Banyo pedestrian footbridge project

[ozbob]

Banyo pedestrian footbridge project

>> http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/inthecommunity/projects/current-projects/banyo-pedestrian-footbridge

Concerns have been raised by local residents and others about replacing one non accessible footbridge with another non accessible footbridge.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/897630688152891394

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/897631843574579201

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/897637867182329856

[ozbob]

There is a crossing point at at a level crossing but it is very difficult for wheel chairs and other mobility devices to use safely - some have been caught and a train has been approaching.  QR has suggested people travel to an "independently accessible stations in the alternative".

Most unsatisfactory. 

[ozbob]

https://leannelinard.com.au/banyo-train-station-footbridge-gets-the-green-light-in-budget/

Banyo train station footbridge gets the green light in Budget

Local Member for Nudgee Leanne Linard today announced the 2015-16 State Budget would invest $888,000 in a new pedestrian footbridge at Banyo train station.

Ms Linard said the investment was great news for the local community who have been calling out for improved access between the station's two platforms.

"In 2006, an ageing timber footbridge at the northern end of the station was demolished as it had reached the end of its lifespan and was structurally unsafe," Ms Linard said.

"Since then the only access between the station's inbound and outbound platforms has been approximately 170 metres away via the Vincents Road level crossing at the southern end of the station.

"I've heard the community's feedback and after monitoring commuter behaviour at the station, the need for cross-corridor access at the northern end of the station is absolutely clear.

"The new footbridge will be installed early next year and will not only allow customers to board trains and exit the station much more quickly, it will also provide additional cross-corridor access between St Vincents Road and Royal Parade."

Ms Linard said a tender for the design and construction of the footbridge would open to the market later this month.

"This project is expected to create approximately 50 local jobs with all building material to be sourced from local suppliers wherever possible," Ms Linard said.

"The footbridge will be installed three metres in from the northern end of the platforms, and will be a much more durable and easy-to-maintain steel and concrete structure.

"The project will also involve new lighting, CCTV and signage for the new footbridge."

Construction is expected to start in November and be completed by March 2016.

There will be no impact to train services during this time.

"I'd like to thank Treasurer Curtis Pitt for acting on the concerns of Nudgee locals," she said.

"At a time when he has chartered a course for paying-down debt by handing down a restrained budget, I'm pleased to see Banyo's train station getting the attention and funding it needs.

"I congratulate the Treasurer on managing to be fiscally responsible while also delivering economic uplift in our electorate through local construction projects."

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/910388346576191488

[InclusionMoves]

Just lost for words on this one.

Geoff

[ozbob]

A very disappointing outcome IM.   

As characterises much of what goes on in Queensland - half baked projects have long term consequences

[ozbob]

Interview on ABC Radio Brisbane 25th September 2017,  Steve Austin and Geoff Trappett re DDA issues with NGR trains and Banyo footbridge towards the end.

Click --> here !  MP3 15.4MB

[verbatim9]

The footbridge has been on the cards for a while and on Leanne's website so no secret regarding the project go ahead.

As the local member of Nudgee is on the panel for Disabilities with the current Government. She must of consulted with someone allowing an upgrade of the level crossing making it safer at the same time as the stair only footbridge to allow for a Northern crossing. She consulted with the community and stopped the proposed rail overpass (removing the level crossing) sighting increased traffic concerns and destroying the village atmosphere of Banyo.

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/members/current/list/MemberDetails?ID=2681648574&p=1

They must of allowed it somehow as there is a suitable existing crossing that can be used by all. It's must of been surveyed with community to see if it would be accepted having a stair only bridge?

[ozbob]

I have feedback that some passengers that have pointed out the crossing is not suitable for some mobility devices. Advice from Queensland Rail was travel to the next compliant station, cross and come back to Banyo on the train.

The intent of the DDA act is that when new structures are done (eg. replacing an old non-compliant bridge as is this case) they should be compliant.  As IM indicated in the interview this new non DDA compliant bridge will be the probably be the subject of further legal actions.

Oxley is one station that had a non compliant foot bridge, replaced with another non compliant bridge.  But Oxley has lifts/ramps for full access in line with DDA.

[#Metro]

I have feedback that some passengers that have pointed out the crossing is not suitable for some mobility devices. Advice from Queensland Rail was travel to the next compliant station, cross and come back to Banyo on the train.

