RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Well we call road widening projects "Congestion-Busting" and that is about as far from the truth as Faster Rail

I would be calling it Logan & Gold Coast Capacity Improvement Project, but maybe that's too many words?

K2B upgrade ...

 

Quote from: ozbob on November 30, 2023, 16:27:37 PMK2B upgrade ...

 

I seem to recall TMR people calling it that (or something along those lines) in our meetings.

Government Statement

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/99954

Major contractors shortlisted to deliver Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail and Loganlea Station Relocation projects

22nd March 2024

Minister for Transport and Main Roads and Minister for Digital Services
The Honourable Bart Mellish

. Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail is one step closer after major contractors shortlisted to tender for three works packages.

. The project will double the number of tracks between Kuraby and Beenleigh, enabling more train services.

. This project will improve journey times and safety for road and rail users, removing crossings at Kuraby, Woodridge, Bethania, Holmview, and Beenleigh, and upgrading intersections.

The Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail (LGC) Project is taking a major step forward with major contractors shortlisted for three individual packages of work:

. ActivUs consortium (consisting of CPB Contractors, Acciona Contractors, UGL Engineering, SMEC Australia and WSP Australia) and Activate consortium (consisting of John Holland Queensland, Aurecon Australasia and AECOM Australia) have been shortlisted for the LGC Rail Package.

. Two joint ventures have been shortlisted for the LGC OLCR Package - Beilby Holdings with JF Hull Holdings, and BMD Constructions with Fulton Hogan Construction.

. ADCO Construction, DT Infrastructure and the joint venture of Martinus Rail and Degnan have been shortlisted for the Loganlea Station Relocation Project.

Over the next six months, the major contractors will put forward their proposals for the individual project packages, including design, construction plans and cost.

The successful companies to deliver the works will be announced later this year.

The announcement follows a year of significant progress including refining the reference design, extensive survey and geotechnical investigation works and community engagement. The Government is also working towards important final environmental approvals from the Federal Government.

Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail will remove five level crossings, improving journey times and safety for road and rail users. This includes building three road-over-rail overpasses and removing two level crossings, while upgrading intersections and improving the local road network.

The project will also deliver modern and accessible stations between Kuraby and Beenleigh, which will provide improved access to the train network for all Logan residents.

With Cross River Rail well underway, the 20km section of rail line between Kuraby and Beenleigh (the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project corridor) is the next critical bottleneck to unlock, to provide capacity for more frequent rail services in the future.

Increasing the number of tracks from two to four and allowing the free movement of both all-stops and express trains will mean more of our fastest services can run more frequently and more reliably.

This will allow public transport users to arrive at modern and accessible stations and spend less time waiting on the platform for a service to arrive, which means easier connections to the rest of South East Queensland through the existing rail network as well as the new services to be delivered through Cross River Rail and the Direct Sunshine Coast Line.

The LGC Rail package will deliver the major rail works between Kuraby and Beenleigh including duplicating the tracks from two to four, station upgrades, local road works and active transport connections. The design and construction of this complex brownfield project will be delivered through an alliance contract.

The Loganlea Station project will relocate and upgrade Loganlea train station to better connect customers with nearby health, education, and community services – particularly Logan Hospital.

The Loganlea Station Project is costed at $173.8 million.

The broader Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project is jointly-funded by the Queensland and Australian governments with a 50-50 commitment towards the project cost of $5.75 billion.

Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail is one of several large investments in the rail network well underway along with Cross River Rail, the Beerburrum to Nambour Rail Upgrade (B2N), the European Train Control System (ETCS) and the Queensland Train Manufacturing Program (QTMP), which will build 65 new fully-accessible trains at Torbanlea, near Maryborough, to run on the South East Queensland train network.

These projects will play an important role during the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games while delivering improvements for everyday Queenslanders by providing more frequent and reliable services around South East Queensland.

Quotes attributable to Minister for Transport, Main Roads and Digital Services Bart Mellish:

"Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail is a critical project that will allow more of our fastest trains to run more often.

"Shortlisting proponents to deliver these works is an important and exciting step towards a major upgrade on our South East Queensland rail network.

"Once finalised, all of these projects will help to connect our growing communities with more frequent and reliable train services between Brisbane, Logan and the Gold Coast.

"The additional tracks will also mean more services can run, allowing customers to arrive at new, modern and accessible train stations and spend less time waiting on the platform for a train to arrive."

Quotes attributable to Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Trade and Investment and State Member for Woodridge Cameron Dick:

"It is good to see this project is proceeding.

"David Crisafulli will cut this project to direct funds towards his unfunded Sunshine Coast rail line to Maroochydore.

"I will always fight to stop LNP cuts and ensure our community gets its proper share of infrastructure funding."

Quotes attributable to Shannon Fentiman, Minister for Health and Ambulance Services and Member for Waterford:

"Our growing community need more train services, faster trains, station upgrades and active transport connections, and that's exactly what our government is delivering.

"The Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project means less time commuting and more time with family.

"I'm thrilled we've now reached this significant milestone and look forward to seeing what those who've been shortlisted come up with for this game changing project."

Quotes attributable to Melissa McMahon, Member for Macalister:

"The Miles Government has a great track record delivering public transport projects for the people of South East Queensland that reduce the amount of time spent commuting.

"This is great news for my community and I welcome today's announcement that will see successful contractors confirmed by the end of the year."

Quotes attributable to James Martin, Member for Stretton:

"The Miles Government's rail revolution is well underway in South East Queensland and the people of Stretton will benefit from more frequent trains and less time spent commuting.

"Along with station upgrades, better active transport connections, this is a great project that will make a big difference to my community."

"I'm thrilled that this vital upgrade is progressing. My community and I are pleased as we are one step closer to removing the Kuraby level crossing."

Further information on Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail is available on the project website.

ENDS

Facebook ...

Quote from: Media Release"The Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project means less time commuting and more time with family.

Yes, like < 5 min. Similar to the margin for late running.

Project is better characterised as a capacity enhancing project not a speed enhancing one.

I'm curious to know if the bespoke/custom stations are a major contributor to the unit per-km cost difference between us and Perth.

Could a more standardised station design reduce costs?

Station designs are already fairly standard, except for a few where the station has to adapt into the less flat geography / constrained surrounds like at Woodridge or Beenleigh

Speaking of Woodridge, I wonder if QR will do their policy of naming stations after their location for the rebuild, and call it Logan Central? Trinder Park could then be renamed Woodridge, and we would have two stations named after their respective suburbs, instead of one after an aged care facility.

Quote from: achiruel on March 23, 2024, 18:03:39 PMSpeaking of Woodridge, I wonder if QR will do their policy of naming stations after their location for the rebuild, and call it Logan Central? Trinder Park could then be renamed Woodridge, and we would have two stations named after their respective suburbs, instead of one after an aged care facility.

Woodridge should become Logan Cebtral and straddle Wembley Rd with bus stop underneath!!

Quote from: Jonno on March 23, 2024, 18:22:20 PMWoodridge should become Logan Cebtral and straddle Wembley Rd with bus stop underneath!!

I thought this for a while, but I've reconsidered because the area around Woodridge station passes for a local town centre whereas Wembley Road is... a road.

I'd even call the Council site more connected to the current station than a relocated one.

We know most development of the last half century hasn't been favourable to rail, but it's also not sustainable long-term development. Railway stations shouldn't be "chasing" the flow of cars out to arterial roads and declining shopping malls.

(Edit: apologies if you're actually taking the p%ss here, I couldn't quite tell 😂)

Annoyingly, the bus station at the Kmart is already called Logan Central Station.

I guess when I think major road I envision 👇🏻 (less the street parking)



Not



To me a station that integrates bus platforms into a connected station make a lot of sense?

Quote from: achiruel on March 23, 2024, 18:03:39 PMSpeaking of Woodridge, I wonder if QR will do their policy of naming stations after their location for the rebuild, and call it Logan Central? Trinder Park could then be renamed Woodridge, and we would have two stations named after their respective suburbs, instead of one after an aged care facility.

If they were going to name it based on the suburb the station resides in, the new Trinder Park wouldn't be renamed Woodridge - going by the maps I've seen, the new station won't actually sit in the suburb of Woodridge, or even the City of Logan for that matter!

The actual land that the station will occupy is part of the Brisbane suburb of Karawatha.

^ Even better, Woodridge can become Logan Central, Trinder Park can become Karawatha, and the 2 old station names can disappear!

To rename Woodridge Station, you would need to rename Logan Central Bus Station to avoid confusion "Logan Central Plaza" would probably be the most apt for the location.

Naming a new Trinder Park Station "Karawatha" would just go to show how rigidly naming stations after their location isn't always a good idea. A "Karawatha Station" would see itself in the exact same situation as the Gold Coast's Hope Island Station. It was originally to be called "Helensvale North" as it physically sat inside the suburb of Helensvale. However, the public saw this as a stupid name for the station, and the Government accepted public calls to change the name to that of the neighbouring suburb of Hope Island - the gateway to which was literally right next to the station.

Karawatha has a population of probably a couple of hundred people now (the 2016 census put it at 19) and is largely made up of the sprawling forest of the same name - I'm sure a lot of people would have no idea where Karawatha is. Conversely, Woodridge is a prominent suburb of 13,500 people, and is the much more known location (for better or worse). The only way to access the station is from Woodridge - both the driveway to the park n ride and the roads that lead to it are in Woodridge. While the park n ride and station itself are both in Karawatha, there is no direct access to the station from within the suburb of Karawatha.

For these reasons, I think it would make little sense to call it Karawatha. Woodridge would be the more accurate, but I honestly don't mind it keeping the name Trinder Park, and keeping alive the history of the location and that of Arthur "Pop" Trinder, the developer who subdivided much of the property in the area and donated the parcel of 220 acres to the Lutheran Church that now today houses the Trinder Park Aged Care facility.

MyCityLogan --> Bus bonanza during rail boost

QuoteState-owned buses are set to provide train commuters with greater travel options once construction starts on Logan's major rail upgrade.

The first 165 of 200 Brisbane-made replacement buses are rolling off the production line.

The government-owned Volvo buses will be used during track closures across a variety of regional rail projects.

They will be the main saviour for local commuters when construction of the Faster Rail project begins, which will consist of doubling almost 20km of track, removing the city's level crossings, and relocating multiple stations.

It remains unclear when construction will start, but Transport and Main Roads promised to "keep people moving" once it does.

"The rail replacement buses are about providing easier arrangements during track closures," a Translink spokesperson said. ...

Queensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2024/474-2024.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 474
Asked on 30 April 2024

MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS AND MINISTER
FOR DIGITAL SERVICES (HON B MELLISH)

QUESTION:

With reference to property resumptions for the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project—
Will the Minister advise (reported separately by suburb) (a) the number of properties that require
resumption (part or in whole) for the project, based on the current design and (b) the number of
properties where the property owner has previously been advised in writing that the property is
required for the project (whole or part resumption) however have subsequently been advised that
the property is now not required?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

The Queensland Government is delivering the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project, which
is essential to support population growth and customer demand between Brisbane, Logan and
the Gold Coast.

Currently, all services on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh line are constrained by single tracks in
each direction between Kuraby and Beenleigh. The major rail upgrade project will double the
number of tracks from two to four, increasing capacity, reliability and service frequency of both
all-stops and express trains.

The Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project will also improve accessibility by building:
. nine new train stations between Kuraby and Beenleigh (including Loganlea, which is funded
separately)
. removing five level crossings
. improving park 'n' ride facilities
.  providing a new continuous active travel path connecting to stations along the 20km section
of upgraded tracks.

Since August 2021, the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has been consulting
with potentially impacted property owners to discuss the reference design, detailed design and
the land acquisition process.

a) Many properties will only be partially impacted (a part take), including where a nature strip
or portion of the back yard are required. In this instance, property owners and residents are
not required to move from their home or land.

The number of government owned and vacant land, commercial properties, and residential
properties that require resumption (part or in whole), as of 30 May 2024, for the project
based on the current design include:

Runcorn 6
Kuraby 64
Karawatha 8
Woodridge 23
Logan Central 23
Kingston 43
Meadowbrook 10
Loganlea 18
Bethania 38
Edens Landing 11
Holmview 8
Beenleigh 81.

About 57 per cent are wholly required, and the remaining 43 per cent are only required in
part.

Of this, the number of residential properties that require resumption (part or in whole) as of
30 May 2024 for the project, based on the current design are:

. 37 which only require a partial resumption of land, and
. 56 where the whole property is acquired.

As part of the project, 28 homes were salvaged from demolition. Of these, the Department
of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works has already relocated 16 homes
and another 12 are programmed for relocation and reuse as affordable housing.

b) Design refinement activities mean some properties initially identified for resumption are no
longer required. These property owners would have been consulted in the initial phase of
the project, ahead of corridor gazettal and design activities.

While property impacts have been avoided in various locations across the 20-kilometre
project corridor, the majority of these have been in Beenleigh, due to the relocation of
Beenleigh station to a new site closer to the Town Square, which will improve connectivity
and access to transport for the community.

The number of properties where the property owner has previously been advised in writing
that the property is required for the project (whole or part resumption) however have
subsequently been advised that the property is now not required include:

Runcorn 1
Meadowbrook 1
Kuraby 2
Karawatha 2
Bethania 5
Woodridge 7
Edens Landing 8
Logan Central 6
Kingston 9
Beenleigh 43.

The Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project remains a high priority for the Queensland
Government to improve rail services between some of South East Queensland's fastest
growing cities and deliver integrated transport outcomes for local communities.

It is also a significant and key infrastructure investment in the lead up to the Brisbane 2032
Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Is it possible to search Hansard and see if that question has ever been asked about a freeway widening? Asking for a friend!

Queensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2024/603-2024.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 603
Asked on 21 May 2024

MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS AND MINISTER
FOR DIGITAL SERVICES (HON B MELLISH)

QUESTION:

With reference to the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail—

Will the Minister advise (a) the projected travel time saving between Beenleigh and Altandi station
once the project is complete, (b) the current percentage of the track within the project area that
has a design speed of 100km/h and the percentage that this will increase to on completion of the
project and (c) the current percentage of the track within the project area that has a design speed
of 140km/h and the percentage that this will increase to on completion of the project?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

(a) I refer the Member to the response to Question on Notice No. 514 tabled on 24 June 2022.
(b&c) Currently, 52 per cent of track within the existing corridor has a design speed of 100km/hr.
In the reference design, this increases to 66 per cent. 43 per cent of current track within
the existing corridor has a design speed of 140km/hr. In the reference design this
increases to 48 per cent.

Incremental design speed and alignment improvements have been applied to the express
(outside) tracks along the corridor, where geometry and space permits. The main section
of the corridor with the most significant increase in design speed is the straightened
realignment at Trinder Park.

====

^

Question on Notice No. 514 tabled on 24 June 2022

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableoffice/questionsanswers/2022/514-2022.pdf

That doesnt make sense, how can 66% be at 100, but then 48% at 140?

Quote43 per cent of current track within
the existing corridor has a design speed of 140km/hr

Is this true? I dont think there is a single 140 board between Altandi and Beenleigh.

Bob, may be worth emailing the project team for a proper response?

 

I think they are a bit mixed up.  Possibly the entire corridor south from Altandi.

I have requested clarification from logangoldcoastrail@tmr.qld.gov.au

Quote from: HansardANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

(a) I refer the Member to the response to Question on Notice No. 514 tabled on 24 June 2022.

Why is there no value given in minutes? They must have a numerical estimate in minutes because to do the BCR you need to calculate the value of time savings, hence the need for a number there.

