PRO: Oaklands Rail Overpass

[[Shuz]]

I have heard also about Warradale being closed. But I didn't know that was because of the overpass.

[Aidan]

I have heard also about Warradale being closed. But I didn't know that was because of the overpass.

I'm guessing the reason they want an overpass is as an excuse to close Warradale. The stations are quite close together and they want to reduce the number, but it's a very bad plan, firstly because Warradale is not well served by buses so needs the station, and secondly because it would involve more disruption on the Noarlunga Line.

[Tonsley213]

Just to clarify; a rail overpass?

The f- point was it rebuilding Oaklands only to demolish it!?

It a poorly built station anyway.

[deano91]

Warradale Station is a joke, I catch the train to Noarlunga for work 3 or 4 times a week and I can never get over how close to Oaklands it is.

And yes, the flyer was definitely saying it will be a rail overpass. The sooner the better I say, it took me about 20 minutes to drive home from Marion today because Diagonal Road was a carpark - I live about 2km away!

[crawf]

Just to clarify; a rail overpass?

The f- point was it rebuilding Oaklands only to demolish it!?

Considering all the controversial back then with rebuilding Oaklands, eg location, design, costs

Which is quite odd now considering Munno Para, Elizabeth, Hallett Cove etc is being rebuilt without any fuss

[muzzamo]

If this does happen, I think it would make sense to rename the station to Marion station to emphasize its usefulness in getting to the Marion precinct. Then rename the existing Marion to Marion East/North or Westminster or something.

Also there should be a greater emphasis on bus connections, such that the 733/734 from down south continue from Marion all the way to the new station where they terminate.

[mattblack]

Just to confirm this now has a space on DTEI website.

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/oaklandspark

And just to clarify, rebuilding the station was for the benefit the rail and part of the 2.6 Billion being spent.

The overpass will not be coming from the rail budget and does not benefit the rail corridor because it increases their running costs; it’s about clearing roads from conflict points.

[rhino]

I believe they will be elevating the railway and raising the station. Something I heard on the radio yesterday morning.

Well waddaya know!

[muzzamo]

The media response to this will be interesting, was Conlon the minister who originally signed off on the station?

[metro]

Politically it could cost Labor a lot of votes in two of their most marginal seats, Bright and Mitchell. People wont be impressed about the wasting of money to demolish a brand new station. A road bridge just makes so much more sense.

[mattblack]

Politically it could cost Labor a lot of votes in two of their most marginal seats, Bright and Mitchell. People wont be impressed about the wasting of money to demolish a brand new station. A road bridge just makes so much more sense.

You can only work within the budget you have. Rail bridge cheaper, quicker and less if any compulsary acquisitions required, unlike a road bridge. If money was no issue then an underpass would be on the cards, but it is.

[[Shuz]]

Politically it could cost Labor a lot of votes in two of their most marginal seats, Bright and Mitchell. People wont be impressed about the wasting of money to demolish a brand new station. A road bridge just makes so much more sense.

I sent an email to the project team saying pretty much the exact same thing - Nothing about the Labor seats, but the other bits.

[metro]

You can only work within the budget you have. Rail bridge cheaper, quicker and less if any compulsary acquisitions required, unlike a road bridge. If money was no issue then an underpass would be on the cards, but it is.

how is the rail bridge cheaper? the ramps at either end have to be longer because trains can only climb a certain grade, also the structure has to be far stronger than a road bridge, trains are much heavier, and if that train is doing 100+km/h it has to be even stronger again, thus greater cost. The rail bridge would require the demolition of a band new station and the clearing of a lot of significant trees, a road bridge would save the band new station and allow most of those significant trees to remain standing.

I've seen it done both interstate and overseas, sticking a bridge over the rail lines is the quickest and cheapest way to go. For grade separations that benefit the road users, it should be the road users that suffer the inconvenience of construction (which is what a road bridge would do), not make rail users suffer the inconvenience of construction for the road users benefit.

[rhino]

One of the biggest costs in building a road bridge, IMO, is associated with buying the properties / compensating the owners along the western side of Diagonal Road just north of the rail crossing. Apart from this, the bridge would need to have a bend in it, which adds to cost, and several streets (Railway Tce, Morphett Rd (northern part), Addison Rd) would lose their connection to Diagonal Road. The rail bridge makes far more sense to me, although I admit it's a pity the station has only recently been built.

[Aidan]

One of the biggest costs in building a road bridge, IMO, is associated with buying the properties / compensating the owners along the western side of Diagonal Road just north of the rail crossing. Apart from this, the bridge would need to have a bend in it, which adds to cost, and several streets (Railway Tce, Morphett Rd (northern part), Addison Rd) would lose their connection to Diagonal Road. The rail bridge makes far more sense to me, although I admit it's a pity the station has only recently been built.

There is no good reason to build it on the western side of Diagonal Road when there's so much free space on the eastern side!

But it's in a primarily residential area, and an overpass (rail or road) would be rather noisy. The station was designed to be compatible with an underpass, and that's what they should build.