RAIL - Back On Track Forum

The best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron section

That and maybe this could free up surface space for a proper surface busway north of Kedron

Lets be honest here. Did the first stage of airport link bring about public realm iprovements in Lutwyche?
Absolutely not, its still a traffic sewer.

QuoteThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron section

+1

Package deal would be good 👍

Quote from: timh on June 14, 2023, 07:22:49 AMThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron section

That and maybe this could free up surface space for a proper surface busway north of Kedron

Best option would be if they built the tunnel, made it free, and then reduced Gympie Road to 2 lanes with landscaping, separated bike paths either side, bus lanes running the length. Wouldn't that be the dream.

Quote from: Gazza on June 14, 2023, 08:33:33 AMLets be honest here. Did the first stage of airport link bring about public realm improvements in Lutwyche?
Absolutely not, its still a traffic sewer.

Spot on.  This bunch of muppets think that the tunnel will reduce congestion (would be a world first or a miracle - I thinking the latter is more likely) thus freeing up the non-separated traffic lanes for public transport. This is their idea of improving public transport.

My own conclusion is that whilst the world is moving forward in time. Our Governments are in fact moving backwards in time. Brilliant Twilight Zone episode!!! 

Maybe one day they will arrive at the time before cars were invented and start building for pre-car world.  Not sure what we are going to do with the horse watering stops but hey its a start.

Quote from: RowBro on June 14, 2023, 08:51:06 AM

Quote from: timh on June 14, 2023, 07:22:49 AMThe best I can hope for out of this is it will force the construction of further stages of the northern busway, much like how the construction of the AirportLink tunnel forced the construction of the Lutwyche-Kedron section

That and maybe this could free up surface space for a proper surface busway north of Kedron

Best option would be if they built the tunnel, made it free, and then reduced Gympie Road to 2 lanes with landscaping, separated bike paths either side, bus lanes running the length. Wouldn't that be the dream.

Isn't this the plan from Council to put the Bne Metro down the centre of Gympie road?

As per the toll I don't think it will be free unfortunately. Although they should introduce off peak and multi trip financial incentives as well as rebates to use the new tunnel instead of the surface road.

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 14, 2023, 10:25:00 AMAs per the toll I don't think it will be free unfortunately. Although they should introduce off peak and multi trip financial incentives as well as rebates to use the new tunnel instead of the surface road.

Which is silly since if the goal is really to alleviate traffic off the surface roads, making the alternative tolled will do very little.

Quote from: RowBro on June 14, 2023, 10:26:33 AM

Quote from: verbatim9 on June 14, 2023, 10:25:00 AMAs per the toll I don't think it will be free unfortunately. Although they should introduce off peak and multi trip financial incentives as well as rebates to use the new tunnel instead of the surface road.

Which is silly since if the goal is really to alleviate traffic off the surface roads, making the alternative tolled will do very little.

see the Storey Bridge and Riverside Expressway (Car Park) morning and evening.  The Clem 7 fixed nothing.

Quote from: Jonno on June 14, 2023, 10:28:46 AMThe Clem 7 fixed nothing.

Yet the Clem 7 isn't even at capacity. A lot of people don't want to pay the toll or simply cannot afford to do, so even if we ignore induced demand, a toll road is still a fool's errand.

Quote from: Jonno on June 14, 2023, 10:14:06 AM

Quote from: Gazza on June 14, 2023, 08:33:33 AMLets be honest here. Did the first stage of airport link bring about public realm improvements in Lutwyche?
Absolutely not, its still a traffic sewer.

Spot on.  This bunch of muppets think that the tunnel will reduce congestion (would be a world first or a miracle - I thinking the latter is more likely) thus freeing up the non-separated traffic lanes for public transport. This is their idea of improving public transport.

My own conclusion is that whilst the world is moving forward in time. Our Governments are in fact moving backwards in time. Brilliant Twilight Zone episode!!! 

Maybe one day they will arrive at the time before cars were invented and start building for pre-car world.  Not sure what we are going to do with the horse watering stops but hey its a start.

Considering that there is over 80% car ownership in Queensland, as well as the nature of urban sprawl, private vehicle use will likely be the preferred method of travel in Queensland.

Despite this the Government should have a target in place to transition people across to public and active transport. This should be set at 25%, thus, paving the way for funding for new PT services and new infrastructure in line with that target.

^ If a 25% AT/PT mode-share is the goal, and if building or expanding motorways clearly works against that, why should we build any new motorways or road tunnels?

(Responding to earlier points from Jonno)

One can claim toll tunnels have no economic benefit OR one can claim they induce traffic but one cannot claim both.

If people are paying to drive in the toll tunnel, then it is a fee-for-service exchange where both the provider and customer gain a benefit.

If taking the tunnel offered the same or no benefit, people would not pay to use it.

The other thing is that the object of public transport is not to reduce or eliminate congestion, which always exists.

You only need to look at the SE freeway or Moggill Rd/Coronation Drive in peak to confirm this. Both these roads are parallel to high volume busways or railways. Yet they still have congested car traffic on them.

Given this our thinking could focus on people flow and time differences between competing modes as a primary motivator in the mode choice decision.

Road network standards and quality has gone up. Rail and bus need to catch up with that.

Understanding this is the key to understanding why mode share targets have been missed in the past. The current PT setup does not offer competitive door-to-door journey times vs car.

ALL transport modes are capable of induced traffic; it's not a phenomenon solely restricted to cars.

QuoteOne can claim toll tunnels have no economic benefit OR one can claim they induce traffic but one cannot claim both.

It is possible that the externalities of the induced traffic erases the economic benefits.

QuoteALL transport modes are capable of induced traffic; it's not a phenomenon solely restricted to cars.

Correct.

Yet we are building transitways that dont operate in off peak.
This means by definition public transport has not become more attractive compared to driving off peak.
If we want to get 25% mode share then a lot of that is going to have to come from off peak users.

Quote from: #Metro on June 14, 2023, 12:09:39 PMIf people are paying to drive in the toll tunnel, then it is a fee-for-service exchange where both the provider and customer gain a benefit.

Also depends on how the tunnel construction is funded. Locally you might see a benefit if the original corporation goes bankrupt and overseas capital makes a loss, but overseas capital is pretty savvy about (a) not getting caught like that and then (b) will then probably not get involved at all in future, better projects

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1691535821160210432

Sent to all outlets:

A Gympie Road Toll Tunnel will monetise congestion, not bust it

23rd August 2023

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport has called on the Queensland Government to complete the Northern Busway to Chermside in preference to a Gympie Road Toll Tunnel (1,2).

In our opinion, a Gympie Road Toll Tunnel is about monetising Northside congestion.

We expect the proposed toll tunnel to be sold or leased to a private toll road operator after opening. That's how the Queensland Government owned QIC can get their money back sooner, rather than waiting decades to collect it back slowly from toll fees.

'Busting' congestion lines are just marketing spin. This toll tunnel adds very little new peak direction capacity (3). A Brisbane Metro BRT bus running every two minutes would have more capacity. Five trains would have more capacity. A Northern Busway to Chermside would have more capacity.

A basic and inconvenient truth is this: roads have a naturally low lane capacity. This is why after opening a long list of toll roads in Brisbane over the last 20 years, we still have plenty of car congestion.

Adding yet another toll tunnel to this list is not going to change this reality.

We call on the Queensland Government to fund and complete the Northern Busway to Chermside. Its own material states a Northern Busway would have capacity to move up to 18,000 people/direction/hour. That's four times the added peak direction capacity that this toll tunnel offers (4).

If the Minister for Transport and Queensland Government are so concerned about busting Northside congestion, why are they choosing the lowest capacity option?

References

1. Plan for tunnel to avoid Chermside traffic came from govt money-makers
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/plan-for-tunnel-to-avoid-chermside-traffic-came-from-govt-money-makers-20230815-p5dwmd.html

2. Brisbane's New Underground Gold Mines
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-s-new-underground-gold-mines-20230816-p5dwwg.html

3. 3 Apr 2023: BCC NWTC Motorway Proposal 'High Cost - Low Capacity'
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15120.0

4. Northern Busway - Archived Full Documents
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14786.msg261505#msg261505

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

Facebook ...

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1694477730019197130

Brisbanetimes --> Traffic...and more traffic. Can the north be fixed with a new tunnel? $

QuoteBrisbane residents have been asked to have their say on a proposed bypass tunnel that could ease congestion in the city's north.

Consultations for the Gympie Road Bypass Tunnel, between Kedron and Carseldine, will begin on Monday, with the proposal expected to reduce commuter times, and improve liveability for local communities. ...

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1718337426517795076?s=20

Sent to all outlets:

29th October 2023

A Gympie Road Toll Tunnel will monetise congestion, not bust it

Greetings,

Brisbanetimes has reported this morning that "Brisbane residents have been asked to have their say on a proposed bypass tunnel that could ease congestion in the city's north.
Consultations for the Gympie Road Bypass Tunnel, between Kedron and Carseldine, will begin on Monday, with the proposal expected to reduce commuter times, and improve liveability for local communities. ...".  https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/traffic-and-more-traffic-can-the-north-be-fixed-with-a-new-tunnel-20231028-p5efqq.html

Nothing has changed from what we commented in August 2023

===


A Gympie Road Toll Tunnel will monetise congestion, not bust it

23rd August 2023

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport has called on the Queensland Government to complete the Northern Busway to Chermside in preference to a Gympie Road Toll Tunnel (1,2).

In our opinion, a Gympie Road Toll Tunnel is about monetising Northside congestion.

We expect the proposed toll tunnel to be sold or leased to a private toll road operator after opening. That's how the Queensland Government owned QIC can get their money back sooner, rather than waiting decades to collect it back slowly from toll fees.

'Busting' congestion lines are just marketing spin. This toll tunnel adds very little new peak direction capacity (3). A Brisbane Metro BRT bus running every two minutes would have more capacity. Five trains would have more capacity. A Northern Busway to Chermside would have more capacity.

A basic and inconvenient truth is this: roads have a naturally low lane capacity. This is why after opening a long list of toll roads in Brisbane over the last 20 years, we still have plenty of car congestion.

Adding yet another toll tunnel to this list is not going to change this reality.

We call on the Queensland Government to fund and complete the Northern Busway to Chermside. Its own material states a Northern Busway would have capacity to move up to 18,000 people/direction/hour. That's four times the added peak direction capacity that this toll tunnel offers (4).

If the Minister for Transport and Queensland Government are so concerned about busting Northside congestion, why are they choosing the lowest capacity option?

References

1. Plan for tunnel to avoid Chermside traffic came from govt money-makers
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/plan-for-tunnel-to-avoid-chermside-traffic-came-from-govt-money-makers-20230815-p5dwmd.html

2. Brisbane's New Underground Gold Mines
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-s-new-underground-gold-mines-20230816-p5dwwg.html

3. 3 Apr 2023: BCC NWTC Motorway Proposal 'High Cost - Low Capacity'
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15120.0

4. Northern Busway - Archived Full Documents
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14786.msg261505#msg261505

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

'Congestion-busting' narratives are just that... narratives. They are NOT an analysis, or an evaluation. For that, you need the numbers...

The BT article is purely descriptive, and is full of forward-looking statements such as 'expected' and 'potential'.

Such a tunnel will have minimal impact on congestion due to the combination of (a) low road capacity and (b) presence of a toll.

Quote from: #Metro on October 29, 2023, 09:26:18 AM'Congestion-busting' narratives are just that... narratives. They are NOT an analysis, or an evaluation. For that, you need the numbers...

The BT article is purely descriptive, and is full of forward-looking statements such as 'expected' and 'potential'.

Such a tunnel will have minimal impact on congestion due to the combination of (a) low road capacity and (b) presence of a toll.

it will in fact have a huge impact on CREATING more congestion! This is not just a waste of tax-payers money because it hardly makes a difference! It is a monumental waste of tax-payers money (even if a toll road) as it makes the problem even worse!! It is fiscal negligence!

Quoteit will in fact have a huge impact on CREATING more congestion! This is not just a waste of tax-payers money because it hardly makes a difference! It is a monumental waste of tax-payers money (even if a toll road) as it makes the problem even worse!! It is fiscal negligence!

