From the Kearney Files.
Brisbane 20th March 1930.
RIVER TUNNEL
Proposed New Site At Bulimba
Route to the seaside.
After a perusal of the Cross River Commission's report on the possibilities of building a tunnel under the Brisbane River at Bulimba Reach, Elfric has discarded the Commercial Road - Oxford Street (Bulimba) suggestion and now will concentrate on an investigation and report on the possibilities of a tunnel from about the corner of Doggett and Chester Streets, Teneriffe, to Barton Street, Bulimba.
The route from Commercial Road to Oxford Street follows practically the course of the Bulimba vehicular ferry, but the borings and soundings of this section, contained in the Cross River Commission's report, were very definitely against a bridge or tunnel being constructed there. Other information contained in the report suggests that the Chester and Barton Streets proposition would be much better.
A tunnel in this locality would pass to the north of Mt. Teneriffe, and go under Calvert's Wharf. By following, Barton, Victoria, and Williams Streets, all of which are practically in a straight line, Junction Road is reached just above the intersection of that thourghfare with the New Cleveland Road. It would not be a difficult matter to connect up the through road with the New Cleveland Road easy of the subway at Morningside.
COST DEPENDS ON GRADIENT
The lowness of the country on the Bulimba side of the river does not worry Elfric, who says that this could be built up without great cost.
Of course p, he said the ultimate cost of a tunnel would depend entirely on the gradient. The Cross River Commission proposed 1 in 30, but to put this into effect would mean very long approaches, which would make the cost prohibitive. If it was decided to put a tube down under the Brisbane River it could be made a vehicular tube only, and in the light of inquiries at Williamstown a gradient of, 1 in 14 would be ample for motor traffic.
NOT FOR HORSE VEHICLES
At Williamstown Elfric had decided that gradient would be perfectly satisfactory for motor traffic, but not for horse drawn vehicles, which, it was proposed, should follow the road round , a distance of five miles. It was not intended to cater for such traffic, for the simple reason that traffic would be held up , furthermore such traffic was rapidly being displaced by motors. To provide horse - drawn traffic would be an expensive proposition, as about one third to one half of the cost would be added to the original estimate just for the sake of obliging horse owners.
Elfric said he considered that the same remarks might apply to a tunnel under the Brisbane River, and the authorities would do well to consider this before embarking upon a scheme.
Elfric has had figures made available to him concerning the possible development of the other side of the river if a through road were made available. Then there was, he said, the traffic to the abattoirs, which, as time went on, would be considerable, and the loss of time entailed by traffic being compelled to traverse South Brisbane would be immeasurable. A tunnel also would provide a more direct route to the seaside on the southern shores of the bay.
QUESTION OF COSTS
On the question of costs, Elfric said he thought that £300,000 or less would be the figure, which would be much less than a bridge if such a structure at that point was possible from an economic point of view. In addition the maintenance would be much lower.
Comments
Post a Comment