Newcastle Herald: Heavy rail "a risk" to Newcastle's grand revival

Red_Rattler

Since 09 May 2003
Note to moderators/administrators: Although these articles do deal with politics, they are mainly about a developer attempting to get rid of a vital piece of rail line infrastructure, so I believe that the politics mentioned are relevant to a train line issue - and let's face it politics IS a subject of real rail or tramways.

EDIT ADDED 15:03 Tue 14/10/2008: For those interested, their is a poll on the website in the link, that asks which is more important to Newcastle's CBD, a rail line or retail. They are both as important as one another.

Related articles in the article link itself: http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...risk-to-newcastles-grand-revival/1332367.aspx

Forget to mention that one contributer to a radio program beleives that the rail line should be removed - because it's "ugly"!

Heavy rail a risk to Newcastle's grand revival
BY JACQUI JONES
13/10/2008 11:37:00 PM


A $650 million plan to redevelop Newcastle's central business district could be in jeopardy unless the State Government commits within the next five months to cutting the inner-city rail line at Wickham.

Developer The GPT Group said yesterday a risk analysis of its proposed retail, entertainment and residential precinct around the Hunter Street Mall, Newcomen, Perkins and King streets, showed that a heavy rail line through the central business district was a "significant barrier" to its success.

It has employed urban design and planning group Civitas to prepare a master plan to indicate how the city could be redeveloped if the rail line was cut at Wickham Station.

The concept, presented yesterday at a Newcastle City Centre Taskforce consultation meeting and to Newcastle City Council last night, shows the former rail line converted to a green corridor, new road connections running north to south between the harbour foreshore and Hunter Street, and new development on the waterfront.

Bus and possibly ferry services would connect commuters from Wickham to Newcastle.

Retail project director Philip Heaney said the State Government needed to indicate its in-principle support for cutting the rail line and improving connections between Hunter Street and the waterfront. GPT estimates it would cost the state and federal governments about $160 million.

The company would also like a time frame for the work and a co-ordinating body to oversee it.

If the commitment is not made by the time GPT's board meets in February, the company is unlikely to proceed with its project. It believes the investment is not viable while surrounding areas of Newcastle are in such poor condition.

If an agreement is reached, ideally the line's removal would coincide with the planned 2012 opening of the development, which is tentatively titled Hunter Central.

Community input on removing the rail line will be sought.

GPT also believes keeping the city's legal precinct in the East End is essential. The State Government has suggested that the precinct, which comprises courts, barristers' chambers and law firms, could move to the West End.

"We think it would be an absolute nail in our coffin for those to move," Mr Heaney said.

These and other considerations for the city's future, such as how to revitalise Hunter Street and what to do with the rail line have been much-debated but never resolved. Mr Heaney said years had been spent discussing Newcastle's future, with various levels of government producing planning documents and studies for the city.

Now was the time for action.

"We do believe Newcastle's formally at the tipping point now in terms of which way it will go," he said.

"It will always be a great place to live but can it attain world class outcomes, which we believe it has the potential to.

"If there's a catalyst for Federal and State Government to get together there's never been a better one that I've seen really."

Mr Heaney said Newcastle's CBD and West End were run down, had poor amenity and disgraceful presentation. Sections of the city were disconnected, others unsafe at times, public transport was lacking and there was no reason for people to visit.

Meanwhile, Honeysuckle was burgeoning under the guidance of Hunter Development Corporation.

"It's a tale of two cities," he said.

Conditions in the CBD and West End needed to change to make major investment feasible.

"If you look at what's there today no one puts $650 million in and hopes it works," Mr Heaney said.

Mr Heaney said state and federal funding for improving connections between the harbour and Hunter Street could be administered by an authority such as Hunter Development Corporation.

The money would pay for a Wickham transport interchange, removing the rail line corridor between Wickham and Newcastle and replacing it with a green corridor, revamping Hunter Street and creating a public realm at Market Square.

GPT believes government investment of potentially $160 million would pay dividends, with economic flow-on worth $410 million and create about 880 direct jobs and up to 2493 flow-on jobs.

The company estimates its project, which is worth about $650 million in 2008 terms, will cost about $707 million by 2012 when it is scheduled to open.

It would generate about $1.977 million worth of economic activity, 4242 direct jobs and 12,019 indirect jobs, GPT estimates.

Once Hunter Central is operating about 2129 direct jobs and 2131 indirect jobs would be created.

A total of up to $8 billion of economic activity could flow from proposed private and government investment, the company believes.

"We think there's a very compelling economic reason for it," Mr Heaney said.

"This is really about a community in waiting. There's just so much potential and desire for these things to happen."

Mr Heaney said he expected to report to The GPT Group board in February on where the Hunter Central project stood.

"That could go either way depending on the level of commitment," he said.

"We're really pushing hard to get support of all levels of government."

The $650 million Hunter Central was "the largest single investment GPT would have made anywhere," Mr Heaney said.

A Railway Digest book said that this rail line is valuable to developers. For example what was known as the Royal Newcastle was pulled down, and now flats/apartments are being built in place of it.

Note the first paragraph (um isn't that blackmail??) but also note the wording in the article: Community input on removing the rail line will be sought instead of Community input on removing or retaining” the rail line will be sought
 
Last edited:
Let's see; they want to get rid of the passenger rail line, but keep the law courts. So trains bringing customers in is a bad thing, but busses bringing in criminals is vital to the success of the project.
What are they planning to sell, burglar tools? Switchblade knives?

:cool: Claude
 
If this effects you.

If cutting this rail line (Newcastle to Broadmeadow) effects you, I have been asked to pass this discussion website on: http://www.bangthetable.com/newcastlerail. It's called Newcastle Connectivity.

We need as many people as we can get (that it will effect) to get behind keeping this heavy rail line into Newcastle Station. Newcastle has already saved it once a few years ago. And it CAN BE saved again, if people work hard enough.

For those that it effects, how would you like say the train lines terminated as say Redfern, Strathfield or North Sydney, and have to change into another mode of transport to Central?
 
Last edited:
Although, the line will be only cut between Civic and Wickham and a new terminus built. It doesn't look as good as the old one Newcastle though from the developers plans. Maybe its time for a change? I don't know.:confused:
Anyone elses views?
Daniel
 
By why get rid of the Rail line ? From what ive gathered of not knowing anything theres still alot of stuff going there.
 
Although, the line will be only cut between Civic and Wickham and a new terminus built.
Will? Don't be fooled by the developers, the rail line would most likely be cut at Broadmeadow, as in one Railway Digest it states the rail land sits on valuable real estate, ie: $$$$ (money hungry to build on it), and nor will it be turned into a parkland, despite what the plans show.
 
Why don't they build above the rail line? They did that in Boston, MA for the Prudential Center back in the 1960s. They removed the old B&A coach yard, but kept the through line from Back Bay to South Station. The line now tunnels, along with Mass. Turnpike (I-90) under the Prudential Center, and emerges at BackBay station.

Over in the former B&M freight yards in Somerville, they built above the existing rail lines in the same way. The lines remain below the buildings and the huge condo development community area was built above.

This is the current plan for Brighton and CSX railyard in Alston-Brighton area near Boston. Harvard University, which is located across the Charles River in Cambridge needs to expand its campus. So instead of ripping up the freight yard, they have purchased air rights from CSX and will be building above the lines.

I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing in NewCastle, and I'm sure it would be a lot less costly than ripping up the tracks and making a so-called urban green way. In the long run, they will be conserving fuel and saving money because the existing tracks will still supply the passenger's needs as well as any through freight that still uses the line, and there will be no need to run extra vehicles such as busses to pick-up passengers from the outlying areas.

The number of passengers using the line may increase as well because the tracks and station will be available to them from the streets above if there is a terminal under the development somewhere, and the fact that there is no change required between modes of transport. People are basically lazy and like a single ride to and from a destination rather than having to make connections or change modes of travel in between. This extra changing takes valuable time and discourages passengers in the long run.

Just my take on this. Property developers are pretty much very narrow minded and focused on one thing called $$$$$. Their favorite commodity and will seek the easiest way possible to make money rather than work for what's good for the community over all. We've lost so much valuable farmland and open space because of this issue where I live as well as many, now long gone historical buildings, due to urban renewal. Developers don't think; they work like weasels to get what they want in the end.

John
 
I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing in NewCastle, and I'm sure it would be a lot less costly than ripping up the tracks and making a so-called urban green way. In the long run, they will be conserving fuel and saving money because the existing tracks will still supply the passenger's needs as well as any through freight that still uses the line, and there will be no need to run extra vehicles such as busses to pick-up passengers from the outlying areas.

The number of passengers using the line may increase as well because the tracks and station will be available to them from the streets above if there is a terminal under the development somewhere, and the fact that there is no change required between modes of transport. People are basically lazy and like a single ride to and from a destination rather than having to make connections or change modes of travel in between. This extra changing takes valuable time and discourages passengers in the long run.

Just my take on this. Property developers are pretty much very narrow minded and focused on one thing called $$$$$. Their favorite commodity and will seek the easiest way possible to make money rather than work for what's good for the community over all. We've lost so much valuable farmland and open space because of this issue where I live as well as many, now long gone historical buildings, due to urban renewal. Developers don't think; they work like weasels to get what they want in the end.

John

but when the land is a stone's throw away from water ( basically the main line into newcastle was developed to serve the docks there) then its worth BIG $$$$$$$ to a developer

I'm not surprised that they are trying (again) to have the line truncated - The irony of it is that all the action in newcastle is at the east (terminating) end of the line, (I was very surprised to see how much newcastle west has declined ), with very little available space for additional parking between the harbour and the ocean

anyways - I think this shot may well illustrate why the rail corridor is so attractive to developers - in happier times looking west from the terminus at newcastle - (and show why building high, or lowering the rail level is unlikely)
medium.jpg
 
Oh, I see. But still why not let the trains co-exist? They did that in Seattle, Washington and other states that have waterfront rail lines and lots of new development. With Seattle, the used part of the BNSF line as a ROW for their light rail system. The development plan could look at this as part of the plan rather than ripping up the rail infrastructure. The rail line could be single-tracked if the service isn't too frequent, and the shared ROW could be used for a parkway, path, and even lightrail transit like I mentioned. The problem is once the tracks are gone, they're gone and there's no way to realistically put them back without a higher future cost. With fuel costs way they are now, this is a waste of a perfectly good alternative form of transportation that uses less fuel and pollutes less than busses and cars.

John
 
Oh, I see. But still why not let the trains co-exist?
Simple: $$$$ talks!, despite what the developers have shown the people, and I now have proof that they don't want to really want the rail corridor as parkland, but as valuable land for their buildings. For those that know the layout of Newcastle and other Australian rail corridors, this video by GPT proves that they want the rail corridor for buildings.

The rail line could be single-tracked if the service isn't too frequent
It's frequent, especially on weekdays. See the various pages on here & here. And that is only one way, and does not include a number of Empty trains (non-passenger runs).
 
Last edited:
Simple: $$$$ talks!, despite what the developers have shown the people, and I now have proof that they don't want to really want the rail corridor as parkland, but as valuable land for their buildings. For those that know the layout of Newcastle and other Australian rail corridors, this video by GPT proves that they want the rail corridor for buildings.

It's frequent, especially on weekdays. See the various pages on here & here. And that is only one way, and does not include a number of Empty trains (non-passenger runs).

I took a look at the current layout on Microsoft Live.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...783702&scene=-1&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

I can see why they want the land, but I still think the tracks could be moved into a cut or tunneled using the cut and cover method. They've done this in Boston right along the waterfront when they removed the Route 93 Expressway for the infamous Big Dig project. They could start near Hill Statioon and bring the line underground from there only to emerge at the terminus, or perhaps build a new one underground like Penn Station in New York, or Boston Back Bay which is also an underground station.

It means some extra work, and $$$$ on the developer's part, but this then would be the best of both worlds. The developer would have the land above the tracks, and the city would still have the needed comuter service, which it looks like it needs. The line is pretty busy with commuters according to the schedule and the pictures.

I know it's all about money, but some forethought should have gone into this before proposing it to the city. The city residents should seriously take another look at this proposal before they act.

John
 
I can see why they want the land, but I still think the tracks could be moved into a cut or tunneled using the cut and cover method. They've done this in Boston right along the waterfront when they removed the Route 93 Expressway for the infamous Big Dig project.
That may have been possible in Boston, but is the Boston Waterfront reclaimed from the harbour?

The rail land and areas surrounding it (& I believe that includes the main street as well) is on land that was already reclaimed from the harbour.

But if you see GPT's video in my post above, people that know the layout will see that buildings as I stated before that GPT wants to replace a transport corridor with buildings.
 
This article and proposal is hypocritical and insulting.

"Mr Heaney said Newcastle's CBD and West End were run down, had poor amenity and disgraceful presentation. Sections of the city were disconnected, others unsafe at times, public transport was lacking and there was no reason for people to visit."

Why did they let those parts of the city get run down in the first place? It was insulting enough when they tore the Palais theater down which, aside from being a beautiful art-deco historical building, was a significant youth activity venue.

Why don't they rip up that god-awful paved mall instead? Before that was put in (before my time I must admit) that area of the CBD was vibrant and full of life. Now that the mall is in, it becomes a haven for junkies and thieves after 5pm. Countless people are mugged and bashed there. If the road was put back into place, there'd at least be passing trafic, giving the junkies and lowlives less places to hide. Businesses also suffer from lack of passing motor trafic there.

I think the real reason for this is simply the value of the land. The reason Newcastle is in the state it is in now is neglect from the council. Now they have a grand plan where they can make money after a one time redevelopment and then neglect the place yet again, satisfied with their heavier pockets.

Now I remember why I moved away from there...

Anyway, I think I need sleep. Or needed sleep twelve hours or so ago. Bleh.

Peace.
 
Back
Top