RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Sunshine Coast News --> 'Heavy rail is essential, but it can't be our only plan': calls for traffic fix

QuoteA Sunshine Coast community leader is urging levels of government to invest in vital infrastructure to save the region from transport woes.

With the Sunshine Coast population expected to grow from 357,422 in 2021 to 518,004 in 2041, Caloundra Chamber of Commerce president Michael Shadforth said the region can't wait a decade for infrastructure like heavy rail and needs available and affordable transport solutions now.

"Projects like heavy rail are essential but we need to fix the transport offering with affordable and available options now so we can unlock our economy and get people to where they need to be in a time and cost-efficient manner," he said.

"We should be investing in better foot and bike paths, increasing the use of micro-mobility solutions like e-bikes and adapting new technologies like autonomous vehicles or electric inter urban air. ...

Sorry but this is utter and complete BS!  This is why we can never change our transport mode share except for it to get even worse.  This is prioritising road transport first which just continues the 'Status Quo' aka More Roads and maybe when we think demand exists we will increase public and active transport but even then it will be decades late.

QuoteKey to unlocking significant road and rail projects on the Sunshine Coast is the Mooloolah River Interchange (MRI) upgrade project, with design work already underway and a layout to be released to the community later this year.

The MRI project is the trigger for major infrastructure transformation in the region and will provide new connectivity between Maroochydore, Birtinya, Caloundra and the southern growth areas.

The value proposition PT presents on the Sunshine Coast is very poor.

Essentially, you can't catch the train because there isn't one.

Even if rail is extended it will be LSR (low speed rail). Add access walk time, waiting time, interchange time etc, I don't blame people for driving.

If PT is to succeed, it needs to be no-nonsense rapid transport. The train should have an average speed of 100 km/hr or above for the entire journey.

QuoteEven if rail is extended it will be LSR (low speed rail).

Will it?
CAMCOS would be to a similar standard to the GC line, so decent speeds of around 140.

And likewise the alignment between Caboolture and Beerwah is being steam ironed as part of the duplication project.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 10:04:07 AMThe value proposition PT presents on the Sunshine Coast is very poor.

Essentially, you can't catch the train because there isn't one.

Even if rail is extended it will be LSR (low speed rail). Add access walk time, waiting time, interchange time etc, I don't blame people for driving.

As Gazza stated above, the DSCRL (formerly CAMCOS) is 140km/h for the whole alignment.  Same as the Beenleigh to Gold Coast Line.

Like with the GC line (where north of Beenleigh has a poor alignment), it is south of Petrie where the speed lets SC down.  Although addressing the 'speed' south of Caboolture stuff has been proposed with the Trouts Road (NWTC) corridor and the suggested (but never formerly proposed) Petrie to Caboolture triplication.

Quote from: Gazza on March 21, 2023, 10:33:05 AMAnd likewise the alignment between Caboolture and Beerwah is being steam ironed as part of the duplication project.

Caboolture to Beerburrum was steam ironed over 14 years ago.  It does seem the only steam ironing is between Beerburrum and Glasshouse Mountains.  Which is eliminating many of the 60km/h on that stretch. 

Glasshouse Mountains to Beerwah is barely only another track next to the existing 80km/h curve (unsure if this is being re-aligned to 100km/h) just north of the station and the subsequent 120km/h straight stretch into Beerwah.

Quotethe DSCRL (formerly CAMCOS) is 140km/h for the whole alignment.  Same as the Beenleigh to Gold Coast Line.

We need to move the rail network to a Rapid Transit model like Perth, or better, something like MSR.

The AVERAGE speed between Varsity Lakes and Roma Street is ~ 70 km/hr. This is across the journey as a whole, not just parts of it.

Crucially, it also happens to be slower than driving off peak, and even slower when you incorporate access and wait times.

And the off-peak speed is important as that's where the most patronage gain can be made.

In other words, even with GC line express sections, it's still not as competitive against cars as it could be.

Which explains why most people drive, even though there is a parallel train.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 15:28:31 PMThe AVERAGE speed between Varsity Lakes and Roma Street is ~ 70 km/hr.

Yea, but it is still 140km per hour past Beenleigh. While not great, the alignment south of Petrie and into Brisbane is still better than the alignment between Park Road and Beenleigh. You can't really compare the two.

I believe the average speed between Petrie and Roma Street stations is 44.5 km/hr.

Well below 140 km/hr on that section.

I've only ever seen HTG bring this up, so it seems to be very little discussed. But one massive thing you can do to improve speeds between Petrie and Roma Street is eliminate the S curve at Zillmere. Basically gives a dead straight run from Northgate to Bald Hills.

Additional capacity in that corridor would help too. I don't know the exact details but HTG has posted before about how the Tilts can get a very sweet run from Roma Street to Cabo just by clearing a sh%tload of train paths. A quad in that corridor may help with sunshine coast line speeds, in that case

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 15:28:31 PMWhich explains why most people drive, even though there is a parallel train.

No it doesn't. There are many different factors at play here that determines why some still prefer to drive.

Re-north mains. From Beerburrum-Central the most common speed board is 100kph. The slowest section is Bowen Hills on the crossovers. Even closer to the city there are 100kph boards in the Central-Brunswick Street tunnel. Outside of that there are 100kph boards between Albion-Wooloowin, Eagle Junction-Toombul, Northgate-Caboolture is littered with 100kph boards with the slower sections consisting of 60kph, 70kph and 80kph boards being the Geebung-Carseldine section (still has 100kph boards in the Zillmere-Geebung section), Bald Hills curve, Strathpine curve, Lawnton-Petrie, Petrie, Narangba curve and Caboolture curve. Problem is that trains hit yellow signals which means slow down. IMU's have done Roma Street-Landsborough via Central in 60 minutes on charter services. Now compare that to your express services and tilt train services.  This is why the afternoon tilt just dordles along because it's running on yellows restricting its travel speed. Also why there is a lot of fat in the timetables. To the north there are many ways to bump up travel times which is why NWTC is not needed for faster services. There are many sections that can be upgraded to 130kph running. Only problem is that rollingstock isn't dedicated for particular lines but with CRR that's about to change (ever seen a HS-SMU220/SMU200/EMU on the Gold Coast line).

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 17:25:06 PMI believe the average speed between Petrie and Roma Street stations is 44.5 km/hr.

Well below 140 km/hr on that section.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 15:28:31 PM

Quotethe DSCRL (formerly CAMCOS) is 140km/h for the whole alignment.  Same as the Beenleigh to Gold Coast Line.

We need to move the rail network to a Rapid Transit model like Perth, or better, something like MSR.

The AVERAGE speed between Varsity Lakes and Roma Street is ~ 70 km/hr. This is across the journey as a whole, not just parts of it.

Crucially, it also happens to be slower than driving off peak, and even slower when you incorporate access and wait times.

And the off-peak speed is important as that's where the most patronage gain can be made.

In other words, even with GC line express sections, it's still not as competitive against cars as it could be.

Which explains why most people drive, even though there is a parallel train.

Driving is only faster in the TMR models before the road is built and maybe way outside peak hours.

Yes rail needs to be faster but comparing it to driving that has had billions and billions spent on it is the wrong approach!

The problem is the lack of investment in infrastructure and services and integration/connections

QuoteDriving is only faster in the TMR models before the road is built and maybe way outside peak hours.

Roads are generally free flowing outside of the 2-hour peak.

That's 22/24 hours per direction where it isn't congested. Or about 91% of the time.

If a passenger has a choice between a fast door-to-door journey and a slower one, it's plain to see that the preferred trip will be whatever mode will be the faster one.

Generally a journey is 2x longer by PT than car, which easily explains why it gets 25% mode share or less.

(Equal times by two competing modes give equal mode shares, 50%).

If you want to make a dent in car mode share, the offering needs to be much faster and frequent. Both these measures act to narrow the time gap.

QuoteYes rail needs to be faster but comparing it to driving that has had billions and billions spent on it is the wrong approach!

Well, what is cheaper to build per kilometre? Road or Rail?

Quote from: timh on March 21, 2023, 17:33:02 PMI've only ever seen HTG bring this up, so it seems to be very little discussed. But one massive thing you can do to improve speeds between Petrie and Roma Street is eliminate the S curve at Zillmere. Basically gives a dead straight run from Northgate to Bald Hills.

Additional capacity in that corridor would help too. I don't know the exact details but HTG has posted before about how the Tilts can get a very sweet run from Roma Street to Cabo just by clearing a sh%tload of train paths. A quad in that corridor may help with sunshine coast line speeds, in that case

I wonder of they can bypass that s-bend with a tunnel. Should be relatively cheap to do within a quick time frame.

 

Had to have a breather for this one. Not going to happen. The only works that area would have would be land resumptions for realignment. No fancy tunnel. No fancy skyrail. Just a straight cutting.  And there are quite a few very big problems connected to that such as tmr and state government businesses and facilities in the way along with a number of businesses.  Realistically I don't see anything happening there for quite a while. Purely on a cost basis ie the resumptions, rebuilding government facilities elsewhere rebuilding Zillmere station and issues of contaminated land if trying to sell it. Reason for not having a tunnel is you run into the same issues if doing a cut and cover. If you want a tunnel you have gradients to look into which put your portals in flood areas. You then need to resume more land in flood prone areas. You can't have ncl closures due to ncl closure restrictions. So no matter what type of realignment work would be done it would be very costly. Far better to just upgrade track speeds on the straights.

What makes tunnels cheap and quick to build?

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 18:50:11 PM

QuoteDriving is only faster in the TMR models before the road is built and maybe way outside peak hours.

Roads are generally free flowing outside of the 2-hour peak.

That's 22/24 hours per direction where it isn't congested. Or about 91% of the time.

If a passenger has a choice between a fast door-to-door journey and a slower one, it's plain to see that the preferred trip will be whatever mode will be the faster one.

Generally a journey is 2x longer by PT than car, which easily explains why it gets 25% mode share or less.

(Equal times by two competing modes give equal mode shares, 50%).

If you want to make a dent in car mode share, the offering needs to be much faster and frequent. Both these measures act to narrow the time gap.

Yet that is exactly NOT how cities with high active and public transport mode share work! It's voodoo maths that is not reflected in cities getting it right!

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 18:50:11 PM

QuoteDriving is only faster in the TMR models before the road is built and maybe way outside peak hours.

Roads are generally free flowing outside of the 2-hour peak.

That's 22/24 hours per direction where it isn't congested. Or about 91% of the time.

If a passenger has a choice between a fast door-to-door journey and a slower one, it's plain to see that the preferred trip will be whatever mode will be the faster one.

Generally a journey is 2x longer by PT than car, which easily explains why it gets 25% mode share or less.

(Equal times by two competing modes give equal mode shares, 50%).

If you want to make a dent in car mode share, the offering needs to be much faster and frequent. Both these measures act to narrow the time gap.

Keep in mind that public transport has the added benefit of actually allowing you to be productive during the trip. PT doesnt need to be as fast as driving to still get good rideshare. It just needs to be closer than it currently is. I would much rather catch a train to Maroochydore than drive, even if it takes an extra half hour, because it is far more pleasant.

QuoteYet that is exactly NOT how cities with high active and public transport mode share work! It's voodoo maths that is not reflected in cities getting it right!

Rapid Transit is where the game is at, and where it can be won.

Trains can do > 100 km/hr if designed to.

;
Video: Ozbob

If people will preferentially choose whatever mode gives them the faster door-to-door all-inclusive journey time, that isn't Voodoo. That's just being sensible. People are busy.

If we have a slow train service / no train service, what is the modeller supposed to do? Bump up the train's speed by 2x or 3x even though the line is actually 1x speed or introduce special patronage fudge factors to favour the train to overstate its true patronage attractiveness?

An analyst's job isn't to tell people what they want to hear. Their job is to figure out the most likely outcome given a set of given circumstances.

Nothing in the 'Decide and Provide' doctrine is incompatible with what I've written above, and that approach too relies on modelling.

QuoteKeep in mind that public transport has the added benefit of actually allowing you to be productive during the trip.

It's not a benefit IMHO because you could do those things in the time saved by taking the faster mode. And most people don't want to be doing work tasks for their boss on moving vehicles. Sure they could listen to music or read a book, but you can listen to music in a car and there are audiobooks you can have in the car now as well.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 21:14:58 PM

QuoteKeep in mind that public transport has the added benefit of actually allowing you to be productive during the trip.

