Windsor Bridge Replacement

it stinks, go 4 bypass like every other town, why don't u all drive to Brisbane and don't take any bypasses or Melbourne 4 that matter.
The new bridge is not going 2 do anything 4 me in a flood but a bypass will allow me to get and do my shopping etc

Our organization is totally opposed to the proposition of this application. There are other options that must be explored and I believe have been, there are other options available. Our organization has secured a State Heritage Listing on one of the last Cronulla Sand Dunes, which under threat of being flattened to allowing a housing development. This is a similar scenario, our heritage must be protected at all costs.
We call on the Department of Planniing to reject this outrageous proposal.

I vehemently oppose the Option 1 proposal. The entire process has been a farce where RMS staff and local MPs have decided on their preferred option before going to community consultation. Claims which are demonstrably false have been made regarding the community's preferred option; the existing bridge being structurally unsound; the estimated cost of a bypass; option 1 offering a flood-free route to the western side of the river; the new bridge will 'improve Thompson Square' ; It will be a disaster for Windsor and Aust's oldest square.It must have a bypass and retain the old bridge. Our heritage mustn't be vandalised.

I am writing in support of the protection of Thompson Square, Windsor, from the proposed new road development there.

From other submissions you'll be familiar with the unique historical significance of the site within the story of Sydney development. It is a site of amazing richness, both in the built environment and in the significant events that took place there.

As a novelist who's written extensively about colonial Australia, I'd like to place this precinct and its local history within the larger national story. In that context Thompson Square is that rare bird: a place that records and celebrates the lives of ordinary working Australians - rather than the grander sites of the gentry.

The story of non-indigenous Australian history has always been mostly the story of the upper layers of society, in large part because only the gentry were literate and could therefore leave a written record of themselves. As a nation we're reasonably well supplied with a sense of what the gentry did and how they lived. Our histories of those early days are based on what they wrote; our museums are full of the evidence of their lives - their precious fabrics and expensive china; and most buildings still standing from those early days are their grand houses or the sites of government.

But when you go looking - as I've spent the last ten years doing - for the people from more humble origins, you realise how much they've vanished. They left very few written accounts of themselves because few of them could read and write; most of their humble houses and shops have long since turned back into the earth and wood they were made from; their modest clothes and domestic items were hardly ever valued enough to be kept for posterity; and their stories, and the stories of their communities, are often lost.

Windsor in colonial times was a place where those people lived, not the wealthy or powerful. It was a place for small-scale farmers, many of them ex-convicts, and small-scale businesses. The built environment that remains there tells us about their lives, their aspirations and what sort of community theirs was. These were not people who left much of a written record, so the townscape - the design of the square, the buildings around it, its relationship to the river and the rest of the landscape - is a rare window into lives about which we know little.


Yet these were the vast majority of the people who created our nation. For every educated lady and gentleman in Australia there were dozens of men and women like my own forebears: illiterate people in humble walks of life. The thrust of modern historical method is to recognise the power and importance of telling that other story: of "history from below". It's this that makes Thompson Square of such unique value.

No one would dream of running a road through Old Government House in Parramatta, or even of Elizabeth Farm where John and Elizabeth Macarthur developed the merino. These places give reality to important aspects of our past: the beginnings of our government, the beginnings of our international economy. Being able to walk on the actual places gives us a sense of connection to those abstractions. It makes the past real in a way nothing else does. Rightly, we protect those places.

Thompson Square in Windsor is one of the very few places that gives the same acknowledgment to the "ordinary people" who, although less visible, are just as important. The humble shops and inns of the square, and its identity as a meeting-place for the community, make their lives suddenly real to us. Standing there is one of the few ways we can feel their lives and understand the social fabric they were part of. Keeping that place as intact as we can gives us a way to honour, those forgotten people.

As one who has gone looking for such places, I can vouch for the fact that they're thin on the ground. Their small scale and humble character has meant they've often been regarded as unimportant, even shabby. There's even been pride in replacing them with something more impressive in the name of progress. As a result they are now largely gone, and with them our ability to walk in the shoes of those men and women of the past who lived their small unrecorded lives.

Losing so many places that mark that aspect of our past has been a national tragedy. It's left us with many stately homes and grand public buildings but very little that tells about how ordinary people lived. That makes our picture of the past a skewed one, emphasising only one part of the society that created it.

This is truly a national story: all over Australia, the rich and powerful got on with the business of shaping the country from the top, while at the same time, ordinary working people got on with the business of shaping it from the ground up, as they were doing in Thompson Square from the earliest days of the colony. That story begins in Sydney for the obvious reason that that's where the earliest white settlement began. But the significance of a place like Thompson Square goes far beyond the local, in the same way that the significance of the Glenrowan Hotel in Ned Kelly country does. It tells a story that's part of the heritage of all Australians.

I'm old enough to remember the orgy of demolition in the 60s and 70s that erased so much of our history. We're a more mature nation now and know that a community is enriched by sense of continuity with its past. Thompson Square is extraordinarily rich in that past, especially in the way it represents an often-overlooked aspect of our history, the lives of ordinary men and women. We're lucky to have Thompson Square. There are precious few places like it in Australia. We must protect it intact for the future.

Dr Kate Grenville

If Windsor Bridge is to be replaced there should be no change in the location of the bridge or the alignment of the road. THOMPSON SQUARE is Australia's oldest public square and MUST BE PRESERVED. It is a very important part of our heritage. If that means having to use an alternative route during the construction period then so be it.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object strongly to the current EIS relating to the Replacement Windsor Bridge proposal and wish to express my firm opposition to Planning NSW taking this flawed EIS document as any basis for proceeding with their current proposal for the bridge.

One problem is the discounted heritage values for Thompson Square put forward by the current EIS. It would be in disregard for the needs of the Hawkesbury district and the thousands of people who have opposed it to accept this EIS. Heritage, by legislation, requires a more proper and measured consideration, to be valued alongside transport and other impacts.

The referenced historical and archaeological reports relating to Thompson Square, Windsor as given in the EIS for the Windsor Bridge Replacement project and elsewhere, have shown conclusively that the area has played a vital part in Australia's history. For the report to conclude from the evidence in the individual reports that destruction of a large part of the archaeology of the site and complete destruction of the still intact 1794 sightlines of Thompson Square should be allowed, is unacceptable

In suggesting that it is possible to continue with the Windsor Bridge Replacement scheme anywhere in the vicinity of Thompson Square or its historic environs in the town of Windsor, completely unsupported by the documentation and archaeology, this EIS is an irredeemably unusable document and can have no credibility. It also discounts unacceptably the view of the over 12,000 local residents and other people who signed a petition (now presented to the NSW parliament) denouncing any attempt to disturb the present historic square and environs in light of the evidence for its importance to the Hawkesbury and Australia-wide community.

A conclusion, that it may be possible to proceed with the bridge replacement current proposal, ignores, misunderstands or misrepresents the historical and archaeological implications of the factual reports within the EIS itself. That the EIS can both present the highest historical and archaeological evidence to show the need to protect the entire area to allow it to remain intact and undisturbed, and can at the same time draw false and diminished conclusions about its values in spite of such evidence (and sanction the site's destruction) demonstrates how irredeemably unacceptable the document is.

The totality of that historical and archaeological evidence presented is well-supported by references and evidence and is formidable. Thompson Square is still, visually, an intact reflection of Australia's earliest cultural heritage. And yet, the EIS does not adequately address the fact that the `Square' is made up of more than just the open space, and that the buildings surrounding that space and their curtilage are integral to its identity, and always have been in its role as a civic square.

As demonstrated, it is the oldest extant civic square in Australia dating as it does from 1795, and is the only eighteenth-century public square remaining in the nation. Moreover, the archaeological evidence produced is shown to be vast and hugely important, illustrative also of Aboriginal people over millennia.

The ongoing importance of Thompson Square later is shown in the Macquarie period, when the future direction of this nation was being moulded and later still, in its swag of heritage buildings important in their own right. To suggest it is acceptable to destroy for future generations this tangible link to our earliest national past is unacceptable heritage practice by any Australian and international standards.

In 1982, Thompson's Square heritage values were recognised as so important they had to be officially kept intact and since that date Thompson Square has been protected from unsympathetic development by a Permanent Conservation Order, which resulted in its inscription as State Heritage Register item no. 126. Today the NSW Heritage Council recognises that the significance of the Square is greater even than that provided for the original listing, tracing its European significance continuously from 1795. The Heritage Council also accepts the wide and unbroken use of the Square by the local community from the eighteenth century to the present is important, as is its potential national significance stemming from its uniqueness. Its importance to the many descendants of Hawkesbury pioneers and to the wider Australian public generally is also now recognised by the Council. The EIS on show in 2012 does not adequately reflect these realities and should not be used as the basis for NSW Government proceeding to over-rule its own Heritage Council advice.

The archaeological evidence referred to has been shown in the reports to be so extensive that any modern bridge works would destroy a large part of some of the most historically sensitive parts of the Square. It has been shown by the quality of the evidence to date, that in financial terms, the cost of carrying out the scope and standard of excavation required is beyond the resources of a responsible state government at the present time. And, without the fullest archaeological excavation, the loss of potential material would be unable to be replaced anywhere else in Australia. This is a unique site.

Because the majority of the repudiation of the EIS document contained in this submission relates to the historical and heritage conclusions, this is not to forget the lack of understanding the EIS shows for local needs in other directions; namely, how the document does not adequately reflect the loss to the district in commercial, tourism, traffic improvement and flood management opportunities.

Sites other than the one proposed at present in Thompson Square by RMS (supported by this unacceptable EIS), have been suggested outside the town area to provide a much needed bypass, and these can be shown to be more cost effective and suited to the particular flood problems of the Hawkesbury district at Windsor, not to mention friendly to its potential tourism returns. The actual proven values of Thompson Square that are supported by the NSW Heritage Council show the conclusions of this EIS need to be disregarded and another bridge site, one that will not destroy irreplaceable evidence of this nation's beginnings, found for the bridge.

The objections raised in my letter and publicly over many years, and the poorly constructed conclusions to this EIS, which remain untied to the actual factual reports that accompany them, make the EIS and the current Windsor Bridge Replacement proposal untenable and unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,
Jan Barkley-Jack
Hawkesbury ratepayer, Windsor.

Director Infrastructure Projects;
Dear Sir/ Ma'am,
My family and I are all for the planned bridge replacement. As a news cameraman, as recently as this morning I filmed another close call as a truck overturned on this narrow old structure.
My only question/ concern is, Will south bound traffic crossing the bridge, still be able to turn right into George Street as they can now?

If plans are to make this a no right hand turn, most folks I have spoken to will simply bypass the already struggling George Street retailers and go elsewhere.

Otherwise, the plans for an even larger Thompson Square look very good and finally, heavy vehicles will be able to cross a bridge made for their size instead of knocking the mirrors off one another.


--
Regards
Doug Wiggins
Producer
Video Innovations

In Planning for a new bridge RMS has undertaken detailed research, which the town needs to be exactly where it is situated now, I would like to give my full approval for the project to go ahead ASAP. We have waited long enough for the project to start.

It needs to remain where it is so the town will not die and the passing traffic it there livelihood.

Urban Design and Landscape works including within the parkland area of Thompson Square to its original size to the northern intersection of Wilberforce Road and Freemans Reach and Macquarie Park access .

Dear RMS,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planned new bridge at Windsor.

I support the new plans, HOWEVER I would like to raise one significant issue for consideration.

The current set lights that exists on the corner of Macquarie St and Bridge St was invaluable prior to the Flood Evacuation route/bridge being built in Windsor. Now this set of lights can be a major cause of congestion for those travelling directly from Sydney to Wilberforce (across the current bridge).

I did not see within the most recent plans any reference to planning proposed to address this intersection.

