Cedar Party Creek Bridge Replacement Community Consultation Slides
Background Midcoast Council have been successful in being awarded an Infrastructure NSW - Fixing Country Roads grant to progress options to replace Cedar Party Creek Bridge. Grant details: • Grant value = $350K Scope - to investigate options and complete design on • preferred option. • NO construction. Complete detail design by end of 2017 • • A final design will allow Council to apply for a FCR grant to fund construction.
Background Replacement of Cedar Party Creek Bridge has been considered for numerous years. Options were considered in 1986: • Over 500 submissions received Preferred option – replace • existing bridge Cost prohibitive (even to • design) • No funding source identified Option was not built •
Background Current situation: • Timber bridge constructed in 1960s • Deck replaced with a Stress Laminated Timber deck in 1994 • Replacement required in the next 10 years • Services over 10,000 vehicles/day (100+ heavy vehicles) • Weight limits could be imposed to maintain safety
Background Considerations of Cedar Party Creek Bridge: • On a Regional freight route • Currently impacted by flooding (1 in 5 year event) Adjacent to a level rail crossing (boom gates) • • Adjacent intersection is confusing – priority right turn to accommodate heavy vehicles Important access to Wingham • • Community impact during construction phase
Background Chrissy Gollan Park Swimming Pool Bowling Club Wingham Town Centre Schools
Background Funding considerations Refurbish existing Replace bridge bridge Improve flood access Improve freight route Potential to remove level crossing Improve intersection Improve an asset Availability of grants
Background Funding considerations Refurbish existing Replace bridge bridge Improve flood access Improve freight route Potential to remove level crossing Improve intersection Improve an asset Availability of grants To be successful in achieving a grant to construct, options need to address these considerations
Options Council Engineers along with bridge & road design consultants considered many options, with 8 identified for further consideration. These 8 options have been developed with consideration of: Community impacts such as: • - local economy - community functionality - noise/air impacts - gateway to Wingham Consultation with: • - internal stakeholders - consulting specialists - RMS, ARTC, Infrastructure NSW Strategic design and cost estimates have been determined for each option. Options have been scored and assessed using a weighted criteria analysis.
Points of note • With all options the old Cedar Party Creek bridge will be demolished. Cost and safety inhibit it being maintained for low volume vehicular or pedestrian use. • ARTC will not support the relocation of the railway level crossing. If the rail crossing point needs to move a bridge over the tracks, high enough for double stack trains to pass underneath, would need to be included and ARTC would not contribute any funds toward this option.
Eight options considered A A. Around the Back B. Rowley St C. Ruth St D. North of the Rail E. Existing Alignment D F. Eastern Offset B F G. Pool Relocation H. Across the Floodplain E C H Note: G • no particular order each option has multiple • variations H
The Roundabout All options that include the current Wynter St / Combined St intersection have a common roundabout design. The roundabout requires a large volume of fill on the low side and a large cut on the high side. Significant retaining walls would be required on the south / west corner of the roundabout. It is a single lane roundabout with a mountable central island for trucks.
Around the Back Construction: Timeframe = 11 months • Detours = local detours to • permit roundabout construction. Pro’s: • Can be constructed (mostly) offline • Minimal impact to Chrissy Gollan Park • Less visual/noise impact on existing residences • Will enable future subdivision development Con’s: • Only an option if constructed with rail overpass (significant cost) – road could be diverted back to existing rail crossing, but why go around the back then? • Construction of roundabout complicated – high traffic impact, lengthy construction time • Additional 1km of road construction ($) • Impact of roundabout on properties (acquisition) • Visual impact and costly retaining walls
Rowley Street Construction: Timeframe = 12 months • Detours = none. Traffic • control to permit tie ins at Wingham Rd and Rowley St. Pro’s: • Provides for a neat and visually aesthetic solution • Can be constructed offline Con’s: Diverts traffic past school (major safety concern) • Diverts traffic past numerous residents and • Wingham Brush (noise, environmental) • Long and expensive bridge structure (120m) • Requires upgrade to intersection of Rowley and Combined St (further cost increase) • Cuts access to Chrissy Gollan Park
Ruth Street Construction: • Timeframe = 12 months • Detours = none. Traffic control to permit tie ins at Combined St / Wynter St and Wingham Rd. Pro’s: • Can be constructed offline Removes a turning manoeuvre for the majority of • traffic flow Improved ease for heavy vehicles moving through town • Con’s: • Takes traffic immediately past Ruth Street residents (great impact on noise and visual – new road height approx roof height) • Complicated solution (bridge and road parallel to creek) • Long and expensive bridge structure (140m) • Requires full acquisition of the bowling club • Cuts access to Chrissy Gollan Park
North of the Rail Construction: • Timeframe = 11 months • Detours = local detours to permit construction on Price St. Pro’s: Decommission two existing level crossings • • Only requires one small bridge Con’s: • Unappealing entrance to Wingham (effectively bypasses Wingham) • Diverts light vehicle traffic away from the CBD • Poor cost benefit ration - requires an upgrade to Farquar Street to accommodate B Doubles and requires acquisition/demolition of numerous properties Cuts access to Chrissy Gollan Park •
Existing Alignment Construction: • Timeframe = 12 months • 4 month Detour = heavy vehicles via The Bucketts Way and Gloucester Rd (additional 24km and 21 minutes). Light vehicles via temporary bridge to Mortimer St high flood susceptibility in which case detour via Tinonee if Bight Bridge is passable otherwise Burrell Creek). Pro’s: Con’s: • Cost effective • Significant impact on traffic during construction • Can be implemented • Temp bridge crossing connecting to Mortimer St for light vehicles (6 months+) with or without a • Detour for semi-trailers and B-doubles via Gloucester Road - 6 months + bridge over the rail (additional time and running costs, deterioration of detour route) line. Construction of roundabout complicated – high traffic impact, lengthy • • Minimal change to construction time the current approach • Impact of roundabout on properties (acquisition) to Wingham • Visual impact and costly retaining walls • Significant impact to Chrissy Gollan Park
Eastern Offset Construction: • Timeframe = 12 months • Detours = local detours to permit roundabout construction. Pro’s: • Some of this project could be constructed offline Gives priority to heavy vehicles moving through • town Con’s: • Only an option if constructed with rail overpass (significant cost) • Chrissy Gollan Park consumed • Major property impact - requires partial acquisition of the bowling club and 3 other lots • Staging of roundabout complicated and costly
Pool Relocation Pro’s: Construction: Cost effective • • Timeframe = 10 months • Attractive entry to • Detours = traffic control Wingham required to permit tie-ins at • Removes a turning Wingham Rd and Combined St. manoeuvre for the majority of traffic flow Improved ease for heavy • vehicles moving through town (improved safety and freight movement) • Minimal land acquisition or retaining walls • Constructed offline • Can be implemented without a rail grade separation Con’s: • Pool to be relocated (funded in this project) • Some impact on Chrissy Gollan Park • Bridge located on a radius/extra width for turning lanes
Across the Floodplain Construction: • Timeframe = 14 months • Detours = traffic control required to permit Wingham Rd tie-in and construction along East Combined St. Pro’s: Con’s: • Can be constructed offline • Diverts traffic past a school and residents • Additional 2km of greenfield road construction ($) • Requires massive amount of fill (or viaduct) to cross the floodplain • Unstable ground Flood prone / flooding issues •
Summary of Options Strategic Cost Estimate Weighted Criteria Score No Rail Overpass Road Overpass 75 $20.4m $39.2m Around the Back 59 n/a $28.9m Rowley St 42 n/a $35.8m Ruth St 38 n/a $25.6m North of Rail 102 $18.4m $32.1m Existing Alignment 96 n/a $33.0m Eastern Offset 129 $19.1m $29.0m Pool Relocation Has not been priced or scored Across the Floodplain
Summary of Options
Recommend
More recommend
