The department of transport is seeking community comment on the report into options to demolish or restore the Glebe Island Bridge.

"Based on data by the NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics, there are 229 cyclists and 101 walkers each work day who could potentially enjoy time savings by commuting to work over the low-level restored Glebe Island Bridge instead of the high-level Anzac Bridge. In the cost-benefit analysis, it is assumed that, on average, cyclists save 5 minutes per trip while walkers save 15 minutes per trip."

"The restored Bridge’s heritage benefits and the amenity benefits that will be enjoyed by recreational walkers and cyclists have not been explicitly quantified in the cost-benefit analysis. Instead, ACIL Allen has calculated the threshold value that the community must ascribe to the heritage aspects of the restored Glebe Island Bridge and to its potential amenity benefits in order for Restoration to be the preferred option."

"Conclusion [of the Report]

The cost-benefit analysis indicates that Full Demolition of the Glebe Island Bridge generates a relatively high BCR of approximately 3.0 under a 7 per cent real discount rate. About a quarter of the benefits of this option are attributable to maintenance cost savings relative to the Base Case, while nearly three-quarters of the benefits is due to expected maritime travel time savings from the widened channel. The BCR is therefore sensitive to the assumed average time saving per vessel. If the assumed average time saving is halved from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, the BCR decreases to 1.92.

Restoration of the Glebe Island Bridge generates benefits from reduced maintenance costs relative to the Base Case as well as commuter time savings for some of the cyclists and walkers who currently commute to work over the high-level Anzac Bridge. However, these benefits are only a third of the value of the estimated time losses that would be experienced by vessel operators when the Bridge is primarily closed and only periodically opened after restoration.

The heritage value of the restored Bridge and the amenity benefits experienced by recreational walkers and cyclists have not been explicitly quantified in the cost- benefit analysis. However, ACIL Allen’s analysis suggests that they have to be at least $125.1 million in 2013 dollars in present value terms over the 30-year analysis period (under a 7 per cent real discount rate) in order for Restoration to be the preferred option.

If these “required” unquantified benefits are to be evenly split between heritage and amenity benefits, the community must value the heritage aspects of the Glebe Island Bridge at more than $62.5 million in 2013 dollars and value the amenity benefits to recreational cyclists and walkers at more than $5.5 million a year. Assuming 1,000 trips are made each day by such cyclists and walkers, the community would have to value each trip at more than $15.20 in 2013 dollars."

More at:

See also:
09/06: Why the Glebe Island Bridge needs to be listed on the State Heritage Register and
26/01: The Glebe Island Bridges

Institution of Engineers Submission at

Construction of the Swing Bridge and Roadway connecting to it on Glebe Island

1903 Image of Swing Bridge and Brick elevated Roadway on Glebe Island

05/11: Please retain the Glebe Island Bridge and make it a Cycle and Walkway

Sydney, ANZAC and Glebe Island Bridges, Sydney - photo Marghanita

See also Battle over Rozelle and Blackwattle Bay
report formGladesville, Drummoyne (Iron Cove) and Glebe Island Tram Swing Bridges