Flaws found in rail tunnel plan as truckie pushes underground road
A tunnel solution proposed as part of the Inland Rail has been exposed as flawed after it was revealed it would be too small for double-stacked trains.
Logan
Don't miss out on the headlines from Logan. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A tunnel solution proposed as part of the Inland Rail has been exposed as flawed after it was revealed it would be too small for double-stacked trains.
Community action group Southern Brisbane Suburban Forum said the underground plan, raised by federal MP Ross Vasta, would never work as the width and height of the proposed tunnels was too narrow for the freight trains.
Instead, the group has backed a road tunnel link to the Brisbane Port, specifically designed for trucks, which has been given the thumbs up from the truckie fraternity.
Civil engineer and spokesman for the group Max Hooper said Mr Vasta’s plan to use machines drilling the Cross River Rail tunnels showed a lack of planning and foresight.
He also called for the Inland Rail project’s budget to be re-examined after a whopping cost blowout of $4 billion.
“The claims that the tunnel boring machines from the Cross River Rail project could be reused to excavate two 16km-long tunnels from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane are ridiculous as the tunnels would be too small,” he said.
“The cutting head of the machines being used for Cross River Rail have a nominal 7.2m bore diameter and after each tunnel is fortified and mandated clearances are imposed they would not be large or wide enough for a double-stacked train.
“This doesn’t take into account additional Queensland Rail-mandated clearances.”
OTHER INLAND RAIL LINKS
SENATE HEARING SUPPORTS TOOWOOMBA ALTERNATIVE
Mr Vasta said his proposal to use the Cross River Rail boring machines was only a suggestion and it was too early to determine whether the tunnels were an option until after a planned $20 million business case was completed.
“We are still waiting for the state government to release details of a study into this section of the track but we know it includes a couple of options such as the tunnels,” a spokeswoman for Mr Vasta said.
“But all proposals will have to be fully investigated before it gets anywhere near to the tender stage.”
Mr Hooper, a member of the community-based Australian Rail Track Corporation consultative committee, said estimates showed the tunnels would cost between $10 billion and $20 billion but only $3 billion had been budgeted to build the link between Acacia Ridge and the port.
Logan truck driver Craig Minns drafted an alternative tunnel route for trucks not trains, which he said was safer and cheaper.
Under his tunnel plan, trucks would move freight from the Inland Rail terminus at Acacia Ridge to the port via tunnels underneath Mt Gravatt between Beaudesert Rd and the Gateway Motorway.
His proposed road tunnel would have two entrances, one at Bradman St at Acacia Ridge or one at Riawena St, Salisbury, linking to the Gateway Motorway and possibly the M3.
The Bradman St option, which would require 10km of tunnel, would exit at Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd, with ramps taking traffic between the tunnel and the motorway.
The second, which would be slightly shorter, would have an entrance on the Gateway Motorway adjacent to the Rochedale industrial park, which is being built.
It would require another lane on the Gateway Motorway northbound to cater for traffic from the Acacia Ridge terminal.
“There are serious challenges in accessing the port with a heavy rail freight line from Acacia Ridge,” Mr Minns said.
“Using the current suburban network will require enormously expensive and disruptive work on 18 bridges and road crossings as well as construction of new rail lines 20km in length.
“The port is not designed for high levels of rail freight and has just been upgraded for road freight.
“I have a great deal of experience as a transport operator carting freight in this region and I believe a tunnel option for road freight linking west and east is the best choice.”