RAIL - Back On Track Forum

The transport investment of the last 30 years has failed

Mode Share

The other thing is for the most part, most people here aren't advocating for massive projects at the moment. Simply a network that acts as a network! Prpper feeder buses feeding the western lines would do wonders to start with, let alone same on the north!

But unfortunately that doesn't grab big headlines, especially before an election, thus sometimes, as Gazza pointed out, sometimes need to fight fore with fire. Once everything settles again, then go for the low hanging fruit again.

How about we ask for what we need directly?

The current administration might have a 'tell people what they want to hear' approach but that is actually part of the reason why this current govt administration is likely to be removed from office.

They simply cannot deliver on what they promised in 2011 because both the funds and labour are not there.

Metros get a lot of attention because like HSR they feed into a highly symbolic progress narrative that resonates - and who would not want a Ferrari if offered one - but this is to confuse modes with service quality characteristics like frequency, span and speed.

We can get frequency, span and speed on our existing modes. Without paying $20b, and within 1-2 terms of office. Trains at Indooroopilly only take 10 minutes to Central and already run at metro frequencies in peak. They just need a top-up into the off-peak.

How can we communicate our needs without resorting to $20b expensive metro proposals etc?

This is the challenge, but I think Brisbane Metro, CityGliders and Sydney's Rail clearways program from 2000 do establish that it is possible.

The key is stop the billions being wasted creating a bigger problem!!

This is why we can't even get low hanging fruit!

Accepting the leftover crumbs is what has got us here.

All their focus is on THEIR multi-billion dollar project.

Quote from: Jonno on September 11, 2024, 12:14:13 PMThe transport investment of the last 30 years has failed

The statistic is pretty shocking but also hard to read in those graphs.
It might be easier to recreate the graph as a timeline of transport share (car, bus, train, active). Ignore the targets as they are always bogus anyway.
Not sure if you have this, but spending on each mode of transport would be very interesting as well. Obviously, cars have most of the funding, which has translated to the transport share.

Quote from: ozbob on September 11, 2024, 12:03:26 PMThis is getting some good traction.  Just completed an interview with 7 News Brisbane.

Calls for Queensland government to cancel tunnel plans | 7NEWS



I said a lot more than what made the cut of course.  I did stress the need to improve what we have, increased service frequency, better connectivity and so forth. 

Quote from: Jonno on September 11, 2024, 12:14:13 PMThe transport investment of the last 30 years has failed

Of course.

Primary issue is not a lack of infrastructure but a lack of service. Roads are also getting faster off-peak as they are upgraded while the train timetable slows down over time to maintain reliability and OTR metrics.

And comments about Melbourne and Sydney per capita patronage being higher than Perth are not entirely sound.

The relation between density and patronage is non-linear, and there is no credible or practical quick and cheap way to get to Melbourne or Sydney densities (or number of train stations) any time soon.

Yes, Perth built a lot of rail quickly, but that was facilitated by placing rail into the freeway median at 10x more cheaply than Sydney (on a per km basis).

Many members here object to railways being placed into freeway corridors for TOD reasons.

And even if a metro were built, most of SEQ will still be relying on the existing commuter rail product. The task of boosting frequency at existing rail stations remains...

Quote from: HumanTransitIt's been easy to jump from those desires to the notion that since Australia doesn't have metros now, it needs to build them.  But Bowen's work in Melbourne (and our own work on the Sydney Morning Herald inquiry) are pointing out that our cities already have a network of grade-separated rail lines covering the areas of European density, and that the quickest way to get a "metro" level of mobility is simply to run these lines much more frequently.

(and run more BUZ services)

How can we move the conversation from metro lines everywhere like Paris to frequency boosts and fixing up the existing network to support Perth-style all day frequent train and BUZ service?

Australia: Pitfalls of Metro Envy
https://humantransit.org/2010/04/australia-the-pitfalls-of-metroenvy.html

An interesting thing is revisiting these threads.

Brisbane Metro to the Centenary Suburbs
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15563.msg280621#msg280621

Sending Brisbane metro to Mt Ommaney/Darra did not originally have support when this was pitched, but I think it is worth reconsidering now that we want to send a $20b (rail based) metro to the same area. The public is generally supportive of Brisbane Metro BRT and will be more so when it begins next month.

The Kenmore Rail Bypass
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14534.40

For those who would rather a more infrastructure inclined approach, building on the existing rail network is still likely to be better than a metro which has the disadvantage that it must be built out from the CBD first, buy special trains, set up a depot etc.

Extending the Springfield line into the Centenary Suburbs and constructing four new train stations (plus a fifth reconstructed Indooroopilly station) and leveraging the existing Centenary Motorway corridor for rail would provide Priority A rail at around $3-5 billion cost rather than $20b for a metro.

This incremental approach would also provide rail directly in the suburbs, rather than have to be extended in stages over time from the CBD outwards as a rail-based metro would. Importantly, this sort of approach would both meet the vision and practical aspects for a project. How about we run with something like this instead?

Kenmore Rail Bypass - Updated Line Concept
(this would link rail from Indooroopilly to Darra, similar to the proposed road tunnel)


The overall plan would then look like:

1a. Upgrade trains on the Springfield line to 15-min all day (or better) (1-2 years, $)
1b. Upgrade trains on the Ipswich line to run all day express, 15-min all day (or better) (1-2 years, $)
2. Introduce a BUZ to the Centenary Suburbs or Brisbane Metro to Mt Ommaney (2-3 years, $$)
3. Construct a rail bypass of the Centenary Motorway with four stations + rebuilt Indro (10 years, $$$).

^ Could this be a much more viable plan covering short, medium and longer terms?

How do you propose to have freight share the Ipswich line while running 15-minute all-day services?

QuoteHow about we ask for what we need directly?

What do you think this group has been campaigning for for the last 10+ years #Metro? Sometimes a different tactic is required to get some sort of attention going. The new section of the Sydney Metro is in the media and has the public's attention on PT for once, it would be stupid to not try and get in on that media hype.
People in Brisbane are actually talking about PT for once, and they're (rightly) saying its rubbish. So we throw in something like a metro/subway system as a long term goal to grab that attention, then go along with 'these are the things we can get done in the short term til we have that subway system', etc.

Most members don't particularly like freeway median running simply because it is isolated. It makes it really difficult to get to quickly, then you do actually have to start adding ridiculously large car parks. Median running stations in an urban sprawl environment are good for regional/interurban/intercity lines with minimal stops (for instance, the line the group proposes on and off from Beeneligh to the City via the M1 corridor for the Gold Coast). It's not good for suburban style lines.
Wherever possible, we should be making stations where there is multiple demand points around the station, not just a commuter system. Have proper retail, amenities, even commercial/office space where it is deemed viable etc, so the stations have all day demand and are somewhere people actually want to go rather then simply being somewhere you have to go to in order to get the train to work and back.

QuoteHow do you propose to have freight share the Ipswich line while running 15-minute all-day services?

Shouldn't really be an issue, freight isn't really a problem slotting between 15min services in other areas, I can't see it being an issue here.

Quotebetter than a metro which has the disadvantage that it must be built out from the CBD first, buy special trains, set up a depot etc.

None of those things are disadvantages, especially if the new trains are Driverless. You need new trains to supply a major new line anyway so why not order ones that are cheaper to operate?

You don't need to build out from the CBD.
The NW metro didn't start from the CBD.
The Western Sydney Airport metro isn't either.

Look at the precedents mate.

Quotepatronage being higher than Perth are not entirely sound.

The relation between density and patronage is non-linear,

Cope 

QuoteHow about we ask for what we need directly?

What should have we done instead?
Put out another proposal for some sort of funding model that incentivises bus reform?

So we got a BT article, a radio interview and a 7 news interview all in one day.
Whatever we did worked, and I have seen already on other websites large numbers of people are agreeing and saying the road tunnels are a waste, which is what we wanted. We need non RBOT voices demanding less waste on roads and more PT.

I'm not sure if it's something I am missing here but fill me in.

Frequently in the past, members like Metro and v9 have advocated DOO because half The staff means double the frequency right?

Now, of course it's difficult to implement at this point due to a lack of ATP, but still the principle makes sense.

So therefore what if we continue that logic and make new lines driverless where possible? You can achieve 5-8x The frequency for the same running cost.