Agree that it won't really move the dial. Just noting here that road use is a multiple of population level, not a multiple of road-km. On average, every new resident generates 3.3 trips in SEQ.


(apologies for the size of the image, but resizing puts odd whitespace above and below)

Notes
Travel in South-East Queensland - An analysis of travel data from 1992 to 2009
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/aboutus/corpinfo/Open%20data/householdtravelsurveyreport/HouseholdTravelinsoutheastQueensland.pdf

Putting aside the failure to invest in public transport for a moment, even on a car-centric basis, this project is a bad idea. The Pine River bridge is already a traffic jam during peak hours. Feeding more traffic into it will only make this worse.

I am actually all for the tunnel in principle. We should be advocating for joint delivery of a corresponding train tunnel happening at the same time as proposed by Council.

Quote from: verbatim9 on October 29, 2023, 12:24:45 PMI am actually all for the tunnel in principle. We should be advocating for joint delivery of a corresponding train tunnel happening at the same time as proposed by Council.

Agreed. If it's going to be a thing that happens, then there may be an opportunity to have public transport objectives met at the same time. It'd be nice if we could get both a busway/BERT and rail solution up alongside any tolled road.

Quote from: RedirentAgreed. If it's going to be a thing that happens, then there may be an opportunity to have public transport objectives met at the same time. It'd be nice if we could get both a busway/BERT and rail solution up alongside any tolled road.

Well, what about the co-construction of the Northern Busway as a tunnel within the Gympie Road corridor from Kedron to Chermside/Carseldine? Would that be possible? The Northern Busway was co-built with the AirportLink project, so it has been done before.

Yes, this would strand the newly-built transitway. But the ask and planning was all for a Priority A Northern Busway to Chermside, or NWTC PT corridor, neither of which has been delivered. Delivery of a transitway represents a dilution of the original Northern Busway project.

Conceptually, the surface Transitway could be converted to T2 lanes... or wide separated cycling lanes from Chermside into the CBD.

Thoughts?

"Here's some blunt truth — I haven't seen a single North American city with a stated policy goal of mobility "balance" that has actual street standards/designs, budgets, supporting land use etc that would actually ACHIEVE balance. It's usually code for the status quo — cars first."

https://x.com/brenttoderian/status/1591664328973119488?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

I feel like this corrdior is busy enough that we could have both BRT and rail. Surface BRT for the shorter, local trips, and rail for medium-to-longer distance journeys.

Burying the cars might end up making Gympie Rd a more pleasant place for active transport, too. Have proper segregated bike lines, improve streetscaping and shade for pedestrians, maximum 50 km/h speed limit (maybe 40), pedestrian/cycle priority at intersections, and no more than 2 lanes each way for cars.

QuoteI feel like this corrdior is busy enough that we could have both BRT and rail. Surface BRT for the shorter, local trips, and rail for medium-to-longer distance journeys.

Surface BRT seems achievable, it just needs more BCC Metro BRT buses, works at Chermside interchange, and possibly some Northern Busway missing links fixed. There would also need to be a depot on the Northside for the bi-arctic bus vehicles to recharge.

It won't have the capacity of a full Priority A Northern Busway, but it is a measure working towards that. Depending on how long the bus stop areas were, you might be able to get a Metro BRT bus every 1-2 minutes out of Chermside.

That would give capacity in the range of 4500 - 9000 pphd in peak.   

Quote from: achiruel on October 29, 2023, 14:38:20 PMI feel like this corrdior is busy enough that we could have both BRT and rail. Surface BRT for the shorter, local trips, and rail for medium-to-longer distance journeys.

Burying the cars might end up making Gympie Rd a more pleasant place for active transport, too. Have proper segregated bike lines, improve streetscaping and shade for pedestrians, maximum 50 km/h speed limit (maybe 40), pedestrian/cycle priority at intersections, and no more than 2 lanes each way for cars.

We can achieve this without burying the cars!'


https://thecityfix.com/blog/traffic-evaporation-what-really-happens-when-road-space-is-reallocated-from-cars/

QuoteRoad development throughout the 20th century was based primarily on the premise that more infrastructure eases traffic. But evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic. When travel time by car is reduced and convenience increased, coupled with the appeal of the private vehicle as a continued indicator of wealth and standing, people are inclined to make more car trips. A recent working paper by researchers from the University of Barcelona, using data from 545 European cities from 1985-2005, confirms that capacity expansion efforts over two decades led to more vehicle traffic, not less, and congestion was not relieved.

A reverse effect to traffic generation is the phenomenon of "traffic evaporation": traffic that disappears when road space is reallocated from private vehicles to more sustainable modes of transport like walking, cycling and public transportation. While traffic evaporation has been well-documented for more than 20 years, most decision- and opinion-makers are still under the impression that reducing car lanes will make traffic worse.   

In 2001, researchers Cairns, Atkins and Goodwin published a paper in Municipal Engineer reviewing 70 road space reallocation cases, including testimonials from 200 traffic engineers and planners in multiple countries. The researchers concluded that predictions of unbearable traffic as a result of reallocating space away from private vehicles were, in most cases, alarmist. People adjusted their behavior in ways that traffic models did not accurately predict. When lanes were reassigned from car traffic to higher-capacity modes – sidewalks, bike lanes and bus or rail lanes – traffic issues were less severe than expected, and traffic volumes were significantly reduced.

Naturally, there were strong variations on this effect depending on the local context, background conditions and how the road space reallocation projects were planned and implemented, but the general results were more positive than negative. There was not a traffic apocalypse. Traffic was reduced not only for the roads where lanes were reassigned, but on nearby streets too in most cases. Out of 57 interventions where traffic was not completely shut down, 45 saw reductions in traffic and 11 increases. The maximum decrease in traffic was 60% and maximum increase 9%, with a simple average of 10% reduction.* In one case traffic remained the same before and after the intervention.

Why did this happen? According to the authors of the study, the projects in several cases included new traffic management plans, such as coordination of traffic signals, to make traffic more efficient. But in many cases, individual drivers changed not only their routes but their departure times, "flattening" out peaks in travel times. Other drivers changed their destinations (e.g., shopping in a different location) or consolidated their trips (a concept known as "trip chaining"), shared their vehicles with others or teleworked more often. Several months after the interventions, more people started moving to and working in areas with greater access to modes of transport other than cars, and even developers changed their plans. Road space reallocation seemed to ignite behavior changes and break habits of private car usage that may not have been broken otherwise.

More recently, European cities and some urban areas in the United States and Canada have further confirmed this effect, often through even more aggressive space reallocation initiatives.

The 2009 pedestrianization of Times Square in New York City is a notable example. According to local authorities, since the area was closed to traffic, pedestrian injuries have declined 40% and vehicular accidents by 15%. In London, in 2019, a bridge over the Thames was closed due to maintenance issues, and the press expected total chaos. But levels of noise and air pollution reduced significantly in the area around the bridge. Similar effects have been observed after the pedestrianization of downtown Copenhagen and the smart management of traffic parking in San Francisco and Zurich. One of the most emblematic cases is the demolition of the Cheonggyecheon elevated expressway in Seoul. Despite concerns that its demolition would exacerbate traffic problems, the long-feared increase in traffic never arrived.

All this does not mean that cities don't require adequate road connectivity among rural areas and other cities. But reducing road space for cars in denser areas while improving areas for walking, cycling and public transportation clearly does not produce the chaos many believe it will. It is actually a more sustainable and equitable way of improving mobility in dense and fast-growing cities.

QuoteBut evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic.

I have seen this claim a lot, but having something repeated a lot or by important/prominent people does not necessarily make a claim true. Fortunately, this theory creates a testable claim and prediction.

- If new roads create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be rising over time.

- If new roads do not create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be flat or falling over time.

What we see with trip generation rates in SEQ, is they are stable or flat over the past three decades. From 3.6 trips per person in 1992 to 3.3 trips per person with the most recently available figures from TMR (2009). And SEQ has had plenty of new or expanded roads since 1992.

So the reason why new roads run out of capacity is because the population is constantly increasing, not because the road-km length in the transport network has increased. At least for the SEQ case.

Study Construction

Why do different studies draw different conclusions? IMO it might be perspective.

Some studies will look at a particular road or corridor, other studies will look at the whole-of-transport network.

