#Project: Brisbane Cross River Rail (Planning Phase)

[Aussie Bhoy]

If this project will also cause the demolition of Royal on the Park then I will dance a happy jig, talk about 2 birds with one stone!

[BrizzyChris]

Back to CRR guys.

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bhoy

If this project will also cause the demolition of Royal on the Park then I will dance a happy jig, talk about 2 birds with one stone!

Even without CRR, I'm sure the Royal on the Park will be redeveloped at some point in the not to distant future. As easily-developable land in the CBD starts to run thin, the massive above ground carpark will make the site look very attractive! That said, I think I'd actually miss it and its ugliness! From the glances inside I've had, it looks to be quite nice inside, and it still an important hotel offering for the city.

ahhh ok nath cool, thought that is the current situation.

[BNE01]

I think I may be on my own with this, but I quite like the Royal on the Park. I think it is one of the best examples of 60's architecture in the city.

[bribri]

Originally Posted by BNE01

I think I may be on my own with this, but I quite like the Royal on the Park. I think it is one of the best examples of 60's architecture in the city.

You're not on your own. I posted a page back that I thought it would be a shame to lose this building as it could be Brisbane's "cool" 70"s hotel. Plenty of land around it to build up without knocking it over IMO.

[yommy]

Originally Posted by bribri

You're not on your own. I posted a page back that I thought it would be a shame to lose this building as it could be Brisbane's "cool" 70"s hotel. Plenty of land around it to build up without knocking it over IMO.

I don't like the building, but I see the value in keeping it. It is also the building that gets shown anytime anyone talking about the 74 floods. There is lots of land around it, and the old apartment building on the same block should go 1st.

My sister got married in there in 1982 reason to keep it

Seriously, if it goes it goes I would prefer it didn't and yes it is a bit tacky even after it was done but, but geeez do we have to tear down every last bit of history (though I am warming to the idea in another thread of the Casino becoming something else if this new casino gets going). It is just sad this project won't materilise for a long, long time.

[nathandavid88]

Originally Posted by bribri

You're not on your own. I posted a page back that I thought it would be a shame to lose this building as it could be Brisbane's "cool" 70"s hotel. Plenty of land around it to build up without knocking it over IMO.

I think that could work really well. I'm thinking something along the lines of the QT Hotel on the Gold Coast – 80s on the outside but a funky "Las Vegas circa 1960" vibe on the inside! It's gotta be my favourite hotel in Surfers personally!

Originally Posted by yommy

I don't like the building, but I see the value in keeping it. It is also the building that gets shown anytime anyone talking about the 74 floods. There is lots of land around it, and the old apartment building on the same block should go 1st.

Yes, the sooner the old apartments between Alice and Margaret Streets are resumed, the happier I'll be! There's no place for such low density apartments in the CBD anymore.

[Dimethyltryptamine]

'Just do it': Howes blasts Cross River Rail 'faffing'

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...727-22yxa.html

The Newman government should stop "faffing about" and commit to the Cross River Rail project, union leader Paul Howes says.

The Australian Workers Union national secretary did not withhold his fire at Premier Campbell Newman, saying the LNP state leader had "gone cold" on public transport investment and had also been "blinded by the mining boom" at the expense of the manufacturing industry,

Mr Howes told a press club luncheon in Brisbane that resolving the capacity constraints on the Queensland Rail network should be a priority for the Newman government.

"That means committing to the Cross River Rail project – not just faffing about with endless reviews and re-designs, and waiting for the Federal Government to fund it," he said.

"And it means finally delivering on the Moreton Bay rail link."

The LNP engaged a three-person expert panel to review the previous Labor government's plans for Cross River Rail, which found the project was "beyond the scope required to address the immediate rail capacity problem".

Last month the government unveiled a "leaner" Cross River Rail project, void of additional above-ground tracks south of Yeerongpilly or north of Victoria Park.

But, the LNP has still tied the future of the project to the federal government, saying it would not proceed if Canberra did not provide the required $3.6 billion funding.

In his address today, Mr Howes said Mr Newman had failed to include manufacturing in his government's “pillars for growth”.

"Manufacturing will be vital to our future prosperity after the mining boom fades," he said.

"I'm worried, however, that the Queensland government doesn't understand this. It's blinded by the boom, and thinks it can just relax and let the good times roll.

"It is ignoring the rate of change going in the world economy, and therefore it is failing to preparing Queensland for the forthcoming Asian century."

Mr Howes also voiced his concerns about the rise of fly-in fly-out workers in regional Queensland towns.

"The influx of high-wage FIFO employees with disposable income, combined with a shortage of local housing, can lead to sharp spikes in localised inflation and decreased standards of living for those who can't afford the increased prices," he said.

"I don't think that our sudden reliance on this model is sustainable over the long term, and I certainly don't think it is desirable."

Mr Howes said the Minerals Resource Rent Tax would go some way in rectifying the problem by directing revenue back into regional infrastructure development.

"Re-instating the Fringe Benefits Tax incentives for company investment in housing would also be a good start," he said.

"We can't allow our economy to be hollowed out, to be consumed by the dreaded Dutch disease."

[Aussie Bhoy]

CRR a priority says Newman, but at the least cost possible, plus the Bruce and a Toowoomba bypass are also in his top 3 priorities.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...801-23er5.html

[DAJAN]

Does anyone know further details of the cut-down CRR project? (ie, more specific than the Core underground but not the surface works)

I think it's fair to assume that surface works south of Yeerongpilly would wait until the Flagstone / Beaudesrt line happens - the main savings for now being property acquisitions, station upgrades, and the flyover at Moorooka to carry the southbound CRR express track over the stopping track (see third PDF below)

However the first PDF below shows the portal at Yeerongpilly, and it's unclear how that would work....

Do you suppose the bored section (green) and the cut & cover (pink), would remain per plan, but the portal (orange) would curve slightly west instead of east, so it remains within the existing reservation and can merge onto the surface tracks at grade? (meaning the existing Yeerongpilly station would only be served by the non-CRR trips)

Or, if the new Yeerongpilly station were to be built, even just two of the four platforms (ie, the only surface station to be built at all - but still unlikely if the aim is to get the cost down further) then only the southbound surface track from Yeronga would need to cross to east side of the portal before merging onto the CRR track, whilst the northbound track would merely fork to the west then past the portal to Yeronga.

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au...ngement-07.pdf
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au...ngement-06.pdf
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au...ngement-05.pdf

[l_blue_l]

Do we know yet if the southern portal will still be located at Yeerongpilly?

I was under the impression that the southern portal would be built using the Fairfield option without the dedicated freight line.

"Mr Emerson told reporters the revised project would lose some freight capacity but would still deliver the same capacity increase for passengers."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...#ixzz22Menpp7f


I hope i am wrong but i wouldn't put it pass the Newman government.

[Gazza2]

he main savings for now being property acquisitions, station upgrades, and the flyover at Moorooka to carry the southbound CRR express track over the stopping track (see third PDF below)

If CRR is going to be done around 2020, but train stations have to be Disabled compliant by 2022 then I'm not sure what they are achieving by leaving them out :S

[Macca-GC]

Originally Posted by l_blue_l

Do we know yet if the southern portal will still be located at Yeerongpilly?

I was under the impression that the southern portal would be built using the Fairfield option without the dedicated freight line.

"Mr Emerson told reporters the revised project would lose some freight capacity but would still deliver the same capacity increase for passengers."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...#ixzz22Menpp7f


I hope i am wrong but i wouldn't put it pass the Newman government.

No, the portal will still be at Yeerongpilly.

The loss of a dedicated freight line is between Yeerongpilly and Salisbury

[soufside]

Sorry to revive a months old thread but there aren't any other active ones that are transport specific so . . .

In light of the elimination of station improvements and the questionable funding source does anyone else think for $4.4 billion maybe it's time to revisit the whole thing?

