RAIL - Back On Track Forum

The other side of the argument is that this project has been considerably over costed by the Bligh Government with the intention of drawing as much Federal money as possible and lessening the State commitment.
The project could obviously be simplified rather than built as another Taj Mahal project similar to projects such as the stations at Elimbah and Beerburrum and the current Ferny Grove project.
One engineering source has suggested that the CRR could be constructed for as little as $5.7 Billion, somewhat less than the $8+ Billion figure that has been the justification used to defer the start on construction by two years.

Quote from: mufreight on April 16, 2011, 07:54:34 AM
The other side of the argument is that this project has been considerably over costed by the Bligh Government with the intention of drawing as much Federal money as possible and lessening the State commitment.
The project could obviously be simplified rather than built as another Taj Mahal project similar to projects such as the stations at Elimbah and Beerburrum and the current Ferny Grove project.
One engineering source has suggested that the CRR could be constructed for as little as $5.7 Billion, somewhat less than the $8+ Billion figure that has been the justification used to defer the start on construction by two years.

Better to overcost it and then tell everyone how they are saving money like Springfield than have to put the cost up.

Quote from: O_128 on April 16, 2011, 11:56:43 AM

Quote from: mufreight on April 16, 2011, 07:54:34 AM
The other side of the argument is that this project has been considerably over costed by the Bligh Government with the intention of drawing as much Federal money as possible and lessening the State commitment.
The project could obviously be simplified rather than built as another Taj Mahal project similar to projects such as the stations at Elimbah and Beerburrum and the current Ferny Grove project.
One engineering source has suggested that the CRR could be constructed for as little as $5.7 Billion, somewhat less than the $8+ Billion figure that has been the justification used to defer the start on construction by two years.

Better to overcost it and then tell everyone how they are saving money like Springfield than have to put the cost up.

Not if the overinflated costs are used as a justification to do nothing.

Were the money required to build a project such as CRR to be borrowed the interest cost of that borrowing would be less that the increased costs due to inflation and the costs to the economy of higher transport costs and congestion

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Back to the future for Brisbane transport planning

QuoteBack to the future for Brisbane transport planning
Tony Moore
January 18, 2012 - 3:00AM

It seems the more Brisbane pitches futuristic transport plans, the more it borrows from a 1965 plan put together by US traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith and Associates.

The company, headed by Mr Smith, was hired by then-lord mayor Clem Jones to produce the 1965 Brisbane Transportation Study.

Among some of its more controversial recommendations was to close down Brisbane's tram network, which in hindsight have been replaced by its network of busways since the 1990s.

However, as plans obtained by brisbanetimes.com.au show, the Wilbur Smith study recommended several freeways and public transport projects that are firmly part of modern planning schemes.

The first is an underground rail project similar to Cross River Rail across from Woolloongabba.

The second proposal is to run an underground rail network under Queen Street, similar to a concept put forward late last year by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.

In December, Cr Quirk put forward plans for a $2 million study into an underground bus line under Adelaide Street, similar to Mr Smith's 1965 underground rail line.

The Queensland Council of Mayors' recent concept of a light rail package, the "Cleveland solution", also includes a new train station in Queen Street, again part of the Wilbur Smith plan.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said much of the public transport side of Mr Smith's 1965 and 1970 transportation plans for Brisbane still made sense.

In 1970, Mr Smith envisaged a rail line from the then-existing Woolloongabba train station across a bridge to Gardens Point by 2000.

"He actually designed the early version of Cross River Rail," Mr Dow said.

"In those days we still did have a rail line existing through into Woolloongabba."

In the 1970 plan, a road tunnel would have been drilled through the Kangaroo Point cliffs and a bridge constructed to where Queensland University of Technology sits today.

Mr Dow said a bridge concept would still work and it formed part of the Council of Mayor's concept for a Cleveland line solution.

"The bridge would come out with the same clearance as the Go Between Bridge, then back down to the QUT/Gardens Point area," he said.

Mr Dow said the Cross River Rail team had looked at the idea and rejected it.

"The best thing about a bridge is that it is a lot cheaper than it is to tunnel under [the river]," Mr Dow said.

"The second thing is that it can be used as a bus bridge as well and that was an advantage of that and I am sure that that was considered in the early design feasibility work for Cross River Rail.

"But they decided they would go tunnel all the way through."

Mr Dow said the main advantage of a bridge was reduced cost and the ability to carry both rail and buses.

"The bridge idea (across from Woolloongabba to QUT's Gardens Point) has always appealed to me since Wilbur Smith first proposed it in 1970," Mr Dow said.

"Because I think it could always be dual purpose and take the buses off the nightmare called the Captain Cook Bridge and the Story Bridge."

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Council of Mayors' proposal was not an alternative to the Cross River Rail project and was "simply not viable".

"In fact, it is a scenario that was assessed by our Cross River Rail team almost three years ago and rejected," she said.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/back-to-the-future-for-brisbane-transport-planning-20120117-1q4il.html

Too bad the comments on BT went down for most of the day. I feel the two great articles they had today missed a lot of the talk they would have otherwise generated. As it stands now, this one has 5 comments, two from the editor apologising for the comments stuff up, two of the usual, and one complaining that Fairfax only talk to ozbob and RBOT. Apparently there are other lobby groups out there that deserve a turn (I don't doubt there are) and also, apparently we're really just a website/forum, not a lobby group. I'm confused as to what he/she is using as the criteria for a lobby group as we seem to do a damn lot of it. Or are media releases just another way we talk to each other on the forum?

Results are proportional to effort .....  political hacks are common place on blogs   

Always good to be noticed!  The more they whine, the better the results I find.

Back to Wilbur Smith.  How cool would it have been with the line under Queen St!  Brisbane would be very different and a lot less car centric I bet. Still we might be 40 years late, but we will get there!

There was another plan I found once at QR for an inner city rail loop for Brisbane as well. Basically, starting at Central, head towards Roma St, dive down and head along under George St with a station or two there, then left into Charlotte or something I think, with another station there, then another at Eagle St before heading back to the rail line between Central and FV.

QuoteReply with quoteQuote
There was another plan I found once at QR for an inner city rail loop for Brisbane as well. Basically, starting at Central, head towards Roma St, dive down and head along under George St with a station or two there, then left into Charlotte or something I think, with another station there, then another at Eagle St before heading back to the rail line between Central and FV.

That's correct. There was a circulator in the wilbur smith plan options. There was also the idea that central have a bus station (got built at roma street instead as the INB!).

Also, there is an image of what you could call a busway - eerie - in there too. Looks a lot like today's QSBS!
Busways hadn't even been invented then!

I didn't take note of the date on the drawing, but did notice it looked awfully similar in drawing style to those of the Wilbur Smith plans.

9.15am Sunday 13th January,  4BC host Chris Adams and I will be discussing this study and other matters live.

Chris Adams?

Quote from: Jonno on January 11, 2013, 13:09:56 PM
Chris Adams?

Yes, thanks.  Lost the plot there, similar to how Brisbane lost the plot in the 1960s ...   

Thanks for the interest Chris and 4BC, good wide ranging interview including both Wilbur Smith plans, through to contemporary issues including network issues, fares and so forth.

Is there a link for the sound?

Missed the start!  Seemed to have started early.

Yes, they went early ...  not much I can do.

No TT, not sure if it will be available later.

Quote from: Lapdog on January 18, 2012, 20:09:09 PM

QuoteReply with quoteQuote
There was another plan I found once at QR for an inner city rail loop for Brisbane as well. Basically, starting at Central, head towards Roma St, dive down and head along under George St with a station or two there, then left into Charlotte or something I think, with another station there, then another at Eagle St before heading back to the rail line between Central and FV.

That's correct. There was a circulator in the wilbur smith plan options. There was also the idea that central have a bus station (got built at roma street instead as the INB!).

Also, there is an image of what you could call a busway - eerie - in there too. Looks a lot like today's QSBS!
Busways hadn't even been invented then!

Actually, have a look at this http://ia700300.us.archive.org/1/items/futurehighwaysur00wilbrich/futurehighwaysur00wilbrich.pdf page 112

As early as 1961, Wilbur Smith & assoc were talking about bus only freeways with specially designed stations.  They were using the words "Bus Rapid Transit" and "Bus-way" to describe them.  They even had quite a handle on the capacity, namely 6000-7000 ppdh assuming online stops, up to 22,000 ppdh with the addition of offline stops (which they call "turn-outs") and passing lanes.  This is quite similar to what translink gets on the SE Busway at Mater Hill.  He even foreshadows the notion that the hardest part of providing a busway is finding space for the central city station.

I found this interesting.

I mentioned this study at the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Summit yesterday.

I asked the delegates present if anyone had heard of this study before.  No one indicated that they had.

I showed a couple of slides of the rail (early CRR equivalent) and the Inner Circle freeways plans ...  bit of surprise ...

Quote from: ozbob on October 23, 2013, 07:26:46 AM
I mentioned this study at the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Summit yesterday.

I asked the delegates present if anyone had heard of this study before.  No one indicated that they had.

I showed a couple of slides of the rail (early CRR equivalent) and the Inner Circle freeways plans ...  bit of surprise ...

That is bizarre that no one claimed to know of Wilbur Smith, it is the landmark plan in Brisbane's history. Fortunately we're not totally LA styled from it.

UQ eSpace Brisbane transportation study

[Wilbur Smith and Associates] and Queensland. Main Roads Dept. Brisbane transportation study. [Brisbane]: Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1965.

--> http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:281306

For anyone not aware of these studies I have bumped it up.

It is interesting to reflect on what might have been .. 

I'm very interested in downloading this and having a read, but damn those are some huge downloads!