Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6949
I assume you mean people's property
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 869a9747dbHove, Brighton residents shocked and angered after being issued with relocation letter ahead of $300m level crossing development
Rachel Moore and Kaysee Miller
January 21, 2021 - 3:22PM
The Advertiser
Housing SA residents in Hove and Brighton were shocked to open a letter telling them they were being moved on from their homes to make way for the $300m Hove level crossing development.
Public housing residents in Hove and Brighton were shocked to learn last week that they were being moved on to make way for a rail crossing development.
Sixteen residents who live in single-storey Housing SA units next to the Seaford rail line received a relocation letter on Wednesday, January 13.
Resident Judith Paterson said she had been a “bundle of nerves” since finding out she would be relocated after living at the units for eight years.
“I can’t sleep, I can’t eat because there are just no houses out there and we’ve got until June to be relocated,” Ms Paterson, 60, said.
“We’ve had no consultation, we’ve seen nobody and ... I think it’s ludicrous, it’s not fair.
“I don’t think the upgrade is needed, of course Brighton Road gets busy ... every major road is the same in Adelaide it’s not just Brighton so why are they picking on us?”
Local resident and business owner Jane Fleming, who is also a Holdfast Bay councillor, said the eviction letter demonstrated the State Government planned to press ahead with the $300 million level crossing, despite strong community opposition and a lack of consultation.
“Residents are concerned that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport is rushing through the option for a 1.4km long and 9 metre high rail bridge without considering the impacts to the community,” Ms Fleming said.
It aims to improve travel times for motorists on Brighton Rd, and increase safety for all users, including pedestrians, by removing the road-rail crossing point.
Ms Fleming said the community had been assured that consultation with residents would continue into early February.
“But judging by the flurry of acquisitions the Department is already pursuing a particular option,” Ms Fleming said.
About 70 concerned residents met on Monday night to oppose the rail crossing development.
Ms Fleming said a community Facebook page – Our Community Says No to Hove Crossing Development – had been set up to give residents a voice.
She suggested better synching the five sets of traffic lights within 1.5km of each other on Brighton Rd and encouraging traffic to divert off Lonsdale Road on to Majors and then Main South roads would improve traffic flow.
Infrastructure and Transport Minister Corey Wingard said the level crossing project had been “on the cards for decades”.
“We need to find a solution to improve safety, reduce noise and air pollution, improve travel times and stop backstreet rat running,” Mr Wingard said.
He said there were four proposals being considered – road under, road over, rail under and rail over.
“We’re consulting with the community about the pros and cons of each but my goal is to reduce the number of homes that will need to be demolished,” Mr Wingard said.
“Engagement with the community is an essential part of the process and we want to keep everyone well informed throughout the life of the project.”
Thanks for sharing this. I’ve reshared within a couple of the community groups that I’m part of in Marino, Brighton and Seacliff.ginzahikari wrote:Has anyone seen these proposed designs yet? The other options are in the project website.
https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... l_Over.pdf
Wow! They said they consulted with Melbourne’s Level Crossing Removal Authority, and after seeing this I definitely believe it. Looks fantastic! Having two separate skyrails makes it a bit less monstrous when you’re standing right near it and lets more light into the new public space beneath.ginzahikari wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:38 pmHas anyone seen these proposed designs yet? The other options are in the project website.
https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... l_Over.pdf
Totally agree the rail bridge (which is also my preferred option btw) has been given a beautiful render, in contrast to the other three. Surely the options in reality are do nothing, or do the rail bridge?
Totally agree. Wow. You couldn’t make them look less appealing.
Is there an ability to maintain railcars for anything like 12 months isolated south of Brighton? I thought there was only overnight stabling, not any current facilities to clean or service them. That would add another cost if the entire route was not done as buses south of Oaklands..AndyWelsh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pmHoldfast Bay elected members are supporting the rail-under road option as nearby residents have concerns about the rail over road option.
They suggested 12 months of shuttle buses between Brighton and Oaklands while the rail under option was built would lower costs for this option, rather than trying to keep the line running with temporary tracks and the extra property acquisition that requires.
Corey Wingard said if Holdfast Bay support the most expensive option out of the four provided, he expected they make a financial contribution if that option went ahead.
How any option underground can proceed on budget with the sea level issue, I’m not sure?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Locals might be saying they want the more expensive, more disruptive option at the moment but give it a couple months of works and they’ll be complaining about the noise and rail replacement buses and traffic problems and land acquisition.AndyWelsh wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pmHoldfast Bay elected members are supporting the rail-under road option as nearby residents have concerns about the rail over road option.
They suggested 12 months of shuttle buses between Brighton and Oaklands while the rail under option was built would lower costs for this option, rather than trying to keep the line running with temporary tracks and the extra property acquisition that requires.
Corey Wingard said if Holdfast Bay support the most expensive option out of the four provided, he expected they make a financial contribution if that option went ahead.
How any option underground can proceed on budget with the sea level issue, I’m not sure?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk