asked why there needed to be other consultations when the decision had been made, we were told - "Community Consultation is something we have to go through. It's part of the process"

The staff also told us the other Options were "just to show people we've looked at other things".

When asked about heritage issues, the RTA staff replied "The minister can over-ride all that"

Politically motivated support for this Option is also well documented in Hansard and the press, also dating from 2008.

Any pretence of seeking input from the public and any community consultation in consideration of other options was exactly that, a pretence.

Rather than being a "clear and transparent" process as claimed by RTA/RMS personnel, the whole charade has been an example of a deceptive and misleading practice.

Over the last four years we have witnessed and documented repeated disinformation and mistruths from the RTA and the RMS. This EIS is no exception.

Given the vast experience of the RTA/RMS in projects such as this, lame excuses such as "oh, that's just a mistake" or "it's just an artist's impression" - and then not correcting the errors are examples of nothing more then purposefully misleading the public.

The whole project has been an example of procedural impropriety by stealth.


The Project -

The treatment of a NSW Heritage Precinct as nothing more than a road reserve for RTA/RMS use is contemptible.

When Thompson Square was restored in the 1970s/1980s the consultant Heritage Architects, Fisher Lucas and Associates in a report accepted by Council, said "Any future attempt to increase the traffic through Thompson Square must be strongly resisted".

Soon after this the NSW Government placed Thompson Square under a Permanent Conservation Order. It is now a Heritage Precinct containing 15 individual NSW Heritage buildings

The claim that the preferred Option follows a historical alignment and "there has always been a road there" is a convenient rewrite of local history and based in fiction - or should we say "Lies".

Nowhere in any of the RTA/RMS reports has there been a mention of "Punt Hill Road". This was the track to the river that zigzagged across Thompson Square. However most people of the day would use the Terrace and Kable or Baker Streets as it was much safer and less steep.

The claim that Bridge St is the historic route to the river shows an unbelievable ignorance that has been continually repeated all the way to Parliament House.

Bridge St was named after the Bridge across South Creek.
No-one ever used the road known as "Old Bridge Street" to access the river. It was far too steep an incline for any animal or machine of the time. "Old Bridge Street" was a dirt extension of Bridge Street used to access the houses numbered 6 and 10. Everybody used the Terrace or sometimes Punt Hill Road to get to the river.

To learn this all any of the RTA/RMS people had to do was ask any of the elderly locals. Or learn to use "Trove". But we assume the truth didn't fit the agenda.

The proposed road and bridge that is "Option One" continues the same bureaucratic bloodymindedness that saw the cutting bulldozed through the Square in the 1930s.

The cutting made by the RMS of the day was also protested against by the people. The Mayor at the time claiming the cutting would "Mutilate Thompson's Square". An Alderman claimed the RMS of the day were "filching one of the lungs of the town".

The only historic attribute of the proposed Option One is that it continues the tradition of raping Thompson Square, our Heritage and our History.

The Bridge

Of course the reasons behind this blind insanity is the claim that the bridge is in a perilous condition and in danger of keeling over at any minute. Also that it no longer meets current standards.

Condition:

After reading the results of load testing on the bridge contained in the EIS, we think everybody must be talking about two different bridges.

An historic bridge, designed and constructed in 1874, raised in 1897 and re-decked in 1922 should only be required to carry an A36 test load, or 17 tonnes (1).

However last year it was load tested with 52.4 tonnes...and it passed? And this is a bridge about to fall down?

Oh yes, the graphitization that will cause the cast iron piers to snap in half. So how did the bending strain tests go?

- "Bending strain is not the dominant strain in the piers".

- "All strain gauges go into compression under loading in all test instances".

What, no bending? Hmm...it seems the old bridge passed. Tested with three times the load it is meant to be tested with and it passed?

Perhaps this is why there is no load limit on the bridge? Is this why the Roads Minister increased the loading by 10% to 68 tonnes in October?

Of course the bridge needs work. After 140 years and subjected to three times the design load, who or what wouldn't need a bit of work?

However we understand methods to renovate the old bridge for a fraction of the RMS cost have been submitted in response to the EIS. We hope somebody bothers to read them.

Standards:

"the existing bridge does not meet current engineering and road safety standards."

Come on. A 19th Century bridge is expected to meet 21st Century standards?

Do any 19th Century bridges in NSW (let alone Australia) meet 21st Century standards?

How many historic bridges in NSW are currently carrying three to four times their maximum design load and meeting current standards???

We thought as much.

This is no excuse to demolish an historic bridge. If it is an excuse then perhaps the RMS should start with the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Its lanes are too narrow and it doesn't meet "current engineering and road safety standards". Good luck with that one.

Summary:

It is obvious to anyone who cares to glance, this project is a "dud" and a waste of taxpayer's money.

We have an historic bridge, currently carrying unrestricted loads, which is being sentenced to demolition purely because it is old and historic.

Shame on you people. Shame on you.

You who are suppose to care for the inventory under your control. The cracks in the caissons are several decades old and what has been done to rehabilitate the caissons in that time?

Nothing.

There is spalling and `concrete cancer' in the first precast concrete bridge girders used in NSW and probably Australia. And what have you done to rehabilitate them?

Nothing.

And what is your solution to your negligence? The destruction of the heritage of Australia's oldest Public Square.

Shame on you.

Conclusion:

Press the "STOP" button. Sharpen your pencils.

Care for the heritage structures under your control and do not harm other heritage areas to get yourself "out of jail".

Thompson Square is one of the most precious precincts in Australia. The foundation of the Australian character is buried in its clay.

Windsor needs and deserves a bypass. Go to work on it.

In the meantime we along with many others will investigate all possible options under State, Federal and Constitutional Law to protect Australia's History and its Heritage. A repeat of the 1932 mutilation of Thompson Square will be fought tooth and nail.

i am for the option 1 bridge proposal. i do not think the signatures of 14,000 people from out of the area count more than the opinions of people who live in the area and use the bridge every day

There is clearly a need to deliver a transport solution that connects Sydney and the Hunter Region and an opportunity exists to deliver a truly visionary planning solution.
The proposed option to consolidate the route to Singleton through Thompson's Square is extremely shortsighted. The inevitable increase in through traffic and heavy vehicles will destroy the public amenity - a far greater long term cost to the State through the degradation of a community asset rather than finding the funding for a more sustainable solution today.
Short term cost efficiencies should not be the driving force for long term decisions on this issue. Thompson's Square was listed on the Register of the National Estate and had a permanent Conservation order placed on it under the NSW Liberal government in 1982 as a place of State significance. Thompson's Square is the only Georgian square in existence in Australia and is a place of National significance through its association with Governor Macquarie and the convict Andrew Thompson. It is the centre of one of the earliest settled districts in Australia and its collection of colonial buildings has remained largely intact since being built in the period between 1815 and 1880. It is the only remaining civic space laid out by Governor Macquarie and is a crucial precinct in the preservation of the early colonial character of Windsor.
The proposed Option 1 will cause an irrevocable and negative impact on Windsor as a whole and Thompson's Square in particular.
I urge the Government to find the leadership to provide a better solution and to rethink this devastating proposal. Windsor needs a BYPASS to preserve Thompson's Square and to ensure Windor's significant community value and heritage tourism potential is preserved now and for future generations.

I object to the illogical intention of replacing a two lane bridge with another two lane bridge.
With the future suburban development at Freemans Reach, only a four lane bridge could cope with the increase of traffic both ways!
Leave the old one in place and plan/build a four lane bridge further down stream. There are so few historic places and buildings left in Australia, that Windsor should be preserved as a historical monument for the next generations.
So please, reconsider the consequences of the present solution and do the sensible thing

This is a total disgrace,
(1) You clam to be giving back our square buy filling in the cutting, it was not yours to give back, you took that from The people of Windsor in the 50's & now your trying to put a 15.5 metre slab of concrete through our square, this will not improve the traffic and is a bandaid fix.
(2) You also claim our Historic bridge is falling down, yet the weight limits have been increased & it has been noted that this bridge can be fixed for less than you have spent already on this sham.
(3) You have bought out the EIS with not even a proper plan of the bridge, Perhaps instead of being in such a hurry to destroy Thompson Square & not giving everyone the full facts, you should be fixing the old bridge & give us a proper solution, being a By-pass like every other town in Australia!!!

This whole project is full of lie,s, RMS claim our old bridge is falling down, this is utter rubbish, they have raised the load limit on the bridge to 68 ton,s,!!! Independant bridge engineers have looked at the bridge and say the it can be fixed for around four million & will last another 100 years. Also putting a 15.5m Bridge & road through Australia's oldest square is a NATIONAL shame, why in the hell are the RMS hell bent on destroying our heritage when they can put in a by-pass and fix the old bridge for the same money???? Yes the same money!!!
I have found evidance that the RMS started & told owners in Thompson Square that option 1 will go ahead in 2008, strange that the public was only consulted ABOUT THE PROJECT a couple of years later. WHY!!!
I went to the shopping centre displays only to find RMS staff telling locals lie's about the old bridge, They quoted that the bridge could fall down any day now, total lie,s to scare the public, I F THE BRIDGE WAS IN DANGER OF FALLING DOWN it amounts to two things, the RMS have not kept the maitenance up & do not care about the safety of the public OR they are telling Lie's? they raised the load limit so how can it be falling down???
Please, Please stop this before the RMS destroy all of Australia,s heritage, I will not stop digging up the lie's the RMS are spreading & will keep the public informed.

