[COM] Oaklands Crossing | $174m

[Westside]

Great news! But what about removing the lights where Diagonal and Morphett Rd meet? And removing the pedestrian crossing lights? Plus the new design looks like it adds another set of lights for people to turn right onto Morphett Rd heading north, which will actually add congestion. I predict in a few years there will be the same traffic problems as we have now, if those three sets of lights aren't removed.

Ah, what? The new design finally allows motorists travelling North on to Morphett Rd to avoid having to rat-run via Prunus St, so it most definitely will reduce congestion. The idea is not to turn Morphett and Diagonal Rds into freeways - there will still be significant pedestrian movements that need to be catered for, but taking out the rail crossing will improve amenity and safety for all users, not just motorists.

[Eurostar]

Ideally if the money was there the line could stay down in the trench and come up after Jetty Road (Brighton). Also have a mini office/apartments/shops and park on top of Oaklands Station.

[Nathan]

Looks like the actual configuration shown in the initial render/video isn't locked in, and there's a number of options being evaluated.

Here's Option 2, which appears to close off Morphett Rd on the northern side of the line.

18955094_1546806458693889_5690471615488959496_o.jpg (114.54 KiB) Viewed 3697 times

[OlympusAnt]

I wonder if the upgrade will result in the closure of Warradale

[Westside]

Looks like the actual configuration shown in the initial render/video isn't locked in, and there's a number of options being evaluated.

Here's Option 2, which appears to close off Morphett Rd on the northern side of the line.

I wouldn't give any credence to 'Option 2'. It appears to me to be an unsolicited plan offered by the Marion City Council and nothing more.

Hopefully they are engaged in the process though, to ensure greater land-use integration around the new station.

[Westside]

I wonder if the upgrade will result in the closure of Warradale

If you have a look at the original master planning documents (I can't find them now - if someone can provide a link that would be great) it mentions that in the original overpass design that Warradale station would need to be demolished in order to meet ideal gradients. They then mentioned the option of rebuilding Warradale in between the current location and Hove station which will allow for the close of Hove station as well in preparation for the eventual removal of the level crossing at Brighton Road. I'm not sure if this will still hold true under the new rail-under-road proposal.

Now, if only I can find that document again to substantiate my comments...

* Edit: Here it is: http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... blications

New Railway station between Warradale and Hove
The construction of the overpass would require the demolition of the existing Warradale station.
A new station is proposed to be constructed replacing both Wan-adale and Hove station which
will require extension to accommodate 6 car electric trains from Seaford.
This also has the advantage that if in the long term grade separation of the rail and road level
crossing at Brighton Road was to occur then there would be no requirement at that stage to
rebuild the Hove station.

This was the 2013 Business Case, so who knows if there is still any truth to it.

[mawsonguy]

The plan removes a road choke point but creates a rail choke point. There is no provision for a passing loop at the station which means you will not be able to run highspeed, long distance, non-stop, express services like they do in Sydney. They should, at least, build the tunnel and cutting wide enough so that passing loops can be added in future. It would be a lot cheaper to do it now than in the future. Can you imagine how much more patronage a 22 minute Seaford-City service would receive compared to the current 47 minute "express" service.

[SouthAussie94]

The plan removes a road choke point but creates a rail choke point. There is no provision for a passing loop at the station which means you will not be able to run highspeed, long distance, non-stop, express services like they do in Sydney. They should, at least, build the tunnel and cutting wide enough so that passing loops can be added in future. It would be a lot cheaper to do it now than in the future. Can you imagine how much more patronage a 22 minute Seaford-City service would receive compared to the current 47 minute "express" service.

The issue with having a short passing loop is that the 'slow' train needs to wait for the express train to pass.

For instance using Brighton as an example;

'Slow' train arrives using centre line through station. Express train is 60-120 seconds behind. Slow train needs to wait for the express train to reach Brighton, waiting an additional 30-90 seconds (assuming a 'standard' stop is 30 seconds). The express train reaches Brighton, continues through, 'Slow' train continues sitting. It must now wait an additional 60-120 seconds for the Express train to clear the next signal block, before the 'Slow' train is able to proceed. Under normal operation, the slow train would lose in the range of 2-4 minutes waiting for the express.

Ideally, any passing loops would be several kilometres long, containing multiple stations. This allows the slow train to leave the main line and continue moving while allowing the express train to use the third line. This ensures that the 'Slow' train doesn't lose additional time waiting for the express to pass.

In an ideal world, you could have three tracks from Oaklands to Brighton. This would give a 3/4 station window in which the express trains could pass the all stopping 'Slow' train. In reality, incorporating additional tracks and therefore width to overpasses and underpasses probably isn't feasible. If third tracks are ever introduced to the Seaford line (or any line for that matter), I'd expect them to be introduced at locations where the widening of under/overpasses could be avoided.

[OlympusAnt]

Such as the Morrabbin triplication in Melbourne

[potsandpans]

so it most definitely will reduce congestion. The idea is not to turn Morphett and Diagonal Rds into freeways - there will still be significant pedestrian movements that need to be catered for

I thought the main reason for upgrading the Oaklands crossing was to reduce congestion? It may reduce it in the short-term, but without the removal of traffic lights (and the addition of a right-hand turn traffic light onto Morphett Rd travelling North) I believe congestion will be as bad as it is now, say in 3 years time. Why not think long-term, instead of short-term? It will be a lot cheaper to do it now rather than after this upgrade is completed.

[Norman]

so it most definitely will reduce congestion. The idea is not to turn Morphett and Diagonal Rds into freeways - there will still be significant pedestrian movements that need to be catered for

I thought the main reason for upgrading the Oaklands crossing was to reduce congestion? It may reduce it in the short-term, but without the removal of traffic lights (and the addition of a right-hand turn traffic light onto Morphett Rd travelling North) I believe congestion will be as bad as it is now, say in 3 years time. Why not think long-term, instead of short-term? It will be a lot cheaper to do it now rather than after this upgrade is completed.

What sort of intersection upgrade were you thinking of?

Big overpasses are difficult to do in this area given the current residential land use. It needs to be low scale and not block too many pedestrian movements.

If you read the report, it does make mention of a road overpass, but the cost/benefit was much lower than just having a regular intersection and a train overpass/underpass.

Most of the road congestion actually comes from the significant time the boom gates are down in peak hour. If you drive this road during the day and on weekends, it's not too bad, because there are fewer trains, causing fewer movement conflicts.

[[Shuz]]

In an ideal world, I would have done Morphett Road as an overpass, Diagonal Road as an underpass, with the rail line at grade.

[fishinajar]

In an ideal world, I would have done Morphett Road as an overpass, Diagonal Road as an underpass, with the rail line at grade.

Ideal? Come on shuz, there are many busy intersections throughout Adelaide and other cities that need to and will remain at grade with traffic lights, we're not trying to build freewaytopia.
IMO all future rail crossing improvement should occur below grade where possible. Eventually whole lines can go below grade and be covered and developed over. Much more ideal

[monotonehell]

IMO all future rail crossing improvement should occur below grade where possible. Eventually whole lines can go below grade and be covered and developed over. Much more ideal

Come on fishinajar - we aren't trying to build subwaytopia. jk jk

[Archer]

The fly through shows the station essentially in it's current location. I would have thought it better to center it beneath the road bridges? This would provide built in Shelter from the elements as well as easier & quicker access to both sides of the road which would also help to improve access to the aquatics center and Westfield (shorter distance and one less road to cross). It would likely also negate the need for an additional pedestrian over pass at the northern end of of the station and provide additional space for car parking or other developments.

Is there a particular reason why centralising the station under the bridges would not be done?