Perth vs Brisbane rail network

[#Metro]

Perth vs Brisbane

TransPerth train map http://metropoliphone.com/img/train/train_perth.pdf
TrasnLink Train map http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/maps/110117_busway-and-train-network.jpg


Is it really true that we can't run frequent services because the network is too big?


The Armadale line is ~ 30 km to the terminus. About the same distance as Ipswich line at 38km.
Armadale- 15 minute trains. Ipswich- 30 minutes.

The Midland line is ~ 16 km to the terminus.
About the same distance as the Ferny Grove line which is 16km. Midland 15 minute trains. Ferny Grove 30 minutes.

The Fremantle line is 18km to the terminus. About the same distance as from Central to Hemmant on the Cleveland line
or comparable to the Shorncliffe line (16km). Fremantle line- 15 minute trains. Hemmant and Shorncliffe lines 30 minutes.

The Gold Coast line is ~75 km. Directly comparable with Perth's Mandurah line in terms of distance and service type. Both trains run express and have limited stops (in Perth's case the intermediate stations do not exist, in Brisbane's case the train simply bypasses them). Identical trains. Recent upgrades and duplication to the track and the Gold Coast line is also fairly new too. 15 minutes frequency to Mandurah and. Half an hour frequency to the Gold Coast.

The Caboolture Line is ~ 50 km. Directly comparable with Perth's Joondalup line in terms of distance. Some concession can be given for the slightly bent alignment in Brisbane and older age of the line. However, nothing special is out at Clarkson. Caboolture line has a township at the terminus and fast growing suburbs like North Lakes etc. 15 minutes frequency to Clarkson. Half an hour to Caboolture.

All these train lines in Perth run 15 minute frequency in the off-peak. Perth IS a valid yardstick to use when comparing against the QR rail system.

[somebody]

Is it really true that we can't run frequent services because the network is too big?

F*** no.

Is it true that anyone, anywhere believes it?  i don't think so.

[Zoiks]

Not really to do with the OP. But we have a LOT more stations on each line. Is this just because we have a lot more stations or because there is not much in the way of trip generators between the current stations in perth

[skippy]

All these train lines in Perth run 15 minute frequency in the off-peak. Perth IS a valid yardstick to use when comparing against the QR rail system.

- Perth would not attempt to provide a passenger service for less than a couple of thousand boardings a day
- Perth run many smaller trains more frequently off-peak, so in reality the capacity per hour is the same as SEQ

Applying this to SEQ
1. Doomben, Rosewood and Sunshine Coast rail corridors would be serviced by bus
2. This would immediately free up $$$, rollingstock and train paths to introduce 15 min services to Shorncliff, Caboolture, Ferny Grove and Manly
3. The single track and other capacity impediments would be removed to enable 15 min off peak to the remaining areas (Manly-Cleveland, Beenleigh, eventually Varsity Lakes)

[ozbob]

The big difference is really DOO ....  but that is not to be mentioned is it?

Doomben, Rosewood and Sunshine Coast all have solid pax loadings, and with a decent rail frequency will only increase.

The bus system is already in a congestion straightjacket, more buses for rail, no thanks.

[Arnz]

All these train lines in Perth run 15 minute frequency in the off-peak. Perth IS a valid yardstick to use when comparing against the QR rail system.

- Perth would not attempt to provide a passenger service for less than a couple of thousand boardings a day
- Perth run many smaller trains more frequently off-peak, so in reality the capacity per hour is the same as SEQ

Applying this to SEQ
1. Doomben, Rosewood and Sunshine Coast rail corridors would be serviced by bus

Get stuffed.  That's on all 3 counts.  The former (Doomben) is underutilised, whilst Rosewood I can't comment on.  Not to mention, it would be waste of money considering the recent Beerburrum duplication works, and the overcrowded peak patronage (beyond Caboolture) on a considerable number of peak trains on the later(Sunshine Coast)

2. This would immediately free up $$$, rollingstock and train paths to introduce 15 min services to Shorncliff, Caboolture, Ferny Grove and Manly
3. The single track and other capacity impediments would be removed to enable 15 min off peak to the remaining areas (Manly-Cleveland, Beenleigh, eventually Varsity Lakes)

Caboolture still deals with freights on double track, same with Ipswich.  Parts of the Beenleigh and Cleveland lines (to a lesser extent part of the Western line) have dedicated freight tracks.

[#Metro]

All these train lines in Perth run 15 minute frequency in the off-peak. Perth IS a valid yardstick to use when comparing against the QR rail system.

- Perth would not attempt to provide a passenger service for less than a couple of thousand boardings a day
- Perth run many smaller trains more frequently off-peak, so in reality the capacity per hour is the same as SEQ

Applying this to SEQ
1. Doomben, Rosewood and Sunshine Coast rail corridors would be serviced by bus
2. This would immediately free up $$$, rollingstock and train paths to introduce 15 min services to Shorncliff, Caboolture, Ferny Grove and Manly
3. The single track and other capacity impediments would be removed to enable 15 min off peak to the remaining areas (Manly-Cleveland, Beenleigh, eventually Varsity Lakes)

I actually am willing to explore this.

The guide I use is "does it increase mobility". That's the guiding principle I use. The beauty of this principle is that it is mode-neutral.

Doomben Line
The Doomben line is probably still best served by train because most of the infrastructure is already there. It would be a much simpler task to fix that up, however there is the question of train paths through the CBD. A practical solution might be to simply expand Eagle Junction Station with an extra platform and terminate Doomben Trains there and get people to transfer over. This would allow for increased frequency right there and better utilisation of the trains (getting rid of air) as well.

Shorncliffe Line
The same logic could be applied to the Shorncliffe line and possibly even Kippa-Ring. Expand Northgate station and begin and terminate Shorncliffe trains there. You can now run high frequency on both the branch and the main line. I know this is wildly radical thinking but WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE CASH AND TIME. So I am just putting the idea out there.

I would be highly concerned if the State and Federal governments just dished out $2.3 billion, like cash falling from heaven, or any portion thereof for the construction of tunnel on KSD.
What is the public utility of more empty tunnels that are too expensive to drive through??? And particularly so when there are viable options just next door.

Is extension automatically always a good thing?
I think many proposals to extend rail (to Helidon, to Gold Coast Airport, to Flagstone, to Ripley, Kippa Ring and even to Springfield) and metros with 30-40 metro stations forget that rail costs something 100 million/km and the frequency of service is probably no better than bus anyway (bar metro). Bus in Class B ROW is something you can get now. I keep thinking this: Extension is not necessarily improvement if it locks up cash in other areas that might have higher benefit.

For Sunshine Coast and Rosewood, IMHO these are better left as trains simply due to distance. If you have long distance, bus is probably not a good idea.

Driver only operation

Perth run many smaller trains more frequently off-peak, so in reality the capacity per hour is the same as SEQ

Yes, but I feel that journey time is important.
As Ozbob says, DOO is a factor there too. But will we ever be able to move to do DOO? I would favour DOO because it increases mobility (costs down/services up) however there are issues with platform heights etcetera so someone needs to put out wheelchair ramps and so on, and I don't know if I want the train driver doing that. Is there another solution here???

[Stillwater]

Free up $$$ ?  Rail freight makes the money and puts dividend returns back into government coffers for expenditure on, among other things, rail generally.  Buses adding to the congestion of the Warrego and Bruce highways is not, or should be, on anyone's agenda.  Sensible investment in track upgrades on the SCL, for instance, are of immeasurable benefit to freight rail efficiency.  The best argument against buses to Rosewood etc are the current 'railway buses' between Caboolture and Nambour -- they take at least 30 minutes more to make the journey than the trains do, even with the severe limitations of the current track.

[#Metro]

Free up $$$ ?  Rail freight makes the money and puts dividend returns back into government coffers for expenditure on, among other things, rail generally.  Buses adding to the congestion of the Warrego and Bruce highways is not, or should be, on anyone's agenda.  Sensible investment in track upgrades on the SCL, for instance, are of immeasurable benefit to freight rail efficiency.  The best argument against buses to Rosewood etc are the current 'railway buses' between Caboolture and Nambour -- they take at least 30 minutes more to make the journey than the trains do, even with the severe limitations of the current track.

I would agree with this. A practical approach seems fitting. Sunshine Coast should be duplicated as it is steam train infrastructure.
However I feel that CAMCOS should only go as far as Caloundra and the rest of it done as bus with CoastConnect.
Rail is good there because of the long distance involved and the large distance between stations (3-5 km) and the high speed of trains.
However, this reason is maybe only valid so far as Caloundra.

Similar reasoning for Rosewood. Why development has been slated for Ripley Valley (la la land with NO infrastructure) while a perfectly good Rosewood line sits out there
hardly used is just another puzzle in "planning".

[Arnz]

If the Caloundra South development goes ahead, I feel that a "railway" clause should be put in.  But knowing the state government, they'll find some way around out, or offer some lame alternative (cough half-hourly peak buses and hourly in off-peak, seriously)?

As for terminating CAMCOS at Caloundra and putting in a second "BUZ" like route in Caloundra (asides from the current Route 600), would be a reasonable idea.  The bus route following the CAMCOS route to Maroochydore would very much be serving the newer suburbs (Paerrara, Kawana Town Centre, Meridan Plains (Currimundi Forest) , whilst the Route 600 currently services the more older/established suburbs (Currimundi, Wurtulla, Warana, Minyama, etc) on the Nicklin Way arterial.

[Jonno]

The fact that the ULDA blueprints have the half-hourly peak and hourly non-peak comment in them just shows how little the State Government understands the cause of the current transport problems.  They are clearly still in the "if we build enough roads we will reduce or avoid congestion" space.

[#Metro]

Who pays for the roads in this area? Is it the developer or the council or the state through DTMR???

[#Metro]

http://schwandl.blogspot.com/2011/04/down-under-tour-2011-perth.html

Seems like Mr schwandl has visited Perth-- result-

What makes me classify the Perth rail system as the best in Australia are the following factors:
* its travel speed, both real (on the Mandurah Line trains reach a maximum speed of 130 km/h!) and perceived (short station dwelling time)
* short intervals with a train every 15 minutes at all stations during off-peak daytime hours and extra trains during peak
* stopping patterns (mostly for peak-hour service) are well illustrated on the platforms and in printed timetables, and the train's destination display also includes this as a letter code
* pleasant rolling stock offering a very smooth ride
* multi-access stations, mostly with entrances at either end of the platform to avoid long detours
* full accessibility via lifts or ramps
* operationally three clearly segregated lines
* fully integrated fare system

Simplicity is next to godliness...

[Fares_Fair]

no contest ... Perth wins. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

The rail system is publicly operated by Transperth and fully integrated with bus services (and one ferry line). The metropolitan area is divided into 9 circular fare zones, which extend more than 100 km north-south. A dayrider ticket is available at AUD 9.00 for travel after 9:00 am, and valid in all zones. Similar to Brisbane, most people travel with a Smartrider smartcard, but single tickets and day tickets are sold as paper tickets; there are ticket barriers at busy stations, but to check paper tickets at least one gate needs to be manned. Transit officers (and there are more of them visible in Perth than anywhere else in Australia!) carry out tickets inspections on trains, too.

There goes the "oh, but TransLink runs a really really big system" argument out the window!!!

[Gazza]

As Ozbob says, DOO is a factor there too. But will we ever be able to move to do DOO? I would favour DOO because it increases mobility (costs down/services up) however there are issues with platform heights etcetera so someone needs to put out wheelchair ramps and so on, and I don't know if I want the train driver doing that. Is there another solution here???

Doesn't matter. Melbourne has the same set of issues and is DOO.
We could get around the issue too additionally by rolling out "short highs" on platforms as much as possible.

But will we ever be able to move to do DOO?

Would never happen under a Labour government, just being a realist here.

Im certainly in favour of going to DOO...Most of the jobs a Guard does can be automated, or handled by the driver.

Another factor with Perth is that stations are spaced wider, which means the less rolling stock is needed (There is an inverse relationship between station spacing and rolling stock requirements), and more runs can be done with less labour hours due to the higher speeds.

Get stuffed.  That's on all 3 counts.

I certainly think Rosewood was a silly place to extend suburban services to.

[#Metro]

I think it is unhelpful to find excused as "explanations" to excuse poor performance.
Poor performance is what it is. It is a result of poor infrastructure and poor decisions. Those who have authority of the system are responsible because they are charged with the responsibility of maintaining it and making sure that it is sufficient. That's what we pay our high fares and high subsidy tax dollars (75%) to do. Certainly if the passenger numbers went up, everybody would be rushing to take the credit, so they should take blame also.

There are many many cities around the world with rail systems that handle larger passengers and have higher frequency than we do.
It is wrong to project these failures and problems of the current system as some kind of inevitable consequence of geography or geometry.

If there are problems they should be acknowledged and things done to fix them or reduce the problem. Perth isn't all new train lines. There are many old lines that are just like Brisbane, for example the Fremantle, Armadale and Midland lines. We also have a mining boom (or had one) and have a higher population (and therefore more taxpayers) and are having strong population growth. Something can be done about these issues, and if nothing is done about it, then the government deserves to lose an election on it.

Humanity has held back rivers, built gigantic dams, bridged the Sydney harbour, put man on the moon. All I am asking for is 15 minute frequency at the train stations that I use often. Is that too hard an ask??? And there is always skip-stop, or zone operation if train stations are too closely spaced. In worst case scenarios stations can be closed. There was a station between South Bank and Park Road and that disappeared off the map.

[ozbob]

I certainly think Rosewood was a silly place to extend suburban services to.

I don't, and I bet the locals don't think so either.  Considerable residential development is taking place along the corridor now.  Loadings are good and growing.  Some expansion of park and ride is planned as well.  I have had the misfortune to take a rail bus in lieu of rail to Rosewood and it is a shocker compared to the quick ease of the rail journey.

[ozbob]

Is it really true that we can't run frequent services because the network is too big?

To move to 15 minute all round might be, but this could be achievable:

Twenty minutes trains Ipswich to Caboolture out of peak.  Richlands 20 minutes, then 10 minutes Darra to CBD.  Run Richlands trains through to Petrie.  This gives a ten minute frequency Petrie <--> Darra.  Shorncliffe <-> Cleveland 20 minute.  Ferny Grove <-> Beenleigh 20 minute.

[Gazza]

I don't, and I bet the locals don't think so either.

Well of course If you're a local you're not going to say no to an electric train service.

Of course, I'm definitley not advocating they go suspend services to Rosewood, not at all! But If I were there 15 years ago when the electrification was done, I would've spent the money on improving PT infrastructure in an under served high density area where the money woud've made more of a difference.

Considerable residential development is taking place along the corridor now.  Loadings are good and growing.  Some expansion of park and ride is planned as well.  I have had the misfortune to take a rail bus in lieu of rail to Rosewood and it is a shocker compared to the quick ease of the rail journey.

I've posted about the city of Almere in the Netherlands, where is basically a straight rail axis, with busways branching off into residential and commercial areas:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=google+maps+almere+nl&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&gl=au&ll=52.375547,5.211811&spn=0.019466,0.066047&t=h&z=15

If they had electfied the line, and then done something like this along its length and established this as a well planned growth area, then yes indeed the line would justify it's existence well.
But there are no plans to do this.
And I bet any efforts to actually situate development along the rail cordioor and build new towns that use it well, will be opposed by locals wanting to preserve their country lifestyle. Why on earth were they planning towns at Ripley or whatever when they could've done it between Ipswich and Rosewood  :conf

But the line was electified 15 years ago, and it still looks like this in places:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rosewood+qld&aq=&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=57.059266,135.263672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rosewood+Queensland&ll=-27.62631,152.630718&spn=0.007063,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-27.626184,152.630639&panoid=_7atmIcYII3KVmU5pUxF5A&cbp=12,197.87,,0,1.52

Considerable residential development is taking place along the corridor now.

What sort of residential development though? Is it TOD/Reasonable density, with feeder buses to stations along the line.... or is it Sprawlsville, or even worse, those acreage type subdivsions where everyone drives anyway?

[ozbob]

Walk up residential, I was surprised with the number of new houses along the railway line.  Going to expand rapidly from here I think.  There are many variables impacting from here, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Ripleys of this world don't get too far.  It is madness not use what already exists.

[Gazza]

^But look at the density though...ugh, so low. The line will never be as popular as the rest of the Ipswich line on a length for length basis.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.626647,152.621469&z=18&t=k&nmd=20110228

A bit better here, but it's part of Ipswich anyway:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.611713,152.735195&z=18&t=k&nmd=20110228

[#Metro]

I agree with Ozbob. The same arguments would have been brought up against the Mandurah railway (what's out at Mandurah?).

The line is electrified, and if you look at the imagery the stations spacings are much further apart about 2-3 km, which could mean high speed train operation for this area. So I think there is a very good opportunity here.

This is what I don't get. How are we going to extend train lines out to Flagstone and Ripley when these places are just la la lands with NOTHING. The Rosewood line is already there. Use it! This time they can get it right, build straight line roads directly to train stations, expand park and ride, put feeder bus on, and the development can go around.

Much easier than Ripley were you have to start from scratch.

[#Metro]

If people want to drive, let them drive... to the train station.

[Gazza]

I agree with Ozbob. The same arguments would have been brought up against the Mandurah railway (what's out at Mandurah?).

It's not really a railway line to Mandurah if you get what I mean (As in, its not as if Mandurah is some special location that made them decide that Perth and Mandurah needed a link, and the stuff along the way was a bonus).
Its more that Mandurah was just an intelligent place to terminate the line since it's the last decent settlement.

What it really should be called is it's official name, the Southern Suburbs Railway, and it's exactly that, it serves many important places along this way that do warrant train services.

Have a look at Rockingham and Warnbro...A Massive place:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=rockingham+wa&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rockingham+Western+Australia&gl=au&ll=-32.298379,115.752554&spn=0.053905,0.132093&t=h&z=14

Same goes for Cockburn Central:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=cockburn+central+wa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cockburn+Central+Western+Australia&gl=au&t=h&z=14

And the case for the lines existence is obviously really strong when you approach Perth:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=bull+creek+wa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bull+Creek+Western+Australia&gl=au&ll=-32.055481,115.853662&spn=0.027025,0.066047&t=h&z=15

[Stillwater]

In a media release issued on Friday, RAIL Back on Track called for a working party of officials from three levels of government to co-ordinate their activity in the areas of land use planning, passenger transport, freight corridors, settlement and economy-jobs.  This was for the Sunshine Coast hinterland, where there is a string of railway towns with services, retail centres, industrial estates providing jobs, golf course, Lions clubs, soccer fields, libraries, swiming pools etc.  You get the picture.  They could be grown to provide good housing opportunities, where many of the community support structures are already in place.

The state, in particular, and almost exclusively the state is pushing the concept whereby big developers buy up farmland on the outskirts of Ipswich, Brisbane etc and then 'land bank' -- sit on it for 10 years or more.  They buy cattle land at cattle land prices, then wait for the city to grow to their boundary (or not even that far in the case of Ripley), then apply for a rezoning to 'Residential A' - and if they don't get their way, they ask the state to take the development out of the hands of the council.  This happened at Caloundra South.

Rezoning results in a windfall of millions of dollars to the developer.  I struggle to understand why the state government favours these greenfields developments so far from an existing railway line or services.  I can only assume that the thinking is it is easier to work from a blank canvas than around and through a town, where existing buildings, scout halls, people and shopping centres could get in the way of grand visions.  Let's grow what we have got and make efficient what we have already.

[#Metro]

There is a party- ULDA apparently should take much of that job.
It is always controversial.

When developer makes money
Re-election fund goes into surplus... 

[Stillwater]

From today's Sunshine Coast Daily

Council chases lost ground
9th April 2011

SUNSHINE Coast Council has launched a campaign for public support to end the Urban Land Development Authority's control of planning for Caloundra South.

It has slammed as "half-baked" the proposed planning scheme for the Stockland development.
Council has taken full page advertisements in weekend newspapers calling on residents to petition the State Government to provide greater community consultation.

Mayor Bob Abbot said the judicial review the council had launched against the government's decision to take control of planning off the council and hand it to the ULDA was designed to return a greater say to the Coast in a development that would house 50,000.
Planning Portfolio councillor Russell Green said the people of the Sunshine Coast deserved better than the half-baked blueprint put forward for Caloundra South.

And a comment to that story:

A good move by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.

Some historical facts about Caloundra South.

There was never an as of right approval to develop it. It was a rural zoned area that like Palmview, was to remain as rural unless numerous world best sustainability principles were fully agreed upon.  The decision as to whether Caloundra South should be supported by council (Caloundra City) was based on the following "take it or leave it" principles...

1. To initiate replacement of years of lost coastal habitat, 70% of the land was to be rehabilitated as a fauna and flora habitat at the developers cost, to form a huge environmental sanctuary in Council tenure.

2. The remaining 30% could be developed to offset the cost of rehabilitation, as a master planned community, with self contained water and sewage. That is, no net impact on the existing water and sewage capacity.

3. If the Caloundra Airport was to be relocated to the South, the developer was to pay the full cost of the relocation and reconstruction of existing community and commercial assets.

4. Highway buffers, rail corridors and numerous other conditions were to apply.

If the owner of the land was not interested in these principles, the land remained as rural and they could continue to pursue the agricultural uses associated with the rural zoning; pine trees, cattle or cropping etc.

The State Government thought they knew better. Half baked alright.
Hand it back Anna.

[#Metro]

I don't understand why there is such an anti-ULDA sentiment.

The area is empty isn't it? No-one lives there?

1. To initiate replacement of years of lost coastal habitat, 70% of the land was to be rehabilitated as a fauna and flora habitat at the developers cost, to form a huge environmental sanctuary in Council tenure.

Isn't the place inland?

2. The remaining 30% could be developed to offset the cost of rehabilitation, as a master planned community, with self contained water and sewage. That is, no net impact on the existing water and sewage capacity.

Right. So no plugging into the council water OR sewerage? What kind of development is this? Is the purpose of these conditions to make it impossibly costly to develop? And does the council collect fees from this but not provide services???

Can't say that I am surprised that ULDA is set up for this very thing.

[Stillwater]

This might focus your mind, TT:

Here are two maps showing the inundation of seawater into the coastal areas where the state government wants to build Caloundra South.  This will be the situation in 90 years time, due to the effects of global warming.

Let's make it simple – the dark blue bits are deep water, the light blue bits are shallow water.

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/pdf/9544-342_golden_beach.pdf
http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/pdf/9544-341_meridan_plains.pdf

The Sunshine Coast Regional Council had what some think is a radical philosophy – build only on the high ground and preserve the rest because it will be a new beachside suburb.  Others would call it sensible town planning.

As to sewerage and water, TT, this is what the council was proposing should happen at Caloundra South:

http://www.mikekelly.alp.org.au/news/2010/03/09/peregian-springs-urban-recycled-water-project

And this is what you can do when you harvest rainwater for community purposes:

http://permaculture.org.au/2011/02/18/community-gardens-visited-and-observed-veggie-village-in-peregian-beach/

Now who's side should you be on, TT?

[Stillwater]

Now, note the logo in the bottom left-hand corner of the maps.  It is the Queensland Government's logo.

One government agency (the ULDA) wants to build a city for 50,000 people right where another government agency responsible for redrawing the map of the Queensland coastline as it will be in 90 year's time to take account of global warming says there will be one giant swimming pool.

Now can you understand some people's concerns, TT?

[#Metro]

I'm sorry, I'm on my side. I have my own side. Independent opinion.

I don't deny that you can save water by having water tanks and capturing stormwater.
But to say that the entire place must not be connected to the water mains (that's the impression I am getting)? Are you serious?

I think there is more to this. Urban areas must have connection to town water supply and sewerage. Otherwise that area would have a case to exempt itself forever from council rates and fees. As for the non-construction for a 90 year projection, I don't know about that one. Has someone raised that with ULDA? What was their response?


PS: We are having a derailment in this thread. This thread was about Perth vs Brisbane.

[Stillwater]

Glad to oblige, TT.  Here is how they do urban planning in Perth/WA:

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Plans%2Band%2Bpolicies/Regional%2Bplanning/Regional%2BHotspots/default.aspx

Lo and behold, WA has an Infrastructure Coordinating Committee that coordinates the implementation of transport infrastructure, which invariably intersects with most other government agencies (Local Government Department, Planning Department etc)

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/The+planning+system/About+Planning+WA/Statutory+committees/statutory+committees+membership/1286.aspx

Perhaps an Infrastructure Coordinating Committee would be something for Qld to follow.

Planning WA has, among its objectives, the following key targets:

•   To build on existing communities with established local and regional economies, concentrate investment in the improvement of services and infrastructure and enhance the quality of life in those communities.

•   To promote the development of a sustainable and liveable neighbourhood form which reduces energy, water and travel demand while ensuring safe and convenient access to employment and services by all modes, provides choice and affordability of housing and creates an identifiable sense of place for each community.

•   To coordinate new development with the efficient, economic and timely provision of infrastructure and services.

The bolding is mine to emphasise the points in earlier post.

[colinw]

I certainly think Rosewood was a silly place to extend suburban services to.

I don't, and I bet the locals don't think so either.  Considerable residential development is taking place along the corridor now.  Loadings are good and growing.  Some expansion of park and ride is planned as well.  I have had the misfortune to take a rail bus in lieu of rail to Rosewood and it is a shocker compared to the quick ease of the rail journey.

Rosewood makes perfect sense.  It is the westernmost limit of outer suburban development extending from Ipswich.  Beyond it there is a big gap with little development at all, then a series of towns (Laidley, Forest Hill, Gatton) that still have their own identities.

Before '93, when the railcar service still ran to Helidon, somewhere around 75% of all trips were to/from stations between Ipswich and Rosewood.  The service was lightly used indeed west of Rosewood, but the Ipswich to Rosewood section was already a defacto suburban service long before the wires went up.  That is reflected in the timetable as well, many short workings to Rosewood or Grandchester and only a handful of services beyond to Laidley, Gatton or Helidon.

The Rosewood line has enormous potential as the area starts to fill up with development.

[KCSHB]

I am sorry but this comparison is purely based on increasing frequency.
try using the trains off peak and you get a seat every time and some carriages only have a few people.
having a consistant reliable service is more important than frequency. my biggest gripe is when they have to change the schedule for one reason or another.

30 minute off peak frequency is fine as long as you know its there. frequency is more important if you connect to or change trains. a well planned less frequent service is better than trying to cram the limited track space with more trains. you need only one train to go off and the whole network gets affected. we in Bris have a bottleneck between Roma St and Bowen Hills/Eagle Junction. remember the selfish moron who jumped on the train and messed up the whole network for hours. increasing frequency to compete or bragging rights is useless

I think its easy to winge but if you educate the people and teach them to plan their life around what is available. People are so used to planning their lives around sport or TV. 

[somebody]

I am sorry but this comparison is purely based on increasing frequency.
try using the trains off peak and you get a seat every time and some carriages only have a few people.
having a consistant reliable service is more important than frequency. my biggest gripe is when they have to change the schedule for one reason or another.

30 minute off peak frequency is fine as long as you know its there. frequency is more important if you connect to or change trains. a well planned less frequent service is better than trying to cram the limited track space with more trains. you need only one train to go off and the whole network gets affected. we in Bris have a bottleneck between Roma St and Bowen Hills/Eagle Junction. remember the selfish moron who jumped on the train and messed up the whole network for hours. increasing frequency to compete or bragging rights is useless

I think its easy to winge but if you educate the people and teach them to plan their life around what is available. People are so used to planning their lives around sport or TV. 

Er, no.

Don't you think it could be that few people use the trains because of the poor service?

[Mr X]

+1

If you have trains every 30mins and they're empty, that's not a sign of a good transport system. It's a sign of a bad one. Frequency is what drives people to use the service, getting a seat is important (especially for longer trips) but a good core frequent train network will work wonders for PT in Brisbane.

If you think that more trains = less possibility for network issues to congestion is a reason for us NOT to upgrade frequency... well the solution to that one would be, well, upgrade the infrastructure and fix the bottlenecks!

Trains every 15mins with connecting feeder buses from the outer suburbs = less vroom vroom on the roads and more   = well patronised service.

[SurfRail]

I think its easy to winge but if you educate the people and teach them to plan their life around what is available. People are so used to planning their lives around sport or TV. 

They do.  "What is available" is a road network, which does not require a 29 minute wait to start moving.

Do you seriously think 30 minute headways justify the expense laid out to keep our railways running in the off-peak?  15 minutes should be a bare minimum, not something to brag about.

The network capacity exist, the trains exist, the funding exists (misallocated).  What is missing is people who have the capability to deliver.

[colinw]

30 minute offpeak frequency doesn't even justify building a railway.  You're running a railway that should be able to carry 20K+ people per direction per hour at a service level that can barely handle 2000.  At that level of capacity you may as well run a frequent bus service.

The link between service frequency and patronage increase is unambigous.  It happened on BUZ routes, it happened in Perth with quarter hourly & better trains, it is even happening between Darra and the city with rail

[Mr X]

I think it's plain sad that around 20 (14 BUZ + 66,88,109,169 etc.) of our bus routes have better peak and off-peak services than our entire train network!