I would like answers to the following:
What are the advantages of an underpass over the gated level crossings that are being installed at other locations for the disabled and the elderly?
What provides the basis of the mooted underpass being supported in a risk assessment when the following I trust have been factored in;
• That underpasses have a documented history of assaults, robberies and sexual assault in Adelaide
• That the wider community has requested underpasses be removed for all of the above reasons plus graffiti attacks, vandalism, etc
• That while there have been deaths at railway crossings, any that were at the old style non gated crossing cannot be utilised in any risk assessment. A risk assessment must factor in the proposed equipment that is being evaluated so only deaths at a gated level crossing can be factored in.
Cost benefit analysis
How can an underpass with its expensive construction requirements, disruption, and ongoing maintenance costs come out as the most cost effective option in comparison to a gated level crossing?
How could the environmental assessment that would be a component of the evaluation of the underpass favour the wanton destruction of a large number of protected river red gums? The proposed new plantings – but not in the immediate vicinity - do not replace the existing habitat that has been formed over 150 plus years. Particularly when the factor of increasing and uncontrolled public vandalism will in all probability see many of any replacement plantings destroyed.
These four points need an answer to not only myself but the community as a whole who are only now realising what the ongoing impact will be of this underpass.