FULL TEXT: BRIDGE TRUTH NEEDED
Below is the full text of the CAWB response to a recent speech in the NSW Parliament made by Member for Riverstone and former Councillor, Kevin Conolly. The full speech can be read in the Full Day Hansard Transcript for the Legislative Assembly on 4 September 2012. CAWB provided an abridged version to the Hawkesbury Gazette which was published on Wednesday, 19th September, 2012.
Dear Editor,
It’s time to call “foul” and hold our so-called elected representatives to account over the Windsor Bridge debacle. For too long our local politicians, together with a very small group of politically active locals, have been feeding the public a diet of half truths, misrepresentations and misinformation about a project that cannot be supported by cold hard facts. This culminated recently in a speech to State Parliament by the Member for Riverstone and former Councillor, Kevin Conelly and it’s time to offer a comprehensive response to the misinformation.
It is completely unfathomable why the very people elected to represent the best interests of our community are so determined to destroy every vestige of what makes this area the best place in the world to live, raise a family and grow old; but they are.
In his speech to the NSW Parliament our Local Member leads off with that old chestnut about the “structural integrity” of the bridge and about how much more “cost-effective” (that is, cheaper) it will be to replace the bridge than repair it. Please note the use of the word ‘cheap’.
The ”structural integrity” argument is designed to excite and alarm. It is not borne out by the actions of the RMS. There is NO WEIGHT LIMIT on Windsor Bridge. In addition, independent experts have scrutinised the reports upon which the structural integrity claims are made and have personally examined the bridge. They don’t agree with the RMS. What’s more, the RMS claim that it will cost $18.5 million to repair the bridge; which will involve closing it for three months, is also being challenged by the independent experts. The independent cost estimates range from $2.5 to $4 million and the bridge stays open during repairs. That’s an awful lot less than $18.5 million, and those repairs are to a higher standard than the RMS can deliver for $18.5 million.
Next we are told that the community had been comprehensively involved in identifying the Government’s preferred option. However recent independent online surveys suggest that only 12% of respondents to that online survey had received any formal notification about the New Bridge Options in 2009 and that 83% of respondents had not received any formal notification regarding the bridge since that time.
In addition, people directly affected by this project, such as Thompson Square business and property owners, have NEVER been approached by the RMS. It is no surprise then that at the last Community Focus Group meeting held by the RMS in June 2012, the RMS admitted their communication strategy was achieving surprisingly little impact on community knowledge of the project.
Indeed there is mounting evidence the then RTA had decided to build Option One long before the public even became aware of the issue and well before any consultation commenced.
So: no, the community was not effectively consulted, the consultation that has occurred has been designed to deliver what the Government wants, rather than what is best for the Hawkesbury.
The real feedback from the community has occurred since this issue has been more openly discussed in the pages of our local newspapers such as the Gazette.
Our Local Member then goes on to say: “The sight lines of those buildings (in Thompson Square) will be protected so that no impairment will be caused to the visual integrity of the square.”
Why then does the State Heritage Council of NSW, The National Trust and the Federation of Australian Heritage Societies continue to vehemently oppose any such road through Thompson Square and to do so in writing? The answer is, despite the RMS attempts to “minimise” visual impacts, the word “minimise” is a relative term and it is impossible to eliminate the impact of the project “so that no impairment will be caused to the visual integrity of the square”. The construction of the proposed bridge and approach road, even with its much touted “adjustments” to “height and angle” will result in a higher, wider, modern, concrete structure that will forever change the character and integrity of the square.
The truth is in the RMS Options Report. Nothing the RMS does will alter the horrible impact of this project on our town’s iconic Square. When that report says Option 1 “Performs poorly” it is political-speak for “disastrous”.
Interestingly, a total of nine options were offered to the community and you will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that our current Option’s paramount characteristic was that it was… you guessed it, the cheapest option.
Of these nine options, some were almost comical in design, such as Options 4 and 5 which proposed all traffic (including heavy vehicles) be funnelled down Baker and Kable Streets respectively.
In fact, Options 2 to 9 were so awful one might be forgiven for thinking their sole purpose was to make Option One look good.
Our Local Member also claims that the Government’s preferred option: Option One … “best met the project's objectives (in relation) to cost, traffic movements, protection of heritage and facilitation of the normal daily lives of the community that depends on the bridge.” Heart-warming stuff, isn’t it? Let me refer you to the actual language in the RMS Options Report:
“Option 1 performs well in respect of safety, flood immunity and long term community needs. Option 1 also offers best value for money. Option 1 performs poorly in respect of impacts on heritage and the character of Thompsons Square and the surrounding heritage buidlings (sic). However, options 1 and 2 both introduce enhanced urban design opportunities to reinstate the rectilinear street layout and improve the relationship between open space and the river.”
Let’s review what this means:
“Best value for money” = cheapest option
“Safety” = will allow the ever increasing numbers of larger vehicles, and I mean BIG vehicles, (B-doubles: 25 or 26 metres long and up to 4.6 metres high) to continue to access to the Square.
