LIKE many I am appalled at the Minister for Planning’s decision approving Route
9A for the Swan Hill Bridge.
We put our trust in Government and have been
let down.
With an engineering career spanning more than 40 years I have
extensive experience in charge of planning, design and construction of major
transport projects in Australia and overseas.
Where there is an alternative
to build a major road intersection away from the centre of a city we should take
it.
Swan Hill is fortunate to have such an alternative as many places
don’t.
Foremost this bridge is for road transport purposes and from a traffic
planning perspective it is illogical that Option 9A has been accepted when there
is a better alternative near Pye Street that is only 400 metres north of the
existing bridge.
That location provides very good connectivity with the
existing road system including that used by heavy vehicles.
It is ideal
being on the boundary of the retail centre and the commercial/light industrial
area so as to not inhibit light vehicle access to the CBD, but far enough away
to not trouble the general public with congestion, noise, vibration and safety
issues from heavy vehicles.
The existing route for the bridge was great for
when it was built in 1896 as the primary means of transport was bullocks and
horses bringing freight to the river boats and railway.
Route 9A would also
be acceptable for that era but we have moved on and transport is now more than
10 times faster.
Those who think that 400 metres is a bridge too far should
consider that in a truck it can be travelled in less than a minute.
If we
were in a bullock dray it might take 10 minutes.
Fortunately we have
progressed but the planners haven’t.
The bridge has not yet been built so
there is still time to wake up the decision makers.