It's not a benefit because you could do those things in the time saved by taking the faster mode. And most people don't want to be doing work tasks for their boss on moving vehicles. Sure they could listen to music or read a book, but you can listen to music in a car and there are audiobooks you can have in the car now as well.

It's not just doing work though. It's also not having to concentrate for over an hour to drive. Driving causes stress, requires concentration, and isn't exactly pleasant for most, hence why many would rather catch PT even if it is marginally slower. If the PT journey is close enough to the journey time by car, the ride-share would be much better.

Also even if you can do that work in the time saving, you would still have less time. Basic maths. Say 1 hr drive, 1.5 hour train. Thats 1.5 hrs of productive time compared to 1.5 - 1 = 0.5 hrs of productive time. Audio books don't suit everyone. On a train you can watch videos, browse social media, etc.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 21:34:16 PM

QuoteAlso even if you can do that work in the time saving, you would still have less time. Basic maths. Say 1 hr drive, 1.5 hour train. Thats 1.5 hrs of productive time compared to 1.5 - 1 = 0.5 hrs of productive time. Audio books don't suit everyone. On a train you can watch videos, browse social media, etc.

Well, suppose that I took the car for 1 hour and then in that 0.5 hours time saved I spent at a coffee shop before work eating cake and watching YouTube Videos and social media. What's the difference?

There's an extra hour??

QuoteAlso even if you can do that work in the time saving, you would still have less time. Basic maths. Say 1 hr drive, 1.5 hour train. Thats 1.5 hrs of productive time compared to 1.5 - 1 = 0.5 hrs of productive time. Audio books don't suit everyone. On a train you can watch videos, browse social media, etc.

Well, suppose that you had a choice then of an express train or an all stops train to choose from, in addition to the car.

Taking the all stops slower train would mean that you would take 2 hours instead of 1.5 hours.

Should you take the slower train because it would result in more "productive time"?

Note - I updated the original post to use a different example.

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 21:38:07 PM

QuoteAlso even if you can do that work in the time saving, you would still have less time. Basic maths. Say 1 hr drive, 1.5 hour train. Thats 1.5 hrs of productive time compared to 1.5 - 1 = 0.5 hrs of productive time. Audio books don't suit everyone. On a train you can watch videos, browse social media, etc.

Well, suppose that you had a choice then of an express train or an all stops train to choose from, in addition to the car.

Taking the all stops slower train would mean that you would take 2 hours instead of 1.5 hours. Should you take the slower train because it would result in more "productive time"?

No, but that's subverting the point. Nearly the whole train journey can be used productively. Given an option between 1.5 hours and 2 hours you would choose the express train because it's faster, and you can still spend the extra 0.5 hours being productive. With a car, you are wasting an hour driving where you can't be productive or watch Youtube or what not, so even though it is half an hour faster, the total productive time is less. With the two trains, the total productive time is equal, therefore the faster journey makes sense.

QuoteNo, but that's subverting the point. Nearly the whole train journey can be used productively. Given an option between 1.5 hours and 2 hours you would choose the express train because it's faster, and you can still spend the extra 0.5 hours being productive. With a car, you are wasting an hour driving where you can't be productive or watch Youtube or what not, so even though it is half an hour faster, the total productive time is less. With the two trains, the total productive time is equal, therefore the faster journey makes sense.

The example is actually giving the traveller three concurrent options at the same time:

(a) Car 1 hour, productive time zero
(b) Express train, productive time 0.5 hours
(c) All-Stops train, productive time 1 hour

You wouldn't take the slower train when presented with all three options even though taking the all stops train would give the maximum productive time over the car which would be 2 hours - 1 hour = 1 hour of "productive time".

Quote from: #Metro on March 21, 2023, 21:48:20 PM

QuoteNo, but that's subverting the point. Nearly the whole train journey can be used productively. Given an option between 1.5 hours and 2 hours you would choose the express train because it's faster, and you can still spend the extra 0.5 hours being productive. With a car, you are wasting an hour driving where you can't be productive or watch Youtube or what not, so even though it is half an hour faster, the total productive time is less. With the two trains, the total productive time is equal, therefore the faster journey makes sense.

No, the example is giving the traveller three concurrent options at the same time.

(a) Car 1 hour, productive time zero
(b) Express train, productive time 0.5 hours
(c) All-Stops train, productive time 1 hour

You wouldn't take the slower train when presented with all three options, even though taking the all stops train would give the maximum productive time over the car which would be 2 hours - 1 hour = 1 hour of "productive time".

So,
(a) Car - 1 hour: 2 - 1 = 1 hour of productive time over same time period.
(b) Express Train - 1.5 hours: 2 hours of productive time over same time period.
(c) All Stopper - 2 hours: 2 hours of productive time over same time period.

When the time on the train, and the time off the train are both productive, the productive time over the same time period for the Express and All Stopper is the same, whereas the car is 1 hour less. This is because when you are driving you can't do anything overly productive or something which requires a lot of concentration.

That is not to say that everyone would choose the train over driving. Obviously, not many people would take the all stopper because the additional journey time is less desirable since not everyone is planning to be productive on the journey, but for a smaller time loss such as with the express train, a lot of people would rather catch the train since it is a better use of their time, less stressful, and more relaxing.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that it isn't black or white. It isn't just the total travel time that people take into account. It is comfort, productivity, speed, cost, etc. You keep trying to boil it down to simply door to door time, but that assertion is inaccurate and fails to account for other reasons people may catch PT over driving.

But not everyone wants to do work while catching pt or watching ticktock/YouTube videos. And you can be just as productive driving rather than catching pt. It's all su subjective. You just go about it in another way. You can go to the shops/doctors/dentist/wherever, it's door to door, no need to be worried about missing interchanges (bus or train as we see with people catching and over crowding the Ipswich train to transfer at Darra to the Springfield train only to push and run up/down the stairs to make the interchange), if you can get a seat, no need to worry about if your bus will still be running, pt delays or if your train ends up being a 3 car service. The biggest factor is adding extra activities at the drop of a hat. But just remember not everyone works in the cbd. Outside paying for parking becomes less and less of an issue which eats into the cost ratios. And depending when you leave you can miss a lot of the traffic as is the case with the sunny coast where you can leave later and get to brisbane at the same time than if you had left earlier.

This is where the fun begins. Everyone starts wanting express trains and others want express to their station and a compromise has to be made. Some will win. Others will loose. And depending who the car can be a better option.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 21, 2023, 22:04:05 PMBut not everyone wants to do work while catching pt or watching ticktock/YouTube videos. And you can be just as productive driving rather than catching pt. It's all su subjective. You just go about it in another way. You can go to the shops/doctors/dentist/wherever, it's door to door, no need to be worried about missing interchanges (bus or train as we see with people catching and over crowding the Ipswich train to transfer at Darra to the Springfield train), if you can get a seat, no need to worry about if your bus will still be running, pt delays or if your train ends up being a 3 car service. The biggest factor is adding extra activities at the drop of a hat. But just remember not everyone works in the cbd. Outside paying for parking becomes less and less of an issue which eats into the cost ratios. And depending when you leave you can miss a lot of the traffic as is the case with the sunny coast where you can leave later and get to brisbane at the same time than if you had left earlier.

This is where the fun begins. Everyone starts wanting express trains and others want express to their station and a compromise has to be made. Some will win. Others will loose. And depending who the car can be a better option.

Exactly. It is subjective. Some people value productivity, some people value time, etc., etc. I would disagree with the assertion that you can be just as productive in a car. You can't work on assignments or check your emails while driving. You can be productive in a car, but the level of productivity is extremely diminished.

QuoteThat is not to say that everyone would choose the train over driving. Obviously, not many people would take the all stopper because the additional journey time is less desirable since not everyone is planning to be productive on the journey, but for a smaller time loss such as with the express train, a lot of people would rather catch the train since it is a better use of their time, less stressful, and more relaxing.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that it isn't black or white. It isn't just the total travel time that people take into account. It is comfort, productivity, speed, cost, etc. You keep trying to boil it down to simply door to door time, but that assertion is inaccurate and fails to account for other reasons people may catch PT over driving.

This is estimation.

In estimation, we can throw out small terms if their significance will not ultimately change the end result.

The majority of travellers drive, despite having the opportunity to be productive on public transport. This is reflected in the observed mode share.

