FRIENDS OF THE BARWON HEADS BRIDGE INC

When Vicroads made their first application to Heritage Victoria in 2006, to have the Barwon Heads Bridge demolished, our group formed to prevent this from happening. At that first meeting we set up our constitution and our aims. The following Statement of Purpose was adopted:

To RETAIN the current historic wooden bridge that crosses the Barwon River, in Barwon Heads, in its present location

To RESTORE the bridge to as close to its original design and construction as possible and protect the surrounding area with its heritage listed structures

To RE-INVIGORATE the bridge and surrounding environment by facilitating new ways of using the area for passive recreational purposes

The majority of members have always believed the best way of achieving these aims is the construction of a second road bridge at the Geelong Road extension. This would provide a new traffic corridor and allow the historic old bridge to be restored for passive recreational use. It would mean many of the problems now being discussed (from how to keep traffic flowing during construction to loss of beach and car parking) simply would not occur. It would also provide a much better traffic solution to the ever-increasing flow of vehicles through the town. So the Bridge and River estuary precinct could become a wonderful recreational area and truly become “the jewel in the crown” for Barwon Heads.

Initially we hoped to change the one corridor only position held by Vicroads and the Government. The Advisory Panel in its report of Jan 2007 more or less signed off on any chance of us overturning this rigid view. So we have no other choice but to continue to make sure the decisions made by Vicroads do as little damage as possible to the Bridge and surrounding environment.

The new application by Vicroads, while admittedly an improvement over the October 2007 proposal, still falls far short of reaching our aims. (Then again that did recommend cutting the old bridge in half, so it really doesn’t take much to beat.)

Basically what Vicroads are suggesting, in this new application, is the 2-bridges option canvassed by the Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel stated in their summary,

“…It may well be that a second bridge is required to cater adequately for pedestrians and cyclists. If a second bridge must be built this report concludes that is should be placed next to the existing bridge, not in a new corridor…”

This latest proposal, for a 2 bridge option, by Vicroads raises many issues and concerns – often due to poor information and incomplete documentation. Plus we and many in the community have grave concerns about several aspects of this proposal.

WE FEEL WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO TOTALLY REJECT THIS NEW VICROADS APPLICATION AND ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME.

The obvious next questions would be why reject this proposal and if not this option, then what would be better?

Some of our reasons for rejecting this option are as follows:

The visual impact of 2 different designed bridges in such close proximity is a concern. We are told the new foot- bridge would be of a sleek and elegant design yet it would will still be very different from the older style wooden bridge.
Currently the view from the Bridge to-wards the Bluff and from the Bluff or Riverbank towards the Bridge are the iconic views. This is what the locals love and tourists find wonderful. A new second bridge would severally impact on these views.
The new footbridge would result in both a loss of public beach area and approximately half the public car parking spaces on the western side at Lahey’s Square.
On the East Side of the river the new footbridge would be pushed straight through an area of the Spit which is both environmental fragile and sensitive. (Yet no plans of how this is to be built, possible loss of vegetation, etc has been produced)
Currently fishing is conducted from the Bridge in specific places yet there appears no such allowance on the new footbridge. Fishing is best done on the upstream side, which would be much harder to accommodate in this situation.
Safety concerns for pedestrians crossing a busy road are not addressed adequately by having only a crossing point on one side of the bridge.
The actual location of the Bridge will be shifted in this process - this may have to be but is not an ideal outcome.

Plus this is not the Panel’s preferred recommendation. Their first preference (and the one we support) was always been to retain and upgrade the bridge.

“Having heard the evidence and submissions and considered all matters 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 in accordance with the Burra Charter then this is clearly the superior option – provided the work can be carried out in a practical fashion. However, it is not clear this can be achieved”

We are of the opinion that this can be achieved, it is simply that Vicroads have been far too quick to reject the “one bridge” option.

It is our Members hope that the historic old bridge can be strengthened and rebuilt using as much original material as possible. Any new material should be replacing like for like where possible. In other words wooden piles, crossbeams etc. Yes there is the need for some new materials to provide the extra strength, again as noted in the Advisory Panel report. New technologies and techniques could allow for greater restoration or re-use of materials than previously expected. These avenues need to be explored further.

The report does not promote the complete demolition of the Bridge, as would be the case if Vicroads were granted the current application. In fact the states “The existing Bridge be repaired and adapted as the road-bridge at Barwon Heads.” This proposal seems to totally ignore this statement by the Panel!

In mid 2006 Vicroads provide the people of Barwon Heads with several possible options (involving both corridors) for alternative bridge design. One of these was called Option A2 and it was to “rebuild the existing bridge with widening to accommodate all users”. While not endorsing this specific design we feel it does come close to a suitable compromise and the best template to work with.

We support this approach for the following reasons:

We are restoring and rebuilding the old bridge not simply demolishing it.

We keep it in the same location - Vicroads new application would see the Bridge realigned approximately 6m downstream.

We retain only one bridge, which sits better within the visual landscape and environment.
Loss of Heritage Value having 2 bridges, of different designs, so close to each other.
Having walking paths on both sides of the bridge increases pedestrian safety.
Recreational fishing is better catered for in this option.

There is minimal loss of public beach space.
There is minimal change to the fragile “spit” area.
There would be no loss of public car parking.

Traffic flow during construction, especially during summer, is of concern with any option presented. The suggestion in the A2 Option was for construction of a new section next to the bridge. This would be used for single lane traffic during rebuilding of the old bridge. Later it would become part of a wider rebuilt bridge.

Having 2-way traffic flowing during construction is the best outcome. It should be noted that the Advisory Panel felt one lane would be sufficient. Many in the community feel that the small delays caused by alternating traffic flows during construction is worth the price of keeping only one bridge.

But again we have to wonder if enough effort has gone into looking for a better solution to traffic movements. Have all available engineering possibilities been explored? Of the entire project how often would traffic be affected? Could there be ways of providing 2-way traffic at various stages during construction?

The Barwon Heads Bridge is heritage listed for a reason. The Advisory Panel report does not recommend demolition. There are possible solutions that could see the bridge saved from complete demolition. And yet to grant this application demolition will certainly occur.

This application may be better but it is certainly not the best. Yes this process has taken a long time but that does not mean we should stop now. If more time is needed it should be granted.

So we ask that this application be refused and that Heritage Victoria recommend that Vicroads further pursue options that keep the Bridge and better reflect the Advisory Panel and communities wishes.

Bernard Napthine
President Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge
Contact
Friends of the Barwon heads Bridge
PO Box
Barwon Heads, 3227
Email bnapthine@bigpond.com.au

Friends of the Barwon Heads BridgeSome shots from the rally

setting up

Early arrivals

The crowd builds

Did you send your objection off