It therefore is vital that RMS ensures the following scenarios are appropriately accounted for as part of this new development:

a. Traffic flowing North from McGrath's Hill/Sydney toward and onto the new Bridge not run the risk of having two sets of lights (at Macquarie St and at George St) that work in opposition with each other and counteract efficient and maximal flow of northerly traffic.

b. Traffic flow heading South from Wilberforce across the bridge and then turning right into Macquarie St (ie. heading towards Penrith/Richmond) must be catered for, as there is a high degree of this traffic in peak hour time. This traffic needs to be given right of way in morning peak hour traffic periods as well as effectively catered for at times when peak traffic flow is occuring in the opposite direction.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Samantha O'Hare

To Whom it May Concern
Today (14/11/2012), in my mailbox I have received the EIS Display Information November 2012.
Firstly, I thank you for that, as it is only the second item I have received in regards to the New Windsor Bridge. The other being the displays at Riverview and the Marketplace.
Secondly, I read with interest you information but draw your attention to the huge contradiction you put in there. I will quote from the grey section
"The existing bridge has come to the end of its functional life, with escalating maintenance costs and the structure no longer meeting current design standards. To continue to thrive, Windsor must have a reliable and safe crossing of the Hawkesbury River that meets current design standards and future business, tourism and local community needs.
The new bridge would:
* improve safety and traffic efficiency for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
* reduce the number of roads through Thompson Square, providing more open space.
* Improve cyclist and pedestrian access in the area
* Enable improvements to local connecting roads
*Improve flood immunity
*Have capacity for line marking to three lanes in the future."
On this basis the RMS need to stop now and to look at the reality of the situation. On any afternoon you can come into Windsor and expect that traffic flow will be at a stand still as it moves done Macquarie Street. This stand still occurs anywhere from Day St to Bridge Street, depending on the time or day. This stops people from getting into the shopping precinct, let lone traffic rejoining the line after accessing the petrol station on Baker Street corner. The traffic even backs up along Windsor Rd to McGraths Hill. I personally have sat for several phases of lights and not moved. Why is the traffic building up like this you may ask, it is because these people are trying to get onto the current Windsor Bridge so they can head to Freemans Reach, Glossodia and Wilberfore. Some people try to "rat run" which sees the traffic build up on Baker
and George Street, so they can reach the roundabout without the queuing for the lights. This again has a flow on effect on the shopping precinct, as traffic cannot always get out of the shopping carpark safely due to this build up of traffic. Then
we have the really clever "rat runners" who turn on Windsor Road and then go left onto Court Street, left onto Pitt Street and left onto George Street to bring them to the roundabout without queuing in the left lane to get to the lights. it is evident that peple get so frustrated with waiting that they queue cross the intersection at the point where Bridge St, Macquarie St and the Windsor Road meet, adding to the problem as no traffic can then move anywhere.
I have even heard of people trying to use this loop to avoid being caught in the traffic from Richmond to North Richmond, when they wish to travel up Bells Line of Road.
This brings me to make the point our current bridge has one lane going in each direction, the bridge you propose has one lane going each way to, until you decide to make use of the third lane in the future. So can you please explain to me how
this will "ímprove safety and traffic efficiency for motorísts, pedestrians and cyclists and the future business, tourism and local community needs? "
The fact is Windsor does not need another white elephant, we already have a bridge over South Creek, at the old Jolly Frog that was put in to prevent road closure for flooding, which it does, it is a pity the road was not raised as well.
With the cost of this bridge, Windsor is getting exactly the same bridge, a bridge size we here in the Hawkesbury have already out grown, we will not get another bridge for a long time, therefore the RMS need to get it right NOW! If you don't have the money to provide what is needed now why waste it on something that is of no benefit to the town you say you are trying to let "continue to thrive!"
RMS have one thing correct in all of this "Windsor must have a reliable and safe crossing of the Hawkesbury."We in the Hawkesbury do not want another band-aid or half baked bridge. Put the money to the by-pass and lets move forward together. Our traffic flow to Freemans Reach and Glossodia are only going to increase as housing expands in these areas.
We currently cannot cope with this traffic why make it worse at a huge cost to the tax payer!
Looking forward to hearing your response, to the concerns of a resident and user of this road and bridge.
Kind Regards

Tracey

To whom it may concern

My husband and I are very happy with the recent presentation of the planning for the new Windsor Bridge Replacement.
We believe the Bridge needs urgent replacing from a business and safety point firstly as we have trucks cross the bridge on a regular basis.
The square will finally be a square in its historic position along with the historic crossing of the Hawkesbury river and the universal history of river crossings
town centres and squares.
The beautiful new bridge will be people friendly so you can ride or cross safely
to the beach on the other side and all you have to do is walk through the square and up a few steps.
I speak on behalf of nearly all of the Windsor residents that the New Windsor Bridge and Thompson
square will be a safe and happy environment for all pedestrians and cyclists . The surrounding roads and new bridge
will improve safety and traffic efficiency for motorists.
I only hope the New Windsor Bridge is completed before any accidents or fatalities occur

Regards

Darrell and Tracy Houston

See attached.

First and foremost, my family & I are FOR having a new bridge at the Thompsons Square site.

Having been at the Focus Group meetings since the beginning and regularly referred to the available websites regarding the Windsor Bridge Replacement, I feel it is the right time & the right place for a new bridge for Windsor.

However, if the lower version of Option 1 is to go ahead based upon original brief (bridge replacement) & budget restraints etc, I would like to see the best aesthetic outcomes for the new bridge and Thompson Square to make them a feature for Windsor, not just a new big concrete bridge with a modern `look'. I would like to see Thompson Square become a wonderful public space to draw in both the local community & visitors alike.

I feel strongly that the following items should be included to ensure aesthetic integrity to the historic Square & township of Windsor:
1. Old fashioned lighting across bridge above pedestrian walkway & also throughout Thompson Square;
2. Stone gables or sandstone flagging to cover bridge walls in the Thompson Square vicinity;
3. Old fashioned looking `fence' for length of bridge & around Thompson Square for public safety near roads & old fashioned `hand rails' for steps. These would greatly improve the aesthetic look of the bridge design & public space ensuring it to fit in with our local historic town.
4. Public facility improvements to Thompson Square should include:
a. Picnic tables & seating; &
b. Recreation areas.

