Hove crossing upgrade left with only two options, including rail bridge that community has opposed

Half the options for the Hove crossing upgrade have been scrapped, leaving a highly contentious rail bridge as the frontrunner.

A railway bridge is emerging as the favoured design option for a controversial level crossing upgrade in Adelaide’s southwest, in defiance of a community campaign for a rail underpass.

Putting the project on a collision course with residents’ push, Transport Department boss Tony Braxton-Smith told a parliamentary committee on Monday that the Government had scrapped two of the four options under consideration for the Hove level crossing project.

The upgrade aimed to remove the level crossing by building either an overpass or an underpass.

However, Mr Braxton-Smith said the options of raising Brighton Rd over the rail line or lowering the road under the line had both been axed.

Instead raising the rail line over Brighton Rd, at a cost of $295 million, or lowering it under the thoroughfare, at a cost of $450 million, remained in contention.

A railway bridge is emerging as the favoured design option for the controversial level crossing upgrade at Hove. Picture: Brenton Edwards

Local residents have been lobbying for the “rail-under” option, saying a rail-over option, with its 1.4km bridge, would be an eyesore and would divide the community.

However, Mr Braxton-Smith told the committee the rail-under option was fraught with issues, but emphasised the benefits of the rail bridge, including less property acquisitions and would result in less impact to traffic.

He said the rail-under option required a long corridor to achieve the gradient for the railway line and a lengthy construction time of between 12 to 18 months, which would create “significant inconvenience” for commuters.

“A long rail cutting will require bridges across the corridor to maintain existing access points, which would create visual impact with long ramps and raised bridges,” he said.

Mr Braxton-Smith said the option would also require the “complex, lengthy and costly” relocation or modification of automated systems and a total of 46 property acquisitions on both sides of the road for the period of construction.

He also said the rail-under option would also cause disruption to groundwater found between five and seven metres under the project site.

“Disrupting the water table in this location would also bring with it a number of risks, including local inundation in major rain events, potential mobilisation of known sources of contamination from the groundwater table or indeed it could alter the way the groundwater table works, impacting neighbouring properties,” he said.

In contrast, Mr Braxton-Smith said the rail-over option required the least amount of property acquisitions (five) and a smaller construction area, and would result in less impact to traffic.

He also said rail services would continue to operate during the construction period.

“Overall it’s going to create a new community open space and recreation areas underneath the elevated structure in a high-quality environment...and improve the vistas for houses adjacent to the corridor,” he said.

Community group “Rail under! Save Our Homes! No to Hove bridge” has been calling for the rail-under option.

A community group has campaigned against a rail bridge at Hove, but the option is still being considered while others have been axed.

Group spokeswoman Jane Fleming said residents wanted the rail-under option, without a proposed temporary train line installed so the option would negate the need to acquire 46 homes.

“A concrete monstrosity is not appropriate in a green leafy community,” she said.

Holdfast Bay Mayor Amanda Wilson said the council also supported a rail-under option, without a temporary track.

“What’s the point of going out to consultation if there is only one option that is being so aggressively lobbied for by the department – It’s a farce,” she said.

The Government is expected to make its final decision on the design of the upgrade within months.