[SWP] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[Aidan]

Well it took six weeks, but they did eventually reply:

Hi Aidan

Thank you for your email. Please refer to the responses to your questions below.

Conspicuously absent was any mention of option zero (keeping the WCH in its current location). Did you neglect to consider it?
The original Business Case identified that rebuilding on the existing site was not efficient or economical and would incur significant disruption to the existing healthcare services. The Government has committed to relocating the New WCH to the broader Adelaide Biomedical Precinct.

Option 1 scored poorly because of lack of opportunities to extend the RAH. But was the possibility of an underground extension (beneath the parklands) considered?
Due to flood levels, the post disaster requirements and resilient design mean critical services underground is not a viable option. The review also explored undergrounding the train line with this option being extremely disruptive and costly.

Why would option 3b block off Hindley Street rather than extend it?
(They seem to have missed that my original question said …extend above it?)
Locating critical care services on one floor was a key issue raised by clinicians during consultation and is considered by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network as the clinically optimal model. In light of this, building over Hindley Street was required to achieve a floor plate of 18-20,000sqm to accommodate Critical Care Services, Birthing, Theatres, 23-hour ward, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Neonatal ICU all on one floor in this option. To achieve this, Hindley Street would need to be closed for traffic.

Was the option of a tunnel instead of a footbridge considered for option 3?
Due to underground services and connectivity to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, a bridge provided a better, more efficient and direct connection.

Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
Traffic flows and management need to be maintained in this heavily utilised area and introduction of increased flows is seen as a disadvantage, particularly for emergency access at times of peak demand.

How much of option 3’s low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?
Options 3A and 3B scored lower clinically as they do not provide for optimal ambulance access due to the location of the land area and the traffic volume that uses that area. This location, situated adjacent to two major arterial roads, with very heavy traffic volumes would create significant issues in terms of ambulance access. These options were considered to provide a very poor solution to a safe and time critical emergency pathway to provide response for critically unstable patients (women) and subsequent transfers between the New WCH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It was considered that these options had poor access to Aboriginal and culturally sensitive and family-friendly environments and very poor access to Park Lands. Additionally, these options were discounted due to cost.

Why wasn’t a hybrid option with part of the hospital south of North Terrace considered?
The Government is committed to an integrated New Women’s and Children’s Hospital and the proposal to locate part of the hospital on the south side of North Terrace would not achieve this, resulting in a separation of critical care services, duplication of functions and would not meet the identified clinical requirements that are achieved in the proposed solution.

Kind regards
The New WCH Project Team.

[SRW]

Well it took six weeks, but they did eventually reply:

Hi Aidan

Thank you for your email. Please refer to the responses to your questions below.
Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
Traffic flows and management need to be maintained in this heavily utilised area and introduction of increased flows is seen as a disadvantage, particularly for emergency access at times of peak demand.

How much of option 3’s low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?
Options 3A and 3B scored lower clinically as they do not provide for optimal ambulance access due to the location of the land area and the traffic volume that uses that area. This location, situated adjacent to two major arterial roads, with very heavy traffic volumes would create significant issues in terms of ambulance access. These options were considered to provide a very poor solution to a safe and time critical emergency pathway to provide response for critically unstable patients (women) and subsequent transfers between the New WCH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It was considered that these options had poor access to Aboriginal and culturally sensitive and family-friendly environments and very poor access to Park Lands. Additionally, these options were discounted due to cost.

Kind regards
The New WCH Project Team.

I think these reasons remain very dubious regarding the disadvantage compared to the barracks site. Both are high traffic locations.

[ChillyPhilly]

Well it took six weeks, but they did eventually reply:

Hi Aidan

Thank you for your email. Please refer to the responses to your questions below.
Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
Traffic flows and management need to be maintained in this heavily utilised area and introduction of increased flows is seen as a disadvantage, particularly for emergency access at times of peak demand.

How much of option 3’s low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?
Options 3A and 3B scored lower clinically as they do not provide for optimal ambulance access due to the location of the land area and the traffic volume that uses that area. This location, situated adjacent to two major arterial roads, with very heavy traffic volumes would create significant issues in terms of ambulance access. These options were considered to provide a very poor solution to a safe and time critical emergency pathway to provide response for critically unstable patients (women) and subsequent transfers between the New WCH and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. It was considered that these options had poor access to Aboriginal and culturally sensitive and family-friendly environments and very poor access to Park Lands. Additionally, these options were discounted due to cost.

Kind regards
The New WCH Project Team.

I think these reasons remain very dubious regarding the disadvantage compared to the barracks site. Both are high traffic locations.

Agreed. I'm still adamant that the best location would be on Port Road somewhere as others have said. Ambulances can use the tram corridor, so I don't buy the lack of access there either.

[ChillyPhilly]

Interesting read.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/24/ ... tion-call/

[rev]

Agreed. I'm still adamant that the best location would be on Port Road somewhere as others have said. Ambulances can use the tram corridor, so I don't buy the lack of access there either.

So who will give way and move out of the way, the tram or the ambulance?

[floplo]

Agreed. I'm still adamant that the best location would be on Port Road somewhere as others have said. Ambulances can use the tram corridor, so I don't buy the lack of access there either.

So who will give way and move out of the way, the tram or the ambulance?

I am still surprised that the tram corridor on North Terrace isn't used as a bus lane. Common thing done overseas, so having ambulances use it is absolutely possible.

Sent from my ASUS_AI2202 using Tapatalk

[Listy]

Ambulances use the North Terrace and Port Rd sections of the tram track all the time. I see them using the track almost weekly. If there's a tram ahead they either move onto the road or cross to the other track until they get past.

[rev]

Ambulances use the North Terrace and Port Rd sections of the tram track all the time. I see them using the track almost weekly. If there's a tram ahead they either move onto the road or cross to the other track until they get past.

I know I've seen it happen.
My point was that there needs to be a better solution.

[SRW]

Having already requisitioned park land for the hospital, the government now wants to requisition a huge swathe of the south parklands for police horse stabling:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-12/ ... /102085842

This makes an absolute mockery of their claim to 'no net loss' and, worse, snatches away open space from rapidly densifying south city and Unley/Wayville area. I'm honestly shocked at the brazenness of this government; any pretence of valuing the park lands is gone.

[Ben]

It really is disgusting. People think because it’s not a landscaped garden it’s not valuable unless it’s developed. This is so wrong. As the city gets denser and denser we NEED this open space. Year upon year it’s reducing. It’s disgusting, it’s not free development land.

[ChillyPhilly]

This whole saga stinks. I'd have thought there were more sensible locations for police horses.

[floplo]

Can anyone explain to me what's the major difference between the private paddock in North Adelaide and this?

Why not relocate those horses as well and return the paddock in North Adelaide to everyone?

Sent from my ASUS_AI2202 using Tapatalk

[Nort]

Can anyone explain to me what's the major difference between the private paddock in North Adelaide and this?

Why not relocate those horses as well and return the paddock in North Adelaide to everyone?

Sent from my ASUS_AI2202 using Tapatalk

Historically a lot of the parklands were used for animal grazing and storage. Over the decades they have gradually moved on when the land has been wanted for other park purposes.

Leaving things as they are until we're ready to do something else with the space is entirely different to claiming a large chunk of the parklands for a new stabling facility.

That will lock away the land for many more decades to come, potentially indefinitely.

[Simo00083]

To call this “parklands” is an absolute joke. Dead grass and under utilised space. When was the last time anyone actually stepped foot in this area? If you are going to make this parklands well look after it and develop the area if not step aside and let someone develop the area. The whole eastern “parklands” are full of dead gras areas that need to be developed. Push on with more developments in this area and dare I say it a stadium or high rise residential towers. Adelaide needs to move forward and develop not have a minority hold up development e.g Adelaide Footy Club new home base.

[gnrc_louis]

To call this “parklands” is an absolute joke. Dead grass and under utilised space. When was the last time anyone actually stepped foot in this area? If you are going to make this parklands well look after it and develop the area if not step aside and let someone develop the area. The whole eastern “parklands” are full of dead gras areas that need to be developed. Push on with more developments in this area and dare I say it a stadium or high rise residential towers. Adelaide needs to move forward and develop not have a minority hold up development e.g Adelaide Footy Club new home base.

Great idea - let’s build over one of the CBD’s most unique selling points rather than the ample land available in the CBD itself.