Ms BURNET – Thank you, Chair. Premier, just to go back to the Tasman Bridge, and I understand the sensitivities around this, but on table 6.4 in the Greater Hobart Traffic Solution, page 141 of budget paper 1, the Tasman Bridge funding and the Southern Outlet are put together. There’s only $2 million budgeted from the federal government for this financial year and $6.7 million from the state. Could you tell the committee how much will be spent on the Tasman Bridge at this point, given your explanation previously?
Mr ROCKLIFF – The total project is $130 million, which we’re sharing $65 million to $65 million state and federal. That’s the answer to the totality of the Tasman Bridge.
Ms BURNET – Given those changes that you hinted at or spoke of –
Mr ROCKLIFF – In terms of the rescoping exercise, my understanding is that what I’ve spoken about today in terms of the safety barrier and the widening, albeit the cantilever of 3.5 metres is too wide for wind and other structural matters, the rescoping, Ms McIntyre, is that $130?
Ms McINTYRE – The $130 million is the total budget for the Tasman Bridge pathways and strengthening. The scope needs to be more developed before we can provide detail about what the actual budget or what the cost will be of the rescope work. There will still be potentially some pathway widening. There will be bridge strengthening. Both the internal and external barriers will come at a really high cost and there will be connection improvements to the pathways at either end.
Ms BURNET – That’s on either end. I have major concerns in relation to the fact that you can’t, effectively, widen that very narrow area to ride or walk, particularly if you have other pedestrians or riders coming towards you. I just can’t understand why this cannot be widened effectively for what was a great community concern when there was consultation?
Mr ROCKLIFF – I respect the reason for your question. All the analysis, including wind analysis, if I can call it that, with the wider cantilever of 3.5 metres, the wind and the fact that the bridge was built in 1965, the structural integrity of the bridge isn’t at a capacity to take the wider cantilever. That is why we have had to retreat on the width but remain committed to the human safety changes. I’m not an engineer. Denise?
Ms McINTYRE – I’d be happy to add a little bit to that. It’s not impossible, but it would be at very high cost. There would be work required to the piles to strengthen the piles and the piers to enable further cantilever of the existing cantilever construction.
Mr ROCKLIFF – We have the project manager, Robyn Hawkins here. Robyn, thanks very much for joining us at the table. Apologies for my very simplistic explanation to answer the question by Ms Burnet. If you got anything further to add, please.
Ms HAWKINS – Yes, you are correct. It is a combination of the wind load that would be generated from the full upgrade which we were proposing with the 3.5 metre paths on each side, and also the weight of those upgrades, the load that effectively puts on the bridge, and the need for strengthening of the structure. As Denise McIntyre mentioned, the cost of that is significantly more than the project budget. As part of the investigation work that we’ve undertaken, as the Premier mentioned, the bridge was opened in 1965 and was reconstructed or open again in 1977. At that time, it was widened from four to five lanes. Basically, in an extreme weather event, in an upgraded situation with three and a half metre paths on each side with full safety screens, the foundations of the bridge would be over capacity. That is the reason that the project has effectively been rescoped to focus on our primary objective, which is to improve safety on the pathways and provide higher safety screens on the water side and the road side.