Quote from: Gazza on June 24, 2024, 15:41:58 PMThat doesnt make sense, how can 66% be at 100, but then 48% at 140?

Quote43 per cent of current track within
the existing corridor has a design speed of 140km/hr

Is this true? I dont think there is a single 140 board between Altandi and Beenleigh.

Bob, may be worth emailing the project team for a proper response?

I suspect some of the corridor is absolutely capable of accommodating 140km/h even now, just they don't bother given the constraints of the single track and timetable (and that up until more recently there has been a higher proportion of older trains that can't reach those speeds). 

With express tracks, the eventual phasing out of the EMUs and restricting SMU200s and SMU220s to say Cleveland and Ferny Grove, I think they should be able to wring some more speed out of the corridor since we will be able to throw an NGR at the express section which does not have to deal with all stopping trains ahead (plus cant, alignment and other improvements). 

Should also be possible to improve timetables for certain other lines where the infrastructure is capable of these speeds and station intervals permit all-stations trains to sit at those speeds for a decent chunk of the time (eg Springfield).

Quote from: #Metro on June 24, 2024, 17:53:49 PM

Quote from: HansardANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

(a) I refer the Member to the response to Question on Notice No. 514 tabled on 24 June 2022.

Why is there no value given in minutes? They must have a numerical estimate in minutes because to do the BCR you need to calculate the value of time savings, hence the need for a number there.

the question was vague and it depends what document detail they are referring too. Ie sector running times ie traveltrain, tilttrain qr stock (this encompasses 100 max fleet of EMU/SMU200) and signalling. I suspect they are also trying to keep network ops quiet as there is a definite short fall with the network due to CRR, QTMP/rollingstock uncertainty and other infrastructure in the pipeline such as Sunshine Coast.

Quote from: ozbob on June 24, 2024, 15:49:28 PM

I think they are a bit mixed up.  Possibly the entire corridor south from Altandi.

I have requested clarification from logangoldcoastrail@tmr.qld.gov.au

I have received this response:

====

4th July 2024

Good afternoon Robert,

Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Logan and Gold Coast (LGC) Faster Rail project.

The percentages provided in the answer to part (b) and (c) of the Question on Notice No. 603 refer only to the track within the project corridor, namely between Kuraby and Beenleigh.

To answer your query regarding the discrepancy, the value of 66 refers to the per cent of track which will have a design speed of 100km/hr or greater. The 48 per cent of track within the corridor which will have a design speed of 140km/hr is inclusive of the 66 per cent, rather than in addition to.

To state it differently:

. 66% of the alignment has a design speed of 100 km/hr (or greater). Therefore 34% of the alignment has a design speed less than 100km/hr.

. 48% of the alignment has a design speed of 140 km/hr (or greater). Therefore 52% of the alignment has a design speed less than 140km/hr.

I hope this answers your question. As always, if you have any further questions at all please don't hesitate to reach out.

Kind regards,

Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail
Department of Transport and Main Roads
Creek Street | Brisbane Qld 4000
GPO Box 50 | Brisbane Qld 4001
P:1800 957 066 (Monday to Friday, 9am-5pm)
E:Logangoldcoastrail@tmr.qld.gov.au
W:www.tmr.qld.gov.au/logangoldcoastrail

Quote from: ozbob on June 24, 2024, 12:30:50 PMQueensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2024/603-2024.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 603
Asked on 21 May 2024

MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS AND MINISTER
FOR DIGITAL SERVICES (HON B MELLISH)

QUESTION:

With reference to the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail—

Will the Minister advise (a) the projected travel time saving between Beenleigh and Altandi station
once the project is complete, (b) the current percentage of the track within the project area that
has a design speed of 100km/h and the percentage that this will increase to on completion of the
project and (c) the current percentage of the track within the project area that has a design speed
of 140km/h and the percentage that this will increase to on completion of the project?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

(a) I refer the Member to the response to Question on Notice No. 514 tabled on 24 June 2022.
(b&c) Currently, 52 per cent of track within the existing corridor has a design speed of 100km/hr.
In the reference design, this increases to 66 per cent. 43 per cent of current track within
the existing corridor has a design speed of 140km/hr. In the reference design this
increases to 48 per cent.

