[PRO] Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1034
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by Goodsy »

Eurostar wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:47 pm
Norman wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:18 am
If they elevated the rail to Jetty Road they would also need to lift Brighton Station, which would be more complex due to its layout. It would also increase the ongoing maintenance costs for the elevated station.
A viaduct will overlook people's and if steel and metal would it not rust.
I assume you mean people's property

if Melbourne skyrail is anything to go by, then the answer is a resounding no.. All the detractors quickly went away when they realised how much it increased their propery value
User avatar
rogue
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:45 am
Location: Over here

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by rogue »

Hove, 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.”
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 869a9747db
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by ChillyPhilly »

Interested in hearing more about the Hove Level Crossing Removal Project?

Come along to a community information session and meet members of the project team, ask questions, and get an update on the project.

We’re holding sessions at Brighton Football Club (410 Brighton Road, Hove) on the following days:

- Saturday, 30 January between 9am and 12pm
- Monday, 1 February between 3pm and 7pm
- Wednesday, 3 February between 10am and 2pm

To ensure COVID-19 physical distancing requirements are met, attendees must register prior to attending the information session.

To register for a session, receive project updates or for more information please visit www.dit.sa.gov.au/hovelxing or call 1300 794 880
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.
kymbosa
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:39 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by kymbosa »

Did anyone get to the community meetings during the week?
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Contact:

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by ChillyPhilly »

DIT have launched an online survey.

I encourage everyone to mention expanding project scope to include grade separation (and a new station) at Jetty Road.

https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/6186657/210105
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.
User avatar
ginzahikari
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:31 am
Location: Marion

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by ginzahikari »

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
User avatar
AndyWelsh
Legendary Member!
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm

[PRO] Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by AndyWelsh »

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
Thanks for sharing this. I’ve reshared within a couple of the community groups that I’m part of in Marino, Brighton and Seacliff.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Don’t fancy this road bridge option too much!
Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alyx
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by Alyx »

AndyWelsh wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:27 am
Don’t fancy this road bridge option too much!
I like how they have made their non-preferred options look as destructive and desolate as possible!
Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by Spotto »

ginzahikari wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:38 pm
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.

Continue it the whole way through to Maitland Terrace and it’ll be smooth sailing.
User avatar
AndyWelsh
Legendary Member!
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by AndyWelsh »

Alyx wrote:
AndyWelsh wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:27 am
Don’t fancy this road bridge option too much!
I like how they have made their non-preferred options look as destructive and desolate as possible!
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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurostar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:44 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by Eurostar »

One of the issues I find with rail or road overpass options is the noise and overlooking into backyards. Whereas say Oaklands underpass and Bowden underpass is quiet, barely notice the train noises and doesn't have the issues of shadowing.

Also with the rail overpass option train driver's will most likely be blinded by the sun during sunsets/evening peak hour.
kymbosa
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:39 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by kymbosa »

Alyx wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:35 am
AndyWelsh wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:27 am
Don’t fancy this road bridge option too much!
I like how they have made their non-preferred options look as destructive and desolate as possible!
Totally agree. Wow. You couldn’t make them look less appealing.

Grade separation is the best way, but the sky rail looks very nice, but that section of the line from Ascot Park to Brighton will be like a Rolla Coaster. Up and down and up again.
User avatar
AndyWelsh
Legendary Member!
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:44 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by AndyWelsh »

Holdfast 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
SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by SBD »

AndyWelsh wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm
Holdfast 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
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..
Spotto
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 9:05 pm

[PRO] Re: Hove Level Crossing Removal | $171m

Post by Spotto »

AndyWelsh wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm
Holdfast 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.
Post Reply