IMO, only a whole-of-network study would be able to pick up genuine induction.

A car trip that moves from one time of day to another, or from one road to another road is not a new trip. It is an existing trip that has been retimed or relocated, and thus cannot be said to be 'induced' or 'created'.

Have any of the existing tunnels resulted in better active or public transport - Clem7, Legacy Way or the Airport Link? I am dubious of this personally. A concerted effort would need to be made to "take" lanes from Gympie Road but this would be very unpopular. Better to just put PT underground to start with.

Quote from: #Metro on October 29, 2023, 18:37:48 PM

QuoteBut evidence shows that road building, instead of reducing congestion, actually increases traffic.

I have seen this claim a lot, but having something repeated a lot or by important/prominent people does not necessarily make a claim true. Fortunately, this theory creates a testable claim and prediction.

- If new roads create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be rising over time.

- If new roads do not create new trips, then the trip generation rate for SEQ should be flat or falling over time.

What we see with trip generation rates in SEQ, is they are stable or flat over the past three decades. From 3.6 trips per person in 1992 to 3.3 trips per person with the most recently available figures from TMR (2009). And SEQ has had plenty of new or expanded roads since 1992.

So the reason why new roads run out of capacity is because the population is constantly increasing, not because the road-km length in the transport network has increased. At least for the SEQ case.

Study Construction

Why do different studies draw different conclusions? IMO it might be perspective.

Some studies will look at a particular road or corridor, other studies will look at the whole-of-transport network.

IMO, only a whole-of-network study would be able to pick up genuine induction.

A car trip that moves from one time of day to another, or from one road to another road is not a new trip. It is an existing trip that has been retimed or relocated, and thus cannot be said to be 'induced' or 'created'.

Pity all the peer reviewed research says that the is a 1:1 relationship between additional road capacity and increase traffic (don't care if it's a new trip or a different old trip it is additional traffic...and here is the kicker...after discounting population growth!!

QuotePity all the peer reviewed research says that the is a 1:1 relationship between additional road capacity and increase traffic (don't care if it's a new trip or a different old trip it is additional traffic...and here is the kicker...after discounting population growth!!

Well, supporters need to explain where the missing induced SEQ traffic is then.

Under traffic induction theory we might expect to see trip generation rates of 3.8 trips/person, 4 trips/person etc for the SEQ region. Can they show this?

If the observations do not align with what traffic induction theory predicts, then we cannot use it to make reliable claims about the impact of new road projects in SEQ. Travel demand being a multiple of population level already neatly explains the increased traffic and the steady or falling trip generation rate. What additional explanatory power is then added by invoking traffic induction?

Precise definitions also matter. In the context of increasing population, we expect new or expanded roads to be used, just as we would expect new bus or train services to be patronised. But re-arranging deck chairs on a ship is not the same as creating new deck chairs.

Mode Shift. You could suggest that new road/expanded road might cause a mode shift of an existing trip from PT to car, keeping the total number of trips constant. The problem with calling this induction is it does not distinguish between (a) mode shift and (b) existing motorists generating additional new car trips. That, and just calling it what it is - mode shift- seems to be a much better representation.

In any case, even this interpretation does not seem to be supported by the SEQ data on Page 10. PT mode share is also constant at 7-8% for the entire period 1992-2009 as well. The expected shift from PT to roads isn't seen here.

Page 10 - PT trips are essentially unchanged at 7-8% from 1992-2009.
Red - Car. Blue - PT. Green - Walking. Lime - Cycling.



Notes
Travel in South-East Queensland - An analysis of travel data from 1992 to 2009
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/aboutus/corpinfo/Open%20data/householdtravelsurveyreport/HouseholdTravelinsoutheastQueensland.pdf

I would start here

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/Urban-Transport-Systems-TAS-Discussion-Paper-December-2021-revised.pdf

And here

https://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

North Brisbane Infrastructure Gympie Road Bypass

https://www.northbrisbaneinfrastructure.com.au

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1718758766404096418?s=20

 

Quick question. Is North Brisbane Infrastructure exempt from the laws of false advertising? Claims of improved travel time and reduced congestion are easily proven as "false statements"