The intent of the DDA act is that when new structures are done (eg. replacing an old non-compliant bridge as is this case) they should be compliant.  As IM indicated in the interview this new non DDA compliant bridge will be the probably be the subject of further legal actions.

Is this for real? Trains come every 1/2 hour!

[ozbob]

Yes. Hence the issue is of much importance to the PWD community.  Locals turned me in desperation after all other avenues exhausted.  IM also became involved at that point.

[InclusionMoves]

The footbridge has been on the cards for a while and on Leanne's website so no secret regarding the project go ahead.

As the local member of Nudgee is on the panel for Disabilities with the current Government. She must of consulted with someone allowing an upgrade of the level crossing making it safer at the same time as the stair only footbridge to allow for a Northern crossing. She consulted with the community and stopped the proposed rail overpass (removing the level crossing) sighting increased traffic concerns and destroying the village atmosphere of Banyo.

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/members/current/list/MemberDetails?ID=2681648574&p=1

They must of allowed it somehow as there is a suitable existing crossing that can be used by all. It's must of been surveyed with community to see if it would be accepted having a stair only bridge?

Any local member will believe legal advice given to them by the department responsible. We argue that advice is incorrect. No sign of her consulting with community. In contrast people went to her with complaints. But no change in position.

Geoff

[verbatim9]

They should of just left the station as is then until more money is raised to make a new underpass or over pass which has lifts. I don't know what the haste was to build the bridge in the first place, if the community doesn't want the one proposed? Doesn't make sense for the popularity of the local member for re election!?

[ozbob]

Melbourne has done some nice work with stations with just ramps and underpasses.  The Elimbah/Beerburrum lift tower approach is not the only way to achieve DDA compliance. And frankly sometimes you are better off with ramps and underpasses as they don't fail.
Cardinia Road station (Pakenham line) is an excellent example of this approach - compliant ramps and underpass.

[#Metro]

Melbourne has done some nice work with stations with just ramps and underpasses.  The Elimbah/Beerburrum lift tower approach is not the only way to achieve DDA compliance. And frankly sometimes you are better off with ramps and underpasses as they don't fail.
Cardinia Road station (Pakenham line) is an excellent example of this approach - compliant ramps and underpass.

They would probably manage to screw up the ramp construction, location, and incline too. This is Queensland.   

[ozbob]

^ ha.  They did at Oxley initially.  It was farcical the repair efforts on the station access.  Have to find the link for you. > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12277.msg175117#msg175117

There is a long tradition of cluster-fuk in this here land hey?   

[Cazza]

What's the deal with the ramp at Morningside Station?

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.4704815,153.0692268,3a,76.2y,156.15h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfXMZiM1IKKGfNi_JKYVBFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I feel like it would have been cheaper to build a lift here rather than a marathon length ramp. By the time you get to the top, it would be time to go home again

[ozbob]

^  it is a very impressive ramp hey?

Probably better off with lifts in that case.  But hey this is Queensland ... 

[Marshal]

Local Member for Nudgee Leanne Linard today announced the 2015-16 State Budget would invest $888,000 in a new pedestrian footbridge at Banyo train station.

I don't know much about the cost of building a foot bridge but I'm really struggling to understand how it cost $888,000 without being disabled access compliant? Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

[SABB]

Verbatim 9 made the following comment  'They should of just left the station as is then until more money is raised to make a new underpass or over pass which has lifts. I don't know what the haste was to build the bridge in the first place, if the community doesn't want the one proposed? Doesn't make sense for the popularity of the local member for re election'.

Let me offer the following hypothetical:
There was once a timber footbridge at Banyo Station. The bridge was deteriorating and, because of a lack of funds, the Infrastructure manager decided to remove it from service rather than risk the bridge collapsing. The bridge was used by both Joe Public and Rail Passengers to access Purchase Street. Now everybody has to go back to the level crossing and go the long way around. Unfortunately, able bodied people start to jump onto the tracks and climb back onto the other platform to create a shortcut. Now you can imagine that someone from QR's safety division might get a bit upset about this. We could always say that if they get hit, it is tough luck because they are breaking the rules.  Will that stand up in a court of Law ?  Option A is to build a fully DDA compliant footbridge.  Because of Granville, the  code for building over railways requires that all structures over the railway have to be collision proof.  Any supports have to be able to take an impact load of 300 tons without collapsing. This may be why all of those new footbridges with lifts are so big and expensive. Option B is to build a lightweight (non DDA) bridge which won't crush an EMU if it falls.
People might still cross illegally.  If you only have a limited amount of funds, do you wait until you have enough to build the DDA compliant bridge and accept that someone might get hit in the meantime or do you build the cheap lightweight version in the interim.
So, what is more important.   DDA or Safety.  Tough Decision for someone.

