RAIL - Back On Track Forum

QuoteArguably it's swings and roundabouts anyway since the NWTC line serves the Aspely Hypermarket commercial area.

QuoteSo do you spend several billion extra for the tunneling to serve the Albany Creek town center.

Just build the Northern Busway with extension to Aspley.

In terms of the Old Northern Road Corridor, it's a congested road corridor and that is set to get much worse with traffic volume exceeding capacity in 2031. So there would be strong latent demand there IMHO. That centre could one day have its own Westfield next to it as well. Potential future land uses should also factor.

Image Source: Australian Infrastructure Audit Transport Modelling Report – South East Queensland p.41
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Transport%20Modelling%20Report%20for%20South%20East%20Queensland.pdf

Westfield Albany Creek hahahaha. Can't even get a bus running the same route there let alone have enough shops to warrant one and money to buy up land to do so. There won't be. Westfield sold off Toombul and Strathpine to focus on larger hubs such as Chermside and North Lakes.

Traffic congestion is a broader problem due to the road layout and public transport problems in Warner, Bray Park, Cashmere, Lawnton and strathpine where buses are every 60 minutes in peak hour direction. Lots of housing is also going in so the population to the north is developing yet nothing for local pt is being done. 

For a laugh.
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/200914-669%2C670%2C671%2C672.pdf

Something I consider.

A road being busy does not necessarily mean it is automatically the best corridor for a rail service.

For example, the M1 on the Gold Coast is incredibly busy, so you might conclude that rail running directly along it would relieve the most traffic.
The Gateway would be another example.

Why are they busy? Because a lot of point to point traffic is being funnelled onto these roads, but the actual final destinations are somewhere off the road in the adjacent suburbs.
So putting rail on a road like the gateway is where the traffic is, but not where the destinations are.

On Old Northern Road, this manifests itself as long stretches with retaining walls and sound barriers, few residences or businesses, and even isolated bus stops without any sort of direct access to the adjacent residential areas!
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3746857,152.9804099,3a,51.8y,148.4h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smgR3rzyIPqu4ofSsFAKVZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


For all intents and purposes, it's trying to be like a motorway in some stretches, with overpasses and offramps, and bus stops added as an afterthought.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3876875,152.9849787,3a,75y,334.54h,79.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG0OS9Lktiu2JaylyrDXZQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


A lot of the traffic is simply because it's the most direct route from Warner to inner Brisbane
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Brisbane+City+QLD/Warner+QLD+4500/@-27.3710906,152.9791406,12.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b915a045cf620bb:0x502a35af3de84c0!2m2!1d153.0260341!2d-27.4704528!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b93fc4bf6cb3c47:0x502a35af3de9ce0!2m2!1d152.9515507!2d-27.3038723!3e0

So yeah, I wouldn't bother spending billions tunnelling under a traffic sewer like Old Northern Road because I don't believe the latent demand is actually on that road itself.

Out there,  you're relying on feeder buses, P&R etc anyway (And hopefully develop around station sites too)

So if you put rail on the NTWC, you're still serving that chunk of Brisbane, but instead of catching a bus towards a station on Old Northern Road, you're just catching it to a station on the NWTC.
The Northside has a natural grid of E-W main roads, so it makes little difference which direction the bus drives towards a station.


Only that the NWTC route is much cheaper to build, and is already on the governments long term radar, thus a high chance of success.

Gazza I think the only thing to consider in addition is the potential to change the urban form not only in the road corridor itself but then urban form along the corridor. It's a choice like building separated bike lane and needs political will.

The bigger the road the harder it is to change both elements but cities are doing it. Mostly in inner city locations but it can be done! 

There is even groups and businesses called Sprawl Repair and Sprawl Retrofit.

Arguably both the 350 and 359 should be BUZes on network-structure grounds (e.g. the 2012-2013 review had the 359 as a frequent service).

Neither of them are particularly close to deserving it on current patronage grounds though, the 385 (least patronised BUZ) does about 4x better than both.

The thing about the Old Northern Rd corridor is that it's not going to get any less busy. Warner and Joyner are still getting built out and are economically extensions of AC/Eatons Hill as much as Strathpine. It does need a trunk bus route. (Ideally Warner would have good bus connections to Strathpine but getting to Strathpine from the west is a shitshow).

Some thoughts:

- Just because the NWTC is there, does not automatically mean that it is "The" optimal alignment for rail (spotlight bias). TMR should evaluate all reasonable options.

- A simple local road connecting the disconnected parts of Trouts Rd with a frequent feeder bus to a rail station could do that NTWC corridor section (shown in Yellow). This would be low cost, low impact and still benefit PT.

- Using the Old Northern Road alignment would mean that many people would not need to catch a feeder bus at all, they could just walk to the station or cycle

- Old Northern Road alignment would support further densification around stations and town centres unlike the NWTC-Trouts Rd alignment. Agree with Jonno on this point.

- Its not a given that it has to be fully tunneled. For example, it could be elevated in sections or cut and cover (rather than TBM driven), or using limited resumptions, on the surface, reducing cost.

- If the Northern Busway & SC Fast Rail is built to Aspley and beyond, this kind of makes the NWTC corridor redundant.

- IMHO fast rail to the Sunshine Coast is better aligned under Gympie Road (not shown) to stop at Chermside. So there would be an opportunity for synergy there building the Northern Busway and rail tunnels (via Gympie Rd Alignment) in the same project works package

Quote- Using the Old Northern Road alignment would mean that many people would not need to catch a feeder bus at all, they could just walk to the station or cycle

Using the NWTC alignment would mean that many people would not need to catch a feeder bus at all, they could just walk to the station or cycle

Everything comes at a cost. And just because someone put something on a map doesn't mean that it's possible no matter how good it might appear. For instance costs benefit of lrt Gympie road and upgrading the ncl including realigning the Zillmere curve vs a tunnel. Track speed is already quite good and if it will be exclusively NGR/NGR2 rollingstock increasing track speeds with express boards. While not much has been promoted about the ncl and crr benefits there's one big one and it's actual usable capacity. For instance at the moment the trains on the mains have slots and run on yellows because of the Roma street junction. The slots are timed and take into account the crosses with inbound Bowen hills services (this is in reference to Roma street terminators using P8 and P10 and other conflicts such as 8 minute central dwells in peak hour as is the case with one Springfield service). There are ways around this but it comes in the form of higher rollingstock allocation, higher running/operating costs and higher dead running.

Aspley does not need a busway. Bus lanes are ample due to the lack of walk up patronage. 340 hardly ever stops between Aspley and Chermside West.

Aspley needs a proper integrated usable public and active transport network. It needs buses more frequent that every 60 minutes. No more of this 2h 336/337 bs to major interchanges. Bring back the 2012 Translink network review that fired more shots at the network than the shootout in the movie Heat including taking out the main character the 340 buz.

Old northern road doesn't have a walk up catchment. It's all noise barriers and long walks.

Your maps also don't take into account topography, areas of high flooding/flood plains, routes or general knowledge of the areas such as trip generators for work or education. Like the Gympie road running to a Bunnings.

Why doesn't the spotlight bias apply to Old Northern Rd?

I think a tunnel is a given since it is so hilly (Clue is in the suburb name)

Presume you've been out that way?

Also the NWTC could support densification in certain locations. jonno never said otherwise.

He actually said sprawl repair exists.

QuoteWhy doesn't the spotlight bias apply to Old Northern Rd?

I think a tunnel is a given since it is so hilly (Clue is in the suburb name)

Since when has there been a spotlight on Old Northern Road?

Because it is not Gazzetted as a reserved transport corridor like the NWTC and studies have not focused on there.

One way to test the knowledge of people here about the area. Should the northern busway go to Prince Charles and the associated medical facilities? If not why? Because it slows down services?

RBOT has considered the merits of a deviation vs no deviation to PCH before. 
Eg. https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8680.msg103039#msg103039

We have some basic information which we can use to work out a reasonable estimate of the demand generated by PCH. See https://i.imgur.com/s9oW66o.png and https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14786.msg261506#msg261506

PCH "...currently employs around 4000 staff and each month treats more than 30,000 patients and receives more than 30,000 visitors"

We know that:
- The hospital employs about 4000 staff
- Treats about 30,000 patients per month
- Sees about 30,000 visitors per month (so about 1 visitor : 1 patient, this seems reasonable)

Putting this all together:

Staff Travel Demand
4000 staff x 2 trips per day x 312 = 2,496,000 trips per year
(312 days, which is 52 weeks x 6 days - assuming 1/2 demand on weekends; we can tweak this)

Visitors and Patients
Patients
30,000 patients/month x 2 directions x 12 months  = 720,000 trips/year
Visitors
30,000 visitors per month x 2 directions x 12 months = 720,000 trips/year

Annual Estimate (staff + patients + visitors) = 3,936,000 trips per year. Estimated Total Travel Demand.

Mode Share or Split to PT
Estimate PT mode share using PT=25% (high), PT=15% (medium) and PT=10% (low) mode shares.
The PT=25% level is similar to the PT trip generation rate observed for residents of the CBD.

High (PT=25%) x 3,936,000 = 984,000 PT trips per year
Medium (PT=15%) x 3,936,000 = 590,400 PT trips per year
Low (PT=10%) x 3,936,000 = 393,600 PT trips per year

Sensitivity test: double the highest number - gives 1,968,000 PT trips/year. Still within BUZ range.

Conclusion:
- All of these numbers are within a range or band that is comparable to the passenger load carried annually on a BUZ route. Sensitivity testing shows that even if we are 2x off the mark, demand is still within a well-patronised BUZ route range.

- We can cross-check our conclusions against travel surveys of hospital staff, patients, and visitors, or data of passengers getting out at other hospitals for example, rail passengers at Loganlea, Mater Hill busway station, PA Hospital.

- On this basis, PCH would justify a BUZ service or perhaps more frequent GCL bus service. But whether it requires deviation of the busway for this level of demand is debatable. The other school of thought is that users of a hospital are much more likely to be vulnerable and therefore a busway stop should be provided, no matter what the cost or effectiveness (the coverage argument).

Alternatively, a branch busway station could be constructed, similar to Wooloongabba.

Quote from: #Metro on September 08, 2022, 18:07:58 PM

QuoteWhy doesn't the spotlight bias apply to Old Northern Rd?

I think a tunnel is a given since it is so hilly (Clue is in the suburb name)

Since when has there been a spotlight on Old Northern Road?

Because it is not Gazzetted as a reserved transport corridor like the NWTC and studies have not focused on there.

As in you've spotlighted it because its a main road and has long been a wanted BUZ.
Your arguement is that an underground train doesn't necessarily have to follow a transport corridor, so then why do exactly that just on a different road?

Let's be honest here, no government in Queensland is going to build an underground train line to a dormitory suburb with a minor shopping centre.

Suburbs like that are common as hell in seq and they don't all have branch line proposals


Don't try and say that shopping centre could become a Westfield one day because exactly the same arguement could apply to the shopping centre that's on Flockton St next to the nwtc for example.

QuoteAs in you've spotlighted it because its a main road and has long been a wanted BUZ.
Your arguement is that an underground train doesn't necessarily have to follow a transport corridor, so then why do exactly that just on a different road?

Refer to my previous comments. And the map I posted with annotations. 

QuoteLet's be honest here, no government in Queensland is going to build an underground train line to a dormitory suburb with a minor shopping centre.

Suburbs like that are common as hell in seq and they don't all have branch line proposals

Like Aspley?

It's not about being honest or dishonest. It is simply too early to rule out the viability of an alternative optimal corridor at this stage. We need more information.

Why would it be underground at Aspley?
I think it has been said a few times that the only place you would need to tunnel would be at Chermside Hills reserve.

This is really no difference what they did on the Gold coast line with the short tunnel at Varsity lakes.

Other things worth mentioning about rail along a potential Old Northern Road alignment:

- An Eatons Hill Rail station would have the option to extend into Warner, currently a fast growing but PT black hole zone 

- A station at Eatons Hill would allow feeder buses to penetrate into Warner, Bray Park and the low density areas of Clear Mountain even if the line ended at Eaton's Hill   

- There is space/land for a large P&R say 500 or 1000 car parks at Eatons Hill. Residents of the above-mentioned suburbs can use that to catch the train. (Hint: These are the same MBRC residents that are generating congestion along Old Northern Road and South Pine Rd as they drive to Brisbane for work).  I believe the land parcel is already publicly-owned by MBRC.

- Therefore, car travel demand along South Pine and Old Northern Roads would be directly reduced at its source 

- By broadly following Old Northern Road, buses can easily travel along feeder and collector roads to Old Northern Road and feed the rail stations, making cycling, walking, uber/car drop off, and catching a bus very easy. All those motorists using the (congested) road will literally be forced to drive past multiple train stations.    

- By following this TransPerth-style strategy, more than enough demand would be concentrated into Eatons Hill and Albany Creek to justify rail station construction 

Why wouldn't Warner just use Strathpine station?

QuoteWhy are they busy? Because a lot of point to point traffic is being funnelled onto these roads, but the actual final destinations are somewhere off the road in the adjacent suburbs.
So putting rail on a road like the gateway is where the traffic is, but not where the destinations are.

On Old Northern Road, this manifests itself as long stretches with retaining walls and sound barriers, few residences or businesses, and even isolated bus stops without any sort of direct access to the adjacent residential areas!

Yes, there would be some tunneling but all options being considered here require some measure of tunnel of some sort (even car). I would expect extensive use of cuttings and elevated sections just as elsewhere on the QR rail network or like on Sydney metro to Castle Hill.

TransPerth literally places their stations and rail lines in the middle of 100 km/hr freeways. Here, we are not even dealing with a situation that extreme. When stations go in pedestrian connectivity can be improved and remedial works done to make it more permeable to pedestrians. This could be station underpasses, overpasses, or lifts. Instead of avoiding the problem - fix it.

If we again consider the NTWC alignment, if you're a resident of Warner, Eaton's Hill, Albany Creek, McDowall etc. the rail line is much further from you. You'd have to wait for the bus (5 min average, 10 min max) then actually catch the bus (another 10 min?) and it's a longer distance to travel to access the NWTC.

By having stations closer to Eaton's Hill, Albany Creek, McDowall etc. the access time for these residents is much less making them more likely to catch the train IMHO. And those roads will 'funnel' passengers to the train stations.

Most of the NWTC rail stations proposed are within the Northern Busway catchment; you could just get a direct bus into the busway and no need to do transfer to rail at an NTWC train station.

Worse, for at least two or three of those NWTC catchments (see new green arrows), it would make more sense for a passenger to get the bus to Chermside Shopping Centre to catch the one-stop Sunshine Coast fast rail express train into the CBD.

Quote from: Gazza on September 08, 2022, 20:53:22 PMWhy wouldn't Warner just use Strathpine station?

Road access to Strathpine station from the west is... difficult. Look at what the 670 does for an idea.

QuoteSo putting rail on a road like the gateway is where the traffic is, but not where the destinations are.

- An apples and pineapples comparison really. The first major problem is you have compared an orbital bypass road (Gateway Motorway, pineapples) with a direct-to-CBD arterial road (Old Northern Road, apples) and then concluded that the motorists driving along it are not contestable with PT (bananas).

- If you want to claim that motorists are being funnelled into Old Northern Road then you would have to concede that placing rail in that corridor would mean that those roads would also be funnelling them into rail stations too right? If you live in Warner, Eatons Hill, Albany Creek... you'd literally have to drive past three rail stations on your trip to the CBD.

- So residents will have a choice - go by car and sit in a car park for the next hour or park their car in a P&R / catch a bus and take the Eaton's Hill line train.

- In an earlier post in this thread, #440 I presented an extract from an Infrastructure Australia report that that shows by 2031 that the Old Northern Road corridor is expected to be at or over capacity. The same image also shows the road north of Chermside as over capacity, suggesting the Northern Busway should also be extended beyond Chermside too.

- So additional car trips due to population or housing increases in that area must spill over into either (a) other new roads (BCC's preference) or (b) is ripe for capturing using PT. The road will be over capacity and its LOS/speed will drop significantly (making PT in Priority A even more competitive).

- And residents in the Trouts Rd corridor - they can just catch a BUZ/bus down Trouts Road after the two disconnected sections of Trouts Rd are joined together. In contrast, residents along Old Northern Road won't be able to do that easily because the road will be over capacity and completely congested.

So I think at least two corridors need to go before TMR for further investigation:
- One on the NWTC (I expect BCC will object strongly given their report conclusions)
- An alternative via the Old Northern Road Corridor
- Whatever else alignment we can think of

And I think something really simple would assist in this discussion - just ask TMR, and the Minister Mark Bailey if they will be prepared to build on the surface in the NWTC + short tunnel given the findings of BCC's report. Just ask them!
If members think that BCC's report isn't credible - present that to TMR & the Minister. We should know what they think.

Sorry Metro but you unwittingly just proved you don't know the PCH area especially considering 16 year old source material was used. You've only referenced the PCH medical staff in your calculations. It's a little lower now after staffing reductions under Newman. IIRC it's about medical 3700 now. It gets tricky for total numbers as staff are across different departments. That's also not including the new children's education centre, childrens emergency department, doesn't include the private hospital, doesn't include the specialists. Doesn't include the qut/acu  training facilities or students (who also go between there and the rbwh). You also haven't taken into account shared resources between the RBWH and TPCH. Breast screen queensland have a screening centre there. Cleaners. Patient transfer services. IT services. Cooks/food prep/food delivery to patients. Cafes. Etc etc. Its a very large employment/trip generator. Factor in everything and it wouldn't surprise me if you get 20,000-30,000 people using the grounds each day which would change your figures slightly. In regards to visitors pretty sure that's based on appointments, admissions, emergency admissions, single out patient appointments and doesn't take into account actual visitor numbers or outpatient appointments where multiple people attend.

If you are unaware St Vincent's is next door to TPCH who have over 1000 staff according to their website.
https://www.svph.org.au/hospitals/northside

Still ignoring topography again and assuming everyone commutes to the city.

QuoteSorry Metro but you unwittingly just proved you don't know the PCH area especially considering 16 year old source material was used. You've only referenced the PCH medical staff in your calculations. It's a little lower now after staffing reductions under Newman. IIRC it's about medical 3700 now. It gets tricky for total numbers as staff are across different departments. That's also not including the new children's education centre, childrens emergency department, doesn't include the private hospital, doesn't include the specialists.

HTG, did you see the sensitivity test I did? Even if I'm 2x off the mark, it still falls within that band consistent with the patronage of a BUZ route. And if that demand is spread across both CBD-bound and cross-town routes as you suggest, then the case is even weaker (not stronger) for a busway station as obviously the busway would be most needed for line-haul CBD trips, right?

QuoteSensitivity test: double the highest number - gives 1,968,000 PT trips/year. Still within BUZ range.

I don't have strong views either way. And an estimate is an estimate - the modelling is a guidance. As I also wrote, it is also possible to advance a justification of a station purely on non-patronage grounds.

If you think you can come up with substantially different numbers to me, or you have access to "hard" numbers/data that others can objectively source-  I have literally set out the entire working. Feel free to plug in your own numbers to generate your own result.

I saw. And I pointed out your data was flawed as your data is based on a selective sample set to match your opinion. The 4000 amount doesn't include students, training staff and those in other positions such as IT, cleaners, security, patient transfer services (transport patients between wards etc). You have not included any of the other service providers in the area. Such as St Vincent's hospital where that's another staff pool of over 1000 along with another 400+ hospital beds and their own day surgery, specialist and outpatient facilities. Move north through the complex and there's more services. I also mentioned the RBWH-TPCH sharing of resources. TPCH is the largest cardiothoracic referral hospital in the Southern Hemisphere and one of the best in the world. People from across the state go there. Even NSW residents use it. The QLD government even has training programs with NZ for medical students. It's not uncommon for RBWH to transfer outpatients and patients requiring surgery to TPCH.

QuoteI saw. And I pointed out your data was flawed as your data is based on a selective sample set to match your opinion. You have not included any of the other service providers in the area. Such as St Vincent's hospital where that's another staff pool of over 1000 along with another 400+ hospital beds and their own day surgery, specialist and outpatient facilities. Move north through the complex and there's more services.

I provided the source where the numbers came from. An archived government publication posted elsewhere on RBOT by other RBOT members. And at the time those numbers were being used to justify the a busway station and deviation to the hospital.

Feel free to run your own numbers for estimated trip generation and post them in this thread. I've set out the working. Over to you. 

Data from 16 years ago.

QuoteData from 16 years ago.

Feel free to run your own (updated) numbers using a more recent "unselected" source (don't forget to reference it too) for estimated trip generation and post it.

No need to as I know the area quite well. Even if we include the hospital you didn't know about and reduce their staff to 1000 that's still 625,000 trips not accounted for in your stats which is more than your medium 15% mark. Let alone including the patients, people/families visiting patients, outpatients seeing doctors and specialists etc etc. Then there's the childrens hospital. Oh and the forgotten medical students, other staff such as IT, hospital patient transfer staff at TPCH. Another 100,000 visitors if 400 got a visit during the week. You can start to see your stats don't exactly start to look good.

Theres no denying building a line closer to Eatons Hill results in a shorter access time for that specific suburb.

But the issue is if that time saving is worth the additional billions.
Saying "its cut and cover" doesn't magically make the problem go away.

Quite clearly, doing a cutting in a 60m wide vacant corridor is cheaper than doing a cutting in a built up area with temporary road diversions, for example.
Same goes for an elevated line.

QuoteNo need to as I know the area quite well. Even if we include the hospital you didn't know about and reduce their staff to 1000 that's still 625,000 trips not accounted for in your stats which is more than your medium 15% mark. Let alone including the patients, people/families visiting patients, outpatients seeing doctors and specialists etc etc. Then there's the childrens hospital. Oh and the forgotten medical students, other staff such as IT, hospital patient transfer staff at TPCH. Another 100,000 visitors if 400 got a visit during the week. You can start to see your stats don't exactly start to look good.

So what's the final number HTG? You didn't provide one. Is it greater than 1.96 million PT trips per year??

QuoteTheres no denying building a line closer to Eatons Hill results in a shorter access time for that specific suburb.

But the issue is if that time saving is worth the additional billions.
Saying "its cut and cover" doesn't magically make the problem go away.

Quite clearly, doing a cutting in a 60m wide vacant corridor is cheaper than doing a cutting in a built up area with temporary road diversions, for example.
Same goes for an elevated line.

If cost is the main concern (seems to be), just build a connecting road between the two separate parts of Trouts road and run a frequent feeder bus / BUZ along it into an existing rail station such as Enoggera.

You would only need to build ~ 1.5 km of connecting local road to do this.

That would be at least ~10x cheaper than an NWTC line and rapid to deliver.

I've mentioned some additional trips. Surely you can add that amount to your own equation to get an answer.

But as you have shown you do not know the area in question and continue to rely on data that's over a decade old. Which was the point of my question. Very similar to the bus frequency question you refused to go anywhere near. And when people try to mention information about the area they are shrugged off. Which you can see in your answers about TPCH.

QuoteIf cost is the main concern (seems to be), just build a connecting road between the two separate parts of Trouts road and run a frequent feeder bus / BUZ along it into an existing rail station such as Enoggera.

You would only need to build ~ 1.5 km of connecting local road to do this.

That would be at least ~10x cheaper than an NWTC line and rapid to deliver.

No what I'm seeking is something better than a bus, but not as absurdly expensive a largely underground line.

QuoteI've mentioned some additional trips. Surely you can add that amount to your own equation to get an answer.

HTG, how about you provide a completely worked answer, with updated data and references, like I did?

I already set out my estimates, I don't think I need to do your own as well? I think you are best placed to advance your own case?

It is also not clear whether the 100,000 visitors are per month, or per year, or something else?

Now, as you have decided not the provide that or set out your working or sources because "No need to as I know the area quite well." I have nothing further to add to this topic about PCH.

And I will also point out, for the third time in this thread, that a stop may be justified on non-patronage (coverage grounds) alone.

Thank you.

QuoteNo what I'm seeking is something better than a bus, but not as absurdly expensive a largely underground line.

Look, I appreciate that your focus is rail on that corridor for the various reasons you have outlined. It's too early to rule other corridors out.

Particularly as we do not know if the Queensland Government does or does not accept what BCC claims about the corridor and whether it can be built on at all. This is a key unknown. That needs to be put to the Queensland Government. Do they accept BCC's environmental and social findings? Or not?

The other thing is that the Northern Busway extension will open a bus catchment in that area with buses feeding into and connecting with the Northern Busway. That might be all that is needed there.

QuoteParticularly as we do not know if the Queensland Government does or does not accept what BCC claims about the corridor and whether it can be built on at all. This is a key unknown. That needs to be put to the Queensland Government. Do they accept BCC's environmental and social findings? Or not?

As I understand it the government is definitely looking at it, which is why it's indicated in SEQ Rail Connects.

I don't really think TMR even needs to acknowledge the BCCs "findings". It's not the BCCs jurisdiction, it's not their corridor, BCC clearly wouldn't fund it.

TMR would do their own proper environmental study when the time comes.
What BCC thinks is largely irrelevant.

QuoteAs I understand it the government is definitely looking at it, which is why it's indicated in SEQ Rail Connects.

QuoteThat's good that they are investigating that.

I don't really think TMR even needs to acknowledge the BCCs "findings". It's not the BCCs jurisdiction, it's not their corridor, BCC clearly wouldn't fund it.

TMR would do their own proper environmental study when the time comes.
What BCC thinks is largely irrelevant.

Well, they will have to at some point. You can't have one environmental study say one thing and another say something else leading to contradictory findings. There would be a lot of questions raised if that were the case.

I do tend to agree with you that there are large parts which don't seem to have much environmental significance as they are essentially cleared land plots with grass on it.

I take your point BCC investigating things that are outside its jurisdiction. If BCC wants to influence rail, they should aim to become a tram operator again (which they were very good at until Clem Jones arrived).

QuoteYou can't have one environmental study say one thing and another say something else leading to contradictory findings.

What "study"

Do you mean the  grand total of 3.5 pages in their report?
It's hardly authoritative. A full train line is going to have a proper EIS running into the hundreds of pages, isn't it?


https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08/20220809-north-west-transport-corridor-key-findings.pdf

They've just copy pasted in a habitat map from elsewhere.

You can see that the areas of concern are only around Chermside hills reserve (orange), with some areas of least concern (light green) But notice that the corridor is largely plain white.

It makes the BCC conclusion that the whole corridor "can't be used" all the more baffling.
What's the point of tunnelling under areas with no environmental concern and no surface obstacles.





Personally, I think the whole BCC study was written to lead to a pre determined outcome.

Step 1: Claim the NWTC cant be used.
Step 2: Shift the focus to Gympie Road
Step 3: Implement the road tunnel that someone from Transurban wanted
Step 4: Greenwash with a 2nd rate surface level busway instead of the proper one that has been planned.
Step 5: Push the rail line out to the never never via a fake $13b price tag.

