Page 300 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have arranged comprehensive engineering studies of the bridge and other options for a river crossing at Tharwa. Members know that the preliminary assessment and development application processes are rigorous and involve community input. The government conducted a public workshop on the heritage values of the existing bridge and finally we conducted an extensive targeted survey of Canberrans—all this in addition to correspondence on the subject. Far from being castigated, the government should be congratulated for the thorough job of consultation it has done.
It was only in the second half of 2007 that it became apparent that the community’s preference had shifted to preservation of the old bridge as the only means of crossing the river at Tharwa. Even at the workshop in October 2007, the two highest scoring options were a clear choice between either restore the old bridge or demolish the old bridge and build a new one. The additional survey in December 2007 clarified the community’s view that the old bridge should be retained, restored and maintained into the future, and the government is acting in accordance with those community views.
It is interesting to note that, while this debate about a heritage-listed bridge was raging, the opposition spokesperson for heritage was nowhere to be seen. Mrs Dunne has never entered the fray and one has to wonder why. One wonders whether she can differentiate between wood and clay.
Mr Pratt also alleges the government failed to identify and take note of engineering advice. Quite the contrary, Mr Speaker: on 25 October 2005, a contract was awarded to GHD, an engineering firm, to conduct a study of the bridge and advise the government on what options would be available to it in relation to a bridge over the river at Tharwa. That options study came up with nine alternatives, ranging from cheap repairs to the existing bridge through to demolition of the old bridge and building a new dual-lane concrete and steel bridge. This latter option was suggested by the community; it was not amongst the options originally devised by the government’s consultants.
The options developed included restoration of the Allan truss spans of the existing bridge and construction of a new single-lane concrete and steel bridge alongside it. This also happened to be the most expensive option. GHD obtained community feedback on the options identified during their study and the clear community preference expressed in May 2006 was for the restoration of the Allan truss spans of the existing bridge and construction of a new single-lane concrete and steel bridge alongside it. That option had “nearly twice the amount of support for the second favoured option”.
The government considered the options identified by GHD and asked the department for further advice. As that advice was developed, the choice of acceptable solutions became clearer. On the information available at the time, the only sensible, cost-effective solution was to build a new concrete and steel bridge with a design that was sensitive to the heritage values of the old bridge and to the Tharwa area. If a new bridge was built, the government would have more time to consider what to do with the old bridge.
It should be noted that, when I was pressing for the new bridge, I was not pressing for the demolition of the old bridge. My major concern was to have some crossing of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .