The Brisbane Transportation Study (Wilbur Smith Plan) 1965 & 1970

[#Metro]

Images from the 1965 & 1970 Wilbur Smith Plan. They are for the sole purpose of discussion, review and critique.
These images are not mine, they were found by Google image search.

Acknowledgements: Brisbane Transportation Study, Wilbur Smith and Associates 1965 and also
South-East Queensland Brisbane Region Public Transport Study, Wilbur Smith and Associates 1970, New Haven, CT, USA.

Central Freeway


The thick red line is the Central Freeway. Nice route for a metro IMHO! Other red lines are other freeways
There was also a plan for a "two-tier" Riverside Expressway II from Ivory St Tunnel to Alice St where the dining precinct and Riverside business strip currently are.

Note how NL tunnel, ICB, SE Freeway and now the newly built Clem 7 and Hale St link more or less complete the ring?
Straight out of the 1965-1970 plans... IMHO these are not city "bypasses" in any sense of the word.

Kelvin Grove Interchange

Imagine Caxton Street with a huge interchange next to it!

Bowen Hills Interchange

The modern incarnation of this 1965 beauty is being built right now... at least Nth Busway will be a partial redemption.

East Brisbane Interchange


I couldn't find a picture of the Woolloongabba Interchange.
It is probably the wost one of them all. At least today there are tunnel machines to bury most of this stuff (but expensive!)

[#Metro]

Metro and rail loop is not madness. Though what we have right now in the form of roads might be...

[stephenk]

Metro and rail loop is not madness. Though what we have right now in the form of roads might be...

These freeway plans would allow someone to drive from suburb A to suburb B, or from suburb A or B to the CBD.

A metro rail loop would do none of the above.

A new cross city suburban rail line connecting to existing branches would do the above (as long as it served, or connecting buses served suburb A and B).

[#Metro]

And now for an alternative alignment to the ICRCS options ... back to the future...

Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

[#Metro]

Below is the overview of the alternative alignment which was recommended by the 1970 Wilbur Smith plan.
There main important feature is the use of a bridge and surface railway to access the CBD rather than the hugely expensive "diving under Fairfield" option which the ICRCS advocates. This in itself could save a huge amount on the project and possibly bring it forward. This is the most important feature of this proposal, which was recommended in the final 1970s report.

A more detailed engineering study will have to take place to see if a rail station is still feasible underneath Queen St. In the event that it is not, the alignment could be altered slightly to run underneath Adelaide St, Ann or Elizabeth Streets. The location of stations after landing at QUT Gardens pt could be altered or the alignment could then follow that as for the ICRCS options.

The main take home point is: Use a bridge or raised structure above the surface, a cut-in at Kangaroo Pt and then a bridge into QUT.
No need to worry about Clem 7 as most of it is surface or could be altered to be above surface. A direct route to Roma St should also be considered.


Click for enlargement

Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

[#Metro]

The cross section alignment (section A)
This shows the more detailed plan, with gradients, underneath the City.
This of course could be altered to go to Spring hill, but I think the advantage for this plan is that it serves more people in the downtown CBD area which need and would use the service. Money saved could be used to bring forward an alternative metro for Spring hill and beyond.


Click for enlargement

Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

[ozbob]

 

I wonder if the Cross River Rail project team have seen this?

Thanks for posting this information.

[#Metro]

I wonder if the Cross River Rail project team have seen this?

Well one would expect them to have. The first thing one does in a project is a literature review.
This study was done using joint staff from BCC and Main Roads departments in the 1970s.

This is why it is so important to query the experts when they put up a super expensive project.

[#Metro]

The cross section alignment (Section B)
Perhaps the most important part- elimination of the tunneling and "diving under Fairfield" option.
This section shows the cut-into-cliff & bridge into QUT Gardens Point. The maximum gradient appears to be 2.5%.
I would recommend a bridge over the SE Freeway rather than a tunnel under it to speed thing up (relocate services, avoid clem 7 entrance). The Woolloongabba station and line should be above ground on a low bridge (busway style like Southbank) and perhaps should have a station above ground level. I would shift the station away from Stanley St a bit as there is Coles and W'Gabba TOD there right now. But one could put the new station where the QLD Gov dental hospital is now. The landing of the bridge could be altered at the QUT end to align with Edward St if that is more favorable.

If this works it could cut possibly $ millions off the project.



Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

[stephenk]

Below is the overview of the alternative alignment which was recommended by the 1970 Wilbur Smith plan.
There main important feature is the use of a bridge and surface railway to access the CBD rather than the hugely expensive "diving under Fairfield" option which the ICRCS advocates. This in itself could save a huge amount on the project and possibly bring it forward. This is the most important feature of this proposal, which was recommended in the final 1970s report.

A more detailed engineering study will have to take place to see if a rail station is still feasible underneath Queen St. In the event that it is not, the alignment could be altered slightly to run underneath Adelaide St, Ann or Elizabeth Streets. The location of stations after landing at QUT Gardens pt could be altered or the alignment could then follow that as for the ICRCS options.

The main take home point is: Use a bridge or raised structure above the surface, a cut-in at Kangaroo Pt and then a bridge into QUT.
No need to worry about Clem 7 as most of it is surface or could be altered to be above surface. A direct route to Roma St should also be considered.


Click for enlargement

Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

This plan is from the 1970s. Since then Brisbane had developed just a tad. I doubt that this plan is now possible without demolishing many expensive highrises. This is why the suggestions in the ICRCS have more tunnel. Move with the times 

[#Metro]

Does anyone else have any constructive suggestions?  
I'd like to hear if anyone else has an alternative opinion.  

[Paul.Zenon]

Two very good links with information and pictures and additional links to more information.

http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/~/media/files/business-and-industry/technical-publications/queensland-roads-technical-journal/march-2009/hobmar0903qldroads.pdf

http://seqtion.blogspot.com/

Hope that helps.   

[stephenk]

Does anyone else have any constructive suggestions?  

Sorry, but as you suggested ideas that are not possible anymore (due to the surface route going through expensive highrises), then you are going to get negative comments rather than constructive comments. Please take a moment to think the idea through before suddenly thinking it's the latest and greatest idea.

Are you aware the ICRCS has narrowed down the number of route options from 70 down to 3?

[#Metro]

Please take a moment to think the idea through before suddenly thinking it's the latest

I'm pretty sure that I said that it was from 1970...

Of course I am going to question the alignment.
With that expense ($7 billion for option 2 2016 rising to $13 billion 2026 +/- 50%) it isn't going to be built before 2050 if ever and certainly not in 5 years. Maybe they will just duplicate the SE freeway. Are skyscrapers (if they exist on the alignment) worth $7-13 billion? Probably not.

Was this alignment Wgabba-Bridge-QUT one of the 70 options?
If it was, which highrise ruled it out or some other aspect?
If the alignment were placed in a viaduct above ground and shifted slightly I don't see why it would be such an issue,
the properties along Ipswich Rd are low houses or car yards.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.483642,153.027835&z=15&t=k&nmd=20091015

Asking questions and putting up alternatives can't harm.

[stephenk]

Was this alignment Wgabba-Bridge-QUT one of the 70 options?
If it was, which highrise ruled it out or some other aspect?
If the alignment were placed in a viaduct above ground and shifted slightly I don't see why it would be such an issue,
the properties along Ipswich Rd are low houses or car yards.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.483642,153.027835&z=15&t=k&nmd=20091015

Asking questions and putting up alternatives can't harm.

Sadly, 60 of the options that did not make it to the shortlist of 10 (which was further shortlisted to 3) have not been published. It would surprise me if a surface crossing around the Captain Cook bridge area was not one of those 60. Building rail overground through the Gabba is not an option in the 2010s, as there would be too many obstructions and (increasingly expensive) property resumptions.

[#Metro]

Well as this is a multi-billion dollar project, one would have to see if it definitely was or was not included in the options and whether it was still feasible today.

The advantage is that the corridor location can be preserved from high-rise saving the expense and futility of demolishing buildings that are not built yet.

[mufreight]

Seems that little attention is given as to what is realistic or practical and the costs of investigating, assessing and then reporting on some of these already failed proposals will over time cost more than the projects if done now.
Kippa Ring being the best example, it has dragged on now for over 103 years and 30 years ago could have been built for roughly half what had been spent on reports etc.
Time for the silly season to come to an end and for those making these suggestions and proposals to spend a bit of time thinking these things through and do a bit of research so that their posts are realistic rather than pie in the sky fantasy.
If I have offended anyone with this post, sorry but there are a number of constructive ideas that have been presented that have then been submerged by fantasy.

[#Metro]

People with constructive ideas are welcome to post them.
Far from fantasy, this alignment was seriously considered & recommended. Indeed it was flagged as urgent and would have have been built by 1995 at the latest. I think that given that history, and the attached $13 billion price tag (almost the price of all the asset sales combined!) and dependence on federal funding, I would not be surprised if the ICRCS will suffer the same fate as the 1970s proposal.

Indeed, this the ICRCS report urges the state to delay the construction by exhausting other options to increase capacity first. Not saying that it isn't worth it- it clearly is- just pointing out the parallels. My intention behind doing all this research was to see if a cheaper option could exist that would bring this project forward.

Being from 1970 does not change the engineering calculations or the basic idea behind it.

[stephenk]

Being from 1970 does not change the engineering calculations or the basic idea behind it.

Of course it changes both:
Engineering - more obstructions, higher property resumption prices, new tunnelling techniques, new construction standards, etc, etc.
Basic idea - significant growth in Brisbane's size, population, and journey distribution (no Gold Coast Line or South Bank development, or Busways in 1970s!).

[#Metro]

Diagram 6-13 shows South Bank Stn (Vulture St and Beenleigh line)...
Anyway...

[stephenk]

Diagram 6-13 shows South Bank Stn (Vulture St and Beenleigh line)...

...prior to South Bank's redevelopment since the late 80's, which has resulted in it becoming a major employment, leisure, entertainment, and education hub.

[dwb]

Tramtrain, did you access this copy of the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 via SLQ?

[mufreight]

The unarguable fact is that the other options are now exhausted and the do nothing previous policies now have left the public transport infrastructure barely able to and in some cases unable to cope with existing demand.
Projects that should have been commenced sufficently long ago that they would now be on stream to meet the currently expanding demand have too long been delayed by both government and bureaucratic posturing, now to have these projects built before absolute gridlock and total failure of sections of the public transport system requires big expendature to have projects that could and should have been built in stages over time at lesser cost than we are confronted with.

[#Metro]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=South-east%20Queensland-Brisbane%20region%20public%20transport%20study
or http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/8458180

for local locations

[dwb]

Thanks Tramtrain, for those lazy in Qld, seems it's available at both State Library Queensland and University of Queensland library.

[ozbob]

The cross section alignment (Section B)
Perhaps the most important part- elimination of the tunneling and "diving under Fairfield" option.
This section shows the cut-into-cliff & bridge into QUT Gardens Point. The maximum gradient appears to be 2.5%.
I would recommend a bridge over the SE Freeway rather than a tunnel under it to speed thing up (relocate services, avoid clem 7 entrance). The Woolloongabba station and line should be above ground on a low bridge (busway style like Southbank) and perhaps should have a station above ground level. I would shift the station away from Stanley St a bit as there is Coles and W'Gabba TOD there right now. But one could put the new station where the QLD Gov dental hospital is now. The landing of the bridge could be altered at the QUT end to align with Edward St if that is more favorable.

If this works it could cut possibly $ millions off the project.



Note: These images are from the 'South East Queensland – Brisbane Region Public Transport Study' 1970 from section 6 'The recommended plan" pages 101- 124 by Wilbur Smith and Associates, CT, USA. They are reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, discussion, criticism and review.

You know, the more I think about this the more I am convinced that there is no need to tunnel under the river for CRR.  A shallower station would be possible at Wooloongabba and line would come out and cross the river on a bridge then go underground again.  The bridge could also have bus lanes and pedestrian/bicyle on it, perhaps above the railway part.  Clearances at the same level of the recent go between bridge could be achieved.

The big advantage of this is considerable cost savings, be a lot cheaper than tunnelling under the river.  Also provides some further transport support (bus and active).

[#Metro]

There is a caveat. 1970 it is unlikely that they considered 3 unit operation (9 car trains), this changes the stations lengths.
2011 also people value the Botanic Gardens highly, K.P Cliffs, heritage tree protection etc.

Basically this proposed a train to come half way up out of KP cliffs (though the western side, so away from most climbing faces) and dive into the Botanical gardens. Pretty radical by 2011 standards.

[ozbob]

I think it would possible to come out, bridge and go back under further south-west than Wilbur Smith first planned, would be very minimal disruption to gardens (if any).

[#Metro]

What, like next to the Captain Cook Bridge?

[ozbob]

Why not?  In view of the cost I think they should look at as a serious option.  I don't think they have considered this.  The other thing that concerns me is dual track only, I think they should future proof and build capability for 4 track if and when they tunnel underneath Brisbane CBD itself, even if only the dual is used for initial operations.

[#Metro]

This would speed up Cleveland line trains up too (see the little slip track into the Cleveland line). Beenleigh line trains could perhaps do the current route now. Don't know how the interchange at Park Road could be worked out....

[O_128]

Why not?  In view of the cost I think they should look at as a serious option.  I don't think they have considered this.  The other thing that concerns me is dual track only, I think they should future proof and build capability for 4 track if and when they tunnel underneath Brisbane CBD itself, even if only the dual is used for initial operations.

I agree ozbob it  wouldnt be much more expensive to build 4 tracks or even make sure the tunnels can be upgraded, put it simply as good idea as the bridge is it will never be allowed it's to obtrusive no matter how much sense it would make such as connecting the se busway to it

[Golliwog]

I think it would possible to come out, bridge and go back under further south-west than Wilbur Smith first planned, would be very minimal disruption to gardens (if any).

What about flooding? The less impact on the gardens, obviously the closer it is to the riverline. Most of the planned flood proofing of CRR was due to the two main portals being far away from the river, and the station entrance being easily blocked up. I doubt that would be possible with this arrangement.

[Stillwater]

The EIS for CRR will be ready mid-2011.  It will be available for public comment at that stage.  In other words, we are about three months out from completion of a substantial body of work by the CRR team.  In all likelihood, the EIS will be based, essentially, on the original concept with some reworking or design options.  It is hard to envisage that the ideas would be the radically different options that are being proposed here -- no matter how worthy they may be.

To adopt the options being envisaged here would require a whole new set of preliminary engineering considerations and a new EIS.  The issue is how realistic is that going to be?

It maybe so, if an LNP Government is elected, because Campbell Newman is obviously worried about cost of CRR in a tunnel.  He may feel more inclined to a rail bridge option, especially if it is cheaper and there is some change freed up for other transport initiatives.  However, there is an EIS beast about to be unleased, and it will form part of the ALP platform for fixing Brisbane's PT woes.  What would be sought is some comment on tweaking the design, rather than a radical overhaul.

The LNP has no transport pilicy at the moment.  It may see worth in proposing something different a la what's being discussed here.  Can Do's twin metros may win out, who knows.  But it will be an interesting election, particularly if people work to elevate PT up the list of priorities and concerns.

[Stillwater]

Look at it this way, the Queen Mary is about to be launched, but the thought is that it be kept in the dockyard and converted into an aircraft carrier. 

[#Metro]

What about flooding? The less impact on the gardens, obviously the closer it is to the riverline. Most of the planned flood proofing of CRR was due to the two main portals being far away from the river, and the station entrance being easily blocked up. I doubt that would be possible with this arrangement.

This is the flood imagery taken from nearmap. As you can see, there was minor flooding in the Botanical gardens AFAIK, probably could be avoided as the 1970s alignment was built to sit above flood level too. In any case, I think some flooding is acceptable. Look at Goodna station, underwater-- a few month's later flushed clean and operational bar a lift. Sometimes when 100% flood proof is not possible, it may be possible to design something that permits it to be flooded but also allows quick recovery afterwards. As they say, we can't change the wind but we can change the sails.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.468907,153.025475&z=14&t=h

[dwb]

Do you not think that the ICRCS and CRR EIS started from Wilbur Smith?

This forum often talks about too many studies, and yet the discussion here seems to be wanting yet another study and yet more destruction of Woolloongabba that won't fly with the public.

If we want to look at cutting costs and getting the thing operational, then my belief is that we should consider a staged approach like most systems around the world. I see little reasoning why for instance the tunnels can't be built asap followed by some of the stations... for instance, wouldn't it be possible to operate initially with just the Albert St station fully built (and Yeronga and RNA upgraded) and then progressively opening Roma St, Woolloongabba and Park Rd?

I've been reading about the metro system here in Rio and it seems that is exactly how they did it, it doesn't seem that unreasonable an idea, esp as I believe the stations to be the most expensive part of the plan.

Also, does anyone know why for instance Woolloongabba is proposed as a box cut station rather than a bored cavern station? Surely this is not just for natural light?? I'm all for humane spaces and great design, but are there not other ways to achieve this? The station that I use daily at the moment in Rio, is built under a huge granite rock, and the three exits are each quite lengthy (although with travelators it doesn't take too long to get out). The station is a pleasant place to be and they've achieved this through having a large bored station with central and side platforms (to allow boarding and disembarking via different doors) and a station 'concourse' level that is open air with the platform.

[ozbob]

belief is that we should consider a staged approach like most systems around the world.

Agree, time to get cracking.  A bridge option is no more disruptive to the 'gabba than the present plan, comes out at the cliffs.  But I doubt if it would be considered now, but you never know.  The real risk is the present high cost as projected for CRR is possibly going to sink this project.  Staging it makes sense, and looking at further cost saving options is just being prudent.

I think Gazza is correct.  The present cost is inflated, I reckon it would be a fair bit less than $8billion, around $6billion.  Politics now has a real impact on the outcome of CRR.

[#Metro]

I think CRR is undercosted. Large projects are complex and tend to blow out in cost. I thinks someone had a running bet going. I'm in the cost blowout camp.

[Stillwater]

The ultimate cost will depend on project scope and scale.  Planners have got to cut the cloth to fit.  The price the public pays pay ultimately will depend on co-funding from the private sector.  After Clem 7 and the Airport Link cost blowout, the private sector will be spooked and will want to build fat into their contribution.  The pollies will want to campaign on this project, so it will be interesting to see how they present the costs (i.e. whether in '2008 dollars' or 'present-day dollars' etc).  Final cost will also depend on the time taken to build CRR.  A widgit or screw costs so much today, costs a bit more at the time construction starts, and a bit more if its place in the production schedule is two years after construction starts.  The true cost is the final outlay after the last dollar has been spent, in whatever year that might be.  Obviously '2010 dollars' and '2018 dollars' will be two different things, but it is the 2018 or 2020 figure that counts, because that is what we will end up paying -- and it is what should be budgetted for.