For example, if I have a factor that is very dominant, say Factor A has a value of 1 and I have a lot of very small contributing factors such as Factor B (add 0.0000001), Factor C (0.0001), and Factor D (0.00001) which also influence the outcome, then I could go to the trouble of summing all the factors such that:

Outcome = Factor A + Factor B + Factor C + Factor D

Outcome = 1 + 0.0000001 + 0.0001 + 0.00001 and so on....

which gives 1.0001101 exactly

OR

I could just say Factors B to D are not significant enough to change the outcome and dispose of them, and round to 1.

IMHO the dominant factor in mode choice is the relative door-to-door journey time gap. Cost plays a role too. Other things such as WIFI, checking e-mails as well, but IMHO this is not significant so can be zeroed out.

In terms of the Sunshine Coast line, to be concrete, this means a faster train through track upgrades will attract more passengers than a slower one.

Quote from: RowBro on March 21, 2023, 22:06:32 PM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 21, 2023, 22:04:05 PMBut not everyone wants to do work while catching pt or watching ticktock/YouTube videos. And you can be just as productive driving rather than catching pt. It's all su subjective. You just go about it in another way. You can go to the shops/doctors/dentist/wherever, it's door to door, no need to be worried about missing interchanges (bus or train as we see with people catching and over crowding the Ipswich train to transfer at Darra to the Springfield train), if you can get a seat, no need to worry about if your bus will still be running, pt delays or if your train ends up being a 3 car service. The biggest factor is adding extra activities at the drop of a hat. But just remember not everyone works in the cbd. Outside paying for parking becomes less and less of an issue which eats into the cost ratios. And depending when you leave you can miss a lot of the traffic as is the case with the sunny coast where you can leave later and get to brisbane at the same time than if you had left earlier.

This is where the fun begins. Everyone starts wanting express trains and others want express to their station and a compromise has to be made. Some will win. Others will loose. And depending who the car can be a better option.

Exactly. It is subjective. Some people value productivity, some people value time, etc., etc. I would disagree with the assertion that you can be just as productive in a car. You can't work on assignments or check your emails while driving. You can be productive in a car, but the level of productivity is extremely diminished.

Then this whole argument of productivity becomes a moot point if it's subjective from something as simple as if you can get a seat on the train or not/what line you're on/what station you get on and off at/occupation/age. Quite a lot of the time car trips can be 30-60 minutes or more faster than pt the further you get out. And your productivity might decrease even further depending on the next segment of your trip ie a bus/walk. Theoretically you could be more productive on the train but if you factor in walking/transferring it may be minimal compared to the time saved getting home quicker in a car. But once again it's all subjective.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 21, 2023, 22:59:13 PMThen this whole argument of productivity becomes a moot point if it's subjective from something as simple as if you can get a seat on the train or not/what line you're on/what station you get on and off at/occupation/age. Quite a lot of the time car trips can be 30-60 minutes or more faster than pt the further you get out. And your productivity might decrease even further depending on the next segment of your trip ie a bus/walk. Theoretically you could be more productive on the train but if you factor in walking/transferring it may be minimal compared to the time saved getting home quicker in a car. But once again it's all subjective.

I'm well aware. I was merely bringing it up to prove how subjective it can be, and that door-to-door travel time is not the be all end all of whether PT will be successful or not.

Not all factors and terms are created equal.

Some levers are much more influential than others.

Slowing a train down or opening a fast freeway in a rail line's catchment is going to change the time gap so much that you're not going to get those passengers back with WiFi, more comfy seating, and a new paint job at stations, for example.

Model reduction

https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/20/help-and-how-to/statistical-modeling/regression/supporting-topics/regression-models/model-reduction/

QuoteModel reduction

Model reduction is the elimination of terms from the model, such as the term for a predictor variable or the interaction between predictor variables. Model reduction lets you simplify a model and increase the precision of predictions. You can reduce models in any group of commands in Minitab, including regression, ANOVA, DOE, and reliability.

One criterion for model reduction is the statistical significance of a term. The elimination of statistically insignificant terms increases the precision of predictions from the model.

I'll preface by saying that we should be aiming to speed up and increase frequency of PT as far as possible.

I agree with what @rowbrow is saying, but the two trips need to be at least in the same ballpark.

Eg

If its 30 min drive versus a 1 hr PT trip, you'll probably drive.


If it was 30 mins drive versus 40 mins PT, then it is not so clear cut.

Basically, my mindset is that if you are using your PT time to do activities you would have done anyway, then a small amount of extra time is not really a loss.

For example, my exact commute, door to door:


It is 50 mins in the car versus 1 hour on PT.

If its driving, then I pretty much have to just drive, and its a stressful stop start traffic. listening to music/radio/podcast is not enough to compensate for that.

Taking PT is 10 mins longer, but I do some walking as part of that (So I therefore don't spend time doing a separate morning walk for exercise), and the platform/in vehicle time is approx 30 mins, and I can spend that time on my phone (reading the news, FB, broswing, youtube), again these are all things I'd do every day regardless.

Here's another way of phrasing it.


I wake up at 7:00 and need to be at work 8:30. The start and end points of this period are fixed, how I spend those 90 mins is up to me.

Option 1 - Car
7:00-7:30, showering / breakfast / getting ready
7:30-7:40, 10 mins on phone reading news.
7:40-8:30, Driving

Option 2 - PT
7:00-7:30, showering / breakfast / getting ready
7:30-7:45, walking to station
7:45-7:50, platform wait time (can start reading something, lock phone when train arrives)
7:50-8:10, ride PT (can unlock phone, continue reading where i left off)
8:10-8:30, walking from station to work.

So with the car option, I get 10 mins actual "free time" in the 90 min period.
With the PT option, its about 25 mins free time and an additional 35 mins of exercise, so in other words 60 out of 90 mins.

*******
@Metro mentioned the possibility of there being another slower PT service that took 30 mins longer, allowing for even more "productive time".

I could emulate that by catching a train the wrong direction a few stops, and then getting on another one going the right way.

But you can see it doesn't actually work in reality, because to do that would require me to get up 30 mins earlier, or get to work 30 mins late, neither of which is acceptable.

People listen to music and the radio in the car as well as have more personal space. That's my rationale being a choice to public transport.

Re tunnelling has come down in price and a tunnel from Northgate to Bald Hill can be significantly cheaper to what had been proposed, as it requires no stations.

Plus a tunnel of such nature can be continually utilised for express services well into the future, even if other tunnels are built on different alignments to add capacity.

The crux of the argument is that current traffic (predict and provide - travelling time) modelling has so many assumptions (the worst is the 15min penalty for transferring) that don't have any evidence to back them up other than assumptions in the model to justify the prioritisation of road building. This is where the Voodoo comes in.  The modelling says this will fix/bust congestion yet the evidence shows it actually got worse.   This is why Predict and Provide is being thrown out.

There are many many cities where it may be faster to drive somewhere yet the vast % of population chooses not to because they know it is healthier, cheaper, more enjoyable, less noisy, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.... This is why Vision and Validate is actually delivering the outcomes being sought.

QuoteThe crux of the argument is that current traffic (predict and provide - travelling time) modelling has so many assumptions (the worst is the 15min penalty for transferring) that don't have any evidence to back them up other than assumptions in the model to justify the prioritisation of road building. This is where the Voodoo comes in.  The modelling says this will fix/bust congestion yet the evidence shows it actually got worse.  This is why Predict and Provide is being thrown out.

The penalty may be an assumption, but it is also an observed thing.

This might not be what members may want to hear but there is evidence of an interchange penalty. Passengers switch services to earlier services to compensate for this possibility of a missed connection.

This is the published research from BCC from a trial done at Toombul Interchange.

Avent, A. M., See, D. R. (1982). Bus-Bus Interchange, Toombul
Shoppingtown, Brisbane. 7th Australian Transport Research Forum
https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1982_Avent_See.pdf



It would be incorrect to conclude that interchange is everywhere and always a bad thing. Services need to be frequent and reliable for interchange to work. And there are many examples where they do work, such as to the G Link LRT on the Gold Coast (where overall PT patronage net increased significantly after bus termination to LRT was introduced) and also in Perth on the TransPerth rail network where it works extremely well.

Current practice to encouraging interchange has focused on the physical interchange design. I think this is the wrong focus - the focus should be on ensuring both connecting services are frequent and reliable so that missing one doesn't matter.   

QuoteThere are many many cities where it may be faster to drive somewhere yet the vast % of population chooses not to because they know it is healthier, cheaper, more enjoyable, less noisy, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.... This is why Vision and Validate is actually delivering the outcomes being sought.

