Sensational-Adelaide.com

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:42 pm

I think the preferred option is the rail under but at a whopping $450m (with property resumptions) it seems v. expensive. Even the $300m road bridge is almost double the original $171m budget.

I’m no expert but I’d certainly be interested to see a full itemised cost estimate that brings them to that figure. Oaklands only cost $174 million; yes it had only very minimal property acquisition (one or two? Vietnam Veterans Assn. was the notable one) but needed full excavation. Aren’t bridges and overpasses supposed to be easier and cheaper to build than excavating and reinforcing an underpass?

Quite obvious the department has already settled on the rail over road option, its the cheapest, least disruption to rail services and they can bring some of the expertise from the Melbourne Level Crossing Removal Authority. (MLCRA), which I suspect they have already done so.

Really hoping they wise up and come to common sense about expanding the project scope to include Jetty Road and elevate Brighton and Hove stations.

Spotto wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:02 am

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:42 pm

I think the preferred option is the rail under but at a whopping $450m (with property resumptions) it seems v. expensive. Even the $300m road bridge is almost double the original $171m budget.

I’m no expert but I’d certainly be interested to see a full itemised cost estimate that brings them to that figure. Oaklands only cost $174 million; yes it had only very minimal property acquisition (one or two? Vietnam Veterans Assn. was the notable one) but needed full excavation. Aren’t bridges and overpasses supposed to be easier and cheaper to build than excavating and reinforcing an underpass?

I think the issue with a rail underpass is the fact that this location is much closer to the sea, requiring additional engineering and equipment costs such as pumps. Then there are also issues around rising sea levels.

Norman wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:38 pm

Spotto wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:02 am

how good is he wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:42 pm

I think the preferred option is the rail under but at a whopping $450m (with property resumptions) it seems v. expensive. Even the $300m road bridge is almost double the original $171m budget.

I’m no expert but I’d certainly be interested to see a full itemised cost estimate that brings them to that figure. Oaklands only cost $174 million; yes it had only very minimal property acquisition (one or two? Vietnam Veterans Assn. was the notable one) but needed full excavation. Aren’t bridges and overpasses supposed to be easier and cheaper to build than excavating and reinforcing an underpass?

I think the issue with a rail underpass is the fact that this location is much closer to the sea, requiring additional engineering and equipment costs such as pumps. Then there are also issues around rising sea levels.

I fully understand that and I support rail over as the most realistic option, my question was concerning why the cost of a Hove sky rail is so high compared to the cost of what they built at Oaklands. I know they can’t copy-paste Oaklands to Hove because the site challenges are very different.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:19 am

Quite obvious the department has already settled on the rail over road option, its the cheapest, least disruption to rail services and they can bring some of the expertise from the Melbourne Level Crossing Removal Authority. (MLCRA), which I suspect they have already done so.

Really hoping they wise up and come to common sense about expanding the project scope to include Jetty Road and elevate Brighton and Hove stations.

Let's just hope they don't cave in to the pressure from the noisy minority first.
Only a year out from the next state election.

Indeed. NIMBYísm at its finest, people that moved into the vicinity of a known level crossing bottleneck, and now stomping their feet because the proposed solution doesn't look pretty. And quite happy to demand a more complex solution that will disrupt rail services for tens of thousands of commuters for months, if not years, instead.

The weak opinions of the few outweigh the needs of the many, so it seems.

That's where our politicians fail the majority.
They are unable to put to the majority, the benefits of such projects....for the majority, instead the selfish whiny minority get air time.
The government and department should be so actively vocal, that the minority's whining is drowned out by default.

Seriously, this little insignificant protest was the first story on the nightly bulletins. Appalling.

If the people have legitimate concerns that deserve to be heard, then it's their democratic right to provide feedback and put their voice out through the media.

Norman wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:09 pm

If the people have legitimate concerns that deserve to be heard, then it's their democratic right to provide feedback and put their voice out through the media.

Of course their concerns are legitimate. If your house was in the way, you'd be upset too. You wouldn't want an elevated train line overlooking your backyard either.

But the choice to live there was their own.
If they failed to consider what could one day happen, that's their own fault.

Their concerns being legitimate (to them), doesn't mean that those concerns outweigh whats in benefit of the majority.

If I was one of them, Id argue the government should buy out the properties and relocate those affected (wasnt there some community group that's had to move?), or turn it into open, green space.

From https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... _questions

The number of house acquisitions on the rail over option is 5, and rail under is 46.

I would have thought that the rail over option would have been preferred to limit the amount of house acquisitions alone. Especially in that area, 5 to 46 is a HUGE difference.

greenknight wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:04 pm

From https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... _questions

The number of house acquisitions on the rail over option is 5, and rail under is 46.

I would have thought that the rail over option would have been preferred to limit the amount of house acquisitions alone. Especially in that area, 5 to 46 is a HUGE difference.

NIMBY logic. People have the right to voice their concerns and opinions, but when common sense is stacked so high against them it's a bit of a laugh.

"I don't want a sky rail that will divide my community even though there will be less division with new open community space beneath the railway, easier connections across both sides, less disruption and time for construction and less property acquisition. I want an expensive, time consuming, 9x as much property acquisition trench that will actually physically divide the community."

Not only that, but a trench with no temporary line as part of the construction plan, meaning trains to Seaford would be interrupted for months, possibly well over a year.

Unfortunately (and I say this as a recent arrival), at times Adelaide's mentality is still more country town than mid-sized city, and the idea that some people might be impacted slightly for the greater good of the many doesn't mean much yet.

Saltwater wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:52 pm

Not only that, but a trench with no temporary line as part of the construction plan, meaning trains to Seaford would be interrupted for months, possibly well over a year.

Unfortunately (and I say this as a recent arrival), at times Adelaide's mentality is still more country town than mid-sized city, and the idea that some people might be impacted slightly for the greater good of the many doesn't mean much yet.

That is not "country town mentality". Country towns are full of people who work together for the good of all and each other.

It's all about me" is the big-city attitude. Compare the volunteer CFS who's members leave their own homes to help their neighbours to the city residents who just complain that the paid MFS didn't arrive fast enough.

The petition to cease any plan to remove the Hove Level Crossing has around 600 signatures to date. Hopefully the Transport Minister and the DPTI will contrast that with the 1,000s of passengers who need to use the line every day. I read somewhere that over 4 million trips are taken on this line every year.

My concern is that those passengers who live South of this work in Seaford, Noarlunga, Hallett Cove etc won’t have been anywhere near as active in the community consultation, emailing of decision makers etc. The Rail Under presentation said “Project Timeline - Rail shut down / closure if rail line not moved (slewed) 12+ months” which is a fairly lengthy spell of disruption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk