Cross River Rail Project

[somebody]

What I meant is allow freight to be able to use the DG during the peak, which it is presently unable to do, and would not be able to do if only one more track was added Fairfield-Yeerongpilly.

[ButFli]

I was always led to believe that - with the exception of the Kingaroy Branch - UP was towards south & west, thus Cairns to Cunnamulla via Roma St is UP the whole way.

Yes. colinw is right. Queensland is not like other States where there is one central point and every train going towards it is an up train and every train going away from it is a down train. A train from Cairns to Cunnamulla is an UP train the whole way, even though it passes through Brisbane and Ipswich. The UP direction in Queensland is South and West. There are places where a train might change from UP to DOWN or vice versa but no one single place where it happens for all trains.

A train from Brisbane to Emerald will be in the Down direction from Brisbane to Rockhampton but then in the Up direction from Rockhampton to Emerald. A train from Ipswich to the Port of Brisbane via Tennyson will be Down from Ipswich via Corinda, Tennyson, Yerongpilly etc all the way to Dutton Park where it changes to Up from there all the way to the port.

[someone who cares]

No matter where the tunnel surfaces, or the corridor needs to be altered, there will be some kind of work or resumptions, and somebody will have a whinge & a moan about it.

The residential & community impacts of bringing the portal up at Fairfield with new additional lines, as opposed to around Yeerongpilly are X1000.  My apologies to Somebody, keep up the debate.

[mufreight]

No matter where the tunnel surfaces, or the corridor needs to be altered, there will be some kind of work or resumptions, and somebody will have a whinge & a moan about it.

The residential & community impacts of bringing the portal up at Fairfield with new additional lines, as opposed to around Yeerongpilly are X1000.  My apologies to Somebody, keep up the debate.

Either you want the cross river rail to go ahead to improve both residential and community amenity for the entire corridor or suffer from a severe case of NIMBY syndrome and do not want this project to proceed.
In any project of this kind through an established area it is inevitable that there is going to be some change and disruption, but of necessity this is minimised otherwise the next election sees a new local member.
Methinks  that in this case the greater good that this project will bring considerably outweighs regrettable individual disadvantage that it is inevitable will occur and which may be even greater if it is not constructed due to becoming too costly.

[somebody]

The residential & community impacts of bringing the portal up at Fairfield with new additional lines, as opposed to around Yeerongpilly are X1000.  My apologies to Somebody, keep up the debate.

I don't follow.  That's obviously some exaggeration there, but why is it such a big deal?

[someone who cares]

I don't follow.  That's obviously some exaggeration there, but why is it such a big deal?

It is a big deal.  Firstly, let me say I am not against the project as a whole.  But I see the Yeerongpilly option as offering advantages from an operational and community viewpoint. 
The Fairfield option with additional lines proposal, as demonstrated in the Inner City Rail Capacity study map, shows that about 200 houses on both sides of the corridor could go all the way to Salisbury. 
The Fairfield/Yeronga streets have provided a more affordable living option for many.  The residential streets are predominately dead end which provides a safe living environment for families.  Kids can play in the street.  They are predominately Character Listed, so the CRR team should not be able to demolish, they will have to take away the houses.   This is going to be bigger than airport link. There are roughly 50 streets which will be affected.  Each of these streets are a community.  You can't take away neighbours without affecting residents on the whole street.
Impacts for the wider community not directly affected by resumption, include:
o 4 years of construction noise, dust and vibration (potentially 24hours a day)
o Affects on local roads, some of them permanent.  Notably Venner Road, but others for example Denham St, Park Road, Cardross St.  The flow on affects to Fairfield Road which already has a congestion point at the Venner Road roundabout
o Affects on Fairfield Gardens shopping centre
o Changing the heritage and community character of Fairfield, Yeronga and
Yeerongpilly
o  The construction impacts at the railway stations – loss of carparking
o  4 years of significant construction impacts on community facilities such as Yeronga State High School, Yeronga State Primary School, Yeronga TAFE, Kids in Mind Mental Health Services and the Yeronga Child Development Centre

The Yeerongpilly option may see residential resumptions at Wilkie Street and the dire strip of houses on Ipswich Road which is wedged next to the Clapham railyards.  But, obviously the further south the portal, the less property resumptions.  The Clapham rail yards offer an available area for a construction site.  The commercial and industrial area surrounding the Clapham rail yards is far less sensitive to noise, dust and vibration impacts than heritage residential areas.
I hope that this give you a sense of the x1000 less impact on Community by bringing the portal up at Yeerongpilly and not Fairfield. 

[longboi]

Here's a question:

What is your interest in the project?

[somebody]

Cross River Rail - July update

North   

Saturday 7 August 2010   9am - 12pm
Holy Cross Catholic School40 Morris Street, Wooloowin

It may be interesting to head to this next consultation to clarify the questions raised above, i.e.:
Is it to be 5 tracks at Yeerongpilly?
What's with the concept of attaching the northern end to the main tracks?

[O_128]

I agree with someone who cares add that surfacing around yeerongpilly also gives better interchange options, Gold coast trains could have there stop moved back here and it offers a good connection to the Ipswich line if they ever decide to use the Tennyson spur, add that yeerongpilly is getting a TOD and it has the tennis centre makes it a much more viable choice.

[somebody]

I agree with someone who cares add that surfacing around yeerongpilly also gives better interchange options, Gold coast trains could have there stop moved back here and it offers a good connection to the Ipswich line if they ever decide to use the Tennyson spur, add that yeerongpilly is getting a TOD and it has the tennis centre makes it a much more viable choice.

For that to work out there would need to be two more platforms at Yeerongpilly. 

And it would be unpleasant without surfacing so that you could serve Moorooka IMO.

[colinw]

This is an interesting discussion.

I'm interested in this claim about 200+ resumptions for the Fairfield option.

I can see how that would be the case if a FIVE track design was proposed.  If the plan is for four passenger tracks plus a separate dual gauge freight line then you would need to resume land.  If that happened predominantly on the eastern side of the line, which would have a profound affect on the residential streets around Fairfield & Yeronga.

On the other hand, if it is to be a four tracks then I don't see why there should be so much impact, as the corridor is of similar width and character to other lines (like Bowen Hills to Northgate and Corinda to Darra) that have been quadded.

I can see why a five track option may be under consideration, as the flow of freight to the Port of Brisbane is only going to increase and dedicated freight trackage will be required to avoid a freight curfew in Brisbane similar to what applies in Sydney.

cheers,
Colin

[someone who cares]

This is an interesting discussion.

I'm interested in this claim about 200+ resumptions for the Fairfield option.

I can see how that would be the case if a FIVE track design was proposed.  If the plan is for four passenger tracks plus a separate dual gauge freight line then you would need to resume land.  If that happened predominantly on the eastern side of the line, which would have a profound affect on the residential streets around Fairfield & Yeronga.

On the other hand, if it is to be a four tracks then I don't see why there should be so much impact, as the corridor is of similar width and character to other lines (like Bowen Hills to Northgate and Corinda to Darra) that have been quadded.

I can see why a five track option may be under consideration, as the flow of freight to the Port of Brisbane is only going to increase and dedicated freight trackage will be required to avoid a freight curfew in Brisbane similar to what applies in Sydney.

cheers,
Colin

The Cross River Rail Local Advisory Group member for Fairfield was told potentially 170 to 200 by the CRR team for Fairfield/Yeronga, I have added a few more for Yeerongpilly.  Obviously all depends on the option chosen, and all still is uncertain.

I have had a visual look at Venner Road and can't see you getting another track through.   

Some of the corridor is on land originally below sea level and is just steep built up embankment for eg. around Park Road. By the way Park Road is a hub of state services for the southside.  I am not sure if this is relevant.

I am very interested in rail, but no expert.  I live and walk the streets of Fairfield/Yeronga/Yeerongpilly.  I am interested in seeing this project tied into creating a great TOD at Yeerongpilly, and not damaging an already built up, successful, mixed use area through Fairfield/Yeronga. 

[colinw]

I have had a visual look at Venner Road and can't see you getting another track through.   

The corridor is wide enough for four tracks, but the current Venner Road bridge is not.  It would have to be removed and rebuilt or substantially modified, similar to what happened at Mains Road where the original overbridge only had room for two tracks.

[somebody]

the flow of freight to the Port of Brisbane is only going to increase

Not if current policies and ownership practices continue.  i.e. They don't really want to attract some of the more marginal (non coal) traffic to rail and are content to see it go by road.

[mufreight]

Hate to tell you Somebody but grain and intermodal (container) traffic are traffic that although the Government would perhaps not like to move are actually both on the increase again and with the predicted good season this year it is possible that a private operator may also enter the field for the rail transport of grain and this is traffic that is already committed to rail.

[somebody]

Hate to tell you Somebody but grain and intermodal (container) traffic are traffic that although the Government would perhaps not like to move are actually both on the increase again and with the predicted good season this year it is possible that a private operator may also enter the field for the rail transport of grain and this is traffic that is already committed to rail.

Ok, but aren't the branch lines being closed?  If traffic is increasing, then that's good news really.  Perhaps I'm too pessimistic.

[ozbob]

From the Sunday Mail 8th August 2010 page 43

Railroad secrecy



On visits to Melbourne I always note how seamless the transitions to the underground loop were done at Southern Cross and inbound from Richmond.  What is stopping a similar transition between Dutton Park and Park Road?  There is plenty of room, and I think resumptions would be very minimal.  It would be cheaper all round and also provide the potential opportunity for a connection between the Cleveland line into the CRR tunnel as well?  Just some thoughts ...

[somebody]

Moving Fairfield station 500m south is a negative.  That leaves quite a distance between Dutton Park and Fairfield, even though the 196 and Ipswich Rd buses are reasonably close.

[#Metro]

Secrecy? That's just unprofessional scare journalism!
The tunnel has to pop up somewhere, eenie meenie miney mo, and it hasn't been decided on exactly where because you need information about what is technically possible and also consultation.

[somebody]

Hate to tell you Somebody but grain and intermodal (container) traffic are traffic that although the Government would perhaps not like to move are actually both on the increase again and with the predicted good season this year it is possible that a private operator may also enter the field for the rail transport of grain and this is traffic that is already committed to rail.

Doing a search shows that grain is expected to come off lows but not reach previous highs.  I didn't find any information on intermodal though.

[Derwan]

Secrecy? That's just unprofessional scare journalism!

I agree.  Aren't they currently having information sessions and community feedback regarding this?  It also sounds like the Government wants to minimise resumptions by spending more to extend the tunnel.

Also, the "Department of Transport" hasn't existed for well over a year.  So much for journalists keeping up to date.

[somebody]

What an extraordinary comment on the part of that QR person.  Who cares if the current system of line pairings is not retained, if the end result is faster & more frequent services.  I'd hate to see the benefit of CRR diluted for a dumb reason like that.

To be frank, I feel that the same applies to those who would argue that you can't re-route the Beenleigh trains by the new tunnel as that would leave South Bank with an unsatisfactory service.  We really have an opportunity to reduce the under performance of this line with this tunnel, and we should seize it.

[#Metro]

What an extraordinary comment on the part of that QR person.  Who cares if the current system of line pairings is not retained, if the end result is faster & more frequent services.  I'd hate to see the benefit of CRR diluted for a dumb reason like that.

Witness, the amazing logical faculties of "the experts"  
The fact that the bus system is outperforming the railway service is a deep shame.

[colinw]

What an extraordinary comment on the part of that QR person.  Who cares if the current system of line pairings is not retained, if the end result is faster & more frequent services.  I'd hate to see the benefit of CRR diluted for a dumb reason like that.