Incremental design speed and alignment improvements have been applied to the express
(outside) tracks along the corridor, where geometry and space permits. The main section
of the corridor with the most significant increase in design speed is the straightened
realignment at Trinder Park.

That makes sense.

Ok, so there's about 17km between Kuraby and Beenleigh (17.5 right now, but there's some straightening right?)

It's only really an extra half km of 140km/h track - as SurfRail says, any speed improvements for expresses will come from the quadruplication and being able to sustain higher speeds.

A bit of high school physics shows that a train with EMU-like acceleration (0.78 m/s/s) and braking (1.17 m/s/s) could accelerate from 0 to 140 km/h and then brake back to a halt in 1.6 km. I use EMUs because there's a figure on Wikipedia. With a rolling start and stop of 50 km/h (e.g. to pass through a station or a bend) that figure reduces to 1.4 km.

Suppose we have a 2km inter-station distance, top speed is 140 km/h. All-stops with a 20 second dwell time, you're talking at least 113 seconds between leaving one station and leaving the next. If you can run express through both stations at a nominal 50 km/h, the sectional time gets down to to 69 seconds.

If our top speed is just 100 km/h, the all-stopper takes 122 s, the express takes 80.

At 100 km/h or 140 km/h, about half the time savings on a 2km interstation appears to be due to the rolling start/stop and the other half due to zero dwell time.

Good estimate but just bear in mind trains don't accelerate to the posted stats (SMU260/IMU160 were detuned from their production due to running issues in testing/EMUs use don't use asbestos pads anymore etc), each train has different gearing/top speeds and each handles differently depending how aggressive the timetable is ie coasting and braking vs flat out and then brake. Good idea otherwise.

Yeah good points. If say I knock 19% off acceleration and braking performance it now takes 1.995 km of my theoretical 2km interstation to go from 0-140 and back down again. This slows all services down, but the stoppers are slowed by about 5 seconds more.

Of course, there's a lot that goes into timetabling I think we've all realised it at some point or another but a big part of the improvement here might not even necessarily be from direct speed improvements but rather from enabling more crosses which supports higher bidirectional frequency.

Although...

I drew up some diagrams. On current Park Rd timings (not that they'll stay, post-CRR) if we wanted 15 minute full-distance bidirectional frequency, with a bit of fudge factor for ~2.5km / ~2.5 minute slots, it looks like there's there are 4 tracks unavoidably needed in three places: for a moment between Woodridge & Kingston, Kuruby & Runcorn, and Banoon to Coopers Plains.
Shifting GC services (both directions) to be 8 minutes later might actually resolve these, though it's still pretty close to needing 4x in the Altandi-Kuraby section.

Correspondence received.

6th September 2024

 ... Thank you for your detailed feedback submission and your interest in the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail (LGC) project.

As you'll be aware, engagement on the refined reference design for the LGC project (and Loganlea Station Relocation's detailed design) was conducted late last year, with feedback used to guide procurement activities and future design development.

The summary is now available here: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/programs/logan-and-gold-coast-faster-rail#engagement

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort taken to share your concerns and feedback with us. We recognise the importance of the points raised in your submission around station design and integration with the surrounding community, including better connections with the broader transport and active transport networks.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is continuing to progress procurement activities for both the LSR and LGC projects, with the successful proponents to be announced later this year. Your valuable insights have helped to inform these activities as well as further design development once contractors are appointed in late 2024.  ...

Quote• Due to funding outcomes, TMR has
reviewed the design and will provide
an at-grade park 'n' ride at the new
station, matching the current number
of spaces available.

No more multi level car park for Loganlea...

No real commitment to any project changes in the survey outcome, and no mention of all of changes to the corridor to improve alignment and speeds. Just lots of "exploring options"

Being vague is the new norm when playing catch up.

Ok - since I can log on now I've been mulling over some ideas to improve the LGCFR project. I think it's safe to say that if it goes ahead it will be on the current alignment, so trying to offer a whole new alignment is pointless. However, there are a few changes that if are embraced by the powers that be could be an improvement to the current proposal, at least in my opinion. I'd love to hear other thoughts.

My main thoughts are around the Holmview/Eden's Landing section. My personal opinion regarding Holmview stations is to just close and demolish. Beenleigh is being moved closer to Holmview, and the patronage is so low there I don't believe it's worth the relatively large cost to building a brand new station. This would also save a few funds which I think could be used better elsewhere.

Regarding Eden's Landing, I think it'd be worth considering relocating the station to another location between the current station and Holmview, somewhere near the end of Houdini Tce. I'll try and attach a link to a screenshot so I can show what I mean.

My reasons for relocating the station there would be that there is a better walk-up catchment there. The current location of the station isn't really close to housing, and the housing that is relatively close could be connected with a footpath through the bush/parkland and that would make the distance not a whole lot further. This location is also pretty close to the river, and I reckon it'd be great to have a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the river to connect with the neighbouring residents at Tanah Merah. This could open up a new catchment for the station and potentially boost patronage, especially for people that might want to get to Beenleigh, Logan Hospital/TAFE etc.

I have other thoughts on the project too, but would love to hear some thoughts about this idea.

Quote from: ilovebrisvegas on September 21, 2024, 13:21:06 PMOk - since I can log on now I've been mulling over some ideas to improve the LGCFR project. I think it's safe to say that if it goes ahead it will be on the current alignment, so trying to offer a whole new alignment is pointless. However, there are a few changes that if are embraced by the powers that be could be an improvement to the current proposal, at least in my opinion. I'd love to hear other thoughts.

My main thoughts are around the Holmview/Eden's Landing section. My personal opinion regarding Holmview stations is to just close and demolish. Beenleigh is being moved closer to Holmview, and the patronage is so low there I don't believe it's worth the relatively large cost to building a brand new station. This would also save a few funds which I think could be used better elsewhere.

Regarding Eden's Landing, I think it'd be worth considering relocating the station to another location between the current station and Holmview, somewhere near the end of Houdini Tce. I'll try and attach a link to a screenshot so I can show what I mean.

My reasons for relocating the station there would be that there is a better walk-up catchment there. The current location of the station isn't really close to housing, and the housing that is relatively close could be connected with a footpath through the bush/parkland and that would make the distance not a whole lot further. This location is also pretty close to the river, and I reckon it'd be great to have a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the river to connect with the neighbouring residents at Tanah Merah. This could open up a new catchment for the station and potentially boost patronage, especially for people that might want to get to Beenleigh, Logan Hospital/TAFE etc.

I have other thoughts on the project too, but would love to hear some thoughts about this idea.

EDIT: Ok, I can't figure out how to upload the image haha. Any help would be appreciated!

You have to preview the post before you get the option to attach files. Add the image as a file and then there is a button to insert inline.

If editing, you have to click more then modify instead of quick edit.

Awesome, image uploaded, thank you RowBro!

Woodridge has a similar opportunity to be rebuilt over Wembley Rd and integrate to an online bus station below.

Quote from: Jonno on September 21, 2024, 16:00:19 PMWoodridge has a similar opportunity to be rebuilt over Wembley Rd and integrate to an online bus station below.

Agreed. I also heard there's a 7,000 seat indoor sports centre being built nearby which would be better suited to that location as well.

Quote from: ilovebrisvegas on September 21, 2024, 16:42:32 PM

Quote from: Jonno on September 21, 2024, 16:00:19 PMWoodridge has a similar opportunity to be rebuilt over Wembley Rd and integrate to an online bus station below.

Agreed. I also heard there's a 7,000 seat indoor sports centre being built nearby which would be better suited to that location as well.

🤦🤦🤦🤦🏽🤦🤦🤦🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🤦🤦