As a direct descendent of one of the original early settlers I would ask that consideration be given to maintaining the historical integrity of Thompson's Square. I am in favour of the new bridge,but not the proposed roadworks through Thompson's Square. I feel strongly that a by pass is essential if the cultural heritage of the town and quality of life within the town is to be maintained. A by pass would be a contemporary solution. It is consistent with good planning. It's what you would expect to happen in today's day and age. It's crazy, the current proposal will create untold problems and solve few. It will destroy the town.
There are many examples of successful bypasses in towns such as Berrima, Goulburn, etc., and then there are those poor towns that have been waiting for them for 20 years. Do not create this traffic problem in Windsor and then walkway leaving future residents to lobby for a bypass for next 20 years.

I do not support this application. I have strong objections to it as it will change the areas too dramatically.

To whom it may concern,
As a long term resident and local business owner, I am very concerned with the current proposal put forward to replace Windsor Bridge.
As a resident I do not support the current proposal due to the historical significance of the area. I believe that the area is culturally sensitive to both Aboriginal and European history. I am amazed that the scale of works are allowed to be pushed through in a known historic site.
As a business owner - trucking industry - I do not support the current proposal as it does nothing to improve the traffic problems that affect my drivers on a daily basis. The replacement option does not provide a long term solution to this - therefore impacting on my business for many more years to come.
As a active resident and business owner I expect more from our government and stakeholders than what is being offered.
Regards
Jess Taylor

I strongly object to the planned location of the bigger and wider replacement bridge for Windsor. The planning shows utter disregard for the heritage of Thompson Square and Windsor.
As a young nation we have very few historic buildings and townships and Thompson Square's heritage should be protected for future generations.
Australia is a rich country and we can afford a by-pass for Windsor. One hates to think what the traffic will be like through Thompson Square in 25 or 50 years time with this replacement bridge!
The cheapest option is not always the best option.
Please reconsider the location for the new bridge.
Thank you.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Although I have been following the Windsor Bridge project for some time, it only occured to me very recently that we might all have overlooked one stark fact and that is after the completion of the Windsor Bypass bridge, peak-hour traffic on Windsor Road near the Pitt Town Road intersection is once again building up to levels not seen since before the opening of the Windsor bypass. Remember the so-called 'McGraths Hill Parking Lot' ?! Well, no doubt due to population growth on the other side of the Hawkesbury River, this traffic is once again building up to levels that will become unacceptable during peak hour. For example recently it took me 15 minutes to crawl from the Pitt Town intersection to the Macquarie Road one. Pity those drivers that have to do it every day.
So what I am trying to say here? I am saying that Windsor does not need replacement of the old bridge. What it needs is a WINDSOR BYPASS, because no matter what you do to the current bridge and the Thompson Square precinct, it is not going to solve Windsor's traffic problems as described, problems that will only get worse as urban sprawl reaches our districts.
When you sit in Thompson Square, you can see at a glance that 90% of traffic on Bridge Street does not turn left into Windsor town, but moves towards the bridge. Therefore 90% of traffic is through-traffic.
Whilst I am deadset against tampering with the integrity of Thompson Square, I think the foregoing illustrates that the ONLY SOLUTION available to us that addresses both concerns (heritage preservation and traffic solution), is for a Windsor Bypass, well away from Thompson Square.

So perhaps here, we have an even stronger reason, why not to proceed with the current state planning proposals.

It is an absolute disgrace that their seems to be no negotiation for a BYPASS NOW. We no longer want the large trucks and non Windsor traffic going through Thompsons Square. This will alleviate a lot of the traffic congestion but it will not by just upgrading the bridge. The bridge should be for light vehicles only!!!!

Thompsons Square Windsor is a central historical site for the district and should not be interfered with. Increased traffic flow will also be disruptive to the foundations of nearby historical buildings which have historical tunnels to access the river from the I urgently need a decent bridge access and it needs to be a minimum of 4 lanes to cope with current traffic. New development means this would still need to be adjusted for traffic flow times by lane changes.

Through the whole consultation process the RMS representatives have listened to the local community and adjusted their design to intergrate our requests. They have met with us and discussed ideas on several occassions. I think the final plan incorporates a great number of positive aspects - vastly improved safety for motorists, improved pedestrian access to the park across the river, increased useable space within the square, etc.

While there are some impacts that will be difficult to negate, I think that shifting the alignment of the road back to its original path (along Old Bridge Street) and providing us with a greater portion of usable green space in Thomson's Square is a very positive way to reduce these impacts.

I would like to see a larger crossing of the river with less Traffic lights.
A two lane bridge is insufficient and not an improvement.
If a large pile of money is to be thrown at this project, I believe it would be better to throw a larger pile and get it right, than to have to throw another pile 20 years later.

West of the river will be developed and we will need/ do need more than two lanes.

Thompson Square:
A perfect opportunity for a Tourism Attraction.
The history, the austerity, the market feel in the mall.
The area should be closed to most traffic and have shows, Street performers and demonstrations (Like Old Sydney Town) novelty shops, (Think of Echuca and the paddle steamers.

It would be an act of vandalism to disregard our historical heritage by destroying Australia's oldest town square at Windsor when there are feasible alternatives such as bypassing the township as has been done elsewhere.

There are a number of very peculiar aspects to the proposed to demolish historic Windsor Bridge and forever cement inter- urban traffic through a country town.

The proposal itself is odd. In a State that has worked assiduously to remove heavy vehicles and their negative consequences from country towns, why suddenly decide that anything other than a road train is acceptable in the oldest civic precinct in Australia?

Why risk the economic viability of a community? Windsor is a town in crisis. Its extraordinary legacy of Colonial buildings is being insidiously eroded by insensitive development and inadequate planning. Instead of a visionary State Government project, designed to enhance the potential and unique opportunities of this Macquarie gem, the NSW Government is, instead contributing to that accelerating process of destruction and homogenisation.

This project, rather than enhancing the economic potential of existing assets will erase yet another part of our historic narrative and further reduce Windsor to a standard, banal outer ring suburb, indistinguishable from any other part of Western Sydney.

Not only does this project appear to espouse a very odd planning paradigm, it has been based on a revolving door of outcomes and objectives, each changing to suit whatever is the most convenient PR story of the day. Speed limits, flood 'immunity', traffic conditions have all been a moveable feast. There has been little clarity as to what, specifically, this project will achieve, other than a brutalist concrete structure rammed into the gentle fabric of a heritage precinct.

So, not only does this project fail in planning terms, it is an aesthetic disaster as well.

The Hawkesbury is in dire need of a genuine planning strategy. The State Government's own infrastructure strategy recognizes the floodplain is already arguably over developed and yet more inappropriate sites are being contemplated by developers and construction of the new bridge, despite being inadequate for even current levels of traffic, will open the 'floodgates', allowing even more development in an area unsuited for housing.

The Hawkesbury needs a plan. One that genuinely looks at transport and traffic in the region, in the context of genuine development opportunities, ones that respect the reality of floods.

The current proposal is shortsighted and inept. It is not the standard of planning we are entitled to expect from our government. No country town, nor indeed any community anywhere deserves the horror of confronting a proposal of this kind in this day and age. It isn't as if the risks aren't well known and well documented. There is no excuse for pursuing this project. It must be stopped.

This Bridge will be a scar on the historic ambience of Windsor, and as such the bridge should at all cost be in a position to bypass this area.

Dear Sir/Madam,
As a resident of Windsor NSW for nearly 4 decades I believe Windsor is indeed in need of not a replacement bridge in the same location but an additional bypass. I find it utterly astonishing that so many other old towns throughout NSW have had bypasses built around them and still flourish, so as to alleviate traffic flow making passage of through traffic and heavy vehicles have little or no impact on the traffic within the town. HOWEVER when it comes to one of the most historical towns in Australia, not far from Sydney, whose traffic flow is already challenged by it being an island town with only one main road from top to bottom we are offered a like for like replacement bridge which does utterly nothing to improve traffic flow...........go figure!!!!!!
From insult to injury it is supported by those who are supposed to represent the people!!! HMMMM I guess 12,000+ signatures for a bypass mean nothing to these XXXXX state government backbenchers. So is it a case of what is right for the town or right for the politicians - Oh and the God like RMS. Like for like replacement may appear to be cheaper in the short term, however it will be an expensive and irreparable quick fix that Windsor will wear for eternity. XXXXX..........