PRO: Magill Road precinct

[rhino]

From ABC online:

Arts precinct plan for Magill upgrade
By Tom Fedorowytsch

The eastern, or top, end of Magill Road in Adelaide is set for an upgrade under a plan being developed by Campbelltown and Burnside Councils.

The first stage of a master plan for what could become known as Magill Village has been endorsed by Campbelltown Council.

Deputy Mayor Jill Whittaker said she was delighted the University of South Australia remained committed to the future of the Magill campus.

She said together with the university they would promote the area's history, work to foster a cafe and arts culture and make the area more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists.

"We're really more interested in creating a place that has its own ambience and has a creativity and an excitement so that people want to come to the precinct and want to be there, which of course will improve business and will create a whole new atmosphere for the area," she said.

Burnside Mayor David Parkin said Magill Road carried no more traffic than Prospect Road and offered a more natural environment.

"Magill Road has its own advantages and disadvantages. It's not helped by the fact it's on a slope, which makes doing what happened at Prospect a little more difficult, but the concepts are there and I think that is a good thing to investigate, if not adopt," he said.

UniSA vice chancellor David Lloyd said he was keen to see the Magill campus retained, rather than students moved to the city campus.

[Goya's Line]

I'm studying at Magill this year and forgot how picturesque the campus can be. Hopefully this is UniSA learning from their Underdale mistakes, given how compromised the Art Architecture Design program is at City West.

[Nathan]

I'm studying at Magill this year and forgot how picturesque the campus can be. Hopefully this is UniSA learning from their Underdale mistakes, given how compromised the Art Architecture Design program is at City West.

As someone who went through the program many years ago (Visual Communication), I'm interested to know how it's been compromised in your eyes?
Some of the courses, like mine, were moved away from Underdale long before that campus closed down. (We had studios on Peel St, although they all moved after I had finished when the new buildings were done at City West.)

[Goya's Line]

As someone who went through the program many years ago (Visual Communication), I'm interested to know how it's been compromised in your eyes?
Some of the courses, like mine, were moved away from Underdale long before that campus closed down. (We had studios on Peel St, although they all moved after I had finished when the new buildings were done at City West.)

The Visual Art program had a national reputation on par with Visual Communication (particularly Photography, Glass and Sculpture). Friends doing Graphic Design/Architecture/Industrial Design seem happy enough but courses and staff have been cut from Visual Art in the past four years, apart from the obvious studio reduction after Underdale. Auditors would regularly check studio numbers, as though administration didn't trust their own staff. Catching up with recent graduates we're concerned the program is entering a cycle where (through limited choice) students choose to finish their studies interstate, reducing demand for courses and giving administration the excuse to further reduce staff/studios.

To some I probably sound like a whinging vacuous art student (doing post-grad to justify my study choices) but UniSA needs to be called-out if it allows a 157-year-old institution, with all it's history and achievements, to disintegrate this century. Your program deserves to keep it's own entity and reputation, as with Architecture, rather than a part of some vague conglomeration. Finishing high school in the early '90s Underdale seemed THE place in Australia for Graphic Design.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

A start date for this project was announced in February 2018, with powerline works apparently having gone ahead later that year: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 704e2075fe

Since then, the federal member in May 2021 announced that $2 million of federal funding has been allocated to this project: https://www.jamesstevens.com.au/magill_ ... nt_project

The masterplan has also been revised again in March 2021, with more complete renders of the streetscape: https://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/files/as ... mation.pdf










No concrete date for any further works have been announced, as far as I can see.

Personally I am a big fan of the masterplan, and think it will be hugely beneficial for people who walk and cycle in the local area, as well as traders who will benefit from the increased foot traffic. It looks like a place people actually would enjoy spending time in, rather than a speedy thoroughfare purely for motor traffic.

Only two things I would change is to make the bike lanes separated from the car traffic (I note they've designed such a separation for the turn into Norton Summit Rd!) and I would also make the activated pedestrian crossings zebra crossings with pedestrian right-of-way. Other than that, looking good!

[rev]

Except it is a thoroughfare for motor vehicle traffic.

What happens to that traffic? Which alternative roads will the majority of through traffic take? Have they given any consideration to this? Or as usual by Adelaide standards, fix it when the problem has been ongoing for 20 years?

Looks good otherwise.

[Norman]

Except it is a thoroughfare for motor vehicle traffic.

What happens to that traffic? Which alternative roads will the majority of through traffic take? Have they given any consideration to this? Or as usual by Adelaide standards, fix it when the problem has been ongoing for 20 years?

Looks good otherwise.

There is no loss of traffic lanes. They will probably just go 10 or 20km/h slower. The amenity for the pedestrians and diners will be much better.

The roundabout at Norton Summit Road is much needed and will make the intersection much safer.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

Except it is a thoroughfare for motor vehicle traffic.

What happens to that traffic? Which alternative roads will the majority of through traffic take? Have they given any consideration to this? Or as usual by Adelaide standards, fix it when the problem has been ongoing for 20 years?

Looks good otherwise.

And it still will be, but now designed better, safer, and greener for all types of users. Motorists will likely continue to use this section of Magill Road as they were, and if not they may consider The Parade or Kensington Road to travel West. Hopefully, it will encourage some to explore other forms of transport altogether, decreasing motor vehicle congestion.

More and more of this type of development in Adelaide's inner suburbs will see more people embrace a mixture of transport options (e.g. cars, as well as public transport, cycling, and walking) instead of being 100% car reliant. We already know that PT is orders of magnitude more efficient at moving people than private cars, and that walking and cycling have huge public health outcomes + increase foot traffic to businesses. I think it's in Adelaide's best interests to continue to plan and prioritise street design for other forms of transport, and not just the fast movement of private motor vehicles.

There is no loss of traffic lanes. They will probably just go 10 or 20km/h slower. The amenity for the pedestrians and diners will be much better.

The roundabout at Norton Summit Road is much needed and will make the intersection much safer.

There are so many fantastic food spots here, it will become even more popular. Hopefully we see expanded outdoor dining and the birth of a new restaurant hub

[Nort]

It's worth pointing out that unless a road is literally bumper to bumper, dropping the speed limit a little doesn't impact the number of cars that can use a road, only adds a short amount onto travel times, and massive increases comfort for pedestrians.

[1NEEDS2POST]

If you want to attract artists, you need trams. Extending the botanic gardens tram along Magill Road makes a lot of sense. Unlike the plans to extend it along the Parade, with Magill Road you don't have any corners, so the tram is faster and easier to construct.

[Nort]

If you want to attract artists, you need trams. Extending the botanic gardens tram along Magill Road makes a lot of sense. Unlike the plans to extend it along the Parade, with Magill Road you don't have any corners, so the tram is faster and easier to construct.

I agree in principle with massively expanding the tram network, but there's a couple of practical issues with this specific case that could make it harder than expected.

• This route is already well served by buses, and would continue to be so even if trams were built as it's the best route to enter/exit the city from this side of town.
  
  Portrush road has high heavy vehicle traffic that could be a problem for tram wires (I'm not sure on the heights, but double height animal carriers etc are common)

[dbl96]

If you want to attract artists, you need trams. Extending the botanic gardens tram along Magill Road makes a lot of sense. Unlike the plans to extend it along the Parade, with Magill Road you don't have any corners, so the tram is faster and easier to construct.

I agree in principle with massively expanding the tram network, but there's a couple of practical issues with this specific case that could make it harder than expected.

• This route is already well served by buses, and would continue to be so even if trams were built as it's the best route to enter/exit the city from this side of town.
  