I greatly urge these above items to be included in the final design for improved aesthetics, rather than a just having a new modern bridge in an historic square..... please.

Please see on the following pages a number of images which are examples of the above options I'd like to see included.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE PROPOSED VISUALS ON THE WEBSITE:
I thought the pedestrian and aerial visualisations look great & I especially like (with the designs so far):
- How Thompson Square becomes ONE again! Yay!
- The traffic lights!! This is fantastic & essential pedestrian access in all directions! Yay!
- Pedestrian access across to Macquarie Park - finally!
- How the bridge `starts' after/below the last house on Bridge St on the Eastern side;
- The steps down either side of the square & access steps near the Doctors House to the river/wharf area.

Submission attached.

This submission is a joint submission from Brian Pearson and Ray Wedgwood, both former Chief Bridge Engineers, DMR/RTA NSW. Brian from 1981 to 1987; Ray from 1987 to 2000.

Brian authored the original "Aesthetics of Bridges" book that is now in its 3rd edition by RMS NSW. He also instigated contact with the National Trust to discuss heritage bridge issues during his term, with the committee he developed now having morphed into the current RMS Heritage Committee. Ray led the design team for the Anzac Bridge design and was also heavily involved in the development of AUSTROADS/SAA codes of practice for Bridge Design.

We are currently members of the RMS Heritage Committee and also the National Trust.

We believe that all nine RMS Options investigated for the project are unsuitable, particuarly on the basis that none of these Options was aimed at leading to the high ground to the south of Windsor. Also, for Option1, the RMS favoured option, this option will cause serious disruption to the heritage values of Thompson Square, Windsor's historic town square from which, since the late 1790's, produce, both livestock and vegetables, was assembled before being loaded on to boats to be transported down the Hawkesbury River to the Pacific Ocean at Broken Bay, then down the ocean to Sydney Heads and back up Sydney Harbour to the early settlement around Circular Quay, to provide food for the colony.

DISADVANTAGES OF RMS OPTION 1
We consider that the RMS Option 1 scheme has the following unfavourable aspects:

a) for the next century or longer the new bridge will direct an increasing volume of traffic, including heavy vehicles, through the heart of Windsor;
b) for the next century or longer the new bridge will experience a flooding frequency only marginally better than the flooding frequency of the existing bridge;
c) the construction of the new bridge will have a dramatic impact on the historic Thompson Square, the importance of which to Australia's heritage has been expounded many times, both by written and spoken word. The fate of the Square has been the subject of a recent petition of at least 12,000 signatures from the local community to the State Parliament;
d) the existing bridge is an integral component of Thompson Square. Sections of the bridge have served the community and the traffic for about 150 years. The precast concrete bridge girders were installed over 90 years ago, (after being manufactured on the bank of the river) to enable re-use of the cast iron cylinder piers. To our knowledge these are the first reinforced concrete bridge girders to have been manufactured in this State, and most likely Australia.



CLAIMED ADVANTAGES OF THE RMS OPTION 1 SCHEME

The RMS Option1 scheme is claimed to have the following advantages over other options:
a) lower visual impact;
b) relatively small number of four piers in the river;
c) can be constructed and launched from the western bank;
d) reflects the heritage values of Windsor.

With regard to a), the superstructure will be heavy in appearance with a depth to span ratio of about 1 to15*. The underside of the girders will be close to normal water level and on a slope. The RMS manual "Bridge Aesthetics", page 35, states: "water always forms a horizontal plane and a bridge structure when skewed (inclined) to this plane can appear discordant". Thus the RMS Option 1 scheme does not follow the RMS guidelines in this regard.

(* Goehler and Pearson "Incrementally Launched Bridges - Design and Construction", Ernst and Sons, Germany, 2000)

With regard to b) our proposal involves only two piers in the river.

With regard to c), fully loaded concrete agitator trucks will need to travel over the existing bridge to service the concrete girder production and launching site, adding to local traffic.

With regard to d), as former Chief Bridge Engineers, we cannot accept that a modern concrete bridge design, introduced by us for incremental launching, reflects the historical values of Windsor or even the historical values of the bridge that RMS plans to remove. There is no commonality to any component of the two bridges. They are, in fact, "poles apart" with respect to design and appearance.


ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE HAWKESBURY VALLEY WAY OPTION OR "RICKABYS LINE"
We consider that a much more suitable scheme would be to:
1) repair and renovate the existing bridge;
2) link up to the Hawkesbury Valley Way (the local Flood Evacuation Route) from near the western end of the existing bridge, at the intersection of Wilberforce Road and Freemans Reach Road, on a line passing through Macquarie Park to the west of the restaurant, with a two lane bridge over the Hawkesbury River, following the western side access to Deerubbun Park, across an intersection with Cornwallis Road controlled by "Stop" signs, on a new bridge over Rickabys Creek then between the Rum Corps Conference Centre and the associated golf course, just west of the power lines to meet Hawkesbury Valley Way west of the parking area. (see Fig A as File attachment 1a)



FLOOD INFORMATION (See Working Paper No 8 - Hydrology)
Windsor's location on the Hawkesbury River results in a unique flood regime. Fig 2.3 "Land use and approximate extent of flooding" (see File attachment 2) shows that approximately 3km upstream from Windsor, near Freemans Reach, a breakout of flood waters occurs at approx RL11 (AHD) which allows significant overland flow to bypass Windsor on its way to the Sackville "Choke", another unique feature of the Hawkesbury River, where a narrow sandstone gorge constrains the combined flow from the Hawkesbury and the Colo Rivers, resulting in widespread upstream inundation during major floods. This issue is discussed in Sections 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 of Working Paper No 8 - Hydrology, reproduced below and shown in inverted commas.

