Anderson, Tenille Francyne (DPTI)

251 Pages·2012·17.35 MB·English

Anderson, Tenille Francyne (DPTI)
From: Jenny Sever [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 11 January 2016 1:32 PM
To: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Subject: FW to SN - DAC public submission Hackney Rd O-Bahn works
Mrs J A Sever
59 Fourth Ave
St Peters. SA. 5069
[email protected]
Ph: 0403 509 306

My interests in these works are based on:
* representing my mother who lives at 12 Westbury St Hackney
* representing her interests in her property at 10 Westbury St Hackney
* being a homeowner in the NPSP council who commutes through the area, and
* a concerned citizen

The specific aspects of the application to which I make comment on are:

(1) The current length and location of the proposed tunnel portal removes the ability of
Hackney South residents to have reasonable ability to enter and exit their suburb.

For example DPTI recommend residents wishing to exit their suburb to travel north on Hackney
Rd to .... exit via Osborne St, turn left onto North Tce, cross lanes to turn right into
College Rd, Kent Town, drive through roundabout to exit College Rd back onto North Tce,
turning left, cross lanes to right turn lane at traffic lights at Hackney Rd, turning into
Hackney Road they will then pass their street to begin their journey. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO
LOOK AT A MAP, OR ATTEMPT THIS RECOMMENDATION YOURSELF.

(2). Traffic exiting Richmond St must turn left, cross two lanes of traffic, cross a
dedicated bus lane to enter a slip stream to carry out a u-turn across a dedicated bus lane
to commence their northerly journey. This is an additional 1.2 km journey and the crossing of
dedicated bus lanes like this is unprecedented.

(3). Pedestrian ability to cross the widened Hackney Road with dedicated bus lanes is not
safe. Please note crossing Hackney Rd to gain access to the city, Botanic Gardens, the Zoo
and Adelaide Uni is used by the suburbs of Hackney, College Park, St Peters and beyond.

(4). No independent safety report to any of the proposed changes has been carried out.

(5). The proposed cover to the tunnel portal at over 6m in height and modern design is not at
all in keeping with the area, specifically Romilly House, the row of offices to the north of
Romilly House and all mansions and cottages that exist along Hackney Road.

(6). I have concerns regarding the inability of entering Gilberton at the Bundey's Road
traffic lights. This will add substantial travel time and additional traffic to Walkerville
Tce, Gilbert St etc

(7). My final concern is the fact that to use this tunnel the buses must first leave their
dedicated O-Bahn track to join traffic, potentially sit at traffic lights at Bundey's Rd
intersection before entering the dedicated bus lanes. This whole project is flawed and if
necessary should begin where the tracks finish negating the need for any of my first 6
concerns.

1
I am happy to be heard in support of my submission.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Sever
11 January 2016

Sent from my iPhone
2
Anderson, Tenille Francyne (DPTI)
From: don & sonya johnson [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 3:32 PM
To: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Subject: A Representation

12 January 2015

Secretary, Development Assessment Commission

GPO Box 1815, Adelaide 5001

[email protected]

Dear Secretary,

Re: O-Bahn City Access Project, Development No. 155/V009/15. As a concerned citizen and
recognized academic I make this two-paged open representation to the Commission.

In February 2004 the state Labor government promised that if elected Adelaide O-Bahn buses
would burrow under the parklands. Some politicians saw buses popping out of the earth next to the
city’s CBD. The principle argument for such an idea was to cut a few minutes travel time during
peak hours only and for a few thousand voters, a small number when one considers the tens of
thousands that use public transport every day.

Are arguments for the extension of the AO-B valid, reasonable, persuasive? Answers are
contained within the many published biased comments of labor politicians and the very negative
response of their constituency, government advisors, and the wider community. Most professional
designers and planners would oppose the proposed design believing it not valid or desirable and
with good reason.

People, voters, remember that the AO-B bulky track structures wrecked many kilometres of the
much-used River Torrens Linear Park. Today state politicians want to repeat that villainy and pave
and carve-up a section of Rundle Park in the east park lands in an effort to shorten travel time.
See
A large concrete-lined ditch before a rather wide tunnel
government’s DPTI Concept Site Plan, Option 2, dated 17.08.2015.
covered by a large iron frame of sorts will grace the park along with increased road-and-parking on
concrete pads.

It needs be remembered that O-Bahn or KGB busways are a large single-function transport system
without adaptive ability or compatibility. Road, rail, and pedestrian crossings break mechanical
continuity and kerb controll. As experience has proven, when there is an accident all buses come
to a standstill. And, among other problems recent inspections of AO-B reveal the concrete tracks
(rails), and especially the kerbs, have reached their predicted life span of thirty years causing a
predicted increase in maintenance costs.

Further, research indicates the Omnibus-Bahn system of kerb guided buses (KGB) is antiquated
and very expensive to install and maintain. It has not been selected by any Australian municipality
1
except in 1986 when the Adelaide O-Bhan was begun, to open in 1989. That outcome was the
result of persuasive salesmanship by Daimler-Benz of Germany who, by the way, have not
attempted to sell the O-Bahn for many years. Of equal interest, in the past fifteen years only a few
KGB’s were constructed, but only in the UK and Germany and with mixed unfavourable results.
Passengers and track-side people objected, routes were troubled and shortened, systems altered in
favour of designated lanes, but most were simply abandoned.
See <guided busway-Wikipedia> and
Nagoya, Japan has one line, shortened at least once, in a route of designated
<citytransport.info/OBahn.html#what>.
lanes. Otherwise there are none in the rest of the world. Why persist with a failing system that is
so obviously inferior to rail systems?

What of the design parameters? In relation to this project, that is to get buses across the parklands
quickly, four are valuable: one, economy (of time, materials, money, etc.); two, best result for least
effort; three, the use of existing assets; and four, the fit to future rail transit planning? The ditch
and tunnel score zero or poorly for each parameter while Hackney Road to Dequetteville Terrace to
Rundle Road score high on three.

Is the final design by the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure conceptually
reasonable?

At first glance the “Concept Site Plan” of 17 August 2015 appears redundant.
See also <adelaide o-bahn extension>
. From the city’s East Terrance four roads (a short 150
and <o-bahn city access project-adelaide park lands preservation> of 2 April 2015
metres from each other!) will cross the eastern park lands: Bartels, Rundle, Botanic, and the ditch
and tunnel as extended from Grenfell Street. Functionally, the only reason for a tunnel is to avoid
on ground level the two intersections at Botanic and Rundle Roads with Dequettevillle Terrace. Of
course DPTI obtained non-government design advice of considerable value but only for their plan,
not as to its viability and reasonableness . . . or to suggest possible alternatives . . . such as
presented here.

I believe the ditch and tunnel project must be abandoned in favour of something akin to the
following.

Kerb guides for the O-Bahn buses must end just north of the Hackney Road and Bundeys Road
intersection. Buses then proceed on Hackney on designated bus-only lanes of a rustic red color!
With designated lanes there is no need for kerbs (very hazardous in this situation) and buses can go
at their own speed. Bus-only lanes are divided by a median that is wide enough for future tram
lines that continue on Dequetteville to the Rundle Road junction. (DPTI plans refer to “future
trams”, but why not build them now?) Rundle Road is then realigned to meet Rundle Street in
Kent Town as shown on DPTI’s site drawings for Option 2, amendments A and B of 17 August
2015. At the two junctions traffic lights are set at a few seconds for bus-only turns. At the
junction of Rundle Road and East Terrace the median stops, the rust colored designated lanes stop.
But buses can proceed for a leisurely run on Adelaide’s Rundle Street or turn left to East Terrace
then to Grenfell or on to Pirie Street.

There is, therefore, no need for a tunnel and ditch, or O-Bahn kerbs, or to reroute East Terrace from
Grenfell Street to Pirie Street, or to enlarge East Terrace. With the exception of unrevealed future
plans, design parameters are met and millions of dollars saved for more urgent social needs. A
major portion of the east park lands and Rymill Park are protected. Knowledge gained as a result
2
of internal research and specialist advice can be put to use on future tram systems throughout the
greater Adelaide area.

It is easy to cite damages to our valuable park lands as a consequence of political myopia and
commercial persuasion that impose doubtful demands upon governmental planners and traffic
engineers. I believe those professionals would agree that the proposed tunnel is ridiculous and
must be stopped. Further, they would agree that congenial tram and light rail systems are
preferred.

Respectfully,

Donald Leslie Johnson HonRAIA

Adjunct Professor of Architectural History

University of South Australia

PO Box 75, Kangarilla 5157

e
[email protected]

3
Anderson, Tenille Francyne (DPTI)
From: Minicozzi Lawyers [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 18 January 2016 5:27 PM
To: DPTI:PD DAC & Major Developments Panel
Subject: Nic_Minicozzi_10368 - Development No. 155/V009/15 - OBahn, Hackney Road - Minicozzi
Group Representation/Objections
Attachments: img-118172530-0001.pdf
1. Please find transmitted herewith:

a. Letter dated 18th January 2016 to the Development Assessment Commission, the original of which is

today being posted to GPO Box 1815, Adelaide SA 5001; and
b. The Representation dated 18th January 2016 with Appendix A and Appendix B.

2. Would you be kind enough to acknowledge formal receipt of the Representation and provide me with a

response to the letter as soon as possible please.

Yours faithfully,

Nic Minicozzi
Minicozzi Lawyers

Suite 4, 17 Hackney Road Hackney SA 5069
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
Email: [email protected]

LIABILITY LIMITED BY A SCHEME APPROVED UNDER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS LEGISLATION

E-MAIL DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments to it, is intended for the use of the addressee only. It is
confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose, read, forward, copy or retain any of the information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it
and notify the sender by return e-mail or telephone. Minicozzi Solicitors do not warrant that any attachments are free
from viruses or any other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage, or other consequences which may arise
from opening or using the attachments.

1