From attending the first two meetings it became obvious that the RTA clearly had done their groundwork although some options such as "driver education" (in my opinion) were not considered in detail. Therefore, as a representative for the Clarence Environment (Centre), I was never too worried that any of the options other than at the existing bridge would have much of a chance. The impact studies as well as the economic benefit analysis showed that an additional two lanes as well as the removal of the kinks in the old bridge are the best way to achieve the objectives.

However, some CFG members were disappointed and severely challenged for example the traffic studies and even the whole evaluation process. At the third meeting due to "popular demand" option no. 3 (across Susan Island – coming from Turf St.) got a more detailed investigation. The outcome was that a bridge over Susan Island (in comparison with the option of building a bridge next to the old one) would:

• not reduce delays at existing bridge
• not reduce accidents and injuries at new approaches and intersections
• not minimise impacts on access for the community
• not provide opportunity for economic and tourist development for Grafton and Clarence Valley Region
• not minimise impacts on the natural environment
• not minimise impacts of traffic noise on existing sensitive development
• not achieve maximum effectiveness of expenditure (due to longer span of the bridge, a pylon on the island and an additional bridge over the railway line, etc).

Two criteria provided better outcomes with option no. 3. These were:

• provision of vertical clearance for heavy transport on Summerland Way
• reduce through traffic to CBD.

A further two criteria were considered to have the same outcome for both option no. 3 and at the existing bridge:

• same flooding impacts
• have a similar impact on indigenous heritage. (?? no comment)

An outburst by one of the CFG members during one of the meetings was as follows: "A friend of mine overheard a conversation between the wife of one of the RTA officers – high up – who is involved in the Bridge Option Evaluation Process. It has already been decided that the bridge will be next to the existing bridge and the whole evaluation process is a farce"

The latter basically reflects the impression I got from the meetings – but because it would be the lesser evil, I have no complaints. Another member who I met in private described the Evaluation process as: "They (the RTA) are trying to convince us by offering us gold in one hand and shit in the other". I’ll keep you posted.