"2.6.3 Flow distribution
Peak flows at Windsor and flow at Sackville are presented in Table 2-3. Flows at Windsor are from the RUBICON model output for existing conditions, reporting locations are shown on Figure 2-2. Flow at Sackville provides an indication of combined flow within the river and floodplains at Windsor as there is limited floodplain at Sackville. Results provide an indication of the distribution of flow between the main river channel and flow onto the floodplain at Windsor. As floods increase in size a larger proportion of flow is conveyed or stored within the floodplains and doesn't pass Windsor bridge."

Table 2-3 Peak design flows near Windsor Bridge (Note: This table does not transfer well to the format provided for submissions. A modified version of Table 2-3 is given in the text below. (See also File attachment 3)

COMMENT ON HYDROLOGY ASPECTS

a) Table 2.3 of Working Paper No 8 in the EIS indicates that, when the river level reaches approximately RL 11 (AHD), the breakout upstream at Freemans Reach results in the bulk of the flow above RL11 (AHD) almost completely bypassing Windsor, forming a reach between two relatively closely spaced bends upstream and downstream of Windsor (See Map 2-3 of the EIS Working Paper No 8, as File attachment 2 and Spreadsheet A as File attachment 3);
b) Table 2.3 also infers that the flood velocity at the two bridge sites (proposed new and existing) would actually decrease as the flood level increases above RL 11 (AHD).

Table 2.3 Modelled estimates of existing
peak flood flows near Windsor bridge (also Spreadsheet A - Table 2.3 modified to include flood heights at the existing bridge)
Location Peak flow for modelled
flood events (cum/s)
Location 5 year ARI 20 year AR I!00 year ARI PMF (1)
6.2 km upstream 3,790 7,140 8,310 8,420
3.5 km upstream 3,750 6,610 7,660 7,800
Windsor bridge 3,650 5,440 6,250 6,690
Flood Level (AHD) at Windsor Bridge m
11.04 13.81 17.29 25.54
Sackville(2) 3,680 6,260 10,800 32,000
1. Probable maximum flood.
2. Represents combined flow of river and floodplain.

Area sqm Discharge cumecs Velocity m/sec
Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in 5 years flood (natural) sqm 2253 3650 1.62
Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in 5 years flood (constricted) sqm 1825 3650 2.00

Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in 20 years flood (natural) sqm 2953 5440 1.84
Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in 20 years flood (constricted) sqm 2725 5440 2.00

Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in100 years flood (natural) sqm 3828 6250 1.63
Waterway Area at Bridge Site for 1 in100 years flood (constricted) sqm 3600 6250 1.74

MPF (natural) 5851 6690 1.14
MPF (constricted)F 5623 6690 1.19

The reason the velocity decreases as the flood level rises is because of the breakout channel that occurs just upstream at Freemans Reach at approx.. RL 11 (AHD), which results in the bulk of the water bypassing Windsor.

REPAIR AND RENOVATiON OF EXISTING BRIDGE
"4.2.2 Description of the route options and performance against objectives (p 37 Chapter 4)
Community options (p 45 Chapter 4)
As a result of the display of the initial ten options developed by RMS and through the community focus group, a number of additional options were suggested by community stakeholders.

Hawkesbury Way Option (p46 Chapter4)
{The community stakeholders who suggested the Hawkesbury Valley Way options also proposed an alternative option for refurbishment of the existing Windsor bridge. The scope of refurbishment proposed under this option differed from that proposed under options 9A and 9B above. It would employ different strengthening methods that would allow the bridge to be retained for light vehicles only. Refurbishment under this option would be less expensive than options 9A and 9B, however like those options it would necessitate temporary closures of the bridge.

Benefits to traffic efficiency and pedestrian safety within Windsor would be expected due to a reduction in the number of vehicles travelling through the area and impacts on Thompson Square and the existing Windsor bridge would be reduced. However, the option would impact on the local character of the area along the proposed route, including a number of recreational areas and businesses. Further, it would not meet the cost objective, with high costs associated with two bridge structures and considerable property acquisition. Significant adjustments to the surrounding road network would also be required and these could included new traffic signals, road widening with associated property acquisitions, bridge rehabilitation/replacement, utility adjustments and adjustments to drainage."

COMMENT ABOUT THE EXISTING BRIDGE
1. The underside of the superstructure was inspected and photographed by ourselves, in the company of an experienced Architectural Conservator, Mr Graham Edds, from a boat, on Wednesday 27 June, 2012. We were all of the opinion that the corrosion of the reinforcement and the associated concrete spalling was not especially severe;
2. The spalling is mainly apparent on the outer faces of the edge girders (particularly the upstream one), although it occurs elsewhere as well. Also noted is the spalling of the bottom edges of the concrete cross heads linking the cast iron cylinders at each pier. Also some shear cracking in the webs of the girders near each support is visible;
3. The level of deterioration damage to the underside of the deck (concrete cancer) is considered not bad enough to require replacement of the bridge superstructure - repair and renovation is still a reasonable option;
4. The degree of wall thickness loss in the cast iron pier cylinders, caused by graphitization, is also considered to be repairable. It appears to only be critical in the upper sections of the submerged cast iron cylinders;
The axial and bending stresses in the cylinders have been calculated to be very small;
5. Despite the claim made in the EIS as noted above, the majority of repair work is possible from under the deck, resulting in minimal disruption to traffic during this repair work - both for the underside of deck and the cast iron cylinders;
6. It is proposed to restore the strength of the superstructure to the original design strength - however, if a stronger superstructure is required, it would be possible to improve the design strength by the use of carbon fibre sheets bonded to the surface of the concrete as a supplement to the existing reinforcement;
7. Pier cylinder strengthening is relatively simple and easy to do - use of packers and tightening of pairs of steel half cylinders to provide friction to achieve connectivity between cast iron and steel elements;
8. It is noted that the existing bridge currently has no load limit, although a speed limit of 40kph exists;
9. The heritage value of what are certainly the first precast reinforced concrete bridge girders made in Australia would be preserved.



REFURBISHMENT METHOD
The refurbishment method proposed would be less expensive than the $18M figure nominated by RMS, because the RMS solution was to bring the existing bridge up to a design load standard similar to the current Austroads Code Design Load.