Quote from: Gazza on September 09, 2022, 15:24:35 PMPersonally, I think the whole BCC study was written to lead to a pre determined outcome.

Step 1: Claim the NWTC cant be used.
Step 2: Shift the focus to Gympie Road
Step 3: Implement the road tunnel that someone from Transurban wanted
Step 4: Greenwash with a 2nd rate surface level busway instead of the proper one that has been planned.
Step 5: Push the rail line out to the never never via a fake $13b price tag.

That's largely my thinking as well - there's a kernel of truth that the corridor is now a habitat for native and potentially endangered animals, and the carbrains at BCC almost certainly want a new motorway, so it's very easy to retroactively justify it to yourself by going "oh no we can't build a rail line there, there's native animals" and leave it at that. I doubt it's some grand conspiracy of not wanting the rail line - they just want the motorway, and discrediting the rail line as infeasible is a good way to get it sooner.

Quote from: #Metro on September 09, 2022, 13:44:26 PM

QuoteI've mentioned some additional trips. Surely you can add that amount to your own equation to get an answer.

HTG, how about you provide a completely worked answer, with updated data and references, like I did?

I already set out my estimates, I don't think I need to do your own as well? I think you are best placed to advance your own case?

It is also not clear whether the 100,000 visitors are per month, or per year, or something else?

Now, as you have decided not the provide that or set out your working or sources because "No need to as I know the area quite well." I have nothing further to add to this topic about PCH.

And I will also point out, for the third time in this thread, that a stop may be justified on non-patronage (coverage grounds) alone.

Thank you.

Used your exact same equation on very basic data.

1000 staff (they've stated that they have more than 1000 staff but for arguments sake) x 2 trips per day x 312 = 624,000 trips.

They have 416 beds. My initial calculation was very low. But let's just say outside of staff only 420 per day walk through the front door. 420 a day which is being very generic and really low on the total usage.
 
420 people per day x 5 days = 2,100 (yes they are open weekends too)
2,100 x 4 weeks = 8,400 (yes some months there are 5 weeks).

You said 30,000 visitors per month x 2 directions x 12 months = 720,000 trips/year

So 8,400 visitors per month x 2 directions = 16,800 trips a month x 12 months = 201,600 potential trips/year.

So let's combine that 201,600 yearly visitor trips + the 624,000 staff trips = 825,600 extra trips you have not accounted for.

So what did you get. Annual Estimate (staff + patients + visitors) = 3,936,000 trips per year. Estimated Total Travel Demand.

Ah so 3,936,000 + 825,600 = 4,560,000.

So you end up at 1.14 million on your 25%.

Now remember I've used very basic numbers and haven't accounted for students that work there, students and workers that go between the RBWH and TPCH along with other service providers in the northern region of the health complex. It should also be noted that TPCH health complex is currently looking at future expansion and relocating/expanding services here in the Metro North region.

From back in June - https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95474
"Prince Charles Hospital Expansion – $300 million investment that will deliver around 93 additional beds"

And the announcement for the upgrade (the hospital expansion above is a different program).
https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/90944



But hey I'm sure you already knew about this in your decade old data that hasn't had a master plan released since then.

The BCC study was always going to propose a road!! They know no other way!

My concern with the NWT corridor as a suburban rail line is that it ends up too close to Gympie Rd corridor which should have BRT transit all the way to Aspley as a minimum.

We need to break the "road prioritisating" thinking/budgets of our Governments. Only then will the funding be available to implement all the necessary BRT and rail projects!

Old Northern Road is better placed as it catchment is separate from Gympie Rd corridor but will need initially dedicated lanes, signal control/priority, BRT/light-rail styled stations. City Plan changes to retrofit suburbia! Wish the $10 million had answered or studied the mobility/access needs of the community  not just the need for a motorway!

The question of whether the Sunshine Coast line may mean more capacity is needed remains.  However a line for both the Sunshine line and local commuter is a very big ask! Maybe NWTC is the express path into the CBD for Fast and even HSR? 

Somewhere in the future a commuter line may be built.