It was also mentioned earlier in this thread that a major determinant of patronage is service levels. So what's the reason for not supporting forms of rail that can maximise service levels for the lowest cost?

If you go DOO or driverless, the big advantage is frequency. Another is you minimise the facilities required at terminus to accommodate the staff. You remove human components such as staff being late or sick.
These have likely been covered several times here already.

Yes, if we were to build new entirely grade separated and network separated lines ala Sydney Metro, it makes absolutely no sense to have them with drivers. Driverless makes sense there.

On the other hand, regarding converting the existing network to driverless (or even DOO), it should be clarified that this is much more complex, due to level crossings, interaction with freight, non-sectorised running, curved platforms, non-DDA compliant stations, etc. All things that are fixable but it's much trickier to implement, compared to a brand new line where you can have all that sorted from day 1.

QuoteThe Kenmore Rail Bypass
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14534.40

For those who would rather a more infrastructure inclined approach, building on the existing rail network is still likely to be better than a metro which has the disadvantage that it must be built out from the CBD first, buy special trains, set up a depot etc.

Extending the Springfield line into the Centenary Suburbs and constructing four new train stations (plus a fifth reconstructed Indooroopilly station) and leveraging the existing Centenary Motorway corridor for rail would provide Priority A rail at around $3-5 billion cost rather than $20b for a metro.

This incremental approach would also provide rail directly in the suburbs, rather than have to be extended in stages over time from the CBD outwards as a rail-based metro would. Importantly, this sort of approach would both meet the vision and practical aspects for a project. How about we run with something like this instead?

I thought the Kenmore rail bypass idea was dismissed for a couple of reasons.

-The Centenary/Western freeway is an older freeway built to lower standards* (Thats why the speed limit is only 80 km/h north of the river), with a steep hill climbs  and no median in parts, so its not the sort of fairly flat, gently curving wide medianed freeway that makes the Perth Model™ so cheap.

-The Ipswich/Springfield line is already well future proofed for track capacity inbound of Darra. 2 tracks from Springfield, 2 tracks from Ipswich. This becomes 4 tracks to the city

So provisioning 6 tracks between Darra and Indooroopilly means the money spent on quadding last decade was wasted, because you are bypassing perfectly fine tracks.
 
*Does anyone remember when the Centenary interchange with the Ipswich motorway used to be a roundabout 

Disagree, and I won't be supporting this extended metro proposal.

In the event of a Blue Team administration, it is highly unlikely to be funded. Their priority is funding Sunshine Coast line, which has its own challenges.

At $1 billion/km a metro is prohibitively expensive.

I don't agree with the principle of trying to outspend a road project for its own sake, proposals should turn on their merit.

We disagree with the basic approach here, expensive new infrastructure should only be after existing low or no infrastructure options are ruled out.

We already have long lists of unfunded projects and this is just adding to that impossibly long list.

Ok well, like Gazza, I won't be supporting putting forward the idea of median rail down the Western Freeway/Centenary highway because it's a stupid idea that ignores geography and the realities of speed and curve radii of heavy rail. I've gone into that extensively before.

Quote from: SilverChased on September 12, 2024, 09:15:31 AMIf you go DOO or driverless, the big advantage is frequency. Another is you minimise the facilities required at terminus to accommodate the staff. You remove human components such as staff being late or sick.
These have likely been covered several times here already.

Not quite. DOO does not mean a frequency increase. You will always require facilities at the end for train crew - sign in/off locations, swapping services to minimise turn back times. DOO can actually increase operating costs depending on how the network is set up (yes you reduced onboard crew costs but you have dramatically increased PSA levels to compensate which we have seen with the NGR). Going driverless can reduce some things but you still have the massive expense associated with it. Many of the driverless lines you can argue warrant it. Here you will be hard pressed to justify it. Sure peak can be busy on the FG line but it can also be an air parcel service counter peak, off peak or on weekends. Can you justify station upgrades, new rollingstock, trackside upgrades, another mtce depot and stabling yards to name a few.

Quote from: timh on September 12, 2024, 09:28:46 AMYes, if we were to build new entirely grade separated and network separated lines ala Sydney Metro, it makes absolutely no sense to have them with drivers. Driverless makes sense there.

On the other hand, regarding converting the existing network to driverless (or even DOO), it should be clarified that this is much more complex, due to level crossings, interaction with freight, non-sectorised running, curved platforms, non-DDA compliant stations, etc. All things that are fixable but it's much trickier to implement, compared to a brand new line where you can have all that sorted from day 1.

Depending where and what line you are deterring too freight can have minimal impact. Most impacts are the multiple 25kph junctions at Bowen Hills, 2x Roma Street, Sherwood and Yeerongpilly. Freight already operates on the Ipswich line in peak hour. The first one goes through Corinda bound around 8-8.30 and that's due to the flyover at Darra and the unelectrified section Darra-Corinda.

Cost is always going to be the biggest problem. And we all know how certain members here like to go on about costs and then avoid questions and hide behind "well let's wait for the business case" or "let's see a business case".

Quote from: Gazza on September 09, 2024, 10:30:33 AMIts frustating with Indro that they already had one bite of making it DDA in 2008 and we got the worlds ugliest station.

I saw a proposal to move the station to straight track near Belgrave Rd/ Allwood St, and build an extension leg of the shopping center that linked to it:

Personally i would still do that. Purchase the McDonalds and turn it into a bus interchange. McDonalds could then be integrated into the station like at South Bank.

At least you can access Indooroopilly station, meanwhile Taringa station continues to be ignored.

Didn't someone propose moving the station to Beatrice St, bulldoze that Toyota dealership, and use that land for an elevated station, and parking. Its closer to the BBC, so no real loss either way.

Quote from: #Metro on September 12, 2024, 10:33:36 AMexpensive new infrastructure should only be after existing low or no infrastructure options are ruled out.

Agree on that 100%, but we've yet to come up with a way to communicate this in a catchy way.

But don't reheat your Kenmore rail bypass plan that was already rejected and try and use spurious claims that metros need to start from the CBD or that its a problem to use different trains to the existing network.
Sydney ignored people saying both of those things, looked at the long game, and got a line that carried 1.4m passengers in its first week.

That's potentially 72m passengers per year.

The metro will potentially get more annual boardings than the entire Transperth trains network (60m passengers per year)

Quote from: JimmyP on September 12, 2024, 06:56:44 AMMost members don't particularly like freeway median running simply because it is isolated. It makes it really difficult to get to quickly, then you do actually have to start adding ridiculously large car parks. Median running stations in an urban sprawl environment are good for regional/interurban/intercity lines with minimal stops (for instance, the line the group proposes on and off from Beenleigh to the City via the M1 corridor for the Gold Coast). It's not good for suburban style lines.
Wherever possible, we should be making stations where there is multiple demand points around the station, not just a commuter system. Have proper retail, amenities, even commercial/office space where it is deemed viable etc, so the stations have all day demand and are somewhere people actually want to go rather then simply being somewhere you have to go to in order to get the train to work and back.

Perth seems to make this work, so they must be on to something here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanchep_line
Having a rail line that is isolated in a freeway with its own corridor; now that free real estate.   

You don't need large car-parks if you have a decent bus network that terminates at these stations and connect to the rest of the Sunshine Coast. The sparse amount of housing along this area means bulldozing can still occur for TOD. They can TOD as much or as little as they want at those stations. That's a matter for the Sunshine Coast City Council.

In saying this, The DSCL should have considered the Yanchep Line approach. Instead of its current alignment requiring 10km of elevated track through wetlands/parklands.

The 'Yanchep Line approach' would deviate after the Aura station and go onto Bells Creek Arterial Rd (freeway) with new stations at Baringa, and Little Mountain, before connecting to Kawana Way Link Rd (freeway) following the existing alignment to Birtinya onwards.

Now you can build the rail line to the Sunshine Coast Airport and beyond before 2032, without 10km of elevated track with two elevated stations. 

If anyone was wondering, there are no Olympic venues at either Caloundra or Aroona. These stations locations have origins from a study done forty years ago.

The people living at Baringa and Little Mountain now has access to the SEQ rail line, as do people at Aroona and Caloundra, with direct bus services that will get them to the nearest station. People living in that area will have to adapt to a rail line on the freeway, and travel habits will change because there are now more PT options.

Either way, if you build it, they will come. 