The community proposed refurbishment would:
i. be carried out from barges located beneath the deck, to minimise disruption to traffic using the bridge deck;
ii. use high pressure water blasting on the deteriorated concrete from the underside of the superstructure, inspecting, cleaning and replacing the reinforcement where required, replacing the removed concrete by a shot-creting process and sealing with a sealant to enhance the impermeablity of the concrete. When a similar process was carried out for the underside of the Swansea Bridge at the Entrance to Lake Macquarie it is understood that the working area was enclosed by drop sheets hanging from the sides with a lower heavy duty sheet to catch the blasted concrete by-product;
iii. if it is required that additional reinforcement be added to the cross section this can be achieved by bonding carbon fibre strips to the repaired concrete face;
iv. supplement the deteriorated cast iron pier cylinders by attaching pairs of semi circular steel plates around the existing cylinders and by bolting against packing rings to achieve a friction connection between the new steel plates and the cast iron cylinders over the depth of the cast iron deterioration. The cracks in the cast iron cylinders can be held by placing bands around the cylinders near the cracks;
v. in the future, when the route through to the Hawkesbury Valley Way has been opened to traffic, it is suggested that, to ensure heavy traffic is excluded from the bridge and the town, that a load limit of, say, 16 tonnes be applied to the existing refurbished bridge.

These restoration proposals would revive the structure to a load carrying capacity beyond its future needs. We have verified this by separate calculations

NEW HAWKESBURY WAY OPTION ("RICKABYS' LINE") (P46 EIS Chapter 4)

"Hawkesbury Way Option
Three potential options were identified with bridges proposed upstream of the existing bridge and access provided from Hawkesbury Valley Way. Two of the options would begin at the intersection of Freemans Reach Road and Wilberforce Road with a road through Macquarie Park, a bridge across the Hawkesbury River from Macquarie Park to Howe Park and then a connection to The Hawkesbury Way via either The Terrace and Moses Street or across Primrose Place, Greenway Crescent and Rum Corps Lane. While these two options would meet project objectives for heritage by maintaining heritage values of Thompson Square, neither would meet other project objectives and criteria with respect to impacts on recreational areas and from noise.
A third option would similarly begin at the intersection of Freemans Reach Road and Wilberforce Road, but would follow a different alignment through the centre of Macquarie Park instead of spanning the beach areas as proposed in the former two variants. The alignment would then cross the Hawkesbury River from Macquarie Park to Deerubbun Park. While the river is narrow at this location the bridge structure would be need to begin from within Macquarie Park due to the topography and geology of the eastern bank. The alignment would continue almost parallel with the access road for the playing field car park, cross Rickabys Creek on a second bridge crossing and extend between a resort and a golf club to connect with Hawkesbury Valley Way at a new intersection.
While this third Hawkesbury Valley Way option would meet project objectives for heritage and safety, it is anticipated to only partially meet the traffic objective unless a number of additional significant improvements were made to the surrounding traffic network."

COMMENT
(Note: Of the three Hawkesbury Valley Way Options shown on Fig 4.1 `Windsor Bridge replacement options', the two closest to Windsor are not shown correctly. All three options meet Hawkesbury Valley Way at the some location as the option furthest from Windsor. The two inner options pass just on the Windsor side of Rickabys Creek bridge on Cornwallis Road.)

1. This line connects directly from the intersection of Wilberforce Road and Freemans Reach Road at the western end of the existing bridge to the Hawkesbury Valley Way, which is the local Flood Evacuation Route;
2. The level of the road would be at about RL11 (AHD), higher than allowed by the RMS Option 1 line;
3. The proposed route means heavy vehicles could be excluded from the Windsor marketplace, only allowing access for light vehicles, if required;
4. Using the Bridge over the Macleay River on the Kempsey Bypass as a guide, with due allowance for lesser economies of scale, but adopting a similar form of superstructure (precast Super T girders, of 35m span, weighing 65 tonnes, with a reinforced concrete deck), an efficient bridging solution is possible. A bridge length of 200m to 245m is proposed, depending on the soil characteristics at Abutment B. Some additional scour protection walls may be required ot the north west corner of the Abutment. It would also be appropriate to provide continuity of the deck slab over the piers to enable a thinner wall section to be used for the piers by having only one bearing surface and to reduce water resistance effects;
5. This superstructure has a construction depth of 1.75m (1.5m girder plus 200mm deck plus crossfall), which, together with safety barriers (about a metre high above deck) when submerged will result in an overall height of 2.7m, a significant impediment to flood flow, but at least 0.5m less than RMS Option 1. However because of the reduction in the flood forces as a result of the upstream flood breakout described below, this should not be a problem. Special drainage and pressure relief holes for the deck should be provided;
6. The proposed bridge would support a two lane carriageway and a footway on the Windsor town side, a total width of 11.4m between kerbs, made up of 2/3.5m traffic lanes, 2/1.2m shoulders and a 2m footway;
7. Abutment B would thus be located at some 105m to145m from the western bank (note EIS refers to eastern bank). At this location the soil consists of coarse sand. The location of Abutment B would depend on an assessment of the scour characteristics of the sand. It is suggested that Abutment B be located between the RL 5 (AHD) and RL 7 (AHD) contours;
8. The deck will be on a level grade, generally considered advisable for a bridge which will be submerged;
9. We understand that the foundations for the RMS Option 1 bridge will be bored piles through the sands to rock. It is expected that similar foundation conditions will apply at the "Rickabys Line" Bridge. However this fact will need to be confirmed by some site investigations
10. The line allows retention of the existing conditions in Thompson Square.

COSTS
"P46 EIS Chapter 4

Further, it would not meet the cost objective, with high costs associated with two bridge structures and considerable property acquisition."

