Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wow! great to see this government is gettting serious about station upgrades.

Its a shame they didn't have the motivation to follow through with a grade separation of oaklands though at the time. I think if they were doing it again, they would :-p

They do look great, shame that they will be covered in graffiti not long after they finish them.

Why Munno Para Station?

AtD wrote:Why Munno Para Station?

IIRC a new super school will be built there, as well as a small shopping centre.

oh and new houses, lots of new houses.

muzzamo wrote:Wow! great to see this government is gettting serious about station upgrades.

Yes, but getting serious is only part of what's needed. Unless it is done right, getting serious is not a good thing!

Its a shame they didn't have the motivation to follow through with a grade separation of oaklands though at the time. I think if they were doing it again, they would :-p

I initially thought it was a shame, but I found out the new station was designed to accommodate grade separation of the crossing at a later date. And in terms of grade separation priority, I'd rate the Oaklands crossing fourth behind Brighton Road, Leader Street, and (most urgently) Torrens Road.

Aidan wrote: And in terms of grade separation priority, I'd rate the Oaklands crossing fourth behind Brighton Road, Leader Street, and (most urgently) Torrens Road.

Surely South Rd and Park Tce would be at the top. Leader St is not exactly vital.

What about Cross Road?

Point is, the entire network needs to be grade separated.

AtD wrote:

Aidan wrote: And in terms of grade separation priority, I'd rate the Oaklands crossing fourth behind Brighton Road, Leader Street, and (most urgently) Torrens Road.

Surely South Rd and Park Tce would be at the top. Leader St is not exactly vital.

South Road is also very high priority, but its grade separation is planned to involve other roads, not just the railway. And the South Road upgrading plan will ensure its crossings are grade separated before any of the others, whatever else happens.

Regarding Park Terrace, I presume you mean Salisbury not Bowden. The Salisbury crossing now has emergency escape lanes, so it's not so important for safety reasons. It would be useful to enhance capacity and enable the bus interchange to be put back the right way round, but the biggest reason for building it is the delay from freight trains - so how urgent it is depends on how long it will be until the Northern Connector gets built.

Similarly the urgency of the Cross Road one depends on how long it will be before the Adelaide Hills Freight Bypass line gets built.

Shuz wrote:Point is, the entire network needs to be grade separated.

Firstly, does it really? In what way is the level crossing near the desalination plant not up to the job? Or Osborne Road?

Secondly, even if the entire network needs to be upgraded, it will take time to do so, so the relative urgency of replacing different crossings still matters.

Actually I meant Part Tce Bowden, as it's on the city ring route. It should be easier to go around the city than go though it. This route is important for keeping though traffic out of the pedestrian dense CBD. Not to mention the narrowing of North Tce and Grote St along with the upcoming Currie/Grenfell Busway reducing the capacity of the cross city routes.

The Salisbury one can be avoided by going up Salisbury Hwy. A lot of people do that when they see a freight train going though.

AtD wrote:Actually I meant Part Tce Bowden, as it's on the city ring route. It should be easier to go around the city than go though it. This route is important for keeping though traffic out of the pedestrian dense CBD. Not to mention the narrowing of North Tce and Grote St along with the upcoming Currie/Grenfell Busway reducing the capacity of the cross city routes.

I seem to recall the Bowden Crossing is, or is about to be, synchronized with the Port Road traffic lights so that it doesn't cause too much delay.

Aidan wrote:

AtD wrote:Actually I meant Part Tce Bowden, as it's on the city ring route. It should be easier to go around the city than go though it. This route is important for keeping though traffic out of the pedestrian dense CBD. Not to mention the narrowing of North Tce and Grote St along with the upcoming Currie/Grenfell Busway reducing the capacity of the cross city routes.

I seem to recall the Bowden Crossing is, or is about to be, synchronized with the Port Road traffic lights so that it doesn't cause too much delay.

The lights are synchronised to prevent vehicles from queuing across the crossing in one direction (Park Tce towards Port Road), but when there are trains approaching it the right turn signal sequence from Port Road to Park Terrace is often skipped (to prevent traffic queuing back across the intersection) resulting in a build up of traffic continuing along the City Bypass when this happens.

The Outer Harbour line will reopen in about mid-April.

cruel_world00 wrote:What about Cross Road?

this is one of the most vital crossings because cross road is an important cross town route and those long freight trains hold up traffic for minutes.

part of the old mats plan included upgrading 20 suburban rail crossings with grade separations... unfortunately donny dunstan binned the whole lot.

zap brannigan wrote:

cruel_world00 wrote:What about Cross Road?

this is one of the most vital crossings because cross road is an important cross town route and those long freight trains hold up traffic for minutes.

part of the old mats plan included upgrading 20 suburban rail crossings with grade separations... unfortunately donny dunstan binned the whole lot.

You really need to read your history more closely. Or if you already have, you need to stop with the sly comments.

It was decades ago, the People at the time made their choice, now we need to live with that and move on. The MATS plan is dead and buried, the Federal review soon after (1974) pretty much said most of it was unsiutable. And in retrospect, although it was a good thing it didn't go ahead at the time, there are a few points it had that are good in theory. However the good parts of MATS are more concepts than actual on paper plans.

But on the topic of this thread: Grade separation, is a good idea. (You could have just said that, you know)