Ipswich Tribune --> Critic: toll tunnel idea just more politicking $

QuoteA LEADING public transport campaigner says the State Government's bid to consider a toll tunnel to bypass Centenary Highway jams will further entrench the Southeast in "even more terminal transport failure".

The State Government announced it would investigate a second potential tolled tunnel between Darra and Toowong to deliver a long-touted "western bypass" of Brisbane's inner-city.

Advice will be sought on how the Centenary Motorway bypass would stack up against upgrades already under consideration.

But Rail Back on Track's Robert Dow said there was already a four-track railway between Darra and Brisbane CBD, and that there was "no need for more expensive road toll tunnels – let's just utilise our existing transport assets properly". ...

Quote from: Jonno on September 11, 2024, 12:14:13 PMThe transport investment of the last 30 years has failed

Mode Share

According to the Grattan Institute, government spending on non-road transport infrastructure represents about 15% to 20% of the total transport infrastructure budget across all levels of government combined.  And, it has been this way since at least the mid 1990s.  The total transport budget goes up and down, but in the last 30 years, the split has remained fairly constant.  For every government dollar spent on trains, trams, busways, bikeways and paths, around $5 is spent on road upgrades.

In the last 30 years, when car infrastructure has attracted 80% to 85% of the funding, car use has hovered between 80% to 90% of trips (despite the government's stated ambitions).

I think that's the most telling thing.  People are most attracted to whichever transport mode is the best funded.  Simple as that.  If you want more than 15% of people to walk, ride, or take the train; you need to spend more than 15% of your transport budget on paths, bikeways, and public transport.  If you want less than 85% of people to drive, you need to spend less than 85% of your budget on road upgrades.

Road upgrades are not an inherently bad thing, but spending so much of our transport budget on a single mode means that travellers flock to that one mode, and it gets overwhelmed.  If we want to get the most out of the money we spend on our roads, then we need to get more out of our pathways, bikeways, and public transport.  And that means spending a larger percentage of the total transport budget on non-road transport infrastructure.

Personally, I think that's the argument to have.  People need to understand that, as long as the funding split is skewed the way it is, nothing much is going to change - regardless of what we build.

Rant over.

If you can get an ordinary QR train under the Brisbane River as per CRR, I think you can thread the Springfield line though the Centenary Suburbs with some engineering.

Could we use a combination of engineering methods such as cuttings, viaducts and tunnel sections? We could.

Why does it have to run in a median to follow the Centenary Motorway corridor alignment? It doesn't.

Leveraging the existing QR network will mean no new depot, tunnel required is minimised, no transfer required, and minimal new rolling stock (because although Springfield services are being added to Centenary, they are also being removed from running Darra-Chelmer).

All of that means a cheaper project ($5b vs $20b, 4x cheaper), which in turn means a better BCR, and better chance of qualifying for Federal Funding.

This will leave funds ($7.5-15b) to apply for the other things on a very long list that we all want.

Its a cheaper project yes but the benefits are lower because its a fraction of the length so less possible journey pairs. I dont know about you, but being able to get passengers from the west to UQ faster without that hilly bus ride through St Lucia is a big win.

Like of course a bypass line with 5 stations is going to be cheaper than a proper E-W line with 21 stations.

You could stage it if funding was an issue.

Stage 1a – Depot on vacant land at Moggil, run line to via Mt Ommaney, Kenmore, Indro to UQ. Passengers for city change at Indro or change to Brisbane Metro at UQ. Interim step like NW metro in Sydney but its a start.

Stage 1b – UQ, West End, CBD. Full build out 5-10 years later. Similar to CBD section of Sydney Metro that just opened.

Stage 2 – CBD to Skygate. Similar to a further extension.

QuoteLeveraging the existing QR network will mean no new depot, tunnel required is minimised, no transfer required, and minimal new rolling stock (because although Springfield services are being added to Centenary, they are also being removed from running Darra-Chelmer).

OK what sort of voodoo maths is this?
You build new lines to get more patronage right?
More patronage means more vehicles to carry those passengers.
You are diverting trains away from via Corinda...yeah cool but the passenger demand between Darra and Indro doesn't just evaporate! You would still need many trains to go that way to meet demand.

