Submission No 6 INQUIRY INTO WINDSOR BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Organisation: Community Action for Windsor Bridge Date received: 28 January 2018 SUBMISSION Upper House Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Industry and Transport January 2018 Volume 1 COMMUNITY ACTION FOR WINDSOR BRIDGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 BACKGROUND 9 Background Overview 9 COMMUNITY ACTION FOR WINDSOR BRIDGE 11 1. THE WINDSOR BRIDGE 12 1.1 History 13 1.2 Significant Features 13 1.3 Engineering 14 The Piers 14 Raising the Height of the Bridge 16 Replacing the Timber Deck 17 2. CURRENT CONDITION OF THE WINDSOR BRIDGE 19 2.1 Scare Tactics 19 2.2 Scrutiny 20 2.3 Lane Width 23 3. MAINTENANCE 28 3.1 Renovation and Retention 29 3.2 The Dishonest RMS 30 3.3 Tibby Cotter Bridge 35 3.4 Justification for Demolition 39 4. THE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - OPTION 1 40 4.1 Options And Alternatives 40 4.2 No Option But Option 1 41 4.3 RMS Options 42 4.4 Alternatives 54 4.5 The Rickaby’s Line 55 4.6 The ‘Lynwood’ Bypass - the Pitt Town Bottoms Alternative 58 4.7 Advice Received and Ignored 60 4.8 So why not build a bypass? 62 5. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 66 5.1 The Preferred Option 67 5.2 ‘Supporting' Options 69 5.3 Bridge Styles 70 5.4 Design & Heritage Community Focus Group 70 5.5 The Deliberative Forum 72 Page $2 5.6 E%ectiveness 74" 5.7 Public Response and Community Opposition 75" 6. TRAFFIC 78 6.1 Introduction 78" 6.2 Tra&c planning challenges 79" 6.3 Tra&c considerations — overview 80" 6.4 Modelling the tra&c outcomes for vehicles crossing the new bridge 82" 6.5 Crash Data 87" 6.6 Heavy vehicle volume projections 88" 6.7 Justification for a Windsor Bypass 89" 6.8 Tra&c Planning Challenges —Local tra&c and intersections 91" 6.9 Turning Restrictions – right-turn into George St West 92" 6.10 Turning Restrictions – right-turn into George St East 94" 6.11 Turning Restrictions – left-turn into George St East 95" 6.12 Why Be Dishonest? 96" 6.12 Summary 96" 7. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 97 7.1 Arrangements regarding development in the catchment 97" 7.2 Sand and gravel 97" 8. HERITAGE 99 8.1 Introduction 99" 8.2 Heritage Awards 100" 8.3 Historical Significance of Thompson Square 101" 8.4 Cultural Significance of Thompson Square 104" 8.5 ’Significant Heritage Impacts' 105" 8.6 Heritage Advice 106" 8.7 Three Heritage Items 109" 8.8 Brick Barrel Drains aka “Smuggler’s Tunnels” 109" 8.9 The Macquarie/Greenway Wharf 115" 8.10 A Bridge Designed to Destroy 120" 9. ARCHAEOLOGY 128 9.1 The Archaeology of 2016 130" 9.2 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY 139" 10. THE LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY 158 10.1 Historical Context 158" Page $3 10.2 RMS Disclaimer 160" 10.3 A Definitional Issue - What is Thompson Square? 161" 10.4 A Unified Space 163" 10.5 Increased Usable Area 166" 10.6 Pedestrian Safety 167" 10.7 Landscaping 168" 10.8 A Unique Sense Of Arrival? 170" 10.9 Gradient 171" 10.10 Noise 174" 10.11 Vibrational Impacts 176" 11. FLOOD IMMUNITY 178 11.1 Overview 178" 11.2 Initial RTA Claims 179" 11.3 Amended RMS Claims 179" 11.4 Examples of RMS’s Contradictory Statements 181" 11.5 Potential for bridge damage due to flood debris 182" 11.6 What flood immunity would Option 1 Provide? 184" 11.7 Conclusion 185" 12. PROJECT ASSESSMENT PROCESS 186 12.1 The Former Labor Government 186" 12.2 The New Liberal Government 187" 12.3 The Approval 187" 13. ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 195 13.1 Background and context 195" 13.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio calculation 197" 13.3 Evaluating heritage value 199" 13.4 Cultural and heritage tourism 202" 14. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 208 Recommendations 210 Conclusion 211 Annexure and Appendices 215 Annexure 1 215 Annexure 2 216" Annexure 3 218" APPENDIX 1 219" Page $4 Appendix 2 220 Appendix 3 221 References 223 Page $5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' This submission is presented by Community Action for Windsor Bridge (CAWB), an action group created to fight for the best outcomes for Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge stakeholders. Since 21 July 2013 CAWB has occupied Thompson Square for twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, among other advocacy activities." ' Windsor Bridge is a State listed heritage item that is currently facing demolition. In 2011, changes to NSW planning legislation e%ectively ‘switched o%’ previous State and Local Heritage protections associated with the Bridge." ' The RMS suggests that Windsor Bridge has reached the end of its economic life and the level of maintenance required to maintain adequate road safety is no longer cost e%ective. However, this submission presents evidence that Windsor Bridge remains functional and fit for purpose. The RMS relies on spurious technical arguments, with emotional overtones designed to frighten the general community. No part of the case for replacement of Windsor Bridge withstands independent, expert scrutiny and rational analysis. " ' No meaningful consideration has been given to a bypass option for Windsor, which would be a more appropriate upgrade to such an important arterial route. A bypass which diverts heavy vehicles and through tra&c away from the historic town centre and the Thompson Square precinct is the only adequate solution that will provide for future tra&c needs whilst protecting the heritage that is key to Windsor’s economic and cultural viability. " ' One of the most damning aspects of the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project is the misleading and deceitful presentation of alternative options. Options appear to have been generated simply to demonstrate that alternatives were considered, however each seems to have been deliberately designed to be inadequate and unacceptable. " ' The RMS’s community consultation processes and practices have arguably done more to alienate the community than any other aspect of the Windsor Bridge Project. The RMS has consistently chosen to ignore widespread public opposition to the Project, preferring to massage response data, or in the case of local politicians, attribute such opposition to a vocal minority or a fringe group. The suggestion that the Project is opposed by a ‘minority’, vocal, or otherwise, is not borne out by the facts. " Page $6 ' The Windsor Bridge Replacement Project fails to address road network capacity issues or deliver outcomes expected of fiscally responsible planning for public infrastructure. In failing to take into account the regional destinations of tra&c crossing Windsor Bridge, the Project deprives the community of significant, measurable and highly desirable outcomes that might reasonably be expected from such significant public expenditure. " ' The Hawkesbury is in desperate need of another crossing of the Hawkesbury River and increased road network capacity. Car and Heavy Vehicle volumes across Windsor Bridge and through Thompson Square exceed tra&c volumes which have been used to justify bypasses of towns such as Berry, Kempsey, Moree, Macksville and other towns. Despite insistence by the Government and Option One proponents that heavy vehicle use is not increasing, tra&c counts by the RMS and others show the opposite is the case. " ' Despite admitting that more than 70% of Windsor Bridge tra&c is “through tra&c” and does not stop in Windsor, the Project funnels an increasing volumes of cars and Heavy Vehicles into a known bottleneck. The RMS itself admits that the bridge is not cause of the tra&c problems, but rather the Macquarie/Bridge Street intersection is acknowledged to be the main bottleneck, and is outside the scope of this project. " ' As the oldest Town Square in Australia, Thompson Square deserves the highest levels of professional competence and probity, to say nothing of protection. A government agency and their consultants, charged with acting on behalf of the community, are delivering the exact opposite. " ' The RMS has consistently been warned that the Windsor Bridge replacement project EIS was completely inadequate in its treatment of heritage. " ' Thompson Square is rightly referred to as ‘The Birthplace of the Fair Go’. In naming the Square for Andrew Thompson, a convict made good, Governor Macquarie took a bold step — contrary to instructions — that created an idea which would ring down throughout our Nation’s history. " ' There can be no doubt the heritage impacts of Option 1 will be devastating to Thompson Square. At the time of writing this submission archaeologist are undertaking destructive ‘salvage’ activities. " ' The recently excavated c.1814 brick barrel drains demonstrate the importance of Windsor to Colonial authorities who invested public funds in this port town through which so much of the colony's produce was shipped. These rare and remarkable Page $7 archaeological relics may also have much to tell us about life in the early colony and their construction may reveal much about the technical skills and knowledge of the day." ' Yet the community has been forced to watch, helplessly, as heavy machinery has ground colonial artefacts to dust, each day increasing the area of destruction. " ' It is claimed that the proposed replacement bridge will have flood immunity consistent with that of the roads on the northern side of the Hawkesbury River. However, it is primarily the level of the floodplain that dictates access to and from Windsor during flood events. Once the relevant sections of the surrounding road network are submerged, the height of the bridge is irrelevant. " ' Statements that the existing Bridge is becoming increasingly dangerous and fragile due to its advancing age, or that the bridge is in such a condition that a flood could sweep parts or all of it away, seem designed more to reinforce the flawed rationale for its replacement, than to be founded on any basis of reality.