To be frank, I feel that the same applies to those who would argue that you can't re-route the Beenleigh trains by the new tunnel as that would leave South Bank with an unsatisfactory service.  We really have an opportunity to reduce the under performance of this line with this tunnel, and we should seize it.

Geez, why would anyone say that? The only imperative is that the South Bank route retains a decent service (remembering it also has an excellent busway service), but that doesn't have to be by keeping Beenleigh or Gold Coast routed that way.  For that matter I'd wager that not one in 50 people I see getting on the train at Kuraby is continuing on to a Ferny Grove line destination, and if they were then let them change if necessary.

For one thing, Cleveland will still go via South Bank.  For another, once CRR is open there should be ample opportunity to use Merivale Bridge capacity freed up to create a new inner city shuttle route (say Doomben to Darra via South Brisbane), or use the South Bank route to introduce a Browns Plains / Greenbank service via the interstate corridor.

CRR opens up a raft of possibilities for both improved Beenleigh / Gold Coast services and much better system connectivity.

As far as I am concerned, once CRR is open (or even BEFORE), the whole timetable should be up for complete rewrite, and if that means chucking away the current line pairings then "so what?!!".

I really hate blinkered thinking (although sometimes guilty of it myself).

cheers,
Colin

[somebody]

Thanks colinw.  Great to have you on board, even if you can't live with Ferny Grove-QUT KG-Central-New Farm-Hawthorne-Cleveland.

To be honest though, I do understand the residents frustration above.  If my house was under threat I would want to know so I could start immediate action to see if something could or should be changed.  Which is exactly the reason why they don't want them to know.

[Golliwog]

Thanks colinw.

To be honest though, I do understand the residents frustration above.  If my house was under threat I would want to know so I could start immediate action to see if something could or should be changed.  Which is exactly the reason why they don't want them to know.

I disagree. I don't think they don't want them to know, I think they themselves don't fully know and are still investigating all possibilities and don't want to come out and say "If we come up at Fairfield then x houses will have to go" before they can also say if its actually possible or not to build it any other way, and what other impacts would be incurred or avoided.

[#Metro]

I disagree. I don't think they don't want them to know, I think they themselves don't fully know and are still investigating all possibilities and don't want to come out and say "If we come up at Fairfield then x houses will have to go" before they can also say if its actually possible or not to build it any other way, and what other impacts would be incurred or avoided.

I agree. The information does not actually exist about where the tunnel certainly will exit because a decision hasn't been made yet! Why? Because there is consultation going on.

Which I think is why the "secrecy" trumpeting headline is irresponsible journalism because a proper secret is when a decision has been decided on and then deliberately kept under wraps for a reason of malice. Which is just pure nonsense, because it would suggest (wrongly) that CRR team think it is fun to secretly put houses on demolition maps.

It is even more irresponsible because it upsets residents and puts unnecessary suspicion in resident's minds, which will bugger up the consultation process.

All plans will have to be all revealed in time anyway, I mean how do you "secretly" do a tunnel exit over 4 years on the state's biggest PT project ever and "secretly" resume houses with no-one noticing! The whole idea "secrets" rubbish is absurd!

[colinw]

Thanks colinw.  Great to have you on board, even if you can't live with Ferny Grove-QUT KG-Central-New Farm-Hawthorne-Cleveland.

Frankly, I haven't made my mind up about that proposal.  On the one hand, I think it has merit as it would shorten & speed up the two most indirect lines in Brisbane. On the other hand, I see it as something of a distraction. What I DO NOT want to do is shut down or censor discussion of it, or any other proposal, just because I or anyone else on this board is not a supporter.

To be honest though, I do understand the residents frustration above.  If my house was under threat I would want to know so I could start immediate action to see if something could or should be changed.  Which is exactly the reason why they don't want them to know.

The Fairfield / Yeronga area, and also around Norman Park & Morningside, were quite vocal in opposition when the dual gauge freight line went through to the Port of Brisbane back in the mid '90s.  Mainly concerned about noise, particularly (in the Norman Park area) quite severe wheel squeal  They lost out that time - and as such I think the area was "pre-sensitised" to a degree.  I can fully understand why the residents would be upset - the residential streets along the east side of the line from Dutton Park to Yeronga are a very pleasant, quiet, and reasonably affordable area.  If my house were in the path, I know I would be quite cranky ...

There needs to be a balance between the greater good, and the good of the impacted suburbs here, but without making this project so expensive that it fails to proceed.  Then nobody wins.

I am not in favour of the tunnel portals being anywhere beyond Yeerongpilly, as that closes off the option of routing via Tennyson (i.e. less flexibility & redundancy in the system).  I am a bit surprised about the proposal to move Fairfield Station 500 metres south - perhaps the tunnel portals should be closer to Dutton Park / Park Rd. The line climbs a moderately steep bank (anyone know the gradient?) from Fairfield to Dutton Park, which I would have thought would make a tunnel dive closer to Dutton Park feasible.

cheers,
Colin

[#Metro]

Aha! Courier-Mail/Queensland Newpapers article IIRC!  

[colinw]

Thanks colinw.

To be honest though, I do understand the residents frustration above.  If my house was under threat I would want to know so I could start immediate action to see if something could or should be changed.  Which is exactly the reason why they don't want them to know.

I disagree. I don't think they don't want them to know, I think they themselves don't fully know and are still investigating all possibilities and don't want to come out and say "If we come up at Fairfield then x houses will have to go" before they can also say if its actually possible or not to build it any other way, and what other impacts would be incurred or avoided.

This is the same cry that went up on the Gold Coast when Stage 2 of the light rail was announced as going via Olsen Ave & Harbour Town.  There was much noise that "resumption plans were being kept secret", when the reality was the there had not been sufficient survey & design work to draw an accurate map of the resumptions or send out notices yet.

[Golliwog]

But colinw! Surely such maps and designs should be able to be created with the snap of their fingers

What would people prefer though, being told about plans and decisions as they are being made (as is happening here) or for them to be told nothing until the designs are made and they can be told if their house is to be resumed or not? They can't have both, and each obviously have their pros and cons, although the main con with whats currently happening is that CM loves a good sensationalist headline, when really whats going on here is what goes on with EVERY major project.

[#Metro]

But colinw! Surely such maps and designs should be able to be created with the snap of their fingers Roll Eyes

What would people prefer though, being told about plans and decisions as they are being made (as is happening here) or for them to be told nothing until the designs are made and they can be told if their house is to be resumed or not? They can't have both, and each obviously have their pros and cons, although the main con with whats currently happening is that CM loves a good sensationalist headline, when really whats going on here is what goes on with EVERY major project.

The second option. How can you tell someone about something that does not exist yet?
In reality there is a set area where it is likely, but not certainly, for the tunnel to exit. The CRR team have shown this on maps.
Look what happened to Sunnybank-Browns Plains proposal (and that was a hypothetical). The moment pen touches paper, someone will scream; the fact is there is no line anyone can draw that does not affect someone in some way.

It is impossible to devise a situation where there are only winners and no losers.

The CRR team will make a design on what is technically possible and feedback received.

[Jonno]

Interestingly enough no one is highlighting that this project will carry the equivalent of 30 lanes of freeway and  if it stopped, delayed or becomes politically sensitive then the alternative is a lot more than 200 homes will have to go.  Like poor Kedron and Bowen Bridge it will be whole suburbs that go and a lot more 8 or so billion.

[Golliwog]

TT, I would much rather be told as things go. As is happening now, the people who are being effected are raising their concerns with the CRR team who are now looking at whether it would be better to come up further south. If it hadn't been for these complaints and consultation (you couldn't have the consultation properly without telling them about the current plan) for all we know they would have just gone with the Fairfield portal and knocked down all the houses (and they still might).

[#Metro]

There are only tentative plans. Any plan will have a degree of uncertainty associated with it as the project progresses.
I think we are splitting hairs here though. I just want the CRR built.

