Newstead-Bulimba-Cleveland

[#Metro]

This image is reproduced from Google Maps for the purposes of research, study, criticim and review.
http://maps.google.com

Right click and select relevant option to see larger image.

[#Metro]

The blue line is an example route only.
The light green area is the corridor where worthwhile alignments could run/proposal area.

Benefits:
* Straight-through connection, all the way to Cleveland
* Moves the network towards a "metro-like" ideal with a net of lines in the inner city
* Faster trip
* Increased capacity, less congestion on Wynnum Road
* Brings rail to Bulimba, Newstead (growth area), and Hawthorne/Balmoral
* Less dead running of trains (trains on a short run can short cut to Bowen Hills/Mayne or the CBD)
* Introduced redundancy and increases fault-tolerance of the network (allows re-routing of trains)
* May or may not be suitable for freight (further changes and study required on this).
* Newstead station is close to bus terminus- accommodates transfers
* May be configured to allow bi-directional loop operation

Maybe a suitable pairing could be Cleveland to Richlands?

[Golliwog]

One problem I can see with this is that as this would give a much faster route from the Cleveland line to the city, the majority of trains from there would be using this link, so wouldn't this then reduce the number of ways for through running trains to leave Roma St to the south (only Ipswich, GC or Beenleigh)

[#Metro]

Discussion and voting are now open.
All comments welcome, although I do prefer the constructive ones.

[ButFli]

As Golliwog says, this only worsens the "too many trains from the North" problem. How do you reconcile that?

[Derwan]

I think it's great to propose different ideas that might be needed "one day".  I think we'd need to see patronage on the Cleveland line increase and the duplication of the remaining single track sections before anything like this were to be considered.  It'd be nice to have a track out to Victoria Point and/or Redland Bay as well, but I can't see this happening with the current alignment.

Another drawback with this concept is that it splits services into two where they are most needed (i.e. closer to the city).  You might run 4tph off-peak to Cleveland, but this would mean 2 through Buranda, Coorparoo, etc and 2 through Bulimba - stations with the highest population density and presumably therefore the highest need for services.  This could be overcome to an extent by providing a loop service if the connection near Cannon Hill allowed for it - or turnbacks at Cannon Hill.

[#Metro]

I think we'd need to see patronage on the Cleveland line increase and the duplication of the remaining single track sections before anything like this were to be considered.  It'd be nice to have a track out to Victoria Point and/or Redland Bay as well, but I can't see this happening with the current alignment.

These are fair points.
I think this is somewhat putting the cart before the horse. Patronage on the Cleveland line will hardly increase (indeed patronage across the entire QR rail network is stagnant showing little or no growth) if the routes shamelessly wastes people's time and aren't direct or frequent. There are also no rail services at Newstead, Bulimba- these people's alternative is a slow ferry or a loopy bus which is also a waste of time and infrequent.

If we were to imagine that we were building the Cleveland line from scratch, I don't think it would go around in the loopy configuration that it does today. The current line is simply historical accident IMHO IIRC.

Another drawback with this concept is that it splits services into two where they are most needed (i.e. closer to the city).  You might run 4tph off-peak to Cleveland, but this would mean 2 through Buranda, Coorparoo, etc and 2 through Bulimba - stations with the highest population density and presumably therefore the highest need for services.  This could be overcome to an extent by providing a loop service if the connection near Cannon Hill allowed for it - or turnbacks at Cannon Hill.

A loop service would help, in the sense that any train would eventually end up at the CBD and patronage could be balanced at peak hour.
In the future, more trains will (hopefully) be in operation on all major train lines. Buranda/Stones Corner will have two high frequency busway portals to access (Buranda Busway, Buranda Train Station, Logan Road buses, and Stones Corner Busway) which would be equal or faster than the train in terms of speed (if rockets/express were used) and better in frequency (every few minutes in peak. Coorparoo is also getting the busway.

As Golliwog says, this only worsens the "too many trains from the North" problem. How do you reconcile that?

I don't know either, but for every problem one can think of a solution...

[Jon Bryant]

I think it's great to propose different ideas that might be needed "one day".  I think we'd need to see patronage on the Cleveland line increase and the duplication of the remaining single track sections before anything like this were to be considered.  It'd be nice to have a track out to Victoria Point and/or Redland Bay as well, but I can't see this happening with the current alignment.

Another drawback with this concept is that it splits services into two where they are most needed (i.e. closer to the city).  You might run 4tph off-peak to Cleveland, but this would mean 2 through Buranda, Coorparoo, etc and 2 through Bulimba - stations with the highest population density and presumably therefore the highest need for services.  This could be overcome to an extent by providing a loop service if the connection near Cannon Hill allowed for it - or turnbacks at Cannon Hill.

this route could link with the Trout Road line to provide further network connection across the city. As for that part of the line now skipped, there could be a service that Buranda, Dutton Park and onto Ipswich.    

[#Metro]

Lets look at Paris: http://mapsof.net/paris/static-maps/gif/paris-metro/full-size

There are rail and metro lines everywhere in the inner city and few over there think doing that is controversial or strange.
This is just a simple, single connection that could make a world of difference to the Cleveland line and Bulimba.

There is no way a car can drive directly from Bulimba to Newstead.
But if the train can do this, it will have an absolute and large advantage over car travel in this area.
The only ways by car are ones which take the windy route around, these being:

* Gateway Bridge (pay toll of $3.85 from July 1)
* Story Bridge (pay a time cost, wait in congestion. 10 minutes of waiting in congestion and longer trip is equivalent to paying $4.15) @ $25/hour wage.
* Use Clem 7, (pay a toll to rise to $4.20)
* Use Riverside expressway (waste time, equivalent to paying a toll)

In terms of costs, the "base case" to compare against is not 'do nothing'. Wynnum Road is very congested in the morning, and this is a cost. The Brisbane City Council appears to want to solve this problem by widening these roads. A train would be far more effective as it would be faster and carry far far more people.  You can have a read here : http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/lib506/wynnum_manly_draft_np_pages40-50.pdf.

[#Metro]

Increasing bus services are constrained by the Brisbane River and must use the long route. So even this option, while an improvement, isn't nearly as good as direct rail. A green bridge could be built, but that will too cost money and not have as high capacity, speed or exclusive ROW as rail. Its also likely that car users will try to cross the bridge, or push for car provision which would see Bulimba flooded by car traffic.

[Otto]

It's a pity the old Newstead rail 'right of way' has now been built out which in effect kills any chance of a rail link via Bulimba unless it were to be underground..( and I can't see that happening as the gradient would most likely be to steep to join the main line near Bowen Hills ).. I think a bridge should be built on the same principles as the Green Bridge (ESB) to effectivly enhance PT in the Bulimba / Hawthorne areas..

[Otto]

  It'd be nice to have a track out to Victoria Point and/or Redland Bay as well, but I can't see this happening with the current alignment.

I too would like to see the line go to Redland Bay, But I can't see that ever happening.
An alternative would be to run the 250 as a BUZ to Redland Bay along the current route and to upgrade the 280 to run every half hour and travel right in to the city instead of terminating at Griffith Uni ( thus bringing more 'out of towners' to fill up seats on the 111 ). This would be very beneficial for southern Redlands residents. The last couple of times I have used the 280, I noted full seated loads so the patronage has certainly risen since last year..

[Golliwog]

Lets look at Paris: http://mapsof.net/paris/static-maps/gif/paris-metro/full-size

There are rail and metro lines everywhere in the inner city and few over there think doing that is controversial or strange.
This is just a simple, single connection that could make a world of difference to the Cleveland line and Bulimba.

Not to be a downer, but Paris is different. You can't compare metro and rail, at least not rail as we currently have in Brisbane. Paris only has 5 rail lines. The metro there is brilliant, but is vastly different from anything we have in Brisbane, for starters every single metro line is grade seperated from the others. As Derwan pointed out, spliting the Cleveland line closer into the city would reduce the frequency of trains on the existing inner section of the Cleveland line. Perhaps instead of joining the Cleveland line, it could interchange with it and then continue heading further south. Or just terminate there.

[Derwan]

I think this is somewhat putting the cart before the horse. Patronage on the Cleveland line will hardly increase (indeed patronage across the entire QR rail network is stagnant showing little or no growth) if the routes shamelessly wastes people's time and aren't direct or frequent. There are also no rail services at Newstead, Bulimba- these people's alternative is a slow ferry or a loopy bus which is also a waste of time and infrequent.

I should clarify my statement.  At this stage we see cross river rail addressing lines to the north and south, rather than east or west - as this is where it's most needed.  The second phase is planned to provide an additional link between north and west.

Depending on other infrastructure developments (Sunshine Coast, Redcliffe, etc) and patronage levels in and beyond the 2020's, other lines may take priority over the Cleveland line.

Anything that reduces the time on the windy Cleveland line would be a great idea.  (I used to travel it frequently.)  Unfortunately I think these "mega" tunnel projects will be determined by capacity, not convenience.  You're right - it's like putting the cart before the horse, but unfortunately that's the political climate that we live in.  (For example, I think Traveston would've been approved if the dam levels hadn't increased.)

[#Metro]

My point about Paris (or any other major city of that calibre) has no problem building a network of lines criss-crossing around the inner city. It just seems that Brisbane is so obsessed with The Car that any move to do even a small connection is controversial.

Yes, people at Coorparoo and Buranda may (or may not) have changes to their train frequency. But it is not possible to devise a situation where there are only winners and no losers for almost anything. A direct connection on the Cleveland line represents an improvement to the current situation. Coorparoo and Buranda also have the benefit of the Eastern busway.

This may come as a surprise, but there is a metro route in concept for crossing from Newstead to Bulimba.

[somebody]

I still prefer a more southerly alignment to this one.  That would take some heat off of the 195/196/197/199 routes, rather than this route which competes more with CityGlider.

The question then is: where should it go once it reaches the city?

[Jon Bryant]

Trouts Road then Redcliffe

[#Metro]

I still prefer a more southerly alignment to this one.  That would take some heat off of the 195/196/197/199 routes, rather than this route which competes more with CityGlider.

I did think about this idea.  
But I thought that it would be better dealt with by a separate surface light rail system or an underground (light?) metro system.

A solution for the "too many trains from the north" problem could be solved by construction of the Sunnybank-Browns Plains line (separate proposal).

Avoidable congestion in Brisbane is tipped to be about $ 3 Billion per year. I'm also looking at a method to quantify the benefits in terms of $ rather than just say "reduced congestion".

[longboi]

I think a green bridge would probably be more suitable for the area as it is quite built up and heavy rail would be difficult and expensive to implement for relatively little gain. A green bridge would be ideal because it opens up the Bulimba-Hawthorne area to be part of the inner city with pedestrian/cycle and high-frequency PT services.

[#Metro]

The benefits fall into three main categories:

1. New passengers from Bulimba, Newstead and Hawthorne
2. Time advantages for existing passengers (so whole trainloads of pax from Cleveland)
3. The time advantage over the car which will cause some people to switch from car to train at and around the Cleveland Line PT catchment area.

Yes I'm sure that there will be a price tag on it. But it needs to be stressed, that not doing the project also comes with a price tag- Wynnum Road must be then upgraded and possibly others. Indeed there is no option where no price tag exists.

A green or pedestrian bridge would be cheaper, but it may also have lower benefits as it misses out on benefits such as time savings for new and existing Cleveland line users and congestion reduction (due to the capacities of trains being high). This would be especially so during peak hour.

Still working on my method... will post when I think I've got it down pat.

This connector would slash about 16 minutes off Cleveland line travel (stopping at 3 new stations included)

[Otto]

I honestly don't think a heavy rail line will stand any chance of being built via Hawthorne/Bulimba across the river to Newstead. Our Governments would first of all have to have a absolutely drastic change in PT planning policy plus also be in an excellent financial position to even evaluate this proposal.. Duplication of all Suburban lines to each terminus would be of greater importance IMHO..

However, for maximum capacity, I would propose a light rail commencing at Morningside Station ( interchange ) then via Wynnum rd (L) Lawson st (R) Riding Rd (L) Oxford st then across the river using a new 'green' bridge connecting to Skyring tce (L) Ann st (L) Queen st (R) Adelaide st (L) Nth Quay {alt via new adelaide st bridge} , Melbourne st (L) Boundary st (R) Vulture st (L) Hardgrave rd (R) Ganges st (L) Hoogley st (R) Orleigh st { terminus }
This route also avoids adding futher congestion along busy Wynnum rd which is at saturation during the peaks..
This also allows many alternate routes to be considered and could form the backbone for a whole new light rail system for Brisbane.

[Jon Bryant]

Our Governments would first of all have to have a absolutely drastic change in PT planning policy plus also be in an excellent financial position to even evaluate this proposal..

But this is excatly what we (oK I am) campaigning for!!!!

[#Metro]

I honestly don't think a heavy rail line will stand any chance of being built via Hawthorne/Bulimba across the river to Newstead. Our Governments would first of all have to have a absolutely drastic change in PT planning policy plus also be in an excellent financial position to even evaluate this proposal.. Duplication of all Suburban lines to each terminus would be of greater importance IMHO..

I would agree. Unfortunately there are many good projects which sit on the shelf because they aren't funded. I guess I just wanted to check that the project would be worthwhile or not in itself.

Here is a glimpse of my reasoning:
A 16 minute time saving, in 2015 would be roughly a $7.20 time saving for each passenger based on an average 2015 wage of $27 per hour. So that is $14.40 in time savings over the day (peak hour only-ignoring time savings in the off peak)

If we assume 16 peak services 6am - 9am carry say 800 pax, that's 16 x 800 = 12 800 pax
So that is... $184 320 of time saving benefits per workday.
There are roughly 260 workdays in a year- so that is about $48 million in time saved per year.

If the project costs $2 billion to construct, the direct connector will pay itself off (payback period) in about 41 years. This isn't too bad seeing that NorthLink tunnel is going to take 45 years to do the same thing.

A word of warning: This is just a rough evaluation, not fit for any purpose. Payback period is a very crude way of checking how worthwhile a project is. We haven't even got to quantifying the benefits from congestion diverted off the road or property values increasing due to close PT access... Off peak travel, health benefits and accident reduction has also not been included

This is one of my first attempts at calculating benefits (the neglected side of things) that come from PT projects. Too often we only think in terms of costs...

[Jon Bryant]

TT, this web page may help with the Cost Benefit analysese.  http://www.vtpi.org/tca/

Topics:

Contents
  Executive Summary This is a short, 7-page summary of this guidebook.
1.  Introduction - This chapter describes the context and scope of this guidebook, the value of measuring transportation costs, defines and discusses the concepts of "transport" and "cost," and categorizes costs based on various attributes.
2.  Literature Review - This chapter reviews various studies of the full costs of transportation, covering both personal and freight transport costs.
3. Economic Evaluation - This chapter describes basic economic evaluation principles and techniques, and how they relate to transportation cost analysis. It discusses evaluation of optimal pricing, project investment and policy analysis, and transportation equity.
4.  Cost Quantification Techniques - This chapter describes various techniques for quantifying and monetizing (measuring in monetary units) transportation impacts.
5.0  Costs – Overview and Definitions - This chapter describes the information that is included in each of the cost chapters and defines the modes that are considered.
5.1  Vehicle Costs - This chapter examines direct user financial costs for vehicles, transit fares and telework equipment.
5.2  Travel Time - This chapter examines the value of travel time and travel time savings. It describes various estimates of travel time values for different user types and travel conditions.
5.3  Safety and Health - This chapter examines the safety and health impacts of transportation activities, including crash damages, personal security and public health. It describes how these impacts are measured, how they vary by mode and travel conditions, and how they are distributed.
5.4  Parking - This chapter explores the costs of providing parking facilities. It estimates the costs of different types of parking spaces and the number of parking spaces per vehicle. It discusses the distribution of parking costs.
5.5  Congestion - This chapter examines traffic congestion costs, that is, delay and risk due to interference between road users. It describes how congestion is measured, factors that affect congestion, various estimates of congestion costs, and the benefits of congestion reductions.
5.6  Roadway Facilities - This chapter examines public expenditures on roadway facilities. It describes roadway construction, maintenance and operating costs, and how those costs are allocated to different types of vehicles.
5.7  Roadway Land Value - This chapter investigates the amount of land devoted to roads, the value of this land, and how this cost can be allocated to road users. 
5.8  Traffic Services - This chapter explores the costs of public services for vehicle traffic, including law enforcement, emergency services and street lighting.
5.9  Transportation Diversity - This chapter explores the value of transportation diversity and the costs of reduced transport options. Transportation diversity provides efficiency, equity, option value and resilience benefits.
5.10  Air Pollution - This chapter describes vehicle air pollutants, how emissions of different vehicles can be quantified, factors that affect emission rates, and the costs of vehicle air pollution.
5.11  Noise - This chapter provides information on vehicle noise costs, including general information on how noise is quantified, the noise emissions of various types of vehicles, and estimates of their noise costs.
5.12  Resource Consumption - This chapter describes the external costs of resource consumption (particularly petroleum and other forms of energy), and therefore the benefits of conservation and increased efficiency.
5.13  Barrier Effect - This chapter describes the barrier effect (also called "severance"), which refers to delays that roads and traffic cause to nonmotorized travel.
5.14  Land Use Impacts - This chapter examines how transportation decisions affect land use patterns, and the economic, social and environmental impacts that result. It describes various external costs of increased pavement and automobile-oriented development, and benefits that can result from more resource-efficient land use patterns.
5.15  Water Pollution and Hydrologic Impacts - This chapter describes water pollution and hydrologic impacts (changes in surface and ground water flow) associated with transportation facilities and vehicle use.
5.16 Waste Disposal - This chapter describes external costs associated with disposal of vehicle wastes.
6.  Cost Summary - Previous chapters in this guidebook provided monetized estimates of 23 costs for 11 modes under three travel conditions, totaling 759 individual estimates. This chapter summarizes and analyzes these estimates.
7.  Evaluating Transportation Benefits - This chapter discusses techniques for quantifying transportation benefits, including benefits of marginal cost savings, external benefits, consumer surplus benefits, economic productivity and development, and benefits of transportation diversity.
8.  Criticism of Transportation Costing - This chapter evaluates various criticisms of transportation costing.
9.  Implications Economic evaluation techniques and cost described in this guidebook are used in this chapter to analyze the impacts of current pricing on economic efficiency, economic development, land use, stakeholder perspectives, and travel patterns.
10.  Applications and Case Studies - This chapter explores some implications of transportation economic evaluation with regard to optimal pricing, economic efficiency, land use, stakeholder perspectives, and travel patterns.
11.  Conclusions - This chapter summarizes major conclusions and provides recommendations for improving transportation system efficiency and equity.
12.  Bibliography This chapter lists some of the literature used in this guidebook.
 

[longboi]

I honestly don't think a heavy rail line will stand any chance of being built via Hawthorne/Bulimba across the river to Newstead. Our Governments would first of all have to have a absolutely drastic change in PT planning policy plus also be in an excellent financial position to even evaluate this proposal.. Duplication of all Suburban lines to each terminus would be of greater importance IMHO..

I would agree. Unfortunately there are many good projects which sit on the shelf because they aren't funded. I guess I just wanted to check that the project would be worthwhile or not in itself.

Here is a glimpse of my reasoning:
A 16 minute time saving, in 2015 would be roughly a $7.20 time saving for each passenger based on an average 2015 wage of $27 per hour. So that is $14.40 in time savings over the day (peak hour only-ignoring time savings in the off peak)

If we assume 16 peak services 6am - 9am carry say 800 pax, that's 16 x 800 = 12 800 pax
So that is... $184 320 of time saving benefits per workday.
There are roughly 260 workdays in a year- so that is about $48 million in time saved per year.

If the project costs $2 billion to construct, the direct connector will pay itself off (payback period) in about 41 years. This isn't too bad seeing that NorthLink tunnel is going to take 45 years to do the same thing.

A word of warning: This is just a rough evaluation, not fit for any purpose. Payback period is a very crude way of checking how worthwhile a project is. We haven't even got to quantifying the benefits from congestion diverted off the road or property values increasing due to close PT access... Off peak travel, health benefits and accident reduction has also not been included

This is one of my first attempts at calculating benefits (the neglected side of things) that come from PT projects. Too often we only think in terms of costs...

So are you saying people will spend more hours working because they will get into the City quicker? I don't know about you but when I work in wage-paying jobs I don't get to pick the amount of hours and the shifts I work.
But that aside, how exactly does a rise in the productivity of PT users pay for the infrastructure?

[#Metro]

So are you saying people will spend more hours working because they will get into the City quicker? I don't know about you but when I work in wage-paying jobs I don't get to pick the amount of hours and the shifts I work.
But that aside, how exactly does a rise in the productivity of PT users pay for the infrastructure?

Hi Nikko, thanks for the question. In short, it is an "opportunity cost". A person not at work is forgoing $27 per hour. This means that whatever they are doing, they must at least value their time at least equal or above $27.

The long answer is:
It is standard practice when making economic decisions to assign a value to time and other things such as human life, clean air etc. By placing benefits in a common expression- money, you can compare apples with apples so to speak. Now its not perfect, but it is the most common way to evaluate things like this.

Examples would be building any transport infrastructure or deciding whether or not a traffic light should be put at an intersection to save accidents. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_time

I guess I'm having a go as it puts the proposal on a more solid footing. We can compare many options which have the same benefits, but in different degrees, and pick the best one. Its good to say that "Public Transport has time savings", but its even better when you can say to a minister that it should be at least $50 million dollars of benefit per year.  

[#Metro]

But that aside, how exactly does a rise in the productivity of PT users pay for the infrastructure?

I'm not sure how to answer this question. The purpose of a public service is to benefit the community, not turn a profit for the government.
If this were a company, then this project would probably not go ahead as it would not be profitable (i.e. Pay for itself) with a toll on it, despite being socially worthwhile.*

Although with a better rail service, money is saved by avoiding spending it on things like cleaning up the air, widening roads, and bad health in the future. With extra time, people can live the lives they want. More people using the faster rail service also means more farebox money for TL which reduces costs on government even further.

Something to think about:
Lets say that you are in a room there are 2 locked doors from which you can only open one. One has "Roads" and the other has "Rail" on it.
It costs $2 to unlock the "Roads" door and when you open that door it has a $5 note behind it. If you unlock the "Rail" door it costs $10 but there is a $500 note behind it. Which door should you open?

* I say probably, because in some cases it is possible to make money and have social benefits too.

[ButFli]

Something to think about:
Lets say that you are in a room there are 2 locked doors from which you can only open one. One has "Roads" and the other has "Rail" on it.
It costs $2 to unlock the "Roads" door and when you open that door it has a $5 note behind it. If you unlock the "Rail" door it costs $10 but there is a $500 note behind it. Which door should you open?

That analogy is ridiculous. Aside from the $ amounts being completely arbitrary, you forgot to factor in 500 angry voters behind the rail door that will beat you with clubs for not fixing their roads.

[#Metro]

  Different opinions are fine by me.

[longboi]

So are you saying people will spend more hours working because they will get into the City quicker? I don't know about you but when I work in wage-paying jobs I don't get to pick the amount of hours and the shifts I work.
But that aside, how exactly does a rise in the productivity of PT users pay for the infrastructure?

Hi Nikko, thanks for the question. In short, it is an "opportunity cost". A person not at work is forgoing $27 per hour. This means that whatever they are doing, they must at least value their time at least equal or above $27.

The long answer is:
It is standard practice when making economic decisions to assign a value to time and other things such as human life, clean air etc. By placing benefits in a common expression- money, you can compare apples with apples so to speak. Now its not perfect, but it is the most common way to evaluate things like this.

Examples would be building any transport infrastructure or deciding whether or not a traffic light should be put at an intersection to save accidents. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_time

I guess I'm having a go as it puts the proposal on a more solid footing. We can compare many options which have the same benefits, but in different degrees, and pick the best one. Its good to say that "Public Transport has time savings", but its even better when you can say to a minister that it should be at least $50 million dollars of benefit per year.  

Yes I understand the principle of opportunity cost but I'm talking about real dollar terms - Despite the knock-on benefits, you still need real money to pay for infrastructure like this. It just seems that this new route would be astronomically expensive for little gain. If the goal is to provide better public transport links to Bulimba, I don't see how a green bridge and a CityGlider route couldn't do exactly that for a fraction of the cost.

[somebody]

Trouts Road then Redcliffe

UQ and West End/Highgate Hill isn't more important?

As for single line duplications, they could be done for small change as compared to such a proposal as this.  I would argue that a proposal like this is an alternative to the 2026 ICRCS tunnel, which I don't have a very high opinion of. it's crap

[#Metro]

Yes I understand the principle of opportunity cost but I'm talking about real dollar terms - Despite the knock-on benefits, you still need real money to pay for infrastructure like this. It just seems that this new route would be astronomically expensive for little gain. If the goal is to provide better public transport links to Bulimba, I don't see how a green bridge and a CityGlider route couldn't do exactly that for a fraction of the cost.

I put this example up to illustrate:

Lets say that you are in a room there are 2 locked doors from which you can only open one. One has "Roads" and the other has "Rail" on it. It costs $2 to unlock the "Roads" door and when you open that door it has a $5 note behind it. If you unlock the "Rail" door it costs $10 but there is a $500 note behind it. Which door should you open?

A rail tunnel will cost more but it might just have more benefits (but I haven't dealt with the bridge case and my method is being refined). If one were to only focus on costs you would come to the wrong conclusion that the cheapest public transport system is no system at all and therefore all rail, bus and ferry services should be shut down because they cost money to run and run at a loss. The cheapest project might not deliver the highest benefits. A sixteen minute delay is like stopping a train for 16 minutes mid-journey.

The government's ability to pay is to do with the government, not the intrinsic worthiness of the project itself.

Not really sure how I can explain as it is a complicated thing, but its a bit like choosing between a $0.5 million dollar house to live in or a $2 cardboard box. The cardboard box is cheaper but has far far less benefit. Same logic behind building a $7 billion cross river rail tunnel rather than just widening the freeway or placing a new underground freeway for $3 billion

[longboi]

Yes I understand the principle of opportunity cost but I'm talking about real dollar terms - Despite the knock-on benefits, you still need real money to pay for infrastructure like this. It just seems that this new route would be astronomically expensive for little gain. If the goal is to provide better public transport links to Bulimba, I don't see how a green bridge and a CityGlider route couldn't do exactly that for a fraction of the cost.

I put this example up to illustrate:

Lets say that you are in a room there are 2 locked doors from which you can only open one. One has "Roads" and the other has "Rail" on it. It costs $2 to unlock the "Roads" door and when you open that door it has a $5 note behind it. If you unlock the "Rail" door it costs $10 but there is a $500 note behind it. Which door should you open?

A rail tunnel will cost more but it might just have more benefits (but I haven't dealt with the bridge case and my method is being refined). If one were to only focus on costs you would come to the wrong conclusion that the cheapest public transport system is no system at all and therefore all rail, bus and ferry services should be shut down because they cost money to run and run at a loss. The cheapest project might not deliver the highest benefits. A sixteen minute delay is like stopping a train for 16 minutes mid-journey.

The government's ability to pay is to do with the government, not the intrinsic worthiness of the project itself.

Not really sure how I can explain as it is a complicated thing, but its a bit like choosing between a $0.5 million dollar house to live in or a $2 cardboard box. The cardboard box is cheaper but has far far less benefit. Same logic behind building a $7 billion cross river rail tunnel rather than just widening the freeway or placing a new underground freeway for $3 billion

A more accurate illustration of opportunity cost would be;

What other transport projects and their associated benefits would be foregone if this project were to go ahead?
For the same amount this upgrade would cost - assuming its tunneled - you might be able to, say, complete the Springfield line which would bring more benefits to more people AND build some kind of good PT link to Bulimba.

[somebody]

I still prefer a more southerly alignment to this one.  That would take some heat off of the 195/196/197/199 routes, rather than this route which competes more with CityGlider.

At the risk of quoting myself again, the main downside of a more southerly alignment is that it means a triple river crossing and a deep station at Central.  The triple river crossing shouldn't be a big deal if we aren't using an immersed tube, but the deep station at Central may well be expensive.

[#Metro]

A more accurate illustration of opportunity cost would be;

What other transport projects and their associated benefits would be foregone if this project were to go ahead?
For the same amount this upgrade would cost - assuming its tunneled - you might be able to, say, complete the Springfield line which would bring more benefits to more people AND build some kind of good PT link to Bulimba.

My example wasn't to demonstrate opportunity cost at all (I guess it could be used to do that) but to show that it is possible that a more expensive project can also bring more benefits than a cheaper one to solve the same problem.

You can compare between projects using this method too, which is a good thing. Ideally the government should choose the project with the highest level of benefits (i.e. not necessarily the cheapest project). So you might be right, but you'd have to run the numbers on the Springfield line for that one and compare it against the Bulimba project. But I'm not sure about the comparison- won't the Springfield line be open by 2015?

[stephenk]

The blue line is an example route only.
The light green area is the corridor where worthwhile alignments could run/proposal area.

Benefits:
* Straight-through connection, all the way to Cleveland
* Moves the network towards a "metro-like" ideal with a net of lines in the inner city
* Faster trip
* Increased capacity, less congestion on Wynnum Road
* Brings rail to Bulimba, Newstead (growth area), and Hawthorne/Balmoral
* Less dead running of trains (trains on a short run can short cut to Bowen Hills/Mayne or the CBD)
* Introduced redundancy and increases fault-tolerance of the network (allows re-routing of trains)
* May or may not be suitable for freight (further changes and study required on this).
* Newstead station is close to bus terminus- accommodates transfers
* May be configured to allow bi-directional loop operation

Maybe a suitable pairing could be Cleveland to Richlands?

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

1)It splits the Cleveland Line, so you would now have to serve 2 lines instead of 1. This would mess up line pairings, operations, and service bias, and not solve inner city capacity issues.
2)Rail lines are not computers, they should not need (highly expensive) redundancy.
3)This project is not required to allow a metro like service for Brisbane, this can be achieved by existing plans.
4)A high frequency bus route along with a Tenerife to Bulimba green bridge would more cost effectively serve this area, and has been suggested by BCC.
5)Paris has a much higher population density than Brisbane, covers a much smaller area, and most of the metro system was built around 100 years ago when construction costs were a tad lower.

[somebody]

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

[#Metro]

Is this the RailBOT forum or the RACQ forum?  

Yeah, Paris 100 years ago. That's how far behind we are.
No wonder that city grew into a world metropolis... Great Cities have great public transport.

[Golliwog]

I'm fairly sure that Paris was a world metropolis more than 100 years ago. Besides, their system still has problems. For instance it's only on their newest metro trains that you can move between cars. On the very large majority, once you're in your car you can't move along. This quite easily leads to some cars being way over crowded compared to others. They also have a rather different definition of interchange stations. I forget the name of the station, but I remember walking for 5-10 minutes within the station to get from one line to the other.

I still think the idea is an interesting one, but needs some tweaking. Perhaps LR, or don't join with the Cleveland line, terminate at it or just interchange and continue further south.

[#Metro]

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

1)It splits the Cleveland Line, so you would now have to serve 2 lines instead of 1. This would mess up line pairings, operations, and service bias, and not solve inner city capacity issues.
2)Rail lines are not computers, they should not need (highly expensive) redundancy.
3)This project is not required to allow a metro like service for Brisbane, this can be achieved by existing plans.
4)A high frequency bus route along with a Tenerife to Bulimba green bridge would more cost effectively serve this area, and has been suggested by BCC.
5)Paris has a much higher population density than Brisbane, covers a much smaller area, and most of the metro system was built around 100 years ago when construction costs were a tad lower.

Lets go through the issues.

1)It splits the Cleveland Line, so you would now have to serve 2 lines instead of 1. This would mess up line pairings, operations, and service bias, and not solve inner city capacity issues.

Splitting the Cleveland Line isn't going to make the curtains turn brown or the cows stop making milk in Queenslander-speak. It will also make things more convenient for Cleveland Line passengers. Both Melbourne and Sydney have split lines.

Click thumbnails
Melbourne

Sydney