Sensational-Adelaide.com

dsriggs wrote:Seriously, if the bridge opens when the refurbishment is completed, the crowd would have 3 bridges to choose from. If you think the new one is too narrow, go to KW street, or the one past the Convention Centre.

Agreed.

It's not like everybody who goes to Adelaide Oval will be going across the one bridge to get home. People can go in all different directions from the Oval when a game/event is finished.

Somebody said earlier about Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, and the congestion that arises over the 20m wide bridge that goes into Southern Cross Station and Spencer Street. Whilst there are other ways of leaving Etihad, the vast majority leave the same way.

This won't be the case at Adelaide Oval. There are many other options.

dbcrow wrote:

dsriggs wrote:Seriously, if the bridge opens when the refurbishment is completed, the crowd would have 3 bridges to choose from. If you think the new one is too narrow, go to KW street, or the one past the Convention Centre.

Agreed.

It's not like everybody who goes to Adelaide Oval will be going across the one bridge to get home. People can go in all different directions from the Oval when a game/event is finished.

Somebody said earlier about Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, and the congestion that arises over the 20m wide bridge that goes into Southern Cross Station and Spencer Street. Whilst there are other ways of leaving Etihad, the vast majority leave the same way.

This won't be the case at Adelaide Oval. There are many other options.

The largest capacity of the new stadium will be at the Southern end. (remembering there is no Northern stand.) Most of the spectators will be encouraged to use the trains, and much of the available carparking will be scattered on the Southern CBD side as opposed to North Adelaide where there will be strict parking restrictions. Therefore the comparison to Ethiad is timely as the set up there is almost EXACTLY the same, and the 20m wide causeway there does get conjested. And Anyone having used the Footy Express at AAMI will clearly see what the outcome will be if acces is too narrow.

The largest capacity of the new stadium will be at the Southern end. (remembering there is no Northern stand.) Most of the spectators will be encouraged to use the trains, and much of the available carparking will be scattered on the Southern CBD side as opposed to North Adelaide where there will be strict parking restrictions. Therefore the comparison to Ethiad is timely as the set up there is almost EXACTLY the same, and the 20m wide causeway there does get conjested. And Anyone having used the Footy Express at AAMI will clearly see what the outcome will be if acces is too narrow.

Your looking at this in a very narrow perspective. Yes you will have to shuffle for a while and there will be congestion, I think everybody will accept this. There will also be congestion at the train station with people flooding in all at once, there will also be congestion at North Tce with people waiting for the pedestrian lights. The faster you move people over the bridge does not eliviate these other points further down. For the extra 12-15,000 capacity that the stadium will hold there is going to be 1) King William Bridge 2) Another ped bridge 3) Footy express buses on the easern side and 4) Extra parking off Morphett St Bridge. At the moment with big 1 day matches we only have King William bridge for 38,000 or so. People will disperse in their own time and although you wont set any 100m records crossing that bridge I really dont think that people will really give a hoot about the 10 mins that it might take to get into town.

Exactly. This isn't a development starting from scratch, it's an upgrade of an existing stadium which has already shown an ability to cope with tens of thousands of people attending. There are going to be crowds and congestion in the area after fully attended events no matter what. The bridge will alleviate some of that, but it isn't meant to remove it entirely.

The so-called argument about the width of the proposed footbridge is a calculated piece of play-acting from Rod Hook and co. The idea is to turn the argument from 'footbridge or no footbridge?' to 'wide footbridge or narrow footbridge?'

stumpjumper wrote:The so-called argument about the width of the proposed footbridge is a calculated piece of play-acting from Rod Hook and co. The idea is to turn the argument from 'footbridge or no footbridge?' to 'wide footbridge or narrow footbridge?'

Why would the argument need to be turned away form 'footbridge or no footbridge?' when that matter had already been settled?

Absolutely nobody was arguing 'no footbridge' this late in the piece.

What a beatup by the Advertiser/Adelaide Now. It's a pedestrian footbridge over the Torrens not a multi-lane highway. Too wide and it would be visually intrusive.

The footbridge may experience some congestion now and then for major events at the Adelaide Oval but is more than adequate for pedestrian traffic for the rest of the year. Patience and perspective please.

People deal with peaks and temporary congestion in so many other areas and locations. eg. exiting carparks after events, leaving concerts, races etc. No-one suggests building footpaths so wide they can cope with temporary rushes eg shopping precincts at Christmas period or wider roads for morning and afternoon peak periods ('rush hour').

The footbridge will provide a vital connection between both sides of the Riverbank precinct. The naysayers who decried the tram extension had to slink off into obscurity as it proved to be a great success. I'm sure the footbridge will be a similar success. Just build it.

Nathan wrote:

stumpjumper wrote:The so-called argument about the width of the proposed footbridge is a calculated piece of play-acting from Rod Hook and co. The idea is to turn the argument from 'footbridge or no footbridge?' to 'wide footbridge or narrow footbridge?'

Why would the argument need to be turned away form 'footbridge or no footbridge?' when that matter had already been settled?

I smell a Conspiracy Theorist!

rhino wrote: I smell a Conspiracy Theorist!

Maybe it's the SDA's fault?

I'm sure Media Mike's got his hand in this, somehow...

Disappointed to see the Liberal Member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, with an anti-footbridge stance. (Not politics - Was not too impressed with her predecessor, Labor's Jane Lomax-Smith for a variety of reasons)

I feel the footbridge Is an essential part of the mix for the Riverbank precinct redevelopment. It adds a vital connection and will encourage/facilitate the use of public transport for events at the Adelaide Oval and surrounds.

Here is a copy of Ms Sanderson's motion on the footbridge.
http://bit.ly/TYRzm9

Any thoughts on this?

Political point-scoring, I fear. She probably actually loves the idea of the footbridge!

I think any reasonable person can see the value of the footbridge, whatever its width, in improving pedestrian amenity and increasing the use of public transport to and from the Oval. This is particularly so given that the new southern stand will be the primary entrance to the venue and the footbridge will take you almost directly to its doorstep. It's not about South Australians being lazy; it's about improving what is currently a sub-optimal situation.

Her and her party would be the first to complain if there was no footbridge.

crawf wrote:Her and her party would be the first to complain if there was no footbridge.

what a silly statement.

if one was not proposed, why would they think of complaining about it?

honestly, politics needs to be left at the front door.