“Flood immunity” = the bridge will be above the flood level when the Wilberforce road goes under, just like that other piece of local engineering genius, the Fitzroy Bridge which forms a lovely island in the middle of flood waters.
“Option 1 performs poorly in respect of impacts on heritage and the character of Thompsons Square and the surrounding heritage buidlings (sic).” = Bad luck about our local heritage and the economic advantages it currently brings.
…but what about that optimistic note about “enhanced urban design opportunities”? that “The Thompson Square precinct also will be enhanced and restored to be closer to its original shape. It will become more rectangular than the odd shape that emerged in the 1930s when the square was cut diagonally across its middle.”? Shouldn’t we be pleased about that? Well, that depends on how much you enjoy having a picnic, or a concert, or a quiet cup of coffee beside a road carrying around 18,000 vehicles per day, many of them very large, heavy, noisy, smelly industrial vehicles.
The Government is pinning its heritage credentials on the spurious claim that it is somehow “reuniting” the Square. It is doing nothing of the sort. It is destroying a local road that dives modestly down below the sight lines of the Square as it approaches our historic bridge and replacing it with a brutal, high level, concrete monstrosity, completely out of scale with this historic area. Option One may join two patches of dirt together; but it does so by FOREVER cutting off the eastern side of the Square.
The Government cannot have it both ways: if the existing local road is dividing the Square, then their much larger, wider, higher road must also divide the Square… only more so.
But above all, our Local Member fails to mention the recently proposed bypass solution that retains the current historic bridge for local and light traffic. This alternative, developed by independent engineers and concerned members of the local community, out-performs Option1 on all project objectives, yet, despite its clear benefits, was never offered to the community.
So, we were denied the opportunity to choose an option that could deliver relief from the current peak hour traffic chaos while the RMS acknowledges (August Q&A) that theirs is an “option that provides very little traffic improvement”.
Finally, probably the most disingenuous statement in the entire speech is the last sentence: “The people cannot wait for the construction to begin.” I am at a loss as to who “the people” are, but they certainly DON’T include the more-than eleven thousand individuals who have signed a petition to the NSW Parliament objecting to this destructive and inappropriate plan.
For far, far too long this community has been fed a mishmash of half-truths, misinterpretations and exaggerations to promote a poorly conceived, highly questionable project. No other township anywhere in this State is being forced to accept increased levels of inter-urban traffic through a town centre. That is bad enough. To have our local parliamentary representative try and make it sound as if they are doing us a favour is truly offensive.
Dail Miller
CAWB Chair
19th September 2012
Below is the full text of the CAWB response to a recent speech in the NSW Parliament made by Member for Riverstone and former Councillor, Kevin Conolly. The full speech can be read in the Full Day Hansard Transcript for the Legislative Assembly on 4 September 2012. CAWB provided an abridged version to the Hawkesbury Gazette which was published on Wednesday, 19th September, 2012.
Dear Editor,
It’s time to call “foul” and hold our so-called elected representatives to account over the Windsor Bridge debacle. For too long our local politicians, together with a very small group of politically active locals, have been feeding the public a diet of half truths, misrepresentations and misinformation about a project that cannot be supported by cold hard facts. This culminated recently in a speech to State Parliament by the Member for Riverstone and former Councillor, Kevin Conelly and it’s time to offer a comprehensive response to the misinformation.
It is completely unfathomable why the very people elected to represent the best interests of our community are so determined to destroy every vestige of what makes this area the best place in the world to live, raise a family and grow old; but they are.
In his speech to the NSW Parliament our Local Member leads off with that old chestnut about the “structural integrity” of the bridge and about how much more “cost-effective” (that is, cheaper) it will be to replace the bridge than repair it. Please note the use of the word ‘cheap’.
The ”structural integrity” argument is designed to excite and alarm. It is not borne out by the actions of the RMS. There is NO WEIGHT LIMIT on Windsor Bridge. In addition, independent experts have scrutinised the reports upon which the structural integrity claims are made and have personally examined the bridge. They don’t agree with the RMS. What’s more, the RMS claim that it will cost $18.5 million to repair the bridge; which will involve closing it for three months, is also being challenged by the independent experts. The independent cost estimates range from $2.5 to $4 million and the bridge stays open during repairs. That’s an awful lot less than $18.5 million, and those repairs are to a higher standard than the RMS can deliver for $18.5 million.
Next we are told that the community had been comprehensively involved in identifying the Government’s preferred option. However recent independent online surveys suggest that only 12% of respondents to that online survey had received any formal notification about the New Bridge Options in 2009 and that 83% of respondents had not received any formal notification regarding the bridge since that time.
In addition, people directly affected by this project, such as Thompson Square business and property owners, have NEVER been approached by the RMS. It is no surprise then that at the last Community Focus Group meeting held by the RMS in June 2012, the RMS admitted their communication strategy was achieving surprisingly little impact on community knowledge of the project.
Indeed there is mounting evidence the then RTA had decided to build Option One long before the public even became aware of the issue and well before any consultation commenced.
So: no, the community was not effectively consulted, the consultation that has occurred has been designed to deliver what the Government wants, rather than what is best for the Hawkesbury.
The real feedback from the community has occurred since this issue has been more openly discussed in the pages of our local newspapers such as the Gazette.
Our Local Member then goes on to say: “The sight lines of those buildings (in Thompson Square) will be protected so that no impairment will be caused to the visual integrity of the square.”
Why then does the State Heritage Council of NSW, The National Trust and the Federation of Australian Heritage Societies continue to vehemently oppose any such road through Thompson Square and to do so in writing? The answer is, despite the RMS attempts to “minimise” visual impacts, the word “minimise” is a relative term and it is impossible to eliminate the impact of the project “so that no impairment will be caused to the visual integrity of the square”. The construction of the proposed bridge and approach road, even with its much touted “adjustments” to “height and angle” will result in a higher, wider, modern, concrete structure that will forever change the character and integrity of the square.
The truth is in the RMS Options Report. Nothing the RMS does will alter the horrible impact of this project on our town’s iconic Square. When that report says Option 1 “Performs poorly” it is political-speak for “disastrous”.
Interestingly, a total of nine options were offered to the community and you will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that our current Option’s paramount characteristic was that it was… you guessed it, the cheapest option.
Of these nine options, some were almost comical in design, such as Options 4 and 5 which proposed all traffic (including heavy vehicles) be funnelled down Baker and Kable Streets respectively.
In fact, Options 2 to 9 were so awful one might be forgiven for thinking their sole purpose was to make Option One look good.
Our Local Member also claims that the Government’s preferred option: Option One … “best met the project's objectives (in relation) to cost, traffic movements, protection of heritage and facilitation of the normal daily lives of the community that depends on the bridge.” Heart-warming stuff, isn’t it? Let me refer you to the actual language in the RMS Options Report:
“Option 1 performs well in respect of safety, flood immunity and long term community needs. Option 1 also offers best value for money. Option 1 performs poorly in respect of impacts on heritage and the character of Thompsons Square and the surrounding heritage buidlings (sic). However, options 1 and 2 both introduce enhanced urban design opportunities to reinstate the rectilinear street layout and improve the relationship between open space and the river.”
Let’s review what this means:
“Best value for money” = cheapest option
“Safety” = will allow the ever increasing numbers of larger vehicles, and I mean BIG vehicles, (B-doubles: 25 or 26 metres long and up to 4.6 metres high) to continue to access to the Square.
“Flood immunity” = the bridge will be above the flood level when the Wilberforce road goes under, just like that other piece of local engineering genius, the Fitzroy Bridge which forms a lovely island in the middle of flood waters.
“Option 1 performs poorly in respect of impacts on heritage and the character of Thompsons Square and the surrounding heritage buidlings (sic).” = Bad luck about our local heritage and the economic advantages it currently brings.
…but what about that optimistic note about “enhanced urban design opportunities”? that “The Thompson Square precinct also will be enhanced and restored to be closer to its original shape. It will become more rectangular than the odd shape that emerged in the 1930s when the square was cut diagonally across its middle.”? Shouldn’t we be pleased about that? Well, that depends on how much you enjoy having a picnic, or a concert, or a quiet cup of coffee beside a road carrying around 18,000 vehicles per day, many of them very large, heavy, noisy, smelly industrial vehicles.
The Government is pinning its heritage credentials on the spurious claim that it is somehow “reuniting” the Square. It is doing nothing of the sort. It is destroying a local road that dives modestly down below the sight lines of the Square as it approaches our historic bridge and replacing it with a brutal, high level, concrete monstrosity, completely out of scale with this historic area. Option One may join two patches of dirt together; but it does so by FOREVER cutting off the eastern side of the Square.
The Government cannot have it both ways: if the existing local road is dividing the Square, then their much larger, wider, higher road must also divide the Square… only more so.
But above all, our Local Member fails to mention the recently proposed bypass solution that retains the current historic bridge for local and light traffic. This alternative, developed by independent engineers and concerned members of the local community, out-performs Option1 on all project objectives, yet, despite its clear benefits, was never offered to the community.
So, we were denied the opportunity to choose an option that could deliver relief from the current peak hour traffic chaos while the RMS acknowledges (August Q&A) that theirs is an “option that provides very little traffic improvement”.
Finally, probably the most disingenuous statement in the entire speech is the last sentence: “The people cannot wait for the construction to begin.” I am at a loss as to who “the people” are, but they certainly DON’T include the more-than eleven thousand individuals who have signed a petition to the NSW Parliament objecting to this destructive and inappropriate plan.
For far, far too long this community has been fed a mishmash of half-truths, misinterpretations and exaggerations to promote a poorly conceived, highly questionable project. No other township anywhere in this State is being forced to accept increased levels of inter-urban traffic through a town centre. That is bad enough. To have our local parliamentary representative try and make it sound as if they are doing us a favour is truly offensive.
Dail Miller
CAWB Chair
19th September 2012
