Proposed $8bn Salisbury-Wooloowin Rail Tunnel

[dannyr]

From http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/km-r ... 5844670333

A RAIL tunnel and new track from Salisbury in Brisbane's south to Wooloowin in the north is under consideration for the Cross River Rail project, says Premier Anna Bligh.

Ms Bligh has told Parliament that under the Cross River Rail Tunnel study corridor it has been proposed to burrow under the city and the Brisbane River for the project which could cost up to $8bn.

Stations could be located beneath George, Albert or Edward Streets.

The total length of the proposed new line would be 19km, with the tunnel possibly stretching from Bowen Hills to the Fairfield-Annerley.

The ambitious project also may include a new underground station at Wooloongabba, an underground platform at Park Road, possible underground platforms at either Roma Street or Central in the city, and upgrading the Exhibition and Bowen Hills stations. She said it was hoped the project would be a reality by 2016, when current modelling showed it would be ``desperately needed''.

The announcement follows the release of three possible routes in 2008 that included a duplication of the existing corridor and a line through Newstead, both of which have been rejected.

Ms Bligh said the chosen route was the most economical and would benefit commuters most.

``Of the three, this study corridor has the least impact on existing property and has the most and best potential to really bust congestion in our city,'' she said.

``The corridor allows for the increased capacity needed in our rail network plus significant development opportunities in and around the growth areas of Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills.''

It also allowed for a shorter length of tunnel by using the existing Exhibition rail corridor, she said.

``This project would be the single largest transport project ever undertaken in Queensland's history,'' Ms Bligh said.

The study will investigate:

• Possible new tracks or services in the North Brisbane areas of Wooloowin, Clayfield, Windsor and Albion.
• An upgrade of Exhibition Station at the RNA showgrounds and Bowen Hills station.
• Underground platforms at either Central or Roma Street stations.
• A new underground station in the southern end of the CBD - possibly under George, Albert or Edward streets.
• New underground stations at Wooloongabba, near the Gabba, and at Park Road.
• Where the underground link could surface both at Annerley and Kelvin Grove.

Ms Bligh said the cross river rail line was a critical link with a predicted 140-plus extra services needed post 2016 to cope withe population growth and demand.

Geotechnical studies are already under way with drilling in the Dutton Park area expected to be undertaken after Easter.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the would be no future opportunities to add extra services on already congested Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines without adding another cross-river link to the rail network.

Ms Bligh said the project would be the largest transport infrastructure project undertaken in Queensland.

Positives as I see them:

• Upgrades to Exhibition and Bowen Hills Stations (and you would assume making Exhibition a full service station and not just for special events)
• One would assume that more lines means more trains, which in turn is a huge boost for the economy (although we are talking Nolan and Bligh here, so not necessarily)

Negatives as I see them:

• Yet another inner city station. If we put another inner city station in the CBD we'll end up with stations like Sydney's Museum that are seldom used and under utilised. Why spend money on lots of stations simply to carry the same amount of passengers?

Comments? Thoughts?

[El Cubano]

The length they are proposing is a little over the top of you ask me when really it is only providing two new stations, south city and the Gabba. The others are just underground versions of exisiting ones. I would say the old Marshalling Yards at Bowen Hills may be their idea of an entry point from the North, but I don't know.

IMO all we need is an inner city loop, like that of Sydney to better sevice the bottom half of the city. We don't need a 19km tunnel from north to south. A tunnel simply from the Valley to Southbank via Alice Street in the city. That kind of direction.

Or why not start running regular loop services around the Ekka loop again with a station at the Normanby and near Centenary Pool to encourage development up towards Spring Hill rather than increased development where transport (well at least rail) is lacking, down the bottom of the city.

If the state government had any idea what they were doing they would have grouped such a project with the CLEM7 to save costs, considering that they are proposing a somewhat similar route with a detour into the city.

If you as me the state government has gone mad!

[l_blue_l]

It is not yet known what the full length of the tunnel will be. They are working out if it will be better to continue the tunnels longer north or south or if it would be better to just upgrade existing lines. And i cant see how the Clem7 has any relevance to this project as they never meet nor do they use the same route.

EL Cubano have you read any of the project details before because it doesn't sound like it.

The point to this project is to add capacity to the network with the most important bit being cross river capacity.

[nikko]

The length they are proposing is a little over the top of you ask me when really it is only providing two new stations, south city and the Gabba. The others are just underground versions of exisiting ones. I would say the old Marshalling Yards at Bowen Hills may be their idea of an entry point from the North, but I don't know.

IMO all we need is an inner city loop, like that of Sydney to better sevice the bottom half of the city. We don't need a 19km tunnel from north to south. A tunnel simply from the Valley to Southbank via Alice Street in the city. That kind of direction.

Or why not start running regular loop services around the Ekka loop again with a station at the Normanby and near Centenary Pool to encourage development up towards Spring Hill rather than increased development where transport (well at least rail) is lacking, down the bottom of the city.

If the state government had any idea what they were doing they would have grouped such a project with the CLEM7 to save costs, considering that they are proposing a somewhat similar route with a detour into the city.

If you as me the state government has gone mad!

That idea is fine if you don't think Brisbane is going to need any more rail services.

The whole point of cross river rail is to bypass the bottlenecks at the Merivale Bridge, Roma St Junction and Mayne; They are indirect and almost at capacity. If there is any hope of improved rail frequencies, CRR is the only way this is possible. That or a 19km bridge.

[GeoffreyHansen]

I was hoping that a station would be built at Riverside to provide an interchange with the Citycat. Alternatively a station near Woolworths could be quite beneficial.

What will happen to freight trains if the exhibition loop gets used for regular suburban trains? Part of me wonders if there would be merit in also duplicating the Merivale bridge for freight trains.

Anyway excellent news about the cross river tunnel.

[l_blue_l]

I think one of the main things stopping there being a station near the riverside is that the station would need to be very deep would cost a XXX load. I think it could also increase the risk of the project as it would be a relatively high risk operation putting a station so close to the river and keeping the station water tight.

[noofnoof]

It's how I would have done it. you need inner-city capacity, you're building a tunnel, straighten it out and create new stations. when my parent s worked at QUT Gardens Point, it was a fair walk to there from either of the city staions, the problem is the rail kind of skims over the top of the CBD.

[El Cubano]

It is not yet known what the full length of the tunnel will be. They are working out if it will be better to continue the tunnels longer north or south or if it would be better to just upgrade existing lines. And i cant see how the Clem7 has any relevance to this project as they never meet nor do they use the same route.

EL Cubano have you read any of the project details before because it doesn't sound like it.

The point to this project is to add capacity to the network with the most important bit being cross river capacity.

Look at the fourth paragraph, it states 19kms. I understand it is a study, but a 19km tunnel is one of the main suggestions of the study.

The point I raise about the CLEM7 is that it too is a new link accross the river and the current proposal by the state government, admitadly slightly different follows a somewhat similar route to the Clem7. I know that it is not possible to create a rail tunnel the exact same as the CLEM7 due to several factors such as gradient, however the two projects COULD have been grouped to save common costs. The rail tunnel would connect with Bowen Hills area in the north, very close to the CLEM7 and Park Road, close to the CLEM 7 at Ipswich Road. The approach I believe should have been taken is similar to that of the Airport Link project.

I have read the article for your information and I have mainly addressed the fact that most of the proposed ideas bar two are duplicating current stations.

That idea is fine if you don't think Brisbane is going to need any more rail services.

The whole point of cross river rail is to bypass the bottlenecks at the Merivale Bridge, Roma St Junction and Mayne; They are indirect and almost at capacity. If there is any hope of improved rail frequencies, CRR is the only way this is possible. That or a 19km bridge.

I was thinking more of cost effective solutions to start off with. I agree there needs to be a new cross river rail link however spending 8 billion dollars is a big decision. There are smaller things that can be done, ie. duplicating the Merivale Bridge for one.

It's how I would have done it. you need inner-city capacity, you're building a tunnel, straighten it out and create new stations. when my parent s worked at QUT Gardens Point, it was a fair walk to there from either of the city staions, the problem is the rail kind of skims over the top of the CBD.

I have the same problem every week

[ABS]

The length of the tunnel would be based on gradients. You simply can't get rail under the river without very long approaches to ensure a gradeint that can handle heavy rail.

[brissypete]

Why does the title state Salisbury when the tunnel is proposed to start from Annerley/Fairfield......

This is of significant interest to me as I live right near Fairfield Station. Building a tunnel between Fairfield and Dutton Park would likely involve some property resumptions as well and major roadworks.

[l_blue_l]

It is not yet known what the full length of the tunnel will be. They are working out if it will be better to continue the tunnels longer north or south or if it would be better to just upgrade existing lines. And i cant see how the Clem7 has any relevance to this project as they never meet nor do they use the same route.

EL Cubano have you read any of the project details before because it doesn't sound like it.

The point to this project is to add capacity to the network with the most important bit being cross river capacity.

Look at the fourth paragraph, it states 19kms. I understand it is a study, but a 19km tunnel is one of the main suggestions of the study.

The point I raise about the CLEM7 is that it too is a new link accross the river and the current proposal by the state government, admitadly slightly different follows a somewhat similar route to the Clem7. I know that it is not possible to create a rail tunnel the exact same as the CLEM7 due to several factors such as gradient, however the two projects COULD have been grouped to save common costs. The rail tunnel would connect with Bowen Hills area in the north, very close to the CLEM7 and Park Road, close to the CLEM 7 at Ipswich Road. The approach I believe should have been taken is similar to that of the Airport Link project.

I have read the article for your information and I have mainly addressed the fact that most of the proposed ideas bar two are duplicating current stations.

That may be true there could of been some cost saving combining the two projects but i doubt that the timing of the two project could of ever meet and as the project was an election promise by Campbell Newman (Brisbane City Council) and little to do with the State government.

It is true that there would only be two new stations and i hope this would not be the case if they did build the whole 19Km underground maybe they could change there plans and go under UQ St Lucia (or is that already planed for the western rail upgrade in 2025(?) or something i cant remember).

That idea is fine if you don't think Brisbane is going to need any more rail services.

The whole point of cross river rail is to bypass the bottlenecks at the Merivale Bridge, Roma St Junction and Mayne; They are indirect and almost at capacity. If there is any hope of improved rail frequencies, CRR is the only way this is possible. That or a 19km bridge.

I was thinking more of cost effective solutions to start off with. I agree there needs to be a new cross river rail link however spending 8 billion dollars is a big decision. There are smaller things that can be done, ie. duplicating the Merivale Bridge for one.

I doubt duplicating Merivale bridge is as easy as it sounds you also have to quad-track Park Road Station to Roma Street then Six-Track roma Street to past Bowen-Hills which wouldn't be an easy feet. (You could just add one track but then thats just a waste of money as about 5 years it wouldn't be enough and you would have to do something again)


On that note i would like to see the report to see what was said about the different options and what the cost differences could have been.


Edit, As a side note i wasn't trying to be rude before even though it may of came out that way.

[noofnoof]

I think $8 billion is a reasonable price for a project of such importance as this.

[08 XDi]

Look before you leap, new players.

While it is admirable they are starting to create more certainty for future rail projects (Gold Coast Rapid Transit Helensvale to Griffith Uni preferred corridor, this one etc), it isn't like this stuff has just come out of the blue. It has been available to look at in one form or another since 2006. All they have done is discount the options which aren't any good and come up with the one everybody knew they would pursue anyway.

There is no way the tunnel will be running from Salisbury. All the pre-feasibility works have identified that it simply needs to start in the vicinity of Fairfield to have manageable gradients so it can get under the Brisbane River. As to where they want it to pop out on the northside, I don't know. The studies to date have identified underground station locations at Spring Hill and Gregory Terrace, so it would probably be somehere near the CLEM7/ICB/AirportLink spaghettiworks, either incoroporating a new station at Exhibition or using the existing one in some form. That is something they will need to examine.

However, it is very clear from the corridor map they released today that they will only be examining the need for upgraded approaches to the tunnel portals out as far as about Wooloowin and Salisbury inwards to wherever the tunnel will start, not at building the blasted tunnel that far out.

Trust me - they have looked at alternatives like duplicating the Merivale Bridge, adding a 5th and 6th track between Roma Street and Bowen Hills, grade sepping the flat junctions at Roma Street and Bowen Hills etc - all of these options were considered inferior to the north-south link they have now settled on. There is no advantage to building quick fixes which cost bucketloads and will take as long to finish, when you could get it right the first time.

[l_blue_l]

I blame the title for my misunderstanding of the project. It should be renamed as it is not a tunnel from Salisbury-Wooloowin. I am just glad i am not the only one that has made this mistake lol.

[Alassë Aldaríon]

I wonder if it would be possible to have two CBD stations, one somewhere near Albert & Charlotte Sts, the second at Queen & Creek. Then perhaps another station at Boundary St. Would it be possible to make a station at Boundary St on the existing inner city lines for interchange purposes? I imagine if it is going to join up with the Exhibition loop, it would surface by there but how about a surface station on Gregory Tce somewhere? I realise this is a little different from the proposed route but I think it would give better service to more areas of the CBD.

[08 XDi]

I wonder if it would be possible to have two CBD stations, one somewhere near Albert & Charlotte Sts, the second at Queen & Creek. Then perhaps another station at Boundary St. Would it be possible to make a station at Boundary St on the existing inner city lines for interchange purposes? I imagine if it is going to join up with the Exhibition loop, it would surface by there but how about a surface station on Gregory Tce somewhere? I realise this is a little different from the proposed route but I think it would give better service to more areas of the CBD.

If anything, there should be a station at Gardens Point in the vicinity of Parliament, and one under Edward Street between Adelaide and Queen Streets - then it would be right on the Mall and close enough to Central or it still to work. As long as it is adjacent to Central, I don't see a need for it to be right underneath (a la William Street platforms at Perth Underground).

[dannyr]

I was hoping that a station would be built at Riverside to provide an interchange with the Citycat. Alternatively a station near Woolworths could be quite beneficial.

I assume you mean the Woolworths on the corner of Boundary Street? I personally think this entire intersection needs a massive overhaul and the inclusion of a station would be good. However if my memory serves me correctly there are some issues underground there already.

Not only does the rail line already run fairly close (and in fact there is an exhaust flume for the tunnel within the grounds of St James's College a few metres away) but wasn't there some ground stablisation issues there a few years back that caused a neighbouring building to collapse when they were digging out the footings for the Woolworths Complex circa 1998?

What will happen to freight trains if the exhibition loop gets used for regular suburban trains? Part of me wonders if there would be merit in also duplicating the Merivale bridge for freight trains.

Considering that the Exhibition remains one of the few stations that is single platfomed, it would make sence that they actually duplicate that track section, one of which could be maintained simply for freight.

I think one of the main things stopping there being a station near the riverside is that the station would need to be very deep would cost a XXX load. I think it could also increase the risk of the project as it would be a relatively high risk operation putting a station so close to the river and keeping the station water tight.

That true, so why not go up? Look at Circular Quay station in Sydney... it's not really all that much of an Eyesore. They could build the station into the Riverside Centre quite aesthetically without causing many issues.

I wonder if it would be possible to have two CBD stations, one somewhere near Albert & Charlotte Sts, the second at Queen & Creek. Then perhaps another station at Boundary St. Would it be possible to make a station at Boundary St on the existing inner city lines for interchange purposes? I imagine if it is going to join up with the Exhibition loop, it would surface by there but how about a surface station on Gregory Tce somewhere? I realise this is a little different from the proposed route but I think it would give better service to more areas of the CBD.

If anything, there should be a station at Gardens Point in the vicinity of Parliament, and one under Edward Street between Adelaide and Queen Streets - then it would be right on the Mall and close enough to Central or it still to work. As long as it is adjacent to Central, I don't see a need for it to be right underneath (a la William Street platforms at Perth Underground).

