top of page
Screenshot 2023-06-13 180949.png
  • Writer's pictureThe Beagle

Nelligen Progress request more works as part of new bridge project

NELLIGEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT & KINGS HIGHWAY WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT With a view to improve highway & pedestrian safety, Nelligen Progress Association have formally requested NSW Roads & Maritime Services to consider additional planning/funding for: 1.Extension of the proposed highway realignment (approx.150 mtrs) from the Caravan Park/Hotel towards the river, with inclusion of an intersection upgrade to Reid St 2.Inclusion of a pedestrian pathway/cycle way from Caravan Park/Hotel to the proposed new village entry intersection. This request carries the support of Eurobodalla Shire Council. What follows is from the RMS - Nelligen Bridge Replacement Project webpage (reprinted for news purposes) The new bridge would be built upstream of the existing bridge ensuring a safe and reliable Kings Highway crossing of the Clyde River at Nelligen.Once the new bridge is open the existing Nelligen Bridge would be removed.The NSW Government has allocated $1.5 million in 2016/17 to further develop the project. The existing Nelligen Bridge was built in 1964 and forms part of the Kings Highway crossing of the Clyde River at Nelligen. During routine bridge inspections we identified some of the supporting concrete pillars under the bridge had deteriorated. The bridge has been assessed and is still able to safely carry normal traffic loads, however the pillars will weaken over time and the bridge will require significant future maintenance or replacement. The primary objective of the project is to ensure we retain a safe and reliable crossing of the Clyde River at Nelligen without imposing speed or weight restrictions.To do this the project investigated four options for repair or replacement of the bridge against a range of functional, environmental and socio-economic criteria, and consulted with Eurobodalla Shire Council and local residents.The option to provide a new bridge to the north (or upstream) of the existing crossing was considered to be the best option because it would minimise impacts on residents and heritage. The preferred option report is available here for information.

NOTE: Comments were TRIALED - in the end it failed as humans will be humans and it turned into a pile of merde; only contributed to by just a handful who did little to add to the conversation of the issue at hand. Anyone who would like to contribute an opinion are encouraged to send in a Letter to the Editor where it might be considered for publication

bottom of page