Sensational-Adelaide.com

Cruise Control wrote:Wouldn't that render new bridges practically useless?

Probably would, but the rail line could be diverted to connect to the Outer Harbor line at Glanville/Birkenhead and then encircle Port Adelaide back to the old Port Dock line to Alberton. The road bridge would always have a use regardless, even if there would be a little less traffic. Interesting though isn't?

Cheers

rogue wrote:Aren't there contamination issues with the soil within the old MFP area?

I think this was minimal.

Cheers

What does MFP stand for?

crawf wrote:What does MFP stand for?

Multi Function Polis

Whoops! In my utopioa, the old Glanville to Outer Harbor line would stay, and the twin river crossings would go, allowing yacht mooring in the Inner Harbor and helping the development along.

As for cost, I was thinking that the high price of land in the 'Golden Finger' of Le Fevre peninsula would be high enough to make it all work.

It's interesting about the salt pans. You certainly do learn something every day. Maybe we could have pepper pans there too and corner the market.

stumpjumper wrote:Whoops! In my utopioa, the old Glanville to Outer Harbor line would stay, and the twin river crossings would go, allowing yacht mooring in the Inner Harbor and helping the development along.

The road and rail bridges could have easily been substituted by tunnels under the channel. In Holland they have dropped large precast tunnel sections into canals and then sealed them. This technique could easily have been the solution at Port Adelaide thus keeping the Inner harbor accessible to large pleasure boats and tall masted yachts. Albeit, we have idiots in government.

Cheers

rogue wrote:

crawf wrote:What does MFP stand for?

Multi Function Polis

Multi functinal city. Polis is greek for city such as in the word metro-polis. I can't remember what metro means though.

Ho Really wrote:The road and rail bridges could have easily been substituted by tunnels under the channel. In Holland they have dropped large precast tunnel sections into canals and then sealed them. This technique could easily have been the solution at Port Adelaide thus keeping the Inner harbor accessible to large pleasure boats and tall masted yachts. Albeit, we have idiots in government.

Cheers

I think you'll find economic and space related issues (moreso on the Le Fevre Peninsula side) led to the Government's decision to build opening bridges instead of higher bridges or tunnels instead. I haven't seen that many tall ships pass into Port Adelaide any time I have been there. I would've rather seen a higher bridge or a tunnel instead as well though.

AG wrote:I think you'll find economic and space related issues (moreso on the Le Fevre Peninsula side) led to the Government's decision to build opening bridges instead of higher bridges or tunnels instead. I haven't seen that many tall ships pass into Port Adelaide any time I have been there. I would've rather seen a higher bridge or a tunnel instead as well though.

Space may have been an issue on the Le Fevre Peninsula side if tunnels were built, but this would have depended on what depth the prefabs were laid and how much land could have been acquired if the tunnel went deeper. As for the money, an opening bridge is more expensive than a static one, even if it was a little higher. A prefab tunnel with some dredging would not have been any more expensive than what we have now. I am not sure if at any stage the government considered this option and whether any info was released to the public. I know there was one letter written in The Advertiser and I'm not sure if there were more. As you know the whole point of keeping the Inner Harbor accessible is for tourism and leisure. There's always the possibility of foreign naval ships, training ships and even small cruise ships visiting. We need these options to keep the Inner Harbor alive. Let's hope the developers around Docks 1 and 2 keep this in mind.

Cheers

jimmy_2486 wrote:Hope you can keep us informed pikey.....good stuff there

any news Pikey? I can't wait to hear the news about the park holme developments!

Yes, ive been wanting to know the same as myess..... Hope you can keep us informed...

Only just saw this again!

My DA was a pergola - nothing fancy! However the council planner has said that the amount of knock downs and subdivides are on the increase.

Apartment wise, not sure. The big rumour that the planner heard was around the Tonsley Mitsubishi site. Doubt it'll happen now, but when it looked as though Mitsubishi was going to leave, the site masterplan had "premium" apartment buildings, up to 10 lvls on the high side of the block (near south road) as the towers would have views of the city and Glenelg, with the rest of the site developed into a premium housing estate, along the lines of Blackwood Park.

A council member was on 5AA last night suggesting the same site as a potential location for an all purpose stadium!! I think not!

Pikey wrote:A council member was on 5AA last night suggesting the same site as a potential location for an all purpose stadium!! I think not!

Yeah cause that would achieve heaps. Same bloody distance away from the city but in a different direction! Southsiders (which i'm not) would love it though

Most of the site has been cleared

That is one large site there to be developed!