  Portrush road has high heavy vehicle traffic that could be a problem for tram wires (I'm not sure on the heights, but double height animal carriers etc are common)

Magill Road at Magill was identified as part of preferred corridor for the eastern suburbs tramline in the planning study that was carried out a few years ago. That plan has now been put on ice thanks to the election of Marshall's Liberal government which doesn't like trams, but remains a national priority project for Infrastructure Australia.

Regardless of the SA Liberal Party's short term decision making about this issue, the fact remains that Magill Rd at Magill has been identified as part of the preferred tram corridor, a long term infrastructure priority at the national level. The redevelopment of this section of Magill Road should make provision for the future construction of a tramway along this corridor. It would be very short sighted to redevelop Magill Rd in the way currently proposed and then have to rip it all up again a few years down the track.

[whatstheirnamesmom]

The intersection of Magill Rd and Penfold/St Bernards, where the Magill Village precinct is happening, was also the original terminus for the 1st generation Magill tram line, opened in 1911 (it was later extended to reach Norton Summit Rd in 1912).

I could easily see the Village precinct becoming a suitable terminus for a line, if they were to run an eastern route up Magill Rd instead of The Parade. Similar to how the Glenelg line terminates in Moseley Sq.

Thankfully I don't see anything in the Village precinct design plans that looks like it could reasonably block trams from making it up there. The new intersection upgrade at Magill and Portrush Rds, however, would definitely need more upgrades (for signalling + signalling equipment, at the least).

[SBD]

If you want to attract artists, you need trams. Extending the botanic gardens tram along Magill Road makes a lot of sense. Unlike the plans to extend it along the Parade, with Magill Road you don't have any corners, so the tram is faster and easier to construct.

I agree in principle with massively expanding the tram network, but there's a couple of practical issues with this specific case that could make it harder than expected.

• This route is already well served by buses, and would continue to be so even if trams were built as it's the best route to enter/exit the city from this side of town.
  
  Portrush road has high heavy vehicle traffic that could be a problem for tram wires (I'm not sure on the heights, but double height animal carriers etc are common)

The tram level crossings on Greenhill Road and Marion Road are both designated heavy vehicle routes authorised for 26m B-doubles (the same as Portrush Road) with no additional height restrictions, so the wires must be "high enough", whatever that means.

[dbl96]

The intersection of Magill Rd and Penfold/St Bernards, where the Magill Village precinct is happening, was also the original terminus for the 1st generation Magill tram line, opened in 1911 (it was later extended to reach Norton Summit Rd in 1912).

I could easily see the Village precinct becoming a suitable terminus for a line, if they were to run an eastern route up Magill Rd instead of The Parade. Similar to how the Glenelg line terminates in Moseley Sq.

Thankfully I don't see anything in the Village precinct design plans that looks like it could reasonably block trams from making it up there. The new intersection upgrade at Magill and Portrush Rds, however, would definitely need more upgrades (for signalling + signalling equipment, at the least).

The preferred route that was settled on under the previous Labor government was a mixed Parade/Magill Road route. The tram would have traveled along the Parade to Norwood before switching to a Magill Road alignment to head east to Magill. The terminus was proposed not on Magill Rd itself, but actually around the corner on St Bernard's Road at UniSA.

The current design does block trams if trams are going to have a dedicated right of way. There are only two motor vehicle lanes and the road will be narrowed to increase footpath space. Creating a dedicated right of way for trams would require ripping up the new street layout to widen the road. Of course, trams could run in the same lane as other traffic, as they do on Jetty Rd. This could actually be a good idea from the perspective of creating a welcoming "village" atmosphere, because it would further slow and discourage fast motor vehicle traffic. However, it would still require ripping up the high quality paving they propose to use for the road surface in order to install the tracks.

Ideally this project should be done at the same time as an eastern extension of the tram, or at least tram tracks should be set into the pavement from the start. Setting tracks into the pavement could have the benefit of increasing public pressure for the line to actually be extended so that those tracks can be used.