EDIT- this was meant to be in the 50 Level crossing page. Can anyone move it?
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)Stuffed if I know, but it's far from the only LX removal to suffer from this problem.
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)Stuffed if I know, but it's far from the only LX removal to suffer from this problem.
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.
Yes and that is the whole point - the railway line was there for years too but has been raised to allow better traffic flowI have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Do you mean the pedestrian crossing right underneath the new grade separation?
That pedestrian crossing has been there for years. It is not a new pedestrian crossing installed as part of the level crossing removal. It's part of the bicycle path that runs from Royal Park to Gowrie, and may even predate the provision of the path.
I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)20 metres you say? Sounds like it's been set up so the police can set up camp to fine jaywalkers who don't want to wait 90-120 seconds for the lights to change while their train is pulling in! Instead of, you know, not having two minutes of green time for through traffic right outside a railway station or other pedestrian-heavy sites like shopping centres (the pedestrian crossing between Ringwood station and Eastland is just as bad).
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.Same thing in Ringwood (again) at the west end of Eastland at Bond St. They removed the southern ped crossing from Bond St (the intersection used to have crossings on all four sides) and moved it 50 metres south so people could cross outside the Costco laneway, so now there's a crossing at Maroondah Hwy, Costco, Bond St and outside the Law Courts (which also has a redundant crossing on the footpath facing the pedestrians, so that cars can get right-of-way entering a carpark which is up a kerb anyway - no-one follows that one, even uniformed police officers walk through the red man with the tens of other pedestrians).
Much like Reservoir station, the road layout remained the same but all newly resurfaced, The station forecourt is too narrow for any future tram to pass through if the 11 tram is ever extended (in another election promise) to Reservoir station or to Latrobe uni. The LXRA said it wasn't part of their scope and a council/vicroads thing when they want to do it. 3 roundabouts would mostly have kept the spaghetti junction flowing along I think. If the station had been moved 20-50 metres south, it would have left space for an east/west connection for buses/pedestrians and trams. Oh well.I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.
It is amazing smeg. Defeats the entire purpose of removing the level crossing and creating better traffic flow.
The objective was to get the at grade railway crossing out of the picture, and that's what they did.Much like Reservoir station, the road layout remained the same but all newly resurfaced, The station forecourt is too narrow for any future tram to pass through if the 11 tram is ever extended (in another election promise) to Reservoir station or to Latrobe uni. The LXRA said it wasn't part of their scope and a council/vicroads thing when they want to do it. 3 roundabouts would mostly have kept the spaghetti junction flowing along I think. If the station had been moved 20-50 metres south, it would have left space for an east/west connection for buses/pedestrians and trams. Oh well.I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.
It is amazing smeg. Defeats the entire purpose of removing the level crossing and creating better traffic flow.
And when those auxiliary works require the closing of the train line to achieve what could have been easily achieved for very little extra while they were doing the LX removal? Then they get put in the to hard basket, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the LX removal.The objective was to get the at grade railway crossing out of the picture, and that's what they did.Much like Reservoir station, the road layout remained the same but all newly resurfaced, The station forecourt is too narrow for any future tram to pass through if the 11 tram is ever extended (in another election promise) to Reservoir station or to Latrobe uni. The LXRA said it wasn't part of their scope and a council/vicroads thing when they want to do it. 3 roundabouts would mostly have kept the spaghetti junction flowing along I think. If the station had been moved 20-50 metres south, it would have left space for an east/west connection for buses/pedestrians and trams. Oh well.I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.
It is amazing smeg. Defeats the entire purpose of removing the level crossing and creating better traffic flow.
Other Government Departments need to step up and complete auxiliary works (If they have will and means to do so)
No, the railway Is out of the picture, so no need to close It, we are talking roadworks / streetscape works.And when those auxiliary works require the closing of the train line to achieve what could have been easily achieved for very little extra while they were doing the LX removal? Then they get put in the to hard basket, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the LX removal.
In many cases the suggested pedestrian underpass would be best placed in the railway cutting. Do you think Metro will look kindly on someone digging out a 2m wide path at the top of the cutting while the trains go past? Ergo to get rid of the pedestrian crossing, the rail line must be closed during (at least part of) construction.No, the railway Is out of the picture, so no need to close It, we are talking roadworks / streetscape works.And when those auxiliary works require the closing of the train line to achieve what could have been easily achieved for very little extra while they were doing the LX removal? Then they get put in the to hard basket, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the LX removal.
Yep objective achieved on that. Unfortunately the whole structure is an impediment to fixing the road junction below which remains an illogical mess- the government agencies need to work in unison for the time or for the future. LXRA said they left provision for Vicroads to modify the intersection at some point if they want to, but I don't see it. The station superstructure is too far north. Oh well, another mess remainsThe objective was to get the at grade railway crossing out of the picture, and that's what they did.Much like Reservoir station, the road layout remained the same but all newly resurfaced, The station forecourt is too narrow for any future tram to pass through if the 11 tram is ever extended (in another election promise) to Reservoir station or to Latrobe uni. The LXRA said it wasn't part of their scope and a council/vicroads thing when they want to do it. 3 roundabouts would mostly have kept the spaghetti junction flowing along I think. If the station had been moved 20-50 metres south, it would have left space for an east/west connection for buses/pedestrians and trams. Oh well.I have feedback on the Bell Street level crossing removal just west of Sydney Road. (Not sure of the station)
Why go to the length of removing the crossing for better vehicle flow and rail across the top and then put in a set of pedestrian lights only 20 metres from another set to hold traffic up once again. Where do these planners get their degrees?
Because idiocy. It is one of the dumbest decisions in the entire level crossing removal project. Springvale Road comes to mind as an earlier example but this one is the new leader. I use Bell St at least a dozen times a week and it never ceases to impress the level of stupidity required to put a pedestrian crossing like you said, 20 metres from an existing traffic light intersection.
It is amazing smeg. Defeats the entire purpose of removing the level crossing and creating better traffic flow.
Other Government Departments need to step up and complete auxiliary works (If they have will and means to do so)
No, the grade separations are designed to have provision for all the foreseeable auxiliary works, so there will not be any digging In the limits of approach.In many cases the suggested pedestrian underpass would be best placed in the railway cutting. Do you think Metro will look kindly on someone digging out a 2m wide path at the top of the cutting while the trains go past? Ergo to get rid of the pedestrian crossing, the rail line must be closed during (at least part of) construction.No, the railway Is out of the picture, so no need to close It, we are talking roadworks / streetscape works.And when those auxiliary works require the closing of the train line to achieve what could have been easily achieved for very little extra while they were doing the LX removal? Then they get put in the to hard basket, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the LX removal.
Totally agree there are no pans to do so. My point is that they SHOULD have gotten rid of it when they did the LX removal works. 4 pedestrian light cycles (on average) per peak hour train is not appreciably better than the level crossing was.No, the grade separations are designed to have provision for all the foreseeable auxiliary works, so there will not be any digging In the limits of approach.In many cases the suggested pedestrian underpass would be best placed in the railway cutting. Do you think Metro will look kindly on someone digging out a 2m wide path at the top of the cutting while the trains go past? Ergo to get rid of the pedestrian crossing, the rail line must be closed during (at least part of) construction.And when those auxiliary works require the closing of the train line to achieve what could have been easily achieved for very little extra while they were doing the LX removal? Then they get put in the to hard basket, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the LX removal.No, the railway Is out of the picture, so no need to close It, we are talking roadworks / streetscape works.
If they didn't get rid of a pedestrian crossing during grade separation works, well that's a pretty good Indication they have no plans to do so.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.