TORRENS JUNCTION GRADE SEPARATION

Torrens Junction.

The intermidable saga of the Torrens Junction grade separation project continues. Readers may remember, whilst they wait for freight trains to clear level crossings in the electorate, that the local member of parliament, Mr Atkinson told us exactly a year ago:

“The Minister for Transport has told me that the State Government has made a bid to the Commonwealth's Infrastructure Australia Fund for matching money to build a one-kilometre defile that will take the Outer Harbour and grange passenger trains beneath the standard-gauge freight in the west parklands and underneath Park Terrace. This would mean that the locomotives of Melbourne-bound freight trains would no longer be halted by signals just south of North Adelaide Railway Station and therefore their trucks would no longer block the Hawker Street and Torrens Road level crossings while they waited for suburban passenger trains to cross the freight line. The Minister tells me the bid is one of the few that fulfills all the requirements of Infrastructure Australia and stands a good chance of being funded. This project would also eliminate the level crossing at Park Terrace, making traffic flow more easily there. This was a topic that arose out of our last street-corner meetings in Bowden in March.”

Mr Atkinson's intervention with the Commonwealth seems to have had little positive impact, since the local railway grade separation has been put on ice, while the other half of the plan, the Goodwood Juction grade separation, has received the entire Commonwealth money – over $400 million.

The last sighting of the Torrens Junction proposal was here:

Residents may gain consolation by a careful consideration of Mr Atkinson's major traffic initiative, the 25 year campaign to re-open Barton Terrace North Adelaide, which creeps its way through the House of Assembly – much like the traffic piled up in Hawker Street, waiting for the freight trains to move.



"why does the freight train stop at hawker st crossing?"



The freight trains run on their own standard gauge track, while Adelaide metropolitan passenger trains run on broad gauge.
The freight line crosses the passenger lines at Goodwood and Torrens Junctions. Because the freight trains must 'give way' to passenger trains, they have to slow down or stop before the crossover points, if a passenger train needs to pass safely through the junction.
Torrens junction lies immediately north of the railway bridge crossing the Torrens river, adjacent to Bowden. Freight trains can be up to 1.5 Kms long, which means that those freight trains which need to slow down or stop before Torrens junction (traveling south) will cause motorists delays at both Hawker street and Torrens road railway crossings.
The “grade separation” proposal for the two junctions has been planned for many years.
The original plan called for underpasses to be built and level crossing upgrades in the areas. The Howard Government in its dying days promised $200M for the two junctions.
The grade separation funding application was given high priority under the Rudd nation building scheme.
However, with the inauguration of the Bowden Urban Village Transport Orientated Development in 2008, a coterie of local government members, planning officials and property developers pushed for - not just the 'functional' grade separation at Torrens Junction - but an extension of the proposed underpass right through to the existing Bowden Station, to form one of the prominent features of the Urban Village TOD.


This elaboration, while effectively subsidizing the property developers in Bowden, had the unfortunate result of rendering the project less eligible for funding from the Commonwealth, and the the situation as it now stands is that level crossing delays at Hawker street and Torrens road will continue to infuriate us for another decade.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Wednesday 17 October 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Page 3221

GOODWOOD AND TORRENS RAIL PROJECT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:26): As the shadow minister for transport, I take a great interest in transport and infrastructure projects in this state: when they are good, I support them; when they are bad and wasteful, of course I object to them; and when they do not tell us the whole truth, I expose them. Today, I want to refer to the Goodwood and Torrens rail junctions project, which is a $443 million project, essentially to provide grade separation between domestic and freight rail at two intersections, and other projects.

In May this year, the federal government announced in its budget that South Australia would receive $232 million in 2015-16, which is on a fifty-fifty arrangement between the state and federal governments towards the Goodwood and Torrens junctions project. In this year's state budget, the South Australian government committed $110 million this year for the Goodwood component, that is, the first grade separation.

I should also point out that $110 million is still missing from the total value of the project. The government said straightaway, 'We are going to start developing, repairing, and so forth, the Goodwood part of the project; the rest, obviously is going to have to wait.' There is still $110 million missing. This is very important. We received the Auditor-General's Report yesterday and for the first time in the time I have been here that I can recall (I may be wrong) the transport department actually received a qualified approval from the Auditor-General. The information there relates to how the government has treated its federal money.

We will obviously follow a number of these issues up at the appropriate time, if and when we ever get questions in relation to the Auditor-General's report, but in December 2011 Mr Rod Hook, the CEO, provided the Budget and Finance Committee with the following breakdown of costs in respect of this project: Goodwood Junction, $104.6 million; Leader Street, $51.6 million; Keswick, $45.8 million; Mike Turtur Bikeway overpass, $10.5 million; and Torrens Junction, Bowden and Park Terrace, $230.6 million.

When the Goodwood component went to the Public Works Committee recently, which I attended, Mr Hook attended with his staff to give evidence and, when asked about whether these figures were still applicable, they appeared to be somewhat confused about the budget figures that were presented, and they indicated that they would provide some updated material in relation to that. To date, to the best of my knowledge, that information has not been forthcoming, and I have since had a meeting with one of the senior officers in relation to this project and other matters.

What was very telling at that meeting of the Public Works was, firstly, that the submission that was presented by the Department of Transport no longer includes the $10.5 million bike overpass (on Ride to Work Day, it is rather a disappointing thing to have to be announcing today), and it is of concern that that was missing. The state government had not funded the Leader Street upgrade, which has completely disappeared from the work to be undertaken at this stage. Apparently, that is to be done at some later date with the Torrens interchange. If anyone knows the geography of Adelaide, they will know it is at the other end of the area concerned.

