SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I thought I'd start a thread on the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (SEQIPP)

It can be found here.

What are your thoughts? Do you like what you see? What are you most looking forward to? What do you not want included?

For me...It is generally a little to car oriented, however on the whole it seems pretty good. I am most looking forward to more than 7 billion dollars worth of underground rail in the inner suburbs, and I want them to take out Traveston Dam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,539 Posts
I am excited about the budget. It is indicative of future projects that they may have in mind, which is promising.

I am thrilled about projects such as Gateway Duplication, POB expansion, rail projects, TransApex, Ipswich Mwy and Centenary Hwy projects, and many more like the Airport runway and expansion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,539 Posts
To give a timeline of some highlighted projects from SEQIPP -

2008

Construction of Airport Link expected to commence;
Construction of Western Corridor Recycled Water Pipeline TBC in December;
Construction of Qld Tennis Centre at Tennyson TBC in December;
Tugun Bypass opens 6 months ahead of Schedule;
Skilled Park Stadium open.

2009

Gold Coast Desalination plant to be fully operational;
Tank St Bridge TBC by October.

2010 - NSBT expected to be completed by November.

2011 - Gateway upgrade scheduled for completion.
 

·
Maglev Believer
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
For me the $7.3 Billion for Inner City Rail is something to really look forward and I hope what they propose lives up to my expectations. For that amount of money they are expecting to have to do something major. Otherwise yeah theres lots of roads to be done, but I think PT gets a better share for the later years. All we need to do is keep this labor government in power for the next 20 years. The problem with planning is a change in politics could throw this all out the window. But lets us be optimistic and that a future government should stay relatively with in the boundaries of this a maybe just shuffle a few things around to keep their certain constitutes happy, however largely the same. Or maybe even prioritise some of those PT projects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
What are your thoughts? Do you like what you see? What are you most looking forward to? What do you not want included?
It's good, but not good enough IMO. Like you say too much for cars, and Traveston dam should be cancelled. I mean they've been in power for all but 2 of the last 19 years without accomplishing much, they have a lot of catching up to do.

Not enough for trains and buses, and what there is will be too late (how many projects are timetabled to finish in 2020-2026?!) to tackle congestion that is already occurring. They seem to rely too much on discredited PPP to deliver infrastructure as well.

Water network seems reasonable though (apart from Traveston).

Wow, has anyone noticed they actual have rail as the option of PT from Sprignfield to Ipswich?
I noticed this when I read through the WBTNI, I think it was in older versions of the SEQIP as well, but they'd be mad to extend Springfield to Ripley and not to Ipswich. Anyhow I don't expect it to be finished for 20 years at the earliest.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Thats what I hate about the QLD Government, they act as if all our needed projects aren't needed until 2026. Well its that same mentality that never gets anything done and is probably why we got very little in the '90s 'oh let's fix it in the 2000's we can do it then blah blah'.

In 2026 the problem will be much worse to the stage where what we planned on constructing in 2026 can't be built.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
^^Great news. The have finally just cemented it in rather than saying it's a multimodal corridor!
 

·
Yeah but No!!
Joined
·
1,503 Posts
While I havent read the document in the full, I am pretty pleased with everything especially given the amount that the govt has had to borrow to make sure these things are done.

I will be very interested to see if Kevin Rudd's comments on Sunrise last week regarding the fact that no city in Australia has an underground mass transit (subway) system as a problem with public transport will surface as an option for Brisbane in the near future, at least as a plan.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Mary River myths busted
October 06, 2008
By Averyll Loft


Myths about the Mary River were passionately extinguished yesterday by environmental experts at the Hervey Bay Boat Club.

The River, the Bay and the Strait was aimed at getting discussion and debate flowing throughout the Fraser Coast community about the proposed Traveston Crossing dam.

Scientist Steve Burgess dismissed several myths which suggested the Mary River had plenty of flow and would not be significantly impacted by the proposed $2 billion dam.

"The government completely misses the point when it comes to what the dam would mean for the river downstream," he said.

"The Mary already suffers from low flows and runs into severe ecological problems.

"In dry times most of the land area downstream of the dam site actually takes more water from the river that what it puts back in. Damming the south east corner of the catchment would be catastrophic."

Mr Burgess, an expert in agricultural modelling systems, told the 80-strong gathering of anti-dam campaigners the appearance of the Mary River could drastically change if the dam went ahead.

He showed images of an 18km stretch of river in the Mary River catchment clogged bank to bank with thick weeds.

"I don't think anyone can argue the Mary already has problems. There's no doubt the dam will make it much worse."

The forum also heard from experts on the impact the dam could have on the migratory birds, seagrass, dugongs and vulnerable fish and turtle species which depended on the Great Sandy Strait and Mary River to thrive.

Guest speakers urged Fraser Coast residents to take their concerns about the proposed dam to local governments.






















Australia's reputation hangs on fish's survival: expert
Tony Moore | October 6, 2008 - 2:47PM


One of the world's leading fish ecologist says Australia's decision to let the Traveston Crossing Dam proceed would "significantly diminish" Australia's conservation reputation due to the threat it poses to an already endangered species.

US fish expert Professor Gene Helfman, of the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia, described the Australian lungfish as a "flagship species" in a new study by Griffith University researcher Professor Angela Arthington, which looks at the impacts of the dam on the sensitive animal.

The lungfish is listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth Government's biodiversity legislation.

This same legislation requires federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett to decide whether or not to approve the Traveston Crossing Dam project, with a decision expected before Christmas.

Mr Helfman said the Australian lungfish deserved to be protected.

"The Australian lungfish serves as a flagship species with high international visibility" Professor Helfman said.

"Australia's standing in respect to to biodiversity conservation will be significantly diminished if this species is further threatened by more impoundments.

"In an area when dams are being decommissioned throughout the developed world, more thoughtful alternatives to Australia's water needs seem appropriate."

Professor Arthington's study, which was published last month, questions whether the shallow Traveston Crossing Dam will prevent the Mary River's lungfish from spawning.

"(The) main channel spawning habitats along the Mary River will be inundated upstream from the Traveston Crossing Dam and into tributaries," Professor Arthington said.

"Shallow, inundated embayments with or without aquatic and riparian vegetation, little water movement and large expanses of open water may present very limited options for lungfish spawning."

Professor Arthington's report also shows a specialised "fish lift", built as part of the Burnett Dam to allow the lungfish to move upstream past the dam wall, was not working effectively and is also the subject of a recent audit by the Federal Environment.

"The (Burnett Dam) is only partially compliant with the Commonwealth requirements under the EPBC (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation ) Act (and) the failure to comply (is) related to the poor performance of the fish transfer device which has operated infrequently since it was commissioned."

Greens leader Bob Brown, in Brisbane this afternoon, said the report had been sent to both Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and to federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

He said the report clearly showed the dam would have a significant impact on the nurseries of the Australian lungfish.

"It threatens the very thing that any species needs most and that is the nurseries where the regeneration takes place," Senator Brown said.

"This is a very long living and slow-regenerating species and the Mary River is its stronghold.

"And under federal law, when you have vulnerable species - a species that is listed nationally as vulnerable to extinction - you must have a recovery plan.

"And what Professor Arthington is pointing out is that a recovery plan cannot allow the nurseries of threatened species to be destroyed.

"Obviously, that is ridiculous."

He said he would move a motion in the Senate next week to have the Traveston Dam rejected due to the mounting evidence demonstrating its threat to an endangered species.

The Queensland government last year announced plans for a $35 million Freshwater Species Conservation Centre would be built at the Traveston Dam in an effort to protect the area's three endangerd species: the Mary River cod, the Australian lungfish and the Mary River turtle
 

·
Registered Abuser
Joined
·
265 Posts
I reckon it's absolutely disgusting that the government would even consider such a project, it has so many flaws. The siting, the compensation, public input, detrimental effects on the public, the poor mitigation, the cost, the timing of the 'expected' benefits it just goes on and on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
Wow, has anyone noticed they actual have rail as the option of PT from Sprignfield to Ipswich?

Sorry late reply, just read this thread from the start today...

Yeah, they have land set aside for the train stations at Springfield already... I remember being shown where the line and stations were to go...

Lol; also i remember looking the SEQIPP website back in 2006 after one of the young guys from uni was trying to get people to sign a petition about stopping "a stupid Bridge"...
i wanted to see if the email which claimed that "SEQ Regional Infrastructure Plan and Program devotes the majority of funding to roads (65% of transport budget) and less for other infrastructures" was true or not.

:lol: I but I got too busy at the time, i just ignored it... btw the "stupid bridge" was the Hale Street Bridge...:lol:
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
She's flogging a dead horse on this one:

New reports on Traveston dam critical of project

Greg Roberts | November 28, 2008
Article from: The Australian



THE prospect of the controversial Traveston Dam being built in Queensland have been set back further by the release of a series of reports commissioned by the federal Government that are critical of the project.

One report concludes that water to be provided by the $2.1 billion dam in the Sunshine Coast hinterland, a centrepiece of the Government's strategy to drought-proof southeast Queensland, is not needed.

Another report finds the project will endanger three federally listed wildlife species, including the ancient lungfish.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh yesterday dismissed the reports as unimportant.

Ms Bligh announced this week that the dam would be deferred for several years to allow the rehabilitation of wildlife habitat in the Mary River catchment.

At the same time, Ms Bligh backed down from the Government's plan to add recycled waste water to southeast Queensland's drinking water supply if existing storages were more than 40 per cent full.

Ms Bligh said on Tuesday the $150 million rehabilitation program would boost the chances of the Traveston project being approved by federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

However, the new reports indicate Mr Garrett will be advised by his department that the dam could breach the commonwealth's obligations under federal environmental laws that protect endangered species.

The reports were commissioned by the department from experts to review the Queensland Government's draft environmental impact statement for the dam.

A report by Griffith University's Australian Rivers Institute said the dam could meet between 7 and 12 per cent of water demand in the region by 2051. However, water consumption as low as 200 litres per person per day -- well in excess of consumption in recent months -- would obviate the need for the water.

The report said stormwater harvesting, other than by rainwater tanks, had not been considered as a viable source, but it could be a cost-effective means of supplying 20 per cent of regional water needs.

A report by University of Adelaide consultant Keith Walker described the Australian lungfish, found only in the Mary and Burnett rivers, as the world's most primitive survivor of a 400 million-year-old lineage.


The state Government's impact statement had "treated as superficial" a major threat posed by the dam to the lungfish: the loss of genetic diversity that would follow the fragmentation of its limited habitat.

Professor Walker also concluded there was an unacceptable risk to another endangered fish: the Mary River cod.

There was also a substantial risk to the survival of the Mary River turtle, an animal of "extraordinary scientific interest" with no close relatives.

A hydrological review by Bewsher Consulting concluded that modelling for the impact statement had failed to consider the impacts of the dam in conjunction with climate change.

Federal Nationals leader Warren Truss said the reports vindicated the Coalition's opposition to the dam.

Ms Bligh said one of the reviews had concluded that data assumptions in modelling for the impact statement were sound.

The Premier dismissed other reports as exaggerated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
It's funny how trying to avoid egg on the face makes pollies defend the undefendable. Joh looked at a dam in this area in the 70's and knew it was a non-event then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,055 Posts
This whole water debacle is becoming disgraceful.

Forget Traveston. Admit it's a mistake. Take other measures to fix up our water supply and do it NOW. Also, please stop throwing all our money down the gurgler... We don't want to end up like NSW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Maybe it is a silly question, but would the recycle water project supply enough water for us without the need of the Traveston Dam?
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
^^Well one of the reports said that we didn't need Traveston at all, so I guess that could help to answer your question.



RE: recycled water, I was contemplating if it would be worthwhile pumping the pipeline up the range to Toowoomba to pipe some water into the Murray Darling River system. It would be expensive initially, but would the cost be outweighed by the benefit to the system?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
589 Posts
^ Surely the volume of water required to make any difference to the Murray-Darling Basin would be absolutely enormous. But I'm just speculating.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,887 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
We will find out very soon if the Feds will approve Traveston Dam or not.

Shall be interesting regardless of the result.




Edit: It is rejected!!! Woohoo.

:dance:
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top