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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

JUST DO IT

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.

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.