Personally I think the logical thing would be to have a spur from Buranda (to tie in with the bus station) that instead of going Park Road/Southbank/South Brisbane/Roma Street goes Buranda -> Parliament/George Street -> Roma Street.

That way it still includes the city loop but would pander to the current thrill that legislators have in building tunnels underneath the city and river. The Parliament/George Street station could be underground (or even replace some of the older buildings....Sir David Longland is looking tired, let's dig under it....) or above ground in Gardens Point (They could subsidise it perhaps?).

I could suggest (with my tin foil hat firmly in place) however that these suggestions won't be tabled because underneath many of the George Street government buildings there are (I would actually hope) probably bunkers etc for emergency situations that cannot be dug near or under.

Edit: Fixed quotes

[El Cubano]

That may be true there could of been some cost saving combining the two projects but i doubt that the timing of the two project could of ever meet and as the project was an election promise by Campbell Newman (Brisbane City Council) and little to do with the State government.

It is true that there would only be two new stations and i hope this would not be the case if they did build the whole 19Km underground maybe they could change there plans and go under UQ St Lucia (or is that already planed for the western rail upgrade in 2025(?) or something i cant remember).

I doubt duplicating Merivale bridge is as easy as it sounds you also have to quad-track Park Road Station to Roma Street then Six-Track roma Street to past Bowen-Hills which wouldn't be an easy feet. (You could just add one track but then thats just a waste of money as about 5 years it wouldn't be enough and you would have to do something again)


On that note i would like to see the report to see what was said about the different options and what the cost differences could have been.


Edit, As a side note i wasn't trying to be rude before even though it may of came out that way.

I also doubt there could have been any work between the state government and the BCC however that is something that needs to be solved in the future. Bureaucracy shouldn't prevent the development and creation of better projects.

I think the problem is that the state government is trying to do three things at once. Add extra inner city stations and increase capacity on the existing line and improve bottlenecks as discussed. Having three issues to solve with one tunnel has given so many options.

With regards to my Merivale Bridge proposal I have had another idea. Duplicate the Merivale Bridge however also create a tunnel from where the new merivale bridge come to the northside under Roma Street and then down George street around onto Alice and then along Eagle street (or as close is as possible) then split under Cathedral square way, with an underground triangle. One way would go back to Central the other would continue out to Bowen Hills to increase capacity at Bowen Hills and Fortitude Valley. Stations could be at Treasury Casino, Gardens Point, Waterfront Place or St Johns Cathedral obviously you couldn't build all of these but some obviously.

This would increase capacity on the existing line, provide new inner city stations and a new cross river rail line. The only problem is quad track from South Brisbane to Park Road. Does someone want a map of my proposal?

[dannyr]

With regards to my Merivale Bridge proposal I have had another idea. Duplicate the Merivale Bridge however also create a tunnel from where the new merivale bridge come to the northside under Roma Street and then down George street around onto Alice and then along Eagle street (or as close is as possible) then split under Cathedral square way, with an underground triangle. One way would go back to Central the other would continue out to Bowen Hills to increase capacity at Bowen Hills and Fortitude Valley. Stations could be at Treasury Casino, Gardens Point, Waterfront Place or St Johns Cathedral obviously you couldn't build all of these but some obviously.

This would increase capacity on the existing line, provide new inner city stations and a new cross river rail line. The only problem is quad track from South Brisbane to Park Road. Does someone want a map of my proposal?

The problem with anything inner city is the flurry of digging and underground works already done. Underground carparks alone mean that a lot of the area we forsee tunnels going just won't be possible.

I mean, look at George Street and from the top of my head I can think of there being an underground carpark for the old ScienceCentre (whatever number that is), the Casino, and I think there's one under Tank Street too.

Likewise if you went down towards Waterfront Place there's going to be a heap of underground carparks that would impede the digging for tunnels and stations.

[simonl]

Look before you leap, new players.

...

We can't have this keeping up. I agree with every word of your post with the qualifier that the station locations remain controversial.

