I can only imagine...
The need to use small equipment because larger machines don't fit past the trees, and the need to prop up an operating tramway while removing the structural integrity provided by the arches?
I can only imagine...
The tramway will be shut for the Marion/Cross Rd overpasses when they do the works
I understood the $35m was for the the bike overpass. Has a cost been announced for the scaled back works just announced?
I'm not sure I read any indication the government axed this for costs. My inference is that they wanted to appease locals despite wider benefits, similar to the Hove situation. I'd rather governments make the case clear for such projects.rubberman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:52 pm
The costs are for construction by private enterprise.
For the cost of a bike overpass, the government could house 60-80 families during a housing and rental crisis. It's a bit far fetched to say that a government looking at an outrageous cost and choosing to put its money elsewhere is chicken shit.
How about private enterprise put up a realistic cost instead of what looks like a rort?
I read that this new junk proposal was going to cost the same as the overpass, somehow.
The project cost remains at $35 million, according to the state government, which is splitting the funding 50/50 with the federal government.
I'm pretty sure the bike community would have asked for an overpass near the tram line not continuing to use the underpass at the other end of the railway station.“Cyclists will benefit from the $35 million upgrades, such as the archways and underpass, which will make it safer and more user-friendly for riders. The bike community asked for those changes and we’ve listened.”
The problem with the anti-Hove mob was that they had almost no valid arguments beyond disruption to the people being relocated.
why don't they just build an road underpass, like on Goodwood Road?Spotto wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:57 amThe problem with the anti-Hove mob was that they had almost no valid arguments beyond disruption to the people being relocated.
"A viaduct will divide the community" - Open community space beneath the viaduct will divide more than the current fenced ground-level railway?
"A viaduct will block beach views" - The land is flat near the railway, there are no beach views to be blocked.
"Too many houses will be demolished" - Many more would've been demolished to build the trench underpass that some groups wanted.
"Without the boom gates stopping traffic, you won't be able to turn right from side streets onto Brighton Road." - They're joking right?
IIRC one argument was that it would disrupt the quiet street atmosphere, but it was hard to hear it over the boom gate bells ringing every 5-10 minutes
I dunno, I'm a Croydon resident and an infrastructure 'enthusiast' (if that's the right term) and I'm very glad the long overpass didn't go ahead. The design and contribution to the relatively historic street was poor to start off with and, given the incredibly dumbed-down and sub-par outcomes in terms of aesthetics and amenity we've seen across the T2T project as a whole (think landscaping, pedestrian connectivity, noise wall, missing promised heritage brickwork street features made from demolished properties etc) I have absolutely no doubt that the outcome of a longer overpass would have been terrible.
If they really wanted to improve things, build higher density (ie the TODS), etc, they'd have just continued the sunken train line from Bowden. Heck they could have even covered the top and built a 20km urban park and cycleway from Outer Harbour to the city.Llessur2002 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:02 amI dunno, I'm a Croydon resident and an infrastructure 'enthusiast' (if that's the right term) and I'm very glad the long overpass didn't go ahead. The design and contribution to the relatively historic street was poor to start off with and, given the incredibly dumbed-down and sub-par outcomes in terms of aesthetics and amenity we've seen across the T2T project as a whole (think landscaping, pedestrian connectivity, noise wall, missing promised heritage brickwork street features made from demolished properties etc) I have absolutely no doubt that the outcome of a longer overpass would have been terrible.
If DIT had a remotely good track record of approaching such projects with genuine care and desire to contribute to the area as a whole then I would have been a bit more supportive but they just don't. The overpass we did get has been covered with graffiti from Day 1. It takes around 3 months of hassling DIT to get it cleaned up and then it's back within a couple of weeks. The irrigation to the surrounding landscaped areas on Euston Terrace and Day Terrace is poorly maintained, often damaged by DIT vehicles parking on top of it, and quite a lot of planting has subsequently either died or is just stunted. Promised turfed areas ended up being replaced with crushed gravel which is constantly weed-ridden and a good number of planted trees have died, been quietly removed and never replaced.
The relatively poor state that they've left the South Road surface roads, the complete lack of any shade for pedestrians trying to walk in the area and the incredibly rubbish 'artwork' they've dotted in a few locations just reinforces my feeling that they couldn't give a flying fig about pedestrians and local residents - their only real objective is improving transport flow and they'll repeatedly cut back landscaping to the absolute bare minimum as soon as the bulk of the civil works are completed.
Look at the queues which build up at Hawker Street, Torrens Road, Port Road etc compared to the 2-4 cars which generally have to wait at Queen Street. It's a relatively low priority in the grand scheme of things.
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests