Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Blackwood Rail Overpass BLACKWOOD RAIL OVERPASS The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:44): I rise today to speak about an issue that was raised in question time today, that of the pedestrian crossing on the railway line at the Blackwood Railway Station. For members who are not familiar with the location, what we have at the Blackwood Railway Station are three railway tracks and two railway platforms. Two of the tracks are broad gauge tracks for the metropolitan trains and the other track is a standard gauge line for freight trains. We know the freight trains are increasing in frequency and in length. If they are not already up to 1.8 kilometres they soon will be because the government has decided that the Adelaide Hills route is to be the long-term route for freight trains going from the Eastern States through Adelaide to Perth. In order for people to get from the railway station car park to the station they have to cross all three tracks. Similarly, if people want to go from the car park to the bus interchange at the station they have to cross all three tracks. At present, there is a level pedestrian crossing with an inadequate maze arrangement, which is what the government is concerned is dangerous and wants to replace. Part of the problem with this situation is that the crossing is not just for public transport patrons, it is also a major access route for people who live in the suburb of Hawthorndene to walk to the Blackwood Shopping Centre. It is the only shopping centre in the region and I would suggest that as many, possibly even more, people cross the tracks who are going to the shops, compared to those who are crossing it to use public transport. The recent meeting held at Blackwood raised a number of concerns. Rod Hook, who heads the relevant section of the department, has said in the media that he understands the concerns that have been raised. At the heart of the problem is the fact that the department has form, if you like, for planning infrastructure for one purpose and ignoring the downstream implications for other users and other purposes. In fact, you could ask the question: what is it about this government and bridges? There was the situation with the Bakewell Bridge replacement, where the government wanted to put a footpath on only one side of the bridge. There was the situation with another bridge across South Road, the tram crossing bridge, where, to cut costs, it was decided to build the bridge with no footpath or cycle path at all. Thankfully, due to a community campaign, which the Greens had no small part in, we managed to have that decision overturned and there is now a footpath and a bike path crossing over South Road. You could add to the list of debacles caused by short-sighted thinking in the department: the Cadell ferry, the bridge to Hindmarsh Island and the Torrens footbridge to the new Adelaide Oval. There is a problem when departments only look at a small part of the problem and not the whole picture. The solution, I think, for the Blackwood Railway Station is to do as the Hon. Kelly Vincent has urged the government to do, that is, to make its consultation with the community genuine and not tokenistic. The government needs to make sure that it talks to the residents of Hawthorndene as well as people who are seeking to catch public transport, because this is an important piece of community infrastructure that affects a wide range of people. I have had an opportunity to look briefly at the draft minutes of the Transport Accessibility Advisory Group meeting that we were told had assessed the different options. I note that one of the options put to them, but with the strong recommendation, if you like, that it would not work, was to have an automated gate. As I said in my supplementary question today, the automated gates work well on rail crossings in other states. I am familiar with them in Melbourne. The beauty of an automated gate is that it does not require the same sight distances because the gate closes when it is dangerous, the gate closes well before the train arrives. What that would mean in this situation is that when the gate is closed you could not easily cross the tracks. If you were mobile you could use the overhead crossing that is being installed, but at least you would have this option for people who are not able to use those steps to get across the tracks. I would urge the government to go back to the drawing board. This is a transport department problem. It needs to pay for the solution, but first it needs to consult with the community, and that means the whole community. Time expired.