Riverside Expressway: Dismantle it and Tunnel?

[#Metro]

"One of the most unfortunate things - and I'm not really sure of the alternative - was the Riverside Expressway," Cr Newman said.

"I think it was a real shame it was done that way - I'm not offering a solution, but I think it's pity it was done on that reach looking over to South Bank.

"We've got this huge mess of concrete in what should be a far more picturesque area.

"It would be great if there could be a way one day to eliminate it, but I just don't know how you'd do that at the moment."

- Campbell Newman

[somebody]

Wow.  I never thought I'd hear him say that.

[Jon Bryant]

The Clem 7 was originally proposed as a replacement for the Riverside Expeessway.  Dismantle it yes Tunnel As a replacement NO!!!!

[stephenk]

As ugly as it is, there are far higher priority infrastructure projects to spend money on than dismantling and replacement of the Riverside Expressway.

[ButFli]

I really don't think it is that ugly. From my perch high above with coffee of a morning I often think it is quite a beautiful thing and its designers must have had incredible foresight.

The problem is not the road itself, but the fact that it took all the traffic from Southern Brisbane and dumped it in the CBD. Let's remember that at the time it was built neither the ICB or the Gateway Motorway existed. If a new road or system of roads was built that removed cross-city North-South and West-South traffic from close proximity to the CBD I would have no problem at all with the Riverside Expressway.

[Jon Bryant]

You clearly have not been underneath this monstrosity to see the ugly, dark, abandoned area underneath.  This freeway is the main reason our city is so car addicted.

[mufreight]

Come on now, how about some realistic and practical posts, pie in the sky, unrealistic, impractical and unaffordable schemes achieve nothing other than to damage the credibility of the site, and the persons making such a post.
To dismantle the Riverside expressway and replace it with tunnels may provide some aesthetic improvement but at what cost $4 billion plus, and will those espousing these grandiose schemes still support them if they have to carry the actual costs with rates quadrupled and exorbitant tolls to use infrastructure that the council and government are obliged to provide.
The new Go Between bridge should be toll free as part of the infrastructure provided by the council that residents pay rates to fund. 

[Derwan]

I grew up in Maryborough and saw little of Brisbane until I came here for a grade 8 school camp.  We went to where South Bank is now and I was amazed at what was basically a bridge along the edge of the river.  I still have the many photographs of this "marvel".  To this date, I am amazed that people find it "ugly".  But that's just me.

Like stephenk said, the last thing you want to be doing at the moment is dismantling major infrastructure.  Anything being constructed now will be required as additional infrastructure, not as replacements.

As for the area underneath, there is nothing stopping the council or state government from doing this area up now that "north bank" has been scuttled.

I just read mufreight's post.  I think everyone should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it in this forum.  However it should be clear that opinions expressed in the forum may not be supported by Rail: Back on Track.

[O_128]

I grew up in Maryborough and saw little of Brisbane until I came here for a grade 8 school camp.  We went to where South Bank is now and I was amazed at what was basically a bridge along the edge of the river.  I still have the many photographs of this "marvel".  To this date, I am amazed that people find it "ugly".  But that's just me.

Like stephenk said, the last thing you want to be doing at the moment is dismantling major infrastructure.  Anything being constructed now will be required as additional infrastructure, not as replacements.

As for the area underneath, there is nothing stopping the council or state government from doing this area up now that "north bank" has been scuttled.

I just read mufreight's post.  I think everyone should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it in this forum.  However it should be clear that opinions expressed in the forum may not be supported by Rail: Back on Track.

North Bank was only canceled because idiots from the outer suburbs decided to have there say against it. Interestingly the majority of city residents were for north bank. One of the best solutions I've seen is to make the expressway a 2km long hanging gardens. (media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2008/.../PS_%20Sensible_NB2.pdf) If something could be done to change the aesthetics then it wouldnt be so much of an eyesore

[#Metro]

Come on now, how about some realistic and practical posts, pie in the sky, unrealistic, impractical and unaffordable schemes achieve nothing other than to damage the credibility of the site, and the persons making such a post.

To dismantle the Riverside expressway and replace it with tunnels may provide some aesthetic improvement but at what cost $4 billion plus, and will those espousing these grandiose schemes still support them if they have to carry the actual costs with rates quadrupled and exorbitant tolls to use infrastructure that the council and government are obliged to provide.
The new Go Between bridge should be toll free as part of the infrastructure provided by the council that residents pay rates to fund.

Its strange how many multi-billion dollar road tunnel projects go unquestioned as to their financial basis. An SE Freeway tunnel is probably the most useful of them all. And it has demonstrated traffic, so no over-optimistic travel forecasts here. As for costs, Toll it. Then it won't cost so much.

I'll publish what I like so long as it is within the TOS.
See disclaimer below all my posts.

I didn't intend it to be a serious proposal. Nevertheless, labelling such ideas as 'pie in the sky' is quickly disproven by real world events.

San Francisco's Embarcardo Freeway was demolished after an earthquake and planners decided not to rebuild it.
Boston's Central Artery freeway was demolished and put in a tunnel underground in Boston's Big Dig. It was demolished in 2003.
Harbour Drive, Portland Oregon removed its freeway and converted its remnants to parkland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Drive#Removal_of_the_freeway
Parts of Toronto's Gardiner Expressway have been demolished, with the rest of it being looked at for demolition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardiner_Expressway
Paris, France also closed its Pompidou Expressway and turned it into a sunbathing location.
Seoul's Cheonggye Freeway was also demolished, freeing up a river and making into a nice public location. This freeway carried 160 000 pax per day.

Even Sydney's Cahill Expressway may in the future be in the firing line: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-could-cope-without-the-cahill/2008/03/30/1206850709228.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Artery

Even the Lord Mayor is thinking about it...

[somebody]

However it should be clear that opinions expressed in the forum may not be supported by Rail: Back on Track.

What is the view of RailBoT other than the view of it's members?

Even Sydney's Cahill Expressway may in the future be in the firing line: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-could-cope-without-the-cahill/2008/03/30/1206850709228.html

There was talk of this when the Harbour Tunnel went in.  I'll believe that one when I see it.  The design of the Habour Tunnel doesn't allow for connection to the Macquarie St ramp, so if you got rid of the Cahill you would have to close these ramps, I would suggest.  Also, the Harbour Tunnel is only 4 lanes, which connects to the 6 lane Domain Tunnel.  At the North end, you cannot get between the Tunnel and North Sydney.  It would also be a very difficult demolition job, with the train line under it and the road at about the 6th floor level above ground OTOH.

I also don't find the the expressway that ugly as roads go.  It's really just the entry/exit ramps that damage the aesthetics.

[ozbob]

Quote from: Derwan on Today at 09:08:28 AM
However it should be clear that opinions expressed in the forum may not be supported by Rail: Back on Track.

What is the view of RailBoT other than the view of it's members?

In general consensus views yes, Derwan is just reminding of Terms of Use

all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author

[Derwan]

Yes - I was referring to consensuses... with the emphasis on the "sense" part. 

Whilst I do not agree with tramtrain's suggestion (albeit not a serious one anyway), I do not want to discourage people from expressing their views and proposing alternative solutions.  If we shoot everyone down in flames when we don't agree with them, people will be discouraged from sharing other ideas and we may miss an idea that actually might work.  Disagree with opinions and ideas, but don't attack people for having them. 

In this situation, my opinion is that you couldn't "replace" the Riverside Expressway with a tunnel even if we had the money to.  While the south side might be accessible, where would the tunnel emerge on the north side?  It obviously can't be too close to the river - and would require a large construction area as we've seen with the other tunnels.  You'd also have to maintain the expressway until the tunnel was built.

[#Metro]

In this situation, my opinion is that you couldn't "replace" the Riverside Expressway with a tunnel even if we had the money to.  While the south side might be accessible, where would the tunnel emerge on the north side?  It obviously can't be too close to the river - and would require a large construction area as we've seen with the other tunnels.  You'd also have to maintain the expressway until the tunnel was built.

Makes me wonder how that double deck tunnel will be sunk underneath kingsford smith drive. I mean, just look at the diagram the Courier Mail has. 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/double-deck-road-in-brisbane-river-to-fix-bottleneck-at-kingsford-smith-drive/story-e6freoof-1225853375945

[Derwan]

Makes me wonder how that double deck tunnel will be sunk underneath kingsford smith drive.

Good question!  Lucky Mr Newman isn't a member here or we'd be knocking him down in flames!   

[#Metro]

And people complain that I have crazy ideas. 

They only need look at some of the extreme projects by various government agencies taking place under the banner of "we need this to reduce congestion" when clearly a comparable public transport solution would have so much more capacity that it would blow the road project out of the water.

[stephenk]

I also don't find the the expressway that ugly as roads go.  It's really just the entry/exit ramps that damage the aesthetics.

I quite like the curvy entry/exit ramps, I think they add to the structure's appearance.

[ButFli]

You clearly have not been underneath this monstrosity to see the ugly, dark, abandoned area underneath.  This freeway is the main reason our city is so car addicted.

The area underneath could easily be improved without demolishing the expressway.

I can't take you seriously if you are going to suggest that 2km of road is "the main reason our city is so car addicted".

[Jon Bryant]

It was the start and the main focus of transport on the southside. Everything else has been needed because it was created.  Tramtrain outlines many cities that have pulled down such monstrosities and have only benefited from it.   Defend this ugly road and you defend the current road first transport planning.  The two can not be separated.

[#Metro]

The area underneath could easily be improved without demolishing the expressway.
I can't take you seriously if you are going to suggest that 2km of road is "the main reason our city is so car addicted".

Um, we already know what will happen when the Riverside Expressway shuts down.
For four days, the Riverside expressway was closed due to concerns over cracking on the Ann Street off ramp.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/14/1922612.htm

Patronage on trains and buses went through the roof.

[stephenk]

The area underneath could easily be improved without demolishing the expressway.
I can't take you seriously if you are going to suggest that 2km of road is "the main reason our city is so car addicted".

Um, we already know what will happen when the Riverside Expressway shuts down.
For four days, the Riverside expressway was closed due to concerns over cracking on the Ann Street off ramp.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/14/1922612.htm

Patronage on trains and buses went through the roof.

...and there was also loss of trade to Brisbane CBD retailers and businesses estimated between $2-4m a day!

It should also be noted that rail patronage went back down to usual levels after the riverside expressway closure, showing that rail is not currently a viable alternative to driving for the majority of the population.

[#Metro]

...and there was also loss of trade to Brisbane CBD retailers and businesses estimated between $2-4m a day!

It should also be noted that rail patronage went back down to usual levels after the riverside expressway closure, showing that rail is not currently a viable alternative to driving for the majority of the population.

So more roads are? Because that's what seems to be the outcome of the above statement.
Um, and the billions per year lost to congestion, asthma and road accidents?

The idea was not to eliminate the expressway entirely, but to to put it into a tunnel.
There is a big difference between closing something permanently (freeway closed), and putting something in a tunnel (location of freeway moved).

[stephenk]

...and there was also loss of trade to Brisbane CBD retailers and businesses estimated between $2-4m a day!

It should also be noted that rail patronage went back down to usual levels after the riverside expressway closure, showing that rail is not currently a viable alternative to driving for the majority of the population.

So more roads are? Because that's what seems to be the outcome of the above statement.
Um, and the billions per year lost to congestion, asthma and road accidents?

The idea was not to eliminate the expressway entirely, but to to put it into a tunnel.
There is a big difference between closing something permanently (freeway closed), and putting something in a tunnel (location of freeway moved).

Where did I say build more roads? You are jumping to conclusions again Tramtrain.

We need more public transport infrastructure and services so that it is a viable alternative to driving, not more roads. However, closing existing roads would be considerably financially detrimental to SE Queensland's economy. Even if the expressway was to be replaced by a tunnel, since the expressway allows access into the CBD via the ramps (and thus reduces congestion within the CBD grid) then a tunnel would have some major operational and design issues which would limit the chance of it being financially justifiable.

There are far more necessary infrastructure projects than burying the Riverside Expressway, such as Cross River Rail 1 and 2 (and maybe 3).

Burying the Riverside Expressway is yet another idea to be filed with Maglev to Doomben, and Sunnybank Metro. I hope the moderators keep an eye on this thread before it becomes detrimental to this forums image.

[O_128]

It doesn't have to be knocked down and replaced which would be a massive waste of money

1. Paint the pillars and sides a darker colour.
2. Build either a hanging gardens or murals.
3. redesign underneath with cafes and shops
4 remove the parking and barb wire which are terrible for cpted principles

[#Metro]

We need more public transport infrastructure and services so that it is a viable alternative to driving, not more roads. However, closing existing roads would be considerably financially detrimental to SE Queensland's economy. Even if the expressway was to be replaced by a tunnel, since the expressway allows access into the CBD via the ramps (and thus reduces congestion within the CBD grid) then a tunnel would have some major operational and design issues which would limit the chance of it being financially justifiable.

Nothing seems to stop multi-billion dollar road tunnels everywhere else. All projects have engineering and major operational design issues.
Even the rail tunnel has such issues. Building foundations and sewers for instance.
Clem 7, Airport Link, Northern Link, Buranda-Toowong, Kingsford Smith Drive (double deck underground too).
None of these other projects are going to give us open space and allow reclamation and development like this one.

And a South-Bank style development here would be good for the economy, and traffic would still flow.

Putting the Riverside Expressway in a tunnel might be the single most useful one.

There are far more necessary infrastructure projects than burying the Riverside Expressway, such as Cross River Rail 1 and 2 (and maybe 3).

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[ButFli]

The area underneath could easily be improved without demolishing the expressway.
I can't take you seriously if you are going to suggest that 2km of road is "the main reason our city is so car addicted".

Um, we already know what will happen when the Riverside Expressway shuts down.
For four days, the Riverside expressway was closed due to concerns over cracking on the Ann Street off ramp.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/14/1922612.htm

Patronage on trains and buses went through the roof.

Yes, we do already know what will happen when the Riverside Expressway shuts down. The entire city shut down with it! I remember congestion of every major road in Brisbane.

There are a few members on RBOT that will advocate public transport over private at all costs, even if that cost is bringing Brisbane to its knees. Why don't we demolish all road bridges across the Brisbane River and fill-in the Clem7? It would almost completely remove traffic from the inner city and rail use will sky rocket! Must be a great idea!!!!

[Jon Bryant]

I think you will find those members on RBOT that who advocate public transport over private car usage are seeking to scale back our roads and make them places for people, bikes , public transport and cars.  This is based on overseas examples that have thriving economies, healthier citizens, more attractive cities and better utilization of taxes.  Do not believe the road myths that without freeways and massive car parks the economy will die.  Google any research and you will find the opposite and in fact evidence that the road lobby is under estimating costs and over inflating benefits.

[mufreight]

So we send the population broke building another un-needed tunnel to further encourage the use of private transport, a tunnel that will have a ventilation system that will concentrate the emissions of even more vehicles rather than have them dispersed over a greater area, then add tolls to pay for this tunnel on to registration fees, highly taxed fuel, and rates that are paid to provide infrastructure. 
You must be kidding, ok the suggestion has been proposed and noted having continued to the point where it has become absurd and damaging to the credibility of the site, time as Jonno has suggested to close this thread and move on.

[#Metro]

Actually this has little to do with public transport (buses, trains) although the patronage will increase.
Its about returning the riverbank to the people, pedestrians and cyclists.

All I'm suggesting is that the riverside expressway be removed, and be placed underground. That's it.
This is not radical. Something similar is being proposed for Kingsford Smith Drive.
When the project completes, there would be no net gain, but no net loss of freeway. At least the emissions can be handled by a filtration and ventilation system. Currently now there is no ventilation system and pollution is simply sprayed over the entire city.

The Riverside Expressway is busy, more than enough to support a toll (if desired) for its construction, which will mean that it will not compete with other projects for funding. It will create more jobs for Brisbane in the construction, building and engineering industries, and create a lively open public space that all Queenslanders can enjoy as they do with South Bank. It will reconnect the River City to its river and provide opportunities to develop or open shops, recreation areas, BBQ and parkland.

No other option in this location is able to do so much for the City of Brisbane.
It should go off to the engineers and planners as an idea with strong merit.

Sometimes I think the RACQ has placed plants on the RailBOT forum...

[#Metro]

So we send the population broke building another un-needed tunnel to further encourage the use of private transport, a tunnel that will have a ventilation system that will concentrate the emissions of even more vehicles rather than have them dispersed over a greater area, then add tolls to pay for this tunnel on to registration fees, highly taxed fuel, and rates that are paid to provide infrastructure.

The number of traffic lanes could be held constant. No net gain, no net loss.
I would rather a ventilation system handle emissions than have them sprayed uncontrolled over south bank and George st as they are now.
The resulting developments of North Bank could also help offset the costs.

[mufreight]

The number of traffic lanes could be held constant. No net gain, no net loss.
I would rather a ventilation system handle emissions than have them sprayed uncontrolled over south bank and George st as they are now.
The resulting developments of North Bank could also help offset the costs.

As said in the previous post you must be kidding, a development of North Bank as you propose would not even pay the interest costs on the proposal that you have presented and it is doubtful that either the city or the state could either which leaves you because I and most other people of both this city and the state simply can not afford it.
If it ain't broke does it need to be fixed because some do not like the aesthetics?

[#Metro]

As said in the previous post you must be kidding, a development of North Bank as you propose would not even pay the interest costs on the proposal that you have presented and it is doubtful that either the city or the state could either which leaves you because I and most other people of both this city and the state simply can not afford it.
If it ain't broke does it need to be fixed because some do not like the aesthetics?

IMHO this project is a worthwhile one. It has precedents in cities overseas such as South Korea, the United States and Europe. I've listed the examples.
All cities valued highly the priceless public space and improvement to their environment that followed.

Some people want to "Save the aerial Freeway". I am not one of them.

[somebody]

I would agree that it is a silly idea to close the Riverside expressway.

[brismike]

I agree with somebody. It would be stupidly silly to close it. As for replacing it with a tunnel? hahahahaha  who would be dumb enough to pay for that! I also like the way it looks anyway. 

[#Metro]

I agree with somebody. It would be stupidly silly to close it. As for replacing it with a tunnel? hahahahaha  rofl rofl rofl who would be dumb enough to pay for that! I also like the way it looks anyway.  Grin

Campbell Newman might... 

[mufreight]

I agree with somebody. It would be stupidly silly to close it. As for replacing it with a tunnel? hahahahaha  rofl rofl rofl who would be dumb enough to pay for that! I also like the way it looks anyway.  Grin

Campbell Newman might... 

Enough said but then Mr Newman possibly more than qualifies under the criteria set out  by both Somebody and Brismike relative to stupidity and it is easy to make such decisions if one does not carry the financial and other costs consequent to such decisions.

[Jon Bryant]

Well I hope one day that we have built a city plus public and active transport network that allows the ugly freeways that scar our city to be removed, reengineered or redeveloped.  In think our city screams "cars rule" and is becoming uglier and uglier, noisier, more dangerous, etc.!!!

[stephenk]

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sorry to break the bad news, but there is no endless pot of money.

Sometimes I think the RACQ has placed plants on the RailBOT forum...

No, it's just many forum members still have a grasp on reality.


Moderators, please lock this thread before this forum suffers from another absurd idea meltdown.

[Jon Bryant]

Moderators, please lock this thread before this forum suffers from another absurd idea meltdown.

Yes please lock this thread before we come up with some ideas that deliver a sustainable city abd challenge the norm!!! Hurry Hurry

[#Metro]

Sorry to break the bad news, but there is no endless pot of money.

Quote from: tramtrain on Today at 10:02:56 AM
Sometimes I think the RACQ has placed plants on the RailBOT forum...

No, it's just many forum members still have a grasp on reality.


Moderators, please lock this thread before this forum suffers from another absurd idea meltdown.

OMG! Parklands, people relaxing by the river, cyclists, trees! How dangerously absurd.
And its not free! Unbelieveable!

This used to be a freeway:

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPompidou.html

Oh please. It's an internet forum.  
Put away your giant black censorship marker pen, and let us discuss freely on the forum.
!!!