BLACKWOOD RAIL OVERPASS
27/06/2012
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:09): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion and Minister for Disabilities questions regarding the Blackwood train station overpass.
Leave granted.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: In recent weeks we have discovered that the government plans to proceed with a highly unpopular proposal of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. I am not talking about the Cadell ferry, but, instead, the Blackwood train station overpass. Unfortunately, there has been about as much consultation on this matter as there was with the Cadell ferry decision: that is, very little.
A fortnight ago, whilst we were still sitting in this chamber, my staff member went to the community meeting on the Blackwood train station overpass proposal. On a cold, drizzly Wednesday night in the Hills, more than 70 local residents turned up to express their outrage about the fait accompli that had been presented to them by the department in relation to renovations to the Blackwood train station. The local mayor was there and he was none too amused; the department had not even consulted him. Whilst officers of the department were in attendance, the Minister for Transport, Patrick Conlon, and the Chief Executive of the department, Rod Hook, were not there to hear the heated discussion that went on for some hours in the Blackwood Uniting Church.
Residents are furious, and rightly so, that in addition to there being no consultation, anyone with mobility issues who uses a wheelchair, a pram or a walker will not only struggle to access the platforms from the Belair line at the Blackwood station, they will not be able to get to the Blackwood shops using the mazeway crossing that they have used for many years. This limits their community access and opportunities for exercise. Indeed, the accessible train crossing requires a 1.6-kilometre round trip in a northerly direction along undulating terrain adjacent to the track, which is hardly practical if you are using a wheelchair.
Yesterday, on 891 ABC radio, the local member for Davenport, Iain Evans, said that whilst he had been briefed on this matter by the department some time ago, he was not consulted per se and was also assured at the time that there would be extensive community consultation. During that meeting he said he also raised issues regarding access for people with disabilities, local commuters and residents using prams, and other mobility issues. No such promised consultation ever occurred and as much was admitted by departmental staff at the 13 June public meeting. My questions to the minister are:
1.Is the minister concerned about the lack of local public consultation undertaken by his government on this issue?
2.Is the minister concerned that people using wheelchairs or walkers, parents or carers with prams, and those with disabilities limiting their mobility or endurance, such as respiratory conditions, will now be forced to perform in excess of a 1.5-kilometre loop to cross the train tracks at the Blackwood station?
3.Has the minister sought to intervene in the overpass decision that has outraged local residents, including those with mobility issues?
4.In light of the reversal of the Cadell ferry decision, has the minister spoken to minister Patrick Conlon or Premier Jay Weatherill to express his concerns about this decision that excludes many people in the area from public transport?
5.If he has discussed the matter with the minister or the Premier, has he either sought to have this decision reversed or requested what other viable track crossing options might be investigated?
6.Is the minister concerned that the Transport Accessibility Advisory Group (TAAG) of the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure was given the overpass option as the only viable option and therefore signed off on the decision because they felt they had no choice?
7.Does the minister know whether staff in his department alerted the previous minister for disabilities, Jennifer Rankine, to the TAAG endorsement of this inaccessible overpass at the Blackwood station?
The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (15:14): I appreciate the question from the honourable member because it allows me to put some things on the record. I have to say at the outset that this is the portfolio responsibility of a minister in the other place, the Hon. Patrick Conlon. In anticipating that questions would be raised, I sought from the department some advice which—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, not necessarily the Hon. Ms Vincent; I expect it could have come from any source whatsoever, but I did take up some concerns that I had with the department and now wish to place on the record some of the responses I had. In 2011, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure approved the construction of a pedestrian overpass at the Blackwood Station on the Belair line.
Currently, passengers on the Belair line who use the large eastern car park are required to cross the Australian Rail Track Corporation freight line via a passive at-grade crossing at the southern end of the station to access the platforms. The general public also use the crossing to access the Blackwood precinct, I am advised. This crossing has very poor visibility for Adelaide-bound trains on the ARTC line, and I understand it is only 33 metres, compared with the Australian standard requirement of 120 metres, and presents a major safety risk for users.
The limited sight distance has historically been present due to the curvature of the island platform, but necessary upgrade works on the station, including raising the height of the platform and improved fencing on the platform backing onto the freight line, have exacerbated the poor sight distance issue. To ensure the safety of the public whilst a longer term solution is being identified, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure employed a full-time safety officer, who has been stationed on site for approximately two years.
Extensive investigations have been undertaken, and 22 options were considered and assessed by key experts within and external to DPTI, including the Human Factors Department of the University of South Australia. DPTI faces significant challenges in providing an accessible option due to severe site constraints. Options examined included an active gated pedestrian crossing, as well as the provision of lifts or ramps in an overpass. Unfortunately, the very limited space at this site prevented these options being viable, while many of the other options did not adequately address the safety risks.
DPTI cannot leave the crossing in its current form due to the very high risk of a fatal collision; hence, a $1.3 million pedestrian overpass with stair access only will be constructed. The stair access only solution does not comply—it does not comply—with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirements. It is, however, supported by DTPI’s DDA coordinator, as well as external disability representatives who form the Transport Accessibility Advisory Group (TAAG).
Members of TAAG who endorsed this solution included representatives from Our Voice, People with Intellectual Disabilities South Australia Inc., Physical Disability Council of South Australia, Royal Society for the Blind, the Access Cab Consumer Representative, Guide Dogs Association of South Australia and Northern Territory, Disability Advocacy and Complaints Service Inc., Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Association of South Australia, Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of South Australia Inc., and the Council of the Ageing’s Senior Voice representative.
As part of this project, I refer to the minutes of a meeting held on Wednesday 18 May 2011 at which those representatives were present, I believe it says:
After exhaustive investigations, it has been determined that the safest and most equitable solution is to construct a pedestrian overpass spanning over the ARTC track with stair access. As previously discussed, ramps cannot be installed due to site constraints. These same constraints apply to installation of lift access, the footprints of both solutions will not fit. The existing unsafe ARTC mazeway crossing will be closed.
It then goes on to list a number of requirements to ameliorate some of the concerns about disability access, and I might read those into the record very shortly.
As part of the project, additional accessible parking will be provided in the western car park, as well as priority parking for people with walking aids or prams. During the time the full-time safety officer has been employed on the site, there have been no observations of customers in wheelchairs wanting to access the station via the current at-grade crossing in question. Persons currently using the at-grade crossing and who are unable to use the stepped overpass will be required to walk to an at-grade passive pedestrian crossing at the northern end of the station on Elm Street.
At this location, the line of sight of approaching trains is acceptable. DPTI’s design works involve meeting with up to seven council officers from the City of Mitcham over the past 12 months. At these meetings, two offers were made to brief all council members. Council also made comments on the Development Assessment Commission application, with no major issues raised.
Only very subtle design changes on the structure were requested, which were accommodated by DPTI, I am advised. Briefings were undertaken by DPTI with disability representatives, as I have just laid out, local members of parliament (state and federal) and council. DPTI recognises that it misjudged the desire within the community for information regarding the extensive work undertaken to explore options and reasons for the proposed solution, but it has been consulting broadly and widely.
Consequently DPTI made a decision to postpone construction to provide further information to the local community. Following a community information evening held on 13 June 2012, DPTI advises that it will work with the City of Mitcham to investigate the development of a pedestrian path between the eastern car park and the northern mazeway crossing to provide a more convenient safe crossing point for local residents. In the meantime, construction of the pedestrian overpass will proceed as this is the safest pedestrian access DPTI can provide at the station; and train timetables, I am advised, will remain unchanged during this construction process.
To ensure the works are undertaken safely and efficiently, access to the centre platform will be restricted, and passengers have been advised to arrive at the station at least five minutes prior to their train departure to allow for additional time to access the centre platform via modified access arrangements. I am also advised that customised service staff will be positioned at the station to assist those passengers. I am very pleased to be able to put on the record some of these comments because some considerable amount of misinformation has been put across the public airwaves in recent times and it is very appropriate that the facts are put on the table and on the record.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:21): By way of supplementary question, will the minister confirm whether the TAAG group was consulted on the full range of options, or were they merely briefed on a decision that had already been taken?
The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (15:22): I can advise, in referring to the minutes, which I have with me, that they record that the top five safest and equitable options are summarised below. So, at the very least, I can say that the top five solutions were presented to and considered by the committee. I do not know whether they got all of the 17 options—
The Hon. M. Parnell: Twenty-two.
The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —twenty-two options that were initially considered—but the minutes record that the top five safest and equitable options were summarised below and were considered by that committee.
