Port River Expressway Road and Rail Bridges

Port River Expressway Road and Rail Bridges

Community Liaison Group

Record of inaugural meeting – Thursday 25 August 2005

Attendees:

Iain Steenson - Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group

Cath Duncan - Port Adelaide Enfield Chamber of Commerce

Kristine Peters - Todd Street Business Chambers

Lyn Hay - Todd Street Business Chambers

Ian Kuhl – SA Tall Ships Association (One and All)

Ricky Clark - Symons and Clark Transport

David Hemmings - Port Adelaide Bicycle Users Group

Mike Goody - CPAE

John Croci - CPAE

Adam Montroy - Birkenhead Resident

Tony Kearney - Port Adelaide Resident

Dr John Fitzpatrick - Largs Bay Resident

Steve Woodrow – Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) (Chair)

Peter Gold – DTEI

Maree Wauchope – DTEI

Amie Horner – DTEI

David Toms – Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd

Apologies:

Allan Rice - Port Adelaide Sailing Club

David Bartlett – DTEI

Meeting opened at 4:45pm

• Welcome and apologies – Steve Woodrow

• Re-iteration of Terms of Reference for CLG – Steve Woodrow

• Introductions – Steve Woodrow

• Overview of big picture (developments taking place along the LeFevre Peninsula) and project history – Maree Wauchope

• Overview of Stages 2 & 3 Contract – Peter Gold

• Presentation from contractor – David Toms

Presentation outlined:

• community involvement aspect of the project;
• overview of other current Abigroup projects with focus on community involvement priorities;
• update on project progress;
• outline of technical aspects of bridges;
• overview of non-negotiables in relation to CLG processes (structural design and form of opening bridges and approach structures and road and rail alignment and layout);
• overview of key non-negotiable elements of the project (structural design and form of opening bridges, structural design and form of approach structures, road and rail alignments and layout and client (DTEI) specified aspect of the works); and
• overview of input from stakeholders during the detail design stage (urban aesthetics including landscape form, lighting effects on bridges, shared path types and finishes, public art, pedestrian features such as street furniture, signage and colour of painted elements on bridges).

• Terms of reference were endorsed by all present CLG members

• Questionnaire distributed to CLG members, to be returned to Amie Horner within one week.

Comments/Queries

• CLG member questioned the clearance distance from pedestrian access stairwell of road bridge in relation to original specifications from LMC which stated that it need only be 8m. Abigroup stated that their designs provide a clearance of approximately 40m from the abutment to the edge of the wharf, while the documents only require 11m.
• CLG member queried the accessibility of Environmental Management Plan. DTEI responded that details/strategies around the environmental management of the project would be provided at a later stage as required.
• CLG member asked whether, if circumstances changed in the future, the bridge could possibly be opened more frequently than twice a day. Abigroup noted that the design/durability of the bridges would allow them to be opened more frequently, as required by the contract documents. DTEI clarified that Government announced in April 2005 that the bridges would open twice a day.
• CLG member asked when the times of openings and duration would be determined and whether they would be able to be linked to the Birkenhead Bridge opening regime. DTEI responded that the times and durations of the openings will be determined later in the project.
• CLG member questioned the effectiveness of the bridge opening regime in relation to its operation from Norwood and the possibility of the electronic link failing. DTEI and Abigroup responded that the design of the bridges incorporates a back up means of opening and closing the bridge from a site control building or inside the bridge machine room in the event of a power failure.
• CLG member questioned the process of communicating with the media as an individual, not relating to the CLG or the CLG process. DTEI responded that communication with the media is appropriate providing that the individual in question states that their response has no connection to the CLG process and therefore does not reflect the views of the CLG. No member of the CLG can speak to the media on behalf of the CLG without the prior consent of the entire group.
• CLG member raised the possibility of DTEI creating an intranet site to allow for communication between the project team and CLG members. DTEI acknowledged the suggestion and will investigate it further.
• CLG member raised the issue of whether DTEI or the contractor will produce graphic design materials such as visual simulations of the project site. DTEI responded that the use of visual simulations is a possibility. Abigroup commented that a web cam may be used to provide constant viewing of construction progress on their website.
• CLG member enquired as to whether to the information which was circulated at the meeting could be made public. DTEI stated that it would prefer to make the project public officially via community updates in the Messenger Newspaper. However, DTEI responded that it intended to publish information sheets outlining information presented/discussed at CLG meetings for members to disseminate to their respective organisations/groups and re-iterated that any material distributed at meetings was fine for CLG members to disseminate to their respective organisations/groups, unless stated as confidential by DTEI or Abigroup.

Actions:

• DTEI: Provide details/strategies around the environmental management of the project at a later date as required.

• DTEI: Investigate the option of establishing an intranet site for the CLG.

Meeting closed at 7pm