I've been reading over the environmental assessment from 2009 and the further I get into it the more it seems like it was a foregone conclusion. For instance, they have build and no-build scenarios but under the no-build scenario, in order to paint as dire a picture as possible, they seem to leave out a lot of relatively cheap fixes from no build scenario even though they acknowledge them in the build scenario:

*going from 6 to 9 car trains
*fixing the bottle neck between Milton and Roma
*using all 6 platforms efficiently at the CBD stations
*using the Tennyson branch (or some nearby, straightened version of it) with the addition of flying junctions to send some Beenleigh and/or Gold Coast trains over the Albert Bridge.
*use the exhibition line during peak periods for some through trains. CBD bound passengers can have a 0-3 minute cross-platform transfer at Toowong or Bowen Hills.
*building a much cheaper (than $4.4b) freight bypass to take conflicts out of the peak period passenger schedule.

They're predicting that passenger boardings at Central will more than double over the next 18 years. Unless the amount of office space doubles between now and then I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Most of the passenger growth they're predicting is going to come from people living within 15k of the CBD and their destinations are going to be more varied than just the CBD, especially as areas like West End, Gabba, etc continue to grow up. Brisbane City's own targets have only 18,000 new housing units out of 156,000 built on greenfields. All the rest is urban infill.

Rather than straining the regional rail network with people going from Stones Corner to the Valley or from Indooroopilly to South Brisbane it seems like a much better way to expand the capacity of the whole network while supporting the denser development that everyone is always talking about is through building a rapid transit network that serves the +/- 15km around the CBD. Something that compliments the regional rail network while taking pressure of it and taking pressure off of the busiest stations.

My suggestion is to take the first $1 billion of the proposed CRR money and spend it on improvements to the existing rail system (to increase capacity). Spend the next $3.4 billion on light rail/premetro. Then spend an additional $500 million on improvements to the freight network.

[KJBrissy]

You've underestimated massively how much your 'cheap' fixes are going to be. 9 car sets for example would cost a fortune!

[nathandavid88]

Not to mention the cost of extending stations to accept 9 car trains.

[soufside]

Originally Posted by KJBrissy

You've underestimated massively how much your 'cheap' fixes are going to be. 9 car sets for example would cost a fortune!

I'm not underestimating. I'm not even estimating. With the exception of tennyson i'm not adding anything to the project cost. These are all things already in the report. All i did was subtract the most expensive part.

All that aside, commuter networks all over the world vary the length of their consists by time of day/day of week. No point in spending money on power or maintenance to pull around 6 cars at 10pm on a sunday night. The original proposal was to use longer consists during peak periods on the busiest lines. Most platforms are already long enough for 8 car consists anyway.

[SurfRail]

Originally Posted by soufside

I'm not underestimating. I'm not even estimating. With the exception of tennyson i'm not adding anything to the project cost. These are all things already in the report. All i did was subtract the most expensive part.

The ICRCS made it quite clear that there was absolutely no point to doing the minor fixes other than as a prelude to a new route via roughly what CRR has ended up as.

Most of the accumulated benefit in the CRR design comes from what it does to the built form of the city (eg stations in what at the time were areas under the direct control of the ULDA, and which are still development hotspots anyway).

9 car trains have never been a serious proposal for anything other than the outer Beenleigh and Caboolture lines or further out into the Coasts, and have never been considered for the inner part of the network where station configuration makes this impossible without ridiculous and unnecessary cost. They have looked at 7 car trains with 20m or so carriage lengths so they fit curved platforms better, allowing more doors without needing to completely reconstruct whole stations. Even that ended up going nowhere.

Originally Posted by soufside

No point in spending money on power or maintenance to pull around 6 cars at 10pm on a sunday night.

It's cheaper to do that than need to hook up and unhook 2 sets for the sake of it. The operational cost of running a train is virtually no different between 3 and 6 cars - same staff, same safeworking, same everything except slightly more power use. At night, the rear 3 cars are just closed off for security and monitoring purposes.

Originally Posted by soufside

Most platforms are already long enough for 8 car consists anyway.

No they aren't. Where are you getting this from?

Even the 2 newest stations built (Varsity Lakes and Richlands) will only accommodate 6 car trains, as will Springfield Central and Springfield. A standard platform length in QR-land is 150m, which is enough for 6 x 24m carriages.

You will find that some platforms are slightly longer (eg Roma Street long distance platforms, Caboolture platform 1, some of the platforms at Corinda), but overwhelmingly this is not the case, even at the quoted stations above.