Sensational-Adelaide.com

I would love to see an overpass here, having been caught on Morphett Road numerous times when trains come, and getting skipped in the sequence once it's passed, but I don't much like the design and hope they don't go with it.
IMO, it feels a little pretentious, looks quite ugly, and it doesn't match in with the Aquatic center's design, or even the station below (although that will be demolished - also quite stupid given it's only a few years old..)
I predict that if approved, construction to start around 2016

Wayno wrote:Having detailed plans ready now enables the state govt to add this project to the Infrastructure Australia list. Not a bad ploy. Fortune favours the prepared...

Snap!!!!
Just what I thought, when I saw that project/design (but no funding) in this morning's news items. Be prepared - just in case. Like another example I can think of.

neoballmon wrote: IMO, it feels a little pretentious, looks quite ugly, and it doesn't match in with the Aquatic center's design, or even the station below (although that will be demolished - also quite stupid given it's only a few years old..)

So by this are we implying that we shouldn't have gone ahead and started building the new stands at Adelaide Oval because the existing stand was only 9 years old?

Just like the dts with no funding at least there is a cost with this one

Probably a reasonable outcome, given that the overpass is desperately needed at that intersection. That the existing station has to go is not really relevant (just a pity so much money was spent), at least there will be a functional well visable interchange closer to the Civic/Aquatic centre etc.. Without seeing the plans, I do hope there are well defined, brightly lit and signposted pathways to better intergrate with the Aquatic centre and Westfield.

AG wrote:

neoballmon wrote: IMO, it feels a little pretentious, looks quite ugly, and it doesn't match in with the Aquatic center's design, or even the station below (although that will be demolished - also quite stupid given it's only a few years old..)

So by this are we implying that we shouldn't have gone ahead and started building the new stands at Adelaide Oval because the existing stand was only 9 years old?

I don't know enough about the Adelaide Oval development to really comment on this one.
But I actually meant it was stupid for them to upgrade the station. I'm sure fixing this crossing hasn't just popped up on the government's 'to do list' in the last couple of years, they've always known it had to be done, so why do a decent long lasting fix instead of a quick fix that only needs to last a short time?

That's not how we roll in S.A. think obahn ,expressway (southern) ,and a freeway that finishes 10 km from the nearest freeway standard road

jase111 wrote:That's not how we roll in S.A. think obahn ,expressway (southern) ,and a freeway that finishes 10 km from the nearest freeway standard road

Why's the obahn on your list?

I think in the long run it will become a rail line . We have to commit to the long run with it . Eg bring it into the city via a dedicated route NOT on a current road but a separate busway all the way to north terrace

Or make it a rail line

For what it is the O-Bahn is fantastic. It's a road exclusively for use for buses, and does that job in a really good way.

Nort wrote: It's a road exclusively for use for buses

ORLY?

I am surprised the render shows a station with 2 side platforms rather than an island platform (as on the South Road tram overpass). With an island platform, the foundations and pillars would be either side of the current tracks, and could all be prepared while the line is still operating. Then with perhaps a one-month shutdown, precast concrete beams could placed over the the pillars and the line reopened. Melbourne has done some good grade separations with shutdowns of less than a month.

An island platform also saves on the costs of lifts and their maintenance. The design shown requires 4 lifts, whereas an island platform requires only 2.

mm42 wrote:I am surprised the render shows a station with 2 side platforms rather than an island platform (as on the South Road tram overpass). With an island platform, the foundations and pillars would be either side of the current tracks, and could all be prepared while the line is still operating. Then with perhaps a one-month shutdown, precast concrete beams could placed over the the pillars and the line reopened. Melbourne has done some good grade separations with shutdowns of less than a month.

An island platform also saves on the costs of lifts and their maintenance. The design shown requires 4 lifts, whereas an island platform requires only 2.

I do agree with this analogy. The piers on the west side of Diagonal Road would still end up penetrating the existing station to some extent though - workable, but it would require modifications to the existing platforms. Precast concrete job.

A few renders up on DPTI website

http://dpti.sa.gov.au/oaklandspark