COMMENT
1. Using published costs (see File attachment 1b) for the Bridge over the Macleay River on the Kempsey Bypass as a guide, it appears that an economical bridge solution can be achieved for the main river crossing and the project as a whole (Spreadsheet B, see File attachment 4);
2. The road is envisaged as having only a two lane carriageway;
3. An independent estimate for the repair of the existing bridge, prepared by prequalified bridge contractor Arenco, indicates that the repairs to the existing bridge can be done for under $3M;
4. For the 200m long main bridge the estimated total cost (including the repair of the existing bridge) is $59M; the 245m bridge, $63M (see Spreadsheets C & D);
5. It appears that the Rickabys Line alternative, together with the renovation of the existing bridge, would be possible for a cost similar to the current RMS Option 1 scheme.

KEMPSEY BYPASS COSTS (SPREADSHEET B - see File attachment 4)
L W AREA COST $ RATE $/SQM*
m m sqm
Kempsey Bridge 3200 22 70400 185M 2628
Because Reduced Economies of Scale Say 3500/sqm

Kempsey Bypass 14,500 618M
Roadworks RATE $/M
Roadworks (4 Carriageways)
L m COST $ RATE $/M
11,300 433M 38319
2 Carriageways 19159
Construction Cost 30% 5748
Roadworks easier going at Windsor Say 4500$/m

Windsor Bridge - Rickabys Line Estimate of costs Spreadsheet C (See File attachment 5)
MAIN BRIDGE LENGTH 200M
Length 1900m
Width 11.4m
L W A RATE $/SQM* AMOUNT $
Main BrIdge 200 11.4 2280 3500 7,980,000
Rickabys Ck 40 11.4 456 2750 1,254,000

RATE $/M
Length Road 1660 4500 7,470,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 16,704,000
ASSUMED 30%
OF GRAND TOTAL
THUS GRAND TOTAL 55,680,000
Restore exist bridge Arenco estimate $2.36M, say 3,000,000

OVERALL TOTAL 58,680,000
SAY $59M

Windsor Bridge - Rickabys Line Estimate of costs
MAIN BRIDGE LENGTH 245M Spreadsheet D (See File attachment 5)

Length 1900m
Widrh 11.4m
L W A RATE $/SQM* AMOUNT $
Main BrIdge 245 11.4 2793 3500 9,775,500
Rickabys Ck 40 11.4 456 2750 1,254,000
RATE $/M
Length Road 1615 4500 7,267,500
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 18,297,000
ASSUMED 30% OF
GRAND TOTAL
THUS GRAND TOTAL 60,990,000
Restore exist bridge
Arenco estimate $2.36M, say 3,000,000
OVERALL TOTAL 63,990,000
SAY $64M

CONCLUSIONS
Our scheme for providing a new bridge over the Hawkesbury River at Windsor offers many advantages over the RMS Option 1 scheme:

1. No interference with Thompson Square or the historic bridge that has served the community for almost a century and a half. Thus the community's concerns regarding the Square and the bridge have been relieved;
2. The frequency of flooding has been reduced by adopting a road level of RL 11 (AHD;)
3. In the event of the existing low level bridge being closed by floodwaters, all eastbound traffic can proceed along to the Windsor Flood Evacuation Route. The RMS Option 1 does not offer this advantage;
4. If the existing bridge has a load limit imposed, Windsor marketplace will not be subjected to any heavy vehicles.

We submit our proposal in the interests of the RMS, the Government and the local community.

BJ Pearson RJL Wedgwood
Former Chief Engineer (Bridges) Former Chief Bridge
Engineer
DMR NSW DMR/RTA NSW

Executive Director
Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001 14 December, 2012

Attention: Mr Andrew Beattie

Windsor Bridge Replacement Project

Following extensive consideration of the Environmental Impact Statement and associated documentation for the RMA's Windsor Bridge Replacement Project and a number of presentations by RMS to the Trust on this project, the Board of The National Trust of Australia (NSW) adopted the following position on this development proposal: -
The Trust recommends that the northern most Hawkesbury Valley Way Bypass Option be constructed by the Roads and Maritimes Services as the preferred alternative.
It is the Trust's view that the Hawkesbury Valley Way Bypass Option has the least environmental and heritage impacts of the present bridge replacement proposals with the major negative impacts on the Thompson Square Precinct and the impacts on the river archaeology being negated.
The National Trust is concerned that the RMS's preferred Option 1 would have adverse impacts on

* an Aboriginal site of high scientific value
* maritime archaeological remains associated with the former ca. 1814 wharf, which are of State significance
* State significant archaeological relics from the early settlement period
* Existing elements of Thompson Square, in particular the form of the Thompson Square parkland and landscaping
* Historic views and vistas and the setting of Thompson Square
* Buildings due to vibration from construction and the installation of noise mitigation measures.

Many of the state's historic towns have been by-passed when major road upgrades have been designed and funded. In the case of Thompson Square, which was listed on the National Trust Register in 1975, it would be logical and respectful of the town's history as well as its archaeological and architectural significance to reduce the levels of traffic with a view to reinstating the two halves of Thompson Square which were bisected by a cutting for an approach road to the bridge over the Hawkesbury.
The Trust thanks Roads and Maritime Services for the consultation and assistance provided by its officers and engineers and their efforts to accommodate the views and concerns of the community in considering the many alternative options that were put forward. If you have any queries please contact Graham Quint on 9258 0179.
Yours sincerely,

Graham Quint
Conservation Manager

See attachment

Please see attached document.
it is included here in case attachment did not succeed.

Introduction and General comment.
I write this response as a concerned resident of the Hawkesbury district, having lived here almost all of my life (in excess of 50 years) and being a 5th generation "Hawkesburyite" whose family has a long association with the area.
Thompson Square is a tangible representation of what Windsor is to its residents and to all Australians, it represent a continuum of what has been a very distinguished place in Australia's history for Windsor and the Hawkesbury. It is irreplaceable in this context.
The significance of the buildings and public space that make up the Square, its connection with the River and the place that the Bridge occupies within this overall context are well documented and in fact are well made within the EIS document itself.
As that document expresses, within the Project Precinct :
There are 21 items within and adjacent to the project study area that are recognised as having State and/or local heritage significance (page 176 of EIS). These items are listed and protected under the following NSW legislation and statutory environmental planning instruments:
* Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act).
* Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Hawkesbury LEP).

Over and above the significance of the buildings and structures is the Social Significance of the Precinct and its place in the narrative of the formation of the Australian ethos of egalitarianism and a fair go which is demonstrated through the association of Macquarie and Andrew Thompson himself.

The destruction of the above seems indeed a very high price to pay for a Project that offers so little in return and for which viable alternatives so obviously exist.

The Process.
For all its attempts, the project has failed to involve and then to take heed of Community concern.

Evidence suggests that the preferred Option 1 was indeed preferred form day 1 with utterances from both politicians and RTA/RMS representatives favouring Option 1 pre dating any community consultation that was instigated. Having undertaken community consultation, it would appear that much more credence was given to any proponents of the Option (eg citing a petition of 500 citizens) compared to any opponents of the Project (eg Petition of over 12,000 signatures - dismissed by RMS and Politicians).

Local voices in on-line petitions, Rallies, Letters to the Editor etc were ignored by those supposedly representing their interests

Politicians and the RMS have continued to make misleading statements to the public over the project with politicians being quoted in Hansard and in Electoral Office Newsletters as stating that the project would deliver such things as:

* Flood free access to people and villages north of the river.
* Thompson Square restored to that envisaged by Macquarie over 200 years ago.
* Solve the traffic issues associated with the current bridge
* The current Bridge is in danger of collapsing.

Any alternatives that were offered were quickly dismissed without any real investigation.
For example:
* alternative bridge repair methods were originally derided as not possible but subsequently grudgingly agreed with.
* Costings for such repairs were questioned when coming from reliable sources.
* Alternative routes were originally derided for being impractical and not achievable but subsequently grudgingly agreed that it could be done.
* Costings for such alternatives were questioned when coming from reliable and experienced sources.

Local property owners and business owners that were directly impacted by the project were not consulted until late in the process and only after approaches by them.

All in all the process was designed to funnel public opinion down a predetermined path rather than take account of the public concerns with the project.

The Preferred Option 1.
By its own admission in the EIS document "The project would have high physical and visual impacts on Thompson Square."

Despite this the RMS Preferred Option is being promoted as the solution that best meets community Needs and Objectives. In fact Option 1 will have little or no benefit for the community whilst having a permanent and highly detrimental impact on Thompson Square and surrounds - a place of extremely rare state and national heritage significance.

Cost of Repair of the Existing Bridge.
The Preferred option 1 places much importance for its need on the basis that the Current Bridge is in need of urgent repair, is in danger of falling down and that the cost of repair is prohibitive.

Highly experienced bridge Engineers have questioned these findings and whilst the Old heritage listed bridge is in need of repair and maintenance, they contend that this could be achieved for less than $4m - a long way short of the estimate of $18m made by the RMS.

Traffic Benefits of Option 1.
The EIS document contends that Option 1 will have benefits for traffic management and flow.
Given that it would appear that traffic flow is dependent on the performance of the traffic flows at Bridge and George St and Bridge and Macquarie streets and the resultant competing traffic flows that come from North of the river over the Bridge and that coming from Macquarie street heading south, then the overall positive effect on traffic flow of a new 2 lane bridge in place of an old 2 lane bridge is highly questionable.

Indeed independent traffic analysis (Chris Hallam and Associates Pty Ltd) contend that any improvements to traffic flow and management are achieved by the modifications at Freemans Reach Rd and Traffic Light co ordination which could be achieved without the need for construction of a new Bridge at all.

In contrast, Option 1 has the effect of cementing ongoing through traffic and heavy vehicles through an historic precinct and town centre that is used for recreational, tourism, residential, dining and commercial activity.

This would seem to be in direct contrast to overall government traffic management policy.

Other alternatives such as a Bypass and retention of current bridge option would offer much better performance in this regard.

The Alternative.
The local community has proposed an alternative to Option 1 which entails the retention of the current Heritage listed bridge and a Bypass that travels from Wilberforce Rd through to the current flood free escape route of Hawkesbury Valley way.

The RMS has derided this option as being too costly and impractical, but has not adequately evaluated its viability or cost.
Again independent Bridge engineers have estimated that such an alternative could be achieved at similar cost to option 1 of approximately $65M.

It would seem that such an alternative needs to be further investigated as it offers the following advantages:

* Much improved outcome in regard to impact on the historical integrity of Thompson Square and on vista and outlook.
* Removes through traffic and heavy vehicles from Tourist, Residential Heritage and Commercial centre.
* Improves traffic flow over and above that achieved by Option 1 (Chris Hallam and Assoc P/l)
* Improved Flood Immunity overall.
* Better regional connectivity.
* Retains Historical Windsor Bridge.
* Provides a second river crossing over the Hawkesbury river at Windsor.

Conclusion.
The current preferred Option 1 is a Project that:
* Has a highly detrimental impact on possibly the best and most significant colonial heritage precinct in the country.
* Provides very little traffic improvement (if at all)
* Places arterial and heavy vehicles through a town centre of rare historical importance.
* Takes little account for future traffic increases and needs.
* Will have short and long term impact on the commercial viability of Thompson Square

Whilst alternatives exist that will:
* Retain the historical and heritage integrity of Thompson Square.
* Will enable the improvement to the Thompson Square precinct be removing through traffic and heavy vehicles from the precinct.
* Provide an economically viable alternative.
* Improve Traffic performance

I would respectfully submit that the proposed Option 1 is not in the best interests of the community and does not best meet current and future community needs and objectives and the project should be rejected and investigations commenced for the construction of an alternative Windsor Bypass and the retention of the current heritage listed Windsor Bridge.

I object most strongly against this outrageous proposal. It is a wanton act of environmental and heritage vandalism. Why construct a new thoroughfare through the middle of one of the most unique areas of early colonial heritage (and destroy it in the process), when there are other options that allow for traffic to by pass Windsor completely. See my full submission attached

Please see attached document