37

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.3 CONSIDERATION OF PIER OPTIONS

It is important to achieve a well proportioned structure whereby the various sub-components contribute to the overall composition of the bridge. Due to the height of the structure, the piers form a principal element as these will be highly visible. Therefore a high quality urban design outcome for these components is important.

Various pier options were investigated based on the afore-mentioned superstructure and deck geometry. The intention of these pier options investigation is to determine key design principles that assist in formulating design guidelines to be adopted in the final design. Hence a variety of pier treatments were evaluated against a base case in the form of a single blade pier with a curved termination or leading edge.

The preferred design, Option 1a is based on a ‘V’ shape when seen in a cross-sectional elevation. The leading edges are curved to create a more fluid character sympathetic to the maritime setting. A strong vertical reveal has been introduced to articulate the overall mass of the element and create a more sculptural form. The form language responds well to the function of the pier, expressing the movement of forces and its tapered shape minimises its footprint at the waterline and allows for a variety of pier heights.

A number of variants of this scheme were developed and are illustrated overleaf. These include a scheme without the heavy central reveal, a scheme devoid of rounded leading edges and a taper to the outer edges; and a scheme devoid of rounded edges and a taper to the centre.

Other schemes include:

• Option 2, also a ‘V’ shape with a central base • Option 3 based on two piers joined at the base • Option 4, an asymmetric design to express the curvature of the

horizontal alignment • Option 5 considered an arched arrangement • Option 6 that investigated a headstock solution. All piers have been designed with the intent to appear as close to vertical elements when seen in front elevation. This is to limit potential issues with of maritime traffic envelopes and clearances whilst retaining a consistent pier shape throughout.

A single blade pier with curved termination Option 1a - Preferred FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017

Option 1b

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Option 1c

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Option 1d

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

38

39

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Option 2

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Option 3

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Option 4

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017

Option 5

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

Option 6

FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW OF PEIR AND PILE CAP

The following key design principles are considered important in the resolution of the pier:

• Keep pier shapes unified and simple • Introduce curved edges to soften the pier’s appearance • Articulate the mass of the piers through the introduction of reveals and

shadowlines • Taper pier in cross-sectional elevation to minimise its mass • Retain a slender proportion (width of pier) in front elevation • Express the movement of forces in the pier.

40

41

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.0 PREFERRED OPTION

6.1 THE BRIDGE

A preferred option has been identified during a Value Management Workshop with the objective of selecting a preferred horizontal alignment. The workshop included stakeholder representatives including Council as well as Roads and Maritime and design team representatives.

From the three options presented, the Western Option was selected by the workshop participants as providing the best outcomes within the project’s constraints.

The design team has refined this option by eliminating some of the afore-mentioned undesirable outcomes. Key modifications include:

• Reduction of the radius to 600M to achieve a continuos radius up to the western abutment and avoiding the introduction of a separate superstructure typology across Clyde Street

• Refinement of the radius to situate the northern abutment as close as possible to the existing Princes Highway and mitigating the extent of impacts to skyline trees on top of the escarpment will be considered as part of the design development.

Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017

Princes H

ighway

Mcleads Creek

N

300 301

325

L 1.310

Phone 8837 0455

MCW4A2 PH

350

North Street

L 85.846

375 387.156 TS

Mcle

ads C

reek

400

427.156 SC

425

L 40.000

450 North Street

L 82.205 R 350.000

475

Mcl

eads

Cre

ek

500

Clyd

e St

reet

509.362 CS

525

Clyd

e St

reet

L 40.000

550 549.362 SC

575

Clyd

e St

reet

600

EU

W

625

N

EU

EU

W

EU

EU

W S

W ?P

EU

EU OU

T T

T T

T T

T OU

EU

T

TZ

650

W S

?P

EU

T

T

W OU EU

OU

EU

W

T

S

?P W OU

T

T

TZ

EU

EU

T OU

EU W

T

T

S

?P W OU

TZ

EU

EU

675

EU

W S

T

T

OU T

?P W

EU

OU EU

TZ

T

T

T OU

EU

W S

?P

W EU

EU

OU

T

OU

T

W

T

TZ

OU

EU

W S

EU

?P

OU

700

EU

T

W

EU

T

OU

T

EU

W

?P

TZ

S

EU

T

OU

W EU OU

T

T T

EU

W

?P

S

EU

T

OU

TZ

W OU EU

T

EU

W S

?P

EU

T

OU

W

TZ

EU OU

T

EU

T

Clyd

e Ri

ver

W S

EU

W

?P

OU

T

EU OU

T

TZ

EU

T

W S

EU

?P

OU

T

W OU

T

EU

EU

?P

OU

TZ

750

T

S W

EU

T

W EU OU

T

EU

W

T

?P

OU

TZ

S

EU

W OU

T

EU

EU

T

T

L 452.007 R 599.995

S W

EU

?P

OU

Clyd

e Ri

ver

W OU

EU

T

TZ

775

EU

T

T

?P

S W

OU

EU

EU

T W OU

TZ

EU

T

T

?P

S

EU

W

OU

EU

W OU T EU

T

TZ

EU

S W

T

?P

OU

EU

T

800

W OU EU T

S

W

?P

TZ

T

EU

OU

EU

W EU OU T

T

T ?P

EU

EU

S

W

OU

TZ

W OU T

T

EU ?P

EU

EU

S

W

T

OU

825TZ

W OU

T

EU T

EU

?P

T

EU

S

W

OU T

W

TZ

OU EU T

EU

?P

T

OU

EU

S

W

T

W EU OU

T

EU

?P

TZ

T

OU

850

S

W

EU

T

W EU OU

T

EU

S

W

OU

T

?P

TZ

T

W EU OU

OU

T

S

W

?P

T

T

TZ

W OU

T

?P

W

OU

EU

T

S

875

T

W

TZ

OU

OU

EU

T

?P

T

S

T

W OU

OU

EU

TZ

T

T

S

OU

W OU EU

TT

900

TZ

W OU

T

EU

OU

TZ

Wha

rf R

oad

Princes Highway

OU

950

925

TZ TZ

TZ TZ

975

T T T

1000

L 59.304

1001.369 CT

T

N

T T

Phone 8837 0455

1025

T T

1050

T

Phone 8837 0455

1060.673 TC

T

1075

ne

Wra

y St

reet

Pho

37 0455

88

Old Punt Road

1100

L 176.098

R -600.000

1125

1150

Phone 8837 0455

1175 1200

Phone 8837 045

1225

Pent

hous

e Plac

e

5

Lord Place

L 36.791

1236.771 CT

1250

Old Punt Road

1274

Peni

nsul

a D

rive

King

s Hig

hway

King

s Hig

hway

Princes Highway

Phone 8837 045

DATUM R.L. -20.0

DESIGN LEVELS

EXISTING LEVELS

STATION

316.

608

2.71

7 2.

717

320.

000

2.70

6 2.

711

333.

217

2.64

5 2.

673

340.

000

2.65

0 2.

649

360.

000

2.55

2 2.

579

371.

691

2.50

2 2.

538

380.

000

2.45

9 2.

538

387.

156

2.45

4 2.

584

400.

000

2.44

1 2.

773

403.

791

2.44

2 2.

855

420.

000

2.47

9 3.

342

427.

156

2.49

9 3.

626

435.

891

2.52

8 4.

031

440.

000

2.52

9 4.

236

460.

000

2.50

7 5.

236

480.

000

2.38

0 6.

236

500.

000

2.16

2 7.

236

509.

362

2.17

9 7.

705

520.

000

2.16

6 8.

236

540.

000

2.18

5 9.

236

547.

511

549.

362

2.23

52.

239

9.61

29.

704

560.

000

2.12

4 10

.221

580.

000

2.12

8 11

.135

600.

000

1.78

0 11

.972

620.

000

1.77

2 12

.731

640.

000

13.4

14

660.

000

14.0

20

680.

000

-5.3

73

14.5

49

700.

000

-6.8

92

15.0

01

720.

000

-7.3

25

15.3

76

740.

000

-7.8

60

15.6

74

760.

000

-8.3

51

15.8

95

780.

000

-8.8

61

16.0

39

794.

511

-9.2

03

16.0

96

800.

000

-9.3

09

16.1

07

820.

000

-9.4

69

16.0

97

840.

000

-9.9

79

16.0

10

860.

000

-7.7

95

15.8

47

880.

000

-5.9

07

15.6

07

900.

000

-5.1

57

15.2

89

920.

000

14.8

95

940.

000

2.00

6 14

.424

960.

000

2.02

6 13

.876

980.

000

2.08

3 13

.251

1000

.000

5.

529

12.5

4910

01.3

69

6.17

4 12

.498

1020

.000

11

.292

11

.770

1040

.000

13

.236

10

.915

1041

.511

13

.240

10

.847

1053

.005

13

.492

10

.330

1060

.000

13

.267

10

.035

1060

.673

13

.241

10

.009

1080

.000

12

.106

9.

419

1098

.005

11

.100

9.

148

1100

.000

10

.864

9.

135

1120

.000

11

.552

9.

185

1140

.000

10

.171

9.

568

1143

.005

9.

776

9.65

5

1160

.000

1160

.087

9.

912

9.91

6 10

.165

10.1

67

1180

.000

10

.573

10

.654

1200

.000

10

.896

10

.922

T=40.0 T=40.0 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

R=350.000 R=599.995 R=-600.000

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

-0.0

%30

0.00

0 2.

723

2.73

4

k=100.0 38.5L k=12.0 111.6L k=52.0 33.217L 64.200L 494.000L

-0.3% 5.0%

316.

608

2.73

1m

403.

791

2.42

6m

794.

511

21.9

62m

-4.5

%

11.5

L

k=12.0 17.1L k=18.0 90.000L 108.000L

3.0%

1098

.005

8.30

5m

1214

.087

10

.974

10

.977

1214

.087

11.7

87m

1220

.000

10

.960

10

.967

1236

.771

10

.913

10

.834

1240

.000

10

.896

10

.791

1260

.000

10

.557

10

.392

1268

.087

10

.343

10

.167

-3.0

%

1273

.562

10

.171

10

.003

5.5L

725LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALONG - MCW4A2 PH

250m

Figure 6.1 Plan illustrating the Eastern Option with a straight alignment. Source: Aurecon

42

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

TZ TZ

T OU

T

T OU

T

T T T T OU T

T

OU T

OU

T

OU

T T

T T

T T T

OU

T T T T T

T OU T

T T

OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU

W OU EU

T T

OU T OU

T T

T OU

T

?P T T

S

W ?P OU EU W

?P OU EU ?P

W

T T

W

T

S

T

T

T

T

EU ?P OU

?P

T

OU

T

T

?P W

T

EU OU ?P W OU EU ?P

?P

T

W

OU EU

W

?P

T

T OU

T

T OU T

T

?P

EU T

OU T OU

W

OU T ?P

?P

W

?P ?P

W

?P

?P

T

OU T

T T

OU T

OU T

T

T ?P T

EU

?P ?P

T

W

OU

T

T

T T T

T

EU T

T ?P

?P OU EU EU OU OU T W EU EU T W OU EU ?P W T EU OU OU W W OU T T OU W

T EU ?P W

T EU T T

OU OU EU W EU ?P W OU OU EU

T T

T W ?P EU OU T

OU T T

W EU OU ?P W OU ?P EU

T T W OU W ?P

EU EU OU

T W EU OU T W

T T

W W

Figure 6.2 Elevation and plan. Scale 1:800. Source: Aurecon

OU OU OU

T W OUEU T T T OUEU OUEU W OUEU W OUEU T T OUW EU T T WOU W W T T TT T T T

W

43

Urban Design Report and Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTOctober 2017

ISSUE DATE AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION PREP CHECK

HIGHWAY No 1 EUROBODALLA SHIRE COINCIL

BRIDGE OVER CLYDE RIVER AT BATEMANS BAY

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OPTION 1 - SHEET C PREPARED BY

Figure 6.3 Cross section and preliminary details of the drainage system. Source: Aurecon

44

45

BATEMANS BAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT- URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Lighting

Light poles are proposed to be positioned along the traffic barrier between the shared use path and the vehicular traffic lanes. This will avoid the need for corbels along the parapet fascia, ensuring a neat design resolution. The spacing of the light poles are proposed to reflect the rhythm of the structure and these elements should be kept as low as possible to visually mitigate their presence. If required, the shared use path lighting could be complimented by either LED lighting fixtures integrated into the handrail or the traffic barrier.

Figure 6.4 Concept for bridge lighting