[Golliwog]

Yes, but to get to a planning stage of knowing exactly which houses would be resumed under a given plan is an expensive process, especially if once you've done that you're then going to not go with that plan. Nothing is 100% certain with any project until construction has finished.

[somebody]

I would wonder about having four tracks, but with the outbound Beenleigh line using the new track on the east side of the alignment, while having what is now the outbound Beenleigh track being bi-di and the inbound Beenleigh track being as present.  That would allow GC trains in the AM peak to use either the DG track or the current inbound Beenleigh track.  That removes limitations of the outbound GC trains in the PM peak needing to cross the inbound trains, and may allow some freight use in the peaks, but it may not allow a full time 15 minute GC or Beenleigh service without impacts on freight.  You could add a platform on the DG track at Yeerongpilly by realigning the track from Tennyson.  Without a Yeerongpilly tunnel you have to rebuild Yeronga and Fairfield stations anyway.  Does this proposal have much merit?

[someone who cares]

There needs to be a balance between the greater good, and the good of the impacted suburbs here, but without making this project so expensive that it fails to proceed.  Then nobody wins.

I am not in favour of the tunnel portals being anywhere beyond Yeerongpilly, as that closes off the option of routing via Tennyson (i.e. less flexibility & redundancy in the system).  I am a bit surprised about the proposal to move Fairfield Station 500 metres south - perhaps the tunnel portals should be closer to Dutton Park / Park Rd. The line climbs a moderately steep bank (anyone know the gradient?) from Fairfield to Dutton Park, which I would have thought would make a tunnel dive closer to Dutton Park feasible.

According to the pink zones on the map the CRR team are only looking at portal options between Dutton Park and Moorooka, so unsure how a proposal to come up between Park Rd and Dutton Park could get off the ground.  Also they keep reiterating that they want at least 5 tracks.  This was confirmed last night by both Anna Bligh and Simon Finn. The industrial area south of Yeerongpilly, then Clapham railyards, offer minimal residential resumptions.  Could the engineers not look at this area - obtain the benefits of 5 tracks - and factor in a future routing of the Tennyson line into the tunnel?  You keep talking about this project getting so expensive it won't proceed.  At $8b it is already an expensive kind of project and the financing will be subject to cost-benefit analysis.  The political costs if Fairfield is chosen may also threaten it going ahead.  It is great that Railbot has this forum for debate!

[ozbob]

I am really start to think that going down between Dutton Park and Park Road is the best option.  The grade argument is nonsense - just have a look at Melbourne and Sydney.  The cost of that is a lot less.  Five tracks for what?  Four tracks is fine.  The quad track between Caulfield and South Yarra in Melbourne has a frequency that they only dream about up here. 

But I am with you SWC Fairfield is not a good option IMHO.  Either Dutton Park or further out.  Fairfield achieves little.

[mufreight]

You could add a platform on the DG track at Yeerongpilly by realigning the track from Tennyson.

Sorry but there simply is not enough room on the Fairfield Road side of Yeerongpilly station to build a platform on the dual gauge.

Quote from Somebody who cares
According to the pink zones on the map the CRR team are only looking at portal options between Dutton Park and Moorooka, so unsure how a proposal to come up between Park Rd and Dutton Park could get off the ground. !

Again it is not feasible for the line to surface between Park Road and Dutton Park stations, the gradient would be impossible because someone built a busway tunnel under the existing rail alignment.

The logical place for the tunnel to emerge is on the bank between Fairfield and Dutton Park towards Fairfield, there is sufficient space in the rail corridor for the additional two tracks with minimal resumptions except for the length through the existing station sites at Fairfield, Yeronga and Yeerongpilly.

Media generated hysteria based on hypothetical less than accurate information achieves little other than to allow the local NIMBY's their moment of fame who wish the amenity of improved public transport services but are not willing to accept the reality or the costs of constructing the needed infrastructure to meet the community needs without personal impact on them.