New Depots are needed regardless, as the fleet expands we have seen new depots in places like Elimbah, Palmwoods, Banyo, and of course there is the huge new depot being built at Ormeau to support the QTMP rolling stock.
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/ormeau-rail-facility

You might whinge about the cost of a subway depot, but it saves money in the long run because you wouldnt need a QR depot as quickly, and in fact probably less need to expand bus depots either, as passengers switch to rail.

QuoteWhy does it have to run in a median to follow the Centenary Motorway corridor alignment? It doesn't.

Of course, you can go off to the side, but its not like there is heaps of land along it to make following it a cheap option. I was just going by your post.

Quoteand leveraging the existing Centenary Motorway corridor for rail would provide Priority A rail at around $3-5 billion cost rather than $20b for a metro.

There are clearly two philosophical camps on this forum with regards to approach/strategy, which I am going to break down here for clarity.

1. Infrastructure First

- Idealistic/Defend the vision
- Infrastructure/outspending the driver of patronage
- Singular large megaprojects
- Extremely high cost (both per km and total overall)
- Vision / transformation / intangibles more important so dismissal of financial metrics like BCR / NPV as 'Voodoo'
- Strong orientation for new infrastructure
- Very long term focus 40-50 years
- Mode specific (usually metro/LRT/"true rail")
- Funding is no object / dismissal of funding obstacles (so not incorporated into forward planning)
- Implicit Paris/Euro city model (if it isn't that now, one day in the indefinite future it will be so build for that now)
- If a competing road project is proposed, aim to outspend/outshine it with an even higher profile/grander/more expensive plan

2. Service First

- Pragmatic/negotiating
- Frequency and service upgrades as driver of patronage (transport is the product, modes are tools)
- Cluster approach of multiple smaller projects (midi projects)
- Low to medium cost (the more cheaply something is, the more of that something you can have).
- Funding is an object and so constraints accepted and incorporated into forward plans. After all, no cash equals no project.
- Financial metrics BCR / NPV important, as one part of a broader multi-criteria assessment merit test
- Strong orientation to fixing or extending existing infrastructure over anything new
- Short to medium term focus (what can we do now / in the interim)
- Mode neutral (more BRT, fine with P&R, rail in freeway medians) if that gets the job done, do it
- Perth Model and Paris Model (selects or toggles between models according to use case/ground situation).
- Accepts that urban form is slow to change. Not trying to convert city into Paris/Amsterdam to make the transit plan work.
- If a competing road project is proposed, undercut it on cost, quality, value and utility factors, not outspend it.

I hope this taxonomy can assist members understand why we have the discussions we do.

They are not mutually exclusive

Quote from: #Metro on September 13, 2024, 09:27:47 AMThere are clearly two philosophical camps on this forum with regards to approach/strategy, which I am going to break down here for clarity.

1. Infrastructure First

- Idealistic/Defend the vision
- Infrastructure/outspending the driver of patronage
- Singular large megaprojects
- Extremely high cost (both per km and total overall)
- Vision / transformation / intangibles more important so dismissal of financial metrics like BCR / NPV as 'Voodoo'
- Strong orientation for new infrastructure
- Very long term focus 40-50 years
- Mode specific (usually metro/LRT/"true rail")
- Funding is no object / dismissal of funding obstacles (so not incorporated into forward planning)
- Implicit Paris/Euro city model (if it isn't that now, one day in the indefinite future it will be so build for that now)
- If a competing road project is proposed, aim to outspend/outshine it with an even higher profile/grander/more expensive plan

2. Service First

- Pragmatic/negotiating
- Frequency and service upgrades as driver of patronage (transport is the product, modes are tools)
- Cluster approach of multiple smaller projects (midi projects)
- Low to medium cost (the more cheaply something is, the more of that something you can have).
- Funding is an object and so constraints accepted and incorporated into forward plans. After all, no cash equals no project.
- Financial metrics BCR / NPV important, as one part of a broader multi-criteria assessment merit test
- Strong orientation to fixing or extending existing infrastructure over anything new
- Short to medium term focus (what can we do now / in the interim)
- Mode neutral (more BRT, fine with P&R, rail in freeway medians) if that gets the job done, do it
- Perth Model and Paris Model (selects or toggles between models according to use case/ground situation).
- Accepