Skip to the record
Accept no substitutions.

Original source · versioned page text

2018-09-11 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda

of 28

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                              11 SEPTEMBER 2018


3.    Options

A number of options have been considered for the future of the bridge and were consolidated to
four options for the purpose of this report. The four options in the table below identify the breakdown
of associated costs and where possible whole of life costs have been considered and explained
below.
Option 1.       A do nothing approach. There are no financial implications with this option but there
                is a high risk to public safety as unauthorised access continues to occur even with
                the installation of security fences. In addition, the potential to cause localised
                flooding should the structure collapse into the creek and restrict the flow of
                floodwaters is considered a significant risk.
Option 2.       Considers the removal of the bridge and rehabilitation of the creek embankments.
                This option has low cost benefits to the community and there are no ongoing
                maintenance issues to occur.
Option 3.       Replace existing bridge structure with a new pedestrian bridge. This option has a
                high capital cost and high whole of life cost. The benefit of this approach is that a
                new asset is installed and the asset will remain for a further 40 years requiring
                annual operating and maintenance costs.
Option 4.       Replace existing bridge with the old pedestrian bridge from the Mary River Road
                bridge project. Whilst there is still significant capital costs for the relocation and
                installation of the bridge, there is no purchase of a new bridge. The disadvantage is
                that the life of the asset is estimated at only 20 years and the maintenance costs
                are higher than a new bridge based on the first half of the bridge life already
                consumed.




                                                                                         Page 5 of 28
Log in to download the original file

2018-09-11 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda(PDF, 5MB).pdf · 5.1 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.