Anyone could tell you it’s a dud
NEW BRIDGEWATER BRIDGE
SO, the State Government is employing yet another consultancy to assess the new Bridgewater Bridge proposal (“Bridge too far,” Mercury, February 29). Seriously? Blind Freddy could have told the Government, since the new bridge was proposed, that such an excessive, grandiose, elaborate and completely over-the-top structure over deep, unstable mud flats would have been the most unnecessarily expensive and financially irresponsible option imaginable to improve the crossing of the Derwent and access to Hobart.
Infrastructure Australia knows it. The southern councils know it. It seems only the State Government and its senior executive service advisers are so entranced by the vision of them cutting a ribbon to this grand towering structure that they refuse to consider sensible alternatives that might not be so sexy, but still achieve the aim, improving access to Hobart.
For example, widen the causeway and build a modern twin leaf or bascule lifting bridge, over the narrow main river channel alongside the bridge, or even forget a new bridge altogether and improve the East Derwent Highway to a standard to match Brighton bypass and Tasman Highway and make better use of the scandalously underused Bowen Bridge, while putting a 10-tonne load limit on the existing Bridgewater Bridge, hence greatly extending its life, free of punishing Bdoubles. If expensive consultants are needed to state the obvious, what are the senior executive service advisers being paid their massive salaries for?
Stephen Zvillis
Granton alternatives. There is an almost new, fourlane bridge paid for by the Commonwealth just north of the zincworks and with an upgraded link to the Brooker Highway. So how best to use this gift from the Feds? One way would be to open the road network on the Eastern Shore to provide a higher grade link to the Midland Highway. Even if the cost is substantial, benefits to the communities through which it passes would far exceed any from a monster bridge placed at the end of a national highway.
As this would not cater for rail, a necessity for growing Bridgewater/Brighton, a permanent rail link on the site of the present lift bridge would eventually be necessary. Such a link, when needed, could be a bascule or even a swing bridge. It is much cheaper to provide for a single occasional use rail link than a high level four-lane road bridge. Also, and this should appeal to our politicians, it would not be necessary to make a decision until the existing lift bridge becomes unusable. David Keyes Austins Ferry