[PRO] Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
I Follow PAFC
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 69 times

[PRO] Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#1 Post by I Follow PAFC » Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:05 pm

Come along to an info session for the Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project to meet the project team, ask questions and provide feedback.

Drop in anytime at the Port Adelaide Library, Community Room - 2-4 Church Street, Port Adelaide on:

• Wednesday, 26 February, between 11am – 1pm; or
• Thursday, 27 February, between 5pm – 7pm

This project will ensure the bridge’s long term structural integrity and safety for all users.

https://www.facebook.com/DPTISA/photos/ ... 655956525/
I Follow The Port Adelaide Football Club
https://www.facebook.com/IFollowThePAFC/

marbles
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:22 pm

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#2 Post by marbles » Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:28 pm

ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha
Untitled-1.jpg

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 302 times
Been thanked: 633 times
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#3 Post by ChillyPhilly » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:01 pm

marbles wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:28 pm
ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg
This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA
Been thanked: 269 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#4 Post by Patrick_27 » Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:25 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:01 pm
marbles wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:28 pm
ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg
This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.
Unless I've missed something from the years of researching the MATS plan, I think you might be mistaken about that ever being a part of the MATS plan.

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 544 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#5 Post by rev » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:59 am

marbles wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:28 pm
ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg
Port Road ends at the Grand Junction Road intersection. Its called Commercial Road from there onwards.

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 544 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#6 Post by rev » Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:04 am

ChillyPhilly wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:01 pm
marbles wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:28 pm
ive always thought the lighthouse should be moved (relocated) and port road simply have a bridge straight over the river

the whole left turn down st vincent to get to birkenhead bridge is silly....

bye bye birkenhead hotel haha

Untitled-1.jpg
This was proposed by the MATS Plan. But nowadays, this would do too much damage to the Port.
How would it do too much damage?
That section of commercial rosd is wide, and theres an oversized footpath on the council side.
Lighthouse could be moved.
And why would the hotel need to be demolished? A bridge doesnt have to go in a straight line.......

Not that it would ever happen.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1329
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 311 times
Been thanked: 179 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#7 Post by Nort » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:29 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the traffic planning for Port Adelaide to try and reduce heavy vehicles moving through the town center down Commercial Road? Moving the bridge in this way would actively encourage through-traffic.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 767 times
Been thanked: 381 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#8 Post by SRW » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:51 am

Nort wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:29 am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the traffic planning for Port Adelaide to try and reduce heavy vehicles moving through the town center down Commercial Road? Moving the bridge in this way would actively encourage through-traffic.
Which is why it's just some punter's thought bubble not an actual plan. There's no reason for it and actually works against the outcome we desire for the Port.

To the real proposal, an upgrade of Birkenhead Bridge. Yes, very good. It's looking worse for wear.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 302 times
Been thanked: 633 times
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#9 Post by ChillyPhilly » Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:01 pm

An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 179 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#10 Post by Goodsy » Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:45 pm

an upgraded bridge should have a provision for a tram line

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2075
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 11 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#11 Post by Aidan » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:05 pm

Goodsy wrote:an upgraded bridge should have a provision for a tram line
No it shouldn't. The Jervois bridge would be a much better route for trams than the Birkenhead Bridge.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 544 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#12 Post by rev » Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:51 am

ChillyPhilly wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:01 pm
An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.
See this attitude is why so many people can't stand cyclists.

Why can't an upgrade incorporate a better outcome for both?

But your first question should be is there room to accommodate cyclists on this bridge.
Your second question should be is there a better route for cyclists.

Shame such an ugly bridgeis heritage listed amd likely cant be demolished and rebuilt unless its unsafe to use.

Listy
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 23 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#13 Post by Listy » Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:10 pm

The shared pathway on the bridge itself is perfectly fine. It's reasonably new, fairly wide & much improved compared to the old setup (ie no path at all). What needs significant improvement are the approaches to the bridge along Nelson St. There are good shared pathways just a couple of hundred metres north and south of the bridge, but in between there's some dodgy & confusing infrastructure - disappearing pathways & bike lanes etc, especially on the northern side.

Honey of a City
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:42 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 81 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#14 Post by Honey of a City » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:08 pm

rev wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:51 am
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:01 pm
An upgraded bridge should prioritise pedestrian and cycling connections - make it even less desirable for vehicle use.
See this attitude is why so many people can't stand cyclists.

Why can't an upgrade incorporate a better outcome for both?

But your first question should be is there room to accommodate cyclists on this bridge.
Your second question should be is there a better route for cyclists.

Shame such an ugly bridgeis heritage listed amd likely cant be demolished and rebuilt unless its unsafe to use.
There’s already heaps of room for pedestrians and cyclists on the Birk Bridge. That’s not going to change. Heritage listing is about heritage, not ugliness, which is in the eye of the beholder. The heritage listing is because the structure met a range of criteria under the Act.

bits
Legendary Member!
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 121 times

[PRO] Re: Birkenhead Bridge Upgrade Project

#15 Post by bits » Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:22 am


Honey of a City wrote: The heritage listing is because the structure met a range of criteria under the Act.
"Significance
The Birkenhead Bridge across the Gawler Reach of the Port River was completed in 1940. It is significant for being Australia's first double bascule bridge. The only other opening bridge remaining in South Australia (in 1999) is the vertical lift span bridge at Paringa on the River Murray."

First double bascule and remaining opening bridge make it a significant piece of engineering history for SA.

It is to be remembered for its engineering at its time not for what it looks like.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests