GHD: Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation ...

[ozbob]

http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

Report: Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure

[ozbob]

Specific discussions on the above report in this thread, or in the Cross River Rail thread for CRR centric stuff.

[ozbob]

Sent  to outlets 

14th January 2012

'The Cleveland Solution ...'

Greetings,

Just in time for the looming state election, a report titled ' Public Transport in SEQ
Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure'  http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  has appeared.

The report is interesting reading.  Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be reduced by 50% by taking out Cleveland services.

Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland.

The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years and does have some merit with project priority identification and background.

The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the real capacity needed for all lines.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future.

This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge  created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time he resigned as Lord Mayor.

Will be an interesting campaign,

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[O_128]

The metro proposal is infinitely better than the current proposed one. As is the busway solution, any cost cutting is good for the ridiculously expensive busways. There is a lot of good proposals in here, Not sure about the flagstone shuttle.

[Gazza]

With Flagstone, it should be a station at Browns Plains West too, with the 140 and 150 extended to the station. Its only 2km away from the Plaza, so you could connect off the train with max 7.5 minute wait for a bus into the Plaza.

[Cam]

The locations of this alternative CRR project have awful CBD locations. There certainly won't be any walk up patronage from the southwest side of the two CBD stations along the Pacific Motorway. I could only have any praise for such station locations if there was a true CBD circle where there was a station near Eagle St. However, this is still not ideal & Brisbane's CBD is apparently too small for such a rail loop/circle anyway.

The QSBS, and to a lessor extent, the KGSBS are located close to where the majority of commuters want to travel to/from in the CBD. Why can't Brisbane have such a convenient CBD location for a railway station? No wonder there is such a preference for travel by bus to/from Brisbane CBD compared to rail which is in contrast to other captial cities in Australia & the world.

[Cam]

With Flagstone, it should be a station at Browns Plains West too.

I agree.

[Gazza]

^Bit of a small observation, but Melbourne's main rail stations are on the edge of the CBD proper too.
If they were smart they would splash out and do a high speed moving walkway from the QUT station right into the campus, just to bridge that gap.

Watch the way it is designed to slow down at the end. Cool tech!

[#Metro]

I am totally against the construction of any metro system (bar potential cleveland solution/conversion) before a metro goes down the South East Busway.

Metro down the busway would free up hundreds and hundreds of bus movements and free up the core immensely.

[Cam]

I assume that references to "Rail - Redbank to Ripley" in this research report should read "Rail - Redbank Plains to Ripley".

Although the Cleveland solution has many shortcomings, I'm impressed to see that the Council of Mayors (SEQ) has sought such a research report.

[Gazza]

Me being a super foamer, but if the Cleveland solution got done, then the SEB metro could hook into it at Park Rd, and the inner city stretch would be a common segment. Eg a train every 3 minutes on the each main line, with 90 second moving block headways on the core through to Roma St.

Im not sure how it would work beyond that, eg whether Roma St would have a platform pair for terminating SEB services as an interim, with a view to sextuplicate Bowen hills to EJ, and then have light Metro running out to Doomben/North Shore.

[#Metro]

I am also a bit taken aback at the feeble reasoning behind "private sector and tension" (what the?)
and also broad brush statements about busways ('busways are ideal for low density') -- er excuse me but have you been to Perth? Mandurah Line? Joondalup Line? Runs every 5 minutes in peak hour and has catchment areas spanning 35 km2 due to park and ride and integrated feeder bus.

Buses approaching a busway should be viewed the same way as buses approaching a train station. Works in Toronto!

[aldonius]

Im not sure how it would work beyond that, eg whether Roma St would have a platform pair for terminating SEB services as an interim, with a view to sextuplicate Bowen hills to EJ, and then have light Metro running out to Doomben/North Shore.

Extend to QUT Kelvin Grove and solve those pesky 66 capacity problems once and for all!

[Cam]

^Bit of a small observation, but Melbourne's main rail stations are on the edge of the CBD proper too.

Yes, but there is Bourke St, including a section of mall, with frequent trams that connect Southern Cross & Parliament stations via the centre of the CBD as well as frequent trams along Swanston walk that connect Flinders St to Melbourne Central stations via the centre of the CBD.

Brisbane really needs a CBD railway station right in the centre of the CBD Queen St that most lines service - if not all lines. The Wilbur Smith plan looks far better in comparison to either current CRR soultion. Why didn't GHD cost this plan that is IMHO still the best long term solution 40 years after it was proposed? It's such a shame.

[#Metro]

Me being a super foamer, but if the Cleveland solution got done, then the SEB metro could hook into it at Park Rd, and the inner city stretch would be a common segment. Eg a train every 3 minutes on the each main line, with 90 second moving block headways on the core through to Roma St.

Any metro down the SE busway should be single line with no branches whatsoever. The current busway has 20 000 pphd (assuming that all rockets and all Cultural Centre buses [sans Western and West End services] were combined into a common corridor.

20 000 pphd implies 20 trains per hour - or one every three minutes. (180 sec headways), now we need to have some space for growth there, so I would suggest no branching.

Im not sure how it would work beyond that, eg whether Roma St would have a platform pair for terminating SEB services as an interim, with a view to sextuplicate Bowen hills to EJ, and then have light Metro running out to Doomben/North Shore.

[Gazza]

[sans Western and West End services]

And sans any Eastern services too.

[#Metro]

Eastern services would interchange with the subway at Wooloongabba

[Arnz]

Only skimming through this proposal, it's a low price idea for short term gain, but very little long term gain. 

They could connect Beenleigh to FG and separate that, however the Beenleigh trains also share tracks with GC, and GC has been paired with the Airport since Airtrain began.  I would assume that would not change in the not too distant future (well untill those 'Coast Tilt Trains' that Bligh has trumpted on about arrives in the year 3269 or so).

[Gazza]

They could connect Beenleigh to FG and separate that, however the Beenleigh trains also share tracks with GC, and GC has been paired with the Airport since Airtrain began.  I would assume that would not change in the not too distant future (well untill those 'Coast Tilt Trains' that Bligh has trumpted on about arrives in the year 3269 or so).

I think that's why Cleveland was chosen.

More thinking out loud, but in terms of dealing with the needs of CAMCOS etc, could Trouts Rd just run direct to a terminus under Roma St?

[ozbob]

Sent  to outlets  

14th January 2012

'The Cleveland Solution ...'

Greetings,

Just in time for the looming state election, a report titled ' Public Transport in SEQ
Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure'  http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  has appeared.

The report is interesting reading.  Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be reduced by 50% by taking out Cleveland services.

Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland.

The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years and does have some merit with project priority identification and background.

The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the real capacity needed for all lines.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future.

This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge  created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time he resigned as Lord Mayor.

Will be an interesting campaign,

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

There are some good points made in this document e.g the Eastern busway largesse, but the timing and the nature of the 'Cleveland Solution' is just politicking in my opinion.

Consider this:

Given many mayors around Queensland scratch out a good living bashing the State Government at every opportunity,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/desperate-and-dateless-why-time-is-running-out-for-anna-bligh/story-e6freoof-1226244025889

Comment by Steven Wardill  Political Reporter Couriermail.

========================

Cross River Rail has a long history of in depth analysis.  It is the key enabler for the network moving forward.  Dismissing that on the basis of a superficial report is just madness ...

[ozbob]

Reference http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/trains

Services

Inbound at South Brisbane  6am to 9am Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 15 services

Gold Coast line  8 services

Beenleigh line 16 services

Cleveland trains represent only 38% of normal timetabled services, and with sector 2 timetable revision this will probably fall as well as more Gold Coast services are added.

Outbound at South Brisbane 4pm to 7pm Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 12 services

Gold Coast line 9 services

Beenleigh line 12 services

Cleveland line trains represent only 36% of normal timetable services.

=====================

The study claims that capacity will be increased by over 70% are false.

Critically, the proposal
releases the Cleveland Line
train paths (8 in peak hour)
across the Merivale Bridge,
providing an immediate
capacity gain of over 70% for
growth on the Beenleigh and
Gold Coast Lines.

Page 24
http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

FALSE

[Gazza]

Its cooking the figures.....70% Gain. Not really. Cant see how they came up with that.

I'll use Bobs whole of peak figures.

Inbound @ South Bris:
24 GC+Beeneligh Combined
15 Cleveland

If all train paths were released for GC and Beenleigh to share, there would be 39 train paths.

24 increasing to 39 is a 62.5% increase.

Outbound @ South Bris:
21 GC+Beenleigh Combined
12 Cleveland

If all train paths were released for GC and Beenleigh to share, there would be 33 train paths.

21 increasing to 33 is a 57% increase

I think a media release that gets down to the basics...The Capacity Increase, is what is needed.
I dont think there is much wrong with the Cleveland Solutuions other assumptions, but if it is only giving 62% increase rather than 70% increase then something is wrong!
24 GC+Beeneligh Combined

[Gazza]

Check #2

"Busiest Hour of the Cleveland line"
The logic of doing this check is that this is the point when the most train paths are theoretically 'released', and it is the point where infrastructure is being stretched.

7:49 to 8:49 in the morning peak has 9 trains from Cleveland passing South Brisbane.

At the same time window 4 GC and 8 Beenleigh trains pass (12 Total)

An increase from 12 to 21 is a 75% increase

Bam, I think we've found out how they got an "Over 70% increase".

If they improved signalling to get 24tph across the Merivale, it would allow a 100% increase in Beenleigh & GC services.

[ozbob]

It is a selective misrepresentation to make it look good.  Peak intensities vary according to the length of the run and so forth, which is why the wider window is a fairer representation.

There are also the other track limitations further south that make a notional 70% gain nonsense.

[#Metro]

I was looking at the alignment while going over the Victoria Bridge.

It is probably the most disturbing thing about that report - it is so wiggly my gut says something is wrong.

Question: How the hell are they going to thread that alignment through? The Riverside expressway is in the way, plus multiple flyovers and so forth no to mention clearances and The Kurilpa Bridge is a huge barrier with its massive poles, clearance of the expressway and so forth.

I would like to see a scale model before I believe it.

[ozbob]

24 increasing to 39 is a 62.5% increase.

In relative terms only.  In absolute terms = 15/39 x 100 = 38% ...

[ozbob]

I was looking at the alignment while going over the Victoria Bridge.

It is probably the most disturbing thing about that report - it is so wiggly my gut says something is wrong.

Question: How the hell are they going to thread that alignment through? The Riverside expressway is in the way, plus multiple flyovers and so forth no to mention clearances and The Kurilpa Bridge is a huge barrier with its massive poles, clearance of the expressway and so forth.

I would like to see a scale model before I believe it.

The more I look at it the more I start to see foam, and lots of of it ...

[Gazza]

Check #3

Hour By Hour

6-7 am
2 CL
1 GC
2 BN

66% increase

7-8 am
6 CL
4 GC
5 BN

66% increase

8-9 am
7 CL
3 GC
9 BN

58.3% increase


4-5 pm
3 CL
4 GC
5 BN

33.3% increase

5-6 pm
6 CL
3 GC
5 BN

75% increase

6-7 pm
3 CL
2 GC
2 BN

75% increase

[ozbob]

They are all relative, not absolute.  There is a big difference.  This is what they are playing on .. that people won't realise the difference.

If you have 38% of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38% increase overall if you give that to the other lines.

[Gazza]

Check #4

"Beenleighs Worst Hours at South Brisbane"
This check is important because in theory, this is where the line is being stretched the most, and will logically need the most train paths released to it.
GC is currently 4tph in any given peak hour, so no "worst" hour for them at the moment reallt.

7:57-8:57 has 9 Trains ex BN
4 GC
8 CL

13 increasing to 21

61.5%

There's our answer. Assuming no signalling upgrades across the Merivale, Beenleigh & GC trains can at best see a 61.5% increase at the height of their peak.

Or 38% increase in real terms.

In the afternoon, 4:55-5:55 could see a 50% increase if Cleveland trains were removed.

[#Metro]

Look at GHD's map. There is no kurilpa bridge on it... 

[Gazza]

And of course, the one we all want to see . How CRR compares.

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

almost double the capacity of the rail network, enabling up to 96 more trains to come into the CBD in the two-hour morning peak

Divide by 4 to get the TPH in one direction for 1 h.

24 TPH.

21 trains through the CBD increasing to 45 is 114% increase 

Look at GHD's map. There is no kurilpa bridge on it...

It also has no PA Hospital Busway. Old pic.

[somebody]

I think the Council of Mayors should mind their own business.

This idea is pretty daft.

[O_128]

I think the Council of Mayors should mind their own business.

This idea is pretty daft.

I think its great they are coming up with there own solutions and costings, there points on the busway are extremely relevant.

[#Metro]

I think the Council of Mayors should mind their own business.

This idea is pretty daft.

Unfortunately the report engages in cost-only analysis, which is NOT what cost-benefit analysis is. Something is majorly wrong with the Cleveland Solution - and I don't know what it is. Although I agree with the general principle that removing lines from the QR network would free up train paths - not everything has to run to the CBD and if services were terminated at branches, frequencies on the mainline could be radically boosted as well as on the branches.

There are salient points about kippa ring - millions of dollars are going to be spent on unattractive and downright horrible 2 trains/hour frequency. Are you serious! The same issue with Richlands/Springfield. Millions of dollars spent on quite frankly, crapola frequency!

Don't get me started with the Eastern Busway. A busway would be useful but a) it is PHENOMENALLY EXPENSIVE Like $2 billion for 2.5 km (are you kidding me! Are the buses diamond-encrusted?) because of the ROW being Class A in a tunnel and property acquisition impacts. It also makes NO sense because as soon as the buses flow off the busway they will get jammed at Buranda, jammed into Cultural Centre, Jammed on the Riverside expressway and whatnot.

A Class B solution may be a cheaper way to do it and do it faster with the benefits sooner. It should be Class A - maximum speed, but there just isn't cash to throw everywhere.

The ONLY place for a subway is straight down the SE BUSWAY so that capacity can be doubled on that thing to 30 or 40 000 pphd. This will free up hundreds of buses an hour from entering the CBD for more frequent services in the suburbs. It should be automatic so that labour costs can be spent on the suburbs. Of course the bitter pill to swallow is how to convert the busway, manage disruptions and also let go of busway hype. 

[Mr X]

TT,
I saw in the report two figures for the eastern busway to Bennetts Road- $300mil and $690 mil for the tunnel. If it's $690 mil, it should not proceed anyway IMHO, that costs more than the entire south east busway did!

Completely agree with a SE Metro. Long overdue. SE metro should come before any cleveland tram line.

I think a big problem with the cleveland solution is that it assumes that CRR is a "waste". Doesn't CRR have a CBR of around 1.3? That would be over $10bn benefit.
Does the Cleveland solution allow new lines to feed into the network, such as Flagstone, MBRL, CAMCOS?

[ozbob]

It is a consultants report, GHD ( http://www.ghd.com/australia/ ).  It has none of the rigour of the CRR project work up.   Infrastructure Australia I think is a good judge of a particular projects merit or otherwise.

Mr Alchin gave Infrastructure Australia's assessment of Cross River Rail, explaining that the "project is nationally significant" and provides "significant impact on improving transport options for a large proportion of people in SE Queensland."

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=5010

All over 'blue' rover ...

Cross River Rail tops Queensland's infrastructure priority list  --> http://www.urbanalyst.com/in-the-news/queensland/889-cross-river-rail-tops-queenslands-infrastructure-priority-list.html

=================

Above not withstanding.  As a Melbourne brat who spent much of my childhood riding trains on both the Port Melbourne and St Kilda VR suburban branch lines, I can see the logic in sometimes converting heavy rail to light rail/light metro type operations.  The difference in Melbourne though was the already tremendous supporting street tramway network.

Here in Brisbane, the line that might one day be light rail / metro is the Doomben line (Hamilton Northshore).  Bring it on down the busway ... there is your metro TT.

[#Metro]

I saw in the report two figures for the eastern busway to Bennetts Road- $300mil and $690 mil for the tunnel. If it's $690 mil, it should not proceed anyway IMHO, that costs more than the entire south east busway did!

Another half a billion to go 1.5 km! So 1 billion to go ~ 3 km from buranda! STOP!!! This is CRAZY!!! Perhaps they should build the busway station at Carindale first and leave the more expensive sections until later.

Completely agree with a SE Metro. Long overdue. SE metro should come before any cleveland tram line.

Absolutely. That is the core of the bus network. Toronto-style solution.

Does the Cleveland solution allow new lines to feed into the network, such as Flagstone, MBRL, CAMCOS?

I really do not see what problem DTMR has with lines feeding mainlines rather than going all the way to the CBD. It is almost like every single suburb has their own BUZ or train line that then all goes to the CBD. You just don't have the capacity for all those vehicles- buses or trains!

I doubt that a cross-platform transfer is hugely difficult... I wonder what values they are using for interchange penalties. Crossing a platform from a branch line to a main line might take only 30 seconds to one minute to do.

[#Metro]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.0

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-on-ghdcomseq-report.html
BrizCommuter's analysis of the GHD Report.