The honourable member for Ashford, in fact, gave evidence. To her credit, she described the traffic conditions in that area as 'a nightmare' in respect of the importance of having the Leader Street upgrade done. Given the increased traffic on the Seaford rail line after the electrification and extension, it is critical that we fix the level crossings that go with it.

It is a concern to me that that has slipped off the net, but here is another thing: we have lost the bike overpass, Leader Street has disappeared and now we have the state government not funding a $45.8 million upgrade for the build of a station for the Keswick site. They are only going to provide approximately $18 million for Keswick, which is not even happening at the same time as the current Goodwood project.

These are all very concerning matters. We have got a $110 million shortfall on a major project which is not in the budget anywhere from any government, we have got queries raised in the Auditor-General's Report and we have got public works material coming through which now highlights multimillion dollar parts of the project which have disappeared—just completely disappeared.

We will be wanting some answers. We will look forward to the answers that are provided by Mr Hook and/or his staff, in due course, to the Public Works Committee and the ultimate report to the parliament on these matters, but it is not acceptable that the government promote and propose major projects or smaller ones, for that matter, and then rip the guts out of them before they are actually out there for public consideration. This is a matter we will be taking further.

MINING ROYALTY "..checks the spirit of enterprise and discovery"

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "COLONIAL GAZETTE."

Sir—The proofs you have so often given that the acts of the Colonial-office are mean, paltry, and oppressive, have lately received additional testimony from the shameless conduct of the Colonial-office towards New Zealand; and its spite at a Company that did, what the Colonial-office  could not, namely, secure to England a valuable colonial possession.

I yesterday heard by chance, of another bit of dirty work in which the Colonial-office is engaged, and which, unless strenuously opposed, my Lord Stanley will succeed in smuggling through Parliament. I refer to the bill introduced into the Lords for making reserves to Government out of the mineral productions of the colonies. This step is caused by the discovery of mineral wealth in South Australia and the attempt now making by the Colonial  office I can fairly designate as one of great injustice and treachery.

The circumstances are these. Under the act of Parliament passed in August, 1835, for establishing the colony of South Australia (4 and 5 Wm. 4, cap 95), and by the regulations made by the commissioners appointed to carry the act into execution, "nothing, whether above or below  the surface of the land, will be reserved to the Crown." This has been hitherto the law, and the grants are made without reservation.  The only difference made by the acts passed subsequently  to the establishment of South Australia, has been to substitute the Crown in the place of the Commissioners, and  to introduce sale by auction, instead of at a fixed price.

The principle of making no reserves was not a chance  thought of the promoters of the settlement of South Australia. On the contrary, the system of making these reserves had been long condemned by those who had thought  on the subject: it had been found to check enterprise; it  was one which, in the case of South Australia, was opposed  successfully, the settlers of South Australia have always prized and highly esteemed the privilege they enjoyed; and,subsequently, the South Australian system of exemption  from reservations has been very properly extended to other Australian provinces. When mineral productions were discovered in South Australia the Governor showed a great indisposition to put up mineral lands for sale, and many of such lands have been(against the wishes of the colonists) withheld from the periodical auctions. The reason of this could not be publicly known, but it was rumoured that the Governor [Ed.: Captain George Grey ] had written to Lord Stanley to suggest the making of reservations.  The colonists were very indignant at this, and almost one and all were strongly opposed to the system proposed by the Governor; but, inasmuch as all the Government measures were secret and done in the dark, no public meeting or demonstration could be held. On my arrival from South Australia, a short time since, I had a meeting with the Emigration Board—a board useless, as it seems to me, in all except improper interference,and in publishing every year what is termed a report, but which consists of nothing except some statements intended to show how easily this board earns its pay. I could collect nothing definite at this meeting, except that it was considered that, under the last Land Sales Act, reservations could be made without any fresh act. At that time I considered that a fresh act would be necessary; and now, at the close of the session, when Lord Stanley thinks no notice will be taken of the attempt, he is endeavouring to smuggle through Parliament an act to effect his purpose.

If it was considered that there were no mineral productions in the province of South Australia, what was the use of granting land free from reservation? Yet now, when  it is discovered that there are such productions, the Government is seeking to put its claw on the profit. Whilst the principle of free grants meant nothing, the Government let it stand; now it is becoming of service, it is sought to be abrogated. I know I am expressing the feelings of the South Australian settlers when I state that they are most strongly opposed to the principle of Government reserves, and that, could they have known as a fact that such reserves were to be attempted, they would have met to have remonstrated on the subject.

But, Sir, setting aside the views of any particular body of settlers, the principle of reserves is odious, unjust, and  highly impolitic. It fetters the tenure of land with conditions inconsistent  with the free enjoyment of the freehold. It checks the spirit of enterprise and discovery, and prevents the sale of public land, is creating a new species of tax, when in South Australia such new tax is unnecessary and when the colonists, being very unfairly deprived of free representation, have no voice in the imposition of such tax, and, if they had such voice, would oppose it.  It is creating in South Australia an unfair difference between those who have purchased land heretofore, and those who shall buy hereafter. It is, on the part of the Government, seeking to obtain a double profit, inasmuch as lands containing minerals sell at a very large advance in price ; and yet the Government, not content with this advanced price, grasp at a royalty. It is, on the part of the Government, yielding to the opinion of the Governor, who has not even obtained the consent of the Council nominated by the Crown—a consent the Governor well knows he could not have obtained. It is, Sir, making laws and regulations for a colony containing nearly 20,000 people, regardless of the wishes, opposed to the interests, and with a wanton violation of the rights of such persons. I have to apologise for the length of my letter, but I feel strongly on the subject, and I am sure I shall not in vain appeal to your inteference to oppose this underhanded attempt of the Colonial-office.

D.

London, July 18, 1845.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "COLONIAL GAZETTE.". (1845, November 26). South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900), p. 2. Retrieved August 3, 2012, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27451395