[ozbob]

Do you know if they have applied for an exemption SABB?

Maybe an underpass could be an option, with ramps.

[SABB]

Hey This is just a hypothetical.  I have no idea if they are applying for an exemption.  I used to work in QR admin, not any planning section.

[ozbob]

Hey This is just a hypothetical.  I have no idea if they are applying for an exemption.  I used to work in QR admin, not any planning section.

Ok thanks ...

[InclusionMoves]

Don't get me wrong SABB I appreciate the point you are trying to make but the argument isn't DDA vs Safety. Its money vs compliance. The Granville code and the relevant disability compliance code are both equally valuable. Issue is they have chosen to pay attention to one and not the other.

Geoff   

Verbatim 9 made the following comment  'They should of just left the station as is then until more money is raised to make a new underpass or over pass which has lifts. I don't know what the haste was to build the bridge in the first place, if the community doesn't want the one proposed? Doesn't make sense for the popularity of the local member for re election'.

Let me offer the following hypothetical:
There was once a timber footbridge at Banyo Station. The bridge was deteriorating and, because of a lack of funds, the Infrastructure manager decided to remove it from service rather than risk the bridge collapsing. The bridge was used by both Joe Public and Rail Passengers to access Purchase Street. Now everybody has to go back to the level crossing and go the long way around. Unfortunately, able bodied people start to jump onto the tracks and climb back onto the other platform to create a shortcut. Now you can imagine that someone from QR's safety division might get a bit upset about this. We could always say that if they get hit, it is tough luck because they are breaking the rules.  Will that stand up in a court of Law ?  Option A is to build a fully DDA compliant footbridge.  Because of Granville, the  code for building over railways requires that all structures over the railway have to be collision proof.  Any supports have to be able to take an impact load of 300 tons without collapsing. This may be why all of those new footbridges with lifts are so big and expensive. Option B is to build a lightweight (non DDA) bridge which won't crush an EMU if it falls.
People might still cross illegally.  If you only have a limited amount of funds, do you wait until you have enough to build the DDA compliant bridge and accept that someone might get hit in the meantime or do you build the cheap lightweight version in the interim.
So, what is more important.   DDA or Safety.  Tough Decision for someone.

[SABB]

I am going to be very blunt.  How many people die because of non-DDA compliance.

[SABB]

Further to my last.  Back in the old QR days, safety of the public always over-rode any other requirement. Maybe there are new rules.

[InclusionMoves]

Nah you misunderstand SABB not advocating for the safety not to be met at all. Just that you don't get involved in the rail business or try to run a government without a full understanding of the cost of ALL of your obligations.

Geoff 

[SABB]

A while back, Paul Lucas asked QR for an estimate of the cost of making all SEQ railway stations fully DDA compliant. This requires a complete rebuild of most QR SEQ stations. The quick estimate was about $6 Billion. Perhaps QR should abandon CRR and do up the stations instead.

[InclusionMoves]

They have a federally legislated schedule they need to stick to which means close to full compliance by 2022 give or take. Along with this are rules around replacing with accessible once end of life comes for old infrastructure that is the issue here. If we could trust no fudging of the above then I would sleep easy at least knowing no backward steps.

Geoff

[ozbob]

Yep:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2011C00213

Target date — 31 December 2022  (except trains and trams in operation prior to legislation)

Target date — 31 December 2032  - everything.

Might be time to get cracking then hey?   

Which is why questions are being asked that a compliant solution has to happen at Banyo theoretically by 2022, so why not make it compliant now?

[SABB]

Paul Lucas gave QR less than a week to do the estimate. Does anyone seriously believe that all of QR SEQ will be DDA compliant in 5 years.

[ozbob]

Paul Lucas gave QR less than a week to do the estimate. Does anyone seriously believe that all of QR SEQ will be DDA compliant in 5 years.

Nope.  Not only QR, most jurisdictions will not meet that deadline IMHO, but every opportunity to meet the requirement should be made when upgrading etc.

*

...  The Transport Standards requires all modes of public transport in Australia to be accessible by 2022 and has minimum compliance milestones to be met every five years for existing and new transport conveyances, infrastructure, services and facilities. Although some public transport services and systems are ahead of the Transport Standards minimum milestones, there are still many milestones not being met. ...

* http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2014/01/06/3921049.htm

[InclusionMoves]

With good planning and no backwards steps it was well and truly possible. Unfortunately as we saw with NGR good planning falls apart when the pressure is on and sitting on the hands seems to be the option taken up instead,

Geoff   

[SABB]

InclusionMoves said Money vs Compliance.  The State Government has the money (roughly $5.5B). This forum has not chosen compliance.  Why is this forum not advocating that we do up the stations over the next 5 years in lieu of CRR. So, we have chosen CRR over compliance. Or alternatively, asking the government to find more money.

[#Metro]

Queensland is the land of cut corners. A legacy of TMR I believe.

We have seen:

- Ramps botched (Oxley?)
- Build of single track only to go back later
- NEW stations built to OLD specifications (see Indooroopilly)
- messed up signalling on the RPL because the "signalling was cheaper"
- 'temporary' train platforms that later became infested with fungus and mushrooms (SCL)

I am sure that there are more (feel free to add to the list). It is just band-aids on band-aids.

There are some wins - such as dual track to Springfield and expanded car parking there - but they are few and far between.

I am reminded of a German city, Stuttgart if I recall correctly. The city had 1m tram gauge and wanted to convert to standard

gauge. But the cost of converting the entire network was prohibitive. So what did the city do? It built small sections of dual gauge

tram track, consistently, over decades. It was very slow to replace everything but over time the entire network was replaced in an

orderly way. They achieved the goal.

Here in QLD, "temporary" is permanent.

[InclusionMoves]

Of course I want to point out my view is from that of the PWD that I represent. Fully appreciative of other view of course. Understand there is always a push for a "public good" outcome which is where issues of CRR could take priority (I say could cause honestly being involved principally in disability sector I do not profess to be an expert on business case of CRR). When I say priority I do not mean CRR or compliance that is overly simplistic but I do mean CRR and keeping track with the expectations of legislation for compliance upgrades as compared to being ahead of legislation and no money for any other projects or god forbid the patchwork on politically based outcomes we get now with making rules up as we go. Would I love full compliance tomorrow? Ofcourse but I do have bouts of realism occasionally :-)

InclusionMoves said Money vs Compliance.  The State Government has the money (roughly $5.5B). This forum has not chosen compliance.  Why is this forum not advocating that we do up the stations over the next 5 years in lieu of CRR. So, we have chosen CRR over compliance. Or alternatively, asking the government to find more money.

[ozbob]

InclusionMoves said Money vs Compliance.  The State Government has the money (roughly $5.5B). This forum has not chosen compliance.  Why is this forum not advocating that we do up the stations over the next 5 years in lieu of CRR. So, we have chosen CRR over compliance. Or alternatively, asking the government to find more money.

Errr  ... we have been pushing compliance since this forum was commenced.  In fact our first success was the ' humps ' at Fortitude Valley.
We have consistently highlighted the myopic approach taken by TMR/QR et al with station upgrades etc.   Some of the members have a special interest in this area, particularly mufreight.  We have had many discussions with authorities re compliance issues.  There is a real fail culture embedded deep in TMR and Queensland Governments - all.

You are starting to grasp at straws SABB.

CRR is a separate issue. At least the stations for that will be compliant.

[mufreight]

The overbridge at Banyo being a new build is non compliant and as such breaches the anti discrimination laws as provided for disability access, as such it would be a good starting point for a legal action against the government and make the point that the law is the law and the government is required to comply with it.
A sweetheart deal at this stage over the NGR trains does not solve the problems and an action over the Banyo footbridge would no doubt have some bearing on the Human Rights Commission deliberations on an exemption for the NGR trains given that they have been aware of their non compliance for almost two years and have yet to do anything to rectify that non compliance

[SABB]

I was just trying to point out there is not an unlimited bucket of money and that someone (whose a**e is going to be on the line) might have to make a choice about who he wants to face in a Court of Law (if it all goes to s**t).