[El Cubano]

With regards to my Merivale Bridge proposal I have had another idea. Duplicate the Merivale Bridge however also create a tunnel from where the new merivale bridge come to the northside under Roma Street and then down George street around onto Alice and then along Eagle street (or as close is as possible) then split under Cathedral square way, with an underground triangle. One way would go back to Central the other would continue out to Bowen Hills to increase capacity at Bowen Hills and Fortitude Valley. Stations could be at Treasury Casino, Gardens Point, Waterfront Place or St Johns Cathedral obviously you couldn't build all of these but some obviously.

This would increase capacity on the existing line, provide new inner city stations and a new cross river rail line. The only problem is quad track from South Brisbane to Park Road. Does someone want a map of my proposal?

The problem with anything inner city is the flurry of digging and underground works already done. Underground carparks alone mean that a lot of the area we forsee tunnels going just won't be possible.

I mean, look at George Street and from the top of my head I can think of there being an underground carpark for the old ScienceCentre (whatever number that is), the Casino, and I think there's one under Tank Street too.

Likewise if you went down towards Waterfront Place there's going to be a heap of underground carparks that would impede the digging for tunnels and stations.

Perhaps a deeper tunnel may be needed then. I don't know. All I can say is that there hasn't been very much co-ordintation in the city ever.

[simonl]

I was hoping that a station would be built at Riverside to provide an interchange with the Citycat.

Who cares about interchange with that? Interchange with buses is far more important.

[08 XDi]

Guys - drawing lines on a map in either ignorance of operational and technical requirements is silly. The option chosen clearly represents the best value for money because it has actually been looked at by people who know what they are doing and have selected it on the basis of what is physically possible.

The preferred corridor is the most efficient and cheap way of fixing the inner city capacity problems in one hit - I challenge anybody to argue otherwise. If you can, I will quite rightly change my opinion, but I have seen nothing to suggest this.

What is the point of putting a loop under a CBD as small as ours and when our system is based on through-running? The loop would be so tight you probably couldn't even have straight platforms at stations.

What is the point of duplicating the Merivale Bridge when this project will be needed anyway, when you will still need tunnels under Roma Street and you would need to quadruplicate the entire section from Salisbury to the Merivale Bridge? (Refer to the ICRCS studies already done on that.)

How do you propose a tunnel from Buranda would fix capacity problems stemming from the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines where the real growth is - more to the point, how is such a tunnel even physically possible?

Here's my favourite:

They could build the station into the Riverside Centre quite aesthetically without causing many issues.

On what basis do you say that? Circular Quay is not exactly an existing office tower. The only Australian analogues to what you are suggesting (ie retrofitting a station into existing buildings) are the monorail stops in Sydney, none of which have anywhere near the engineering complexities, passenger loadings or sheer weight a Citytrain station would create.

And even if is true, how would the line get there from either direction without being on the surface all the way over from Park Road?

You need to have some sort of grounding in how things work before making suggestions.

[dannyr]

On what basis do you say that? Circular Quay is not exactly an existing office tower. The only Australian analogues to what you are suggesting (ie retrofitting a station into existing buildings) are the monorail stops in Sydney, none of which have anywhere near the engineering complexities, passenger loadings or sheer weight a Citytrain station would create.

And even if is true, how would the line get there from either direction without being on the surface all the way over from Park Road?

You need to have some sort of grounding in how things work before making suggestions.

I apologise for my incorrect naming. I don't mean Riverside Centre, I mean the complex to the right hand side (facing the river) of Riperian Plaza which houses the Rugby Club, Jade Buddha, etc. Eagle Street Pier may be its actual name, I'm not 100% sure.

A tunnel could perhaps go across the river and run along side the Clem 7 to Shafston Ave, then hooking past The Gabba (another stop?) and under the freeway to Park Road. Sure, there are probably 100 reasons or more why it's not feasable, but it's a suggestion.

[El Cubano]

A tunnel could perhaps go across the river and run along side the Clem 7 to Shafston Ave, then hooking past The Gabba (another stop?) and under the freeway to Park Road. Sure, there are probably 100 reasons or more why it's not feasable, but it's a suggestion.

Probably a very steep gradient.