Cedar Party Creek Bridge Replacement Community Consultation Slides - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cedar Party Creek Bridge Replacement

Community Consultation Slides

Midcoast Council have been successful in being awarded an Infrastructure NSW - Fixing Country Roads grant to progress

• ptions 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

Background

Chrissy Gollan Park Swimming Pool Bowling Club Schools Wingham Town Centre

Background

Funding considerations Refurbish existing bridge Replace 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 bridge Replace 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

Council Engineers along with bridge & road design consultants considered many

• ptions, 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.

Options

• 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.

Points of note

A B C D E F G H H

A. Around the Back B. Rowley St C. Ruth St D. North of the Rail E. Existing Alignment F. Eastern Offset G. Pool Relocation H. Across the Floodplain

Note:

• no particular order
• each option has multiple

variations

Eight options considered

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

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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 11 months
• Detours = local detours to

permit roundabout construction.

Rowley Street

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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 12 months
• Detours = none. Traffic

control to permit tie ins at Wingham Rd and Rowley St.

Ruth Street

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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 12 months
• Detours = none. Traffic

control to permit tie ins at Combined St / Wynter St and Wingham Rd.

North of the Rail

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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 11 months
• Detours = local detours to

permit construction on Price St.

Existing Alignment

Pro’s:

• Cost effective
• Can be implemented

with or without a bridge over the rail line.

• Minimal change to

the current approach to Wingham Con’s:

• Significant impact on traffic during construction
• Temp bridge crossing connecting to Mortimer St for light vehicles (6 months+)
• Detour for semi-trailers and B-doubles via Gloucester Road - 6 months +

(additional time and running costs, deterioration of detour route)

• Construction of roundabout complicated – high traffic impact, lengthy

construction time

• Impact of roundabout on properties (acquisition)
• Visual impact and costly retaining walls
• Significant impact to Chrissy Gollan Park

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).

Eastern Offset

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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 12 months
• Detours = local detours to

permit roundabout construction.

Pool Relocation

Pro’s:

• Cost effective
• Attractive entry to

Wingham

• Removes a turning

manoeuvre for the majority of traffic flow

• Improved ease for heavy

vehicles moving through town (improved safety and freight movement)

• Minimal land acquisition
• r 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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 10 months
• Detours = traffic control

required to permit tie-ins at Wingham Rd and Combined St.

Across the Floodplain

Pro’s:

• Can be constructed offline

Con’s:

• 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

Construction:

• Timeframe = 14 months
• Detours = traffic control required to

permit Wingham Rd tie-in and construction along East Combined St.

Weighted Criteria Score Strategic Cost Estimate No Rail Overpass Road Overpass

Around the Back

75 $20.4m $39.2m

Rowley St

59 n/a $28.9m

Ruth St

42 n/a $35.8m

North of Rail

38 n/a $25.6m

Existing Alignment

102 $18.4m $32.1m

Eastern Offset

96 n/a $33.0m

Pool Relocation

129 $19.1m $29.0m

Across the Floodplain

Has not been priced or scored

Summary of Options

Summary of Options

Fixing Country Roads grant for construction will support the cost to relocate the swimming pool if this is the preferred option and the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) stacks up. Swimming pool funding will not stretch beyond like for like replacement. Existing pool is estimated at $1.5m to replace. For $1.5m, you could get a new 6 lane 50m outdoor non heated swimming pool or a 6 lane 25m pool with a covered children’s wet play area. Visitations per year (includes all) = 17,000 (93 per day) Annual maintenance = $50k, Annual operating costs $140k Significant upgrades required to prolong life

Swimming Pool

Existing Alignment – more pictures

Pool Relocation – more pics

Community suggested option: Queen Street

Pro’s:

• Existing Cedar Party Creek Bridge character remains
• Heavy vehicles detour further away from CBD

Con’s:

• Heavy vehicles diverted past 37 homes and a pre-

school (currently 28 homes)

• Queen St is not flood free
• Maintenance burden remains to keep Cedar Party

Creek Bridge and this bridge will still have a limited life even with light vehicles only

• Intersection at Combined / Wynter St can not be

improved. Construction:

• Timeframe = 12 months
• Detours = local detours to

permit construction of connections to Wingham Rd and Queen St. Budget Estimate = $23m Features:

• Roundabout at intersection
• f Youngs Rd / Wingham Rd
• Roundabout at intersection
• f new road and Queen

Street

• Improvements required at

roundabout at Dennes St / Farquar St roundabout

• Improvements of the

Farquhar St bridge required