The full story is that a lot of these places make it hard and expensive to get your licence, tax your car heavily (e.g. AUD ~ $3500+ registration fee in Denmark), charge for parking and might even have a cordon toll/congestion toll applicable.

What year is that from?

I ask because it is done with a typewriter and still calls Toombul "Shoppingtown"

It would predate more recent passenger tools like live tracking that 'reassure' you the connection is coming.

Gazza, 82 I assume.

Quote from: Jonno on March 22, 2023, 12:50:40 PMThe crux of the argument is that current traffic (predict and provide - travelling time) modelling has so many assumptions (the worst is the 15min penalty for transferring) that don't have any evidence to back them up other than assumptions in the model to justify the prioritisation of road building. This is where the Voodoo comes in.  The modelling says this will fix/bust congestion yet the evidence shows it actually got worse.  This is why Predict and Provide is being thrown out.

There are many many cities where it may be faster to drive somewhere yet the vast % of population chooses not to because they know it is healthier, cheaper, more enjoyable, less noisy, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.... This is why Vision and Validate is actually delivering the outcomes being sought.

What speed or capacity improvement does that allow for the cost vs a quad or even vs the current configuration? As I've said much of that corridor already has a track speed of 100kph with many sections capable of running higher speeds. Yes the Zillmere curve is a bitch to deal with but it's not trinder park scale. With MBRL complete most of the peak issues now is related to the Virginia-Northgate section inbound which could be fixed by reconfiguring the layout, closing the Northgate road level crossing in peak hour (this causes both trains to stop at Virginia as they wait for the level crossing to activate. This is also usually timed with outbound services to minimise crossing downtime) or having all inbound services stopping at Virginia to provide an even spacing into Northgate (similar to what we see at Milton).  If you look at any otp all the delays to services are between Virginia and Northgate.

Sunshine Valley Gazette 12 April 2023 page 20

Where does our transport levy money go?




 

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableoffice/questionsanswers/2023/419-2023.pdf

QUESTION ON NOTICE ASKED
Wednesday, 19 April 2023

Answer Due: Friday, 19 May 2023

419 MS S BOLTON ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)
With work on the rail-line duplication to Beerwah proceeding—

Will the Minister advise on any progress made to date on the Pre-investment Planning Study for the line
that will result in a comprehensive corridor strategy and investment program for rail between Brisbane and
Gympie?

^

NORTH COAST RAIL SERVICES (INCLUDING COOROY-GYMPIE NORTH) UPDATE JANUARY 2023

https://www.sandybolton.com/north-coast-rail-services-including-cooroy-gympie-north-update-january-2023/

For some years you would be aware we have advocated for improved frequency of rail services from Gympie North to connect to the Nambour services to Brisbane and elsewhere, providing the Noosa electorate via Cooroy an option to the current offerings.

The most recent response to my requests to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads is as below in italics;

I draw your attention to the following planning studies, jointly funded by the Australian and Palaszczuk Governments:

$1.5 million Brisbane to Sunshine Coast (B2SC) Rail Corridor Strategy. This strategy will guide future non-infrastructure and infrastructure investment opportunities to improve network capacity, travel times, safety, resilience and efficiency for passengers and freight. The strategy will also consider the forecast population growth in the Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Sunshine Coast, Noosa and Gympie regions with increases in service frequency between Gympie and Nambour to be considered. The strategy is expected to be completed in 2023.
$6 million investment planning for the Direct Sunshine Coast Rail Line project (formerly known as the Beerwah to Maroochydore rail extension) to plan for a proposed passenger rail corridor between Beerwah and Maroochydore to increase public transport opportunities for the growing Sunshine Coast community.
$6.25 million Beerburrum to Nambour Rail Upgrade Duplication Study investigating options for future upgrades to the North Coast Line from Beerburrum to Nambour, which is in addition to the $550.8 million Beerburrum to Nambour Rail upgrade (Stage 1) duplication project currently being delivered.
In summary, some good news, and we look forward to the release of the report.

For anyone wishing to add to our advocacy on the above, please write to  the Minister for Transport and Main Roads  at transportandmainroads@ministerial.qld.gov.au and please cc' us in to noosa@parliament.qldgov.au