-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       When Vic Roads first raised the prospect of our heritage listed old bridge being pulled down and a new concrete and steel “replica” being built I like many was stunned. To me the best (and dare I say obvious – why is there a gap at the river end of Geelong Road?) solutions for both the Bridge and the town was to build a new bridge at Geelong Road and restore the iconic old one for pedestrian and recreational use. We would not only save the old bridge (which could be restored) but have a new bridge that would ease many of the towns growing traffic problems. After all any new bridge will be built with at least a 50-80year life!

Despite people still saying Vicroads should build the bridge there I simply cannot see it as a possibility. To me winning tattslotto would be easier. Why? Well basically the Advisory Panel and the Government rejected it and Vicroads don’t want to. Why? Well many reasons from not everyone in town agreeing this is the best location, environmental factors, affect on sailing club, concerns by some businesses, loss of Village Park etc and very importantly that it was more expensive! (We did put our counter arguments forward but with no luck – in fact the Advisory Panel said “there are no advantages…but there are a number of significant disadvantages”)

Vicroads went to plan #2 – which was to chop the old bridge in half, save half for a wide single pedestrian pathway and build a new bridge attached to it. This “hybrid” design was soon questioned by nearly everyone I spoke to. Heritage Victoria raised questions over the size (increased width) and the over use of modern materials. Vicroads have now withdrawn this application. The two main factors affecting Vicroads decision making are the fact the bridge is Heritage Listed and the Advisory Panel report of Jan 2007.

Plan #3 is based on the advice put forward by the Advisory Panel that if an upgraded bridge could not be achieved then they should look at a 2 bridge option – one for road users and another for pedestrians and cyclists. By now most of you have probably seen these plans and once again they are with Heritage Victoria to consider. My initial reaction was one of finally they are trying to restore the bridge, as the plans include the use of wooden piles and cross beams. The bridge would be very similar in design and construction to the original bridge. But as I said to the newspaper the devil is always in the detail – and it was.

The Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge called a public meeting on Wed 18^th in order to give everyone an up to date and accurate report of what exactly is being planned. There is still confusion over what is reconstruction vs restoration and a lot of missing detail from the plans. It is my personal view that we will not get many more options from Vicroads so we must try and get the best possible outcome now. However that does not simply mean accepting the plans as shown.

At our meeting 2 possible options have emerged as the main contenders. As with every compromise there are positives and negatives – and to be honest if there was a “perfect solution” those smarter than me would have found it 3 years ago. How you decide which is the better of the two is hard, that is why if you do have strong feelings on this you really should voice your concerns now.

Option 1

This could be called a one bridge only option. Lets get back to the basics and try to keep it a simple solution. The Advisory Panel report states “…we have reached the overall conclusion that if the Bridge can be adapted to provide more appropriately for pedestrians, cyclists and with adequate vehicle lanes while maintaining heritage values….then this is clearly the superior option. However, it is not clear whether this can be achieved”.

Basically this is what Vicroads originally called Option A2. The Bridge would be expanded by adding 3 extra wooden piles - which could then be used as a single lane for traffic during construction. The end result would be a 13.5m bridge (now its 8.5m) that had walkways on both sides of the bridge and the regulation size traffic and bicycles lanes. The big two negatives associated with are; would Heritage Victoria allow such an increase in size (note this time it is using original type material where possible) and is only having one lane for traffic during construction feasible?

Option 2

This is the current 2 Bridges plan but with a big change – the footbridge would be built on the north side (upstream).

As mentioned we do end up with a reconstructed wooden bridge even if there is some modern material (which there has to be in any option we choose) and the construction process involves a slight realignment. But the footbridge on the south (or bluff side) was seen as having too many problems. These ranged from being located on the Spit, which is one of the most sensitive areas, loss of useable beachfront and car parking, visual impact with regards to views form the bridge to the Bluff and from the Bluff to the Bridge to name a few.

Again there are pros and cons. The north side does have some issues but less so, including road crossing, affect on the artwork at Flinders Pd and vehicle access when used as a roadway. Also this side is officially in the Ramsar wetlands. The big plus for any version of Option 2 is that the 2 lanes of traffic can be accommodated during construction.

As I write this we have yet to make our final decision of which Option to endorse, if any, in our submission to Heritage Victoria. Normally the public only has 14 days in which to make submissions to Heritage Victoria but many groups have been granted an extension until Friday 11^th July. So I would say it is not too late and as this could be the “last roll of the dice” if you are concerned and have a preference (or simply want to make a comment) do so now.

Bernard Napthine
Pres. Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc

Send to
Heritage Victoria
Level 7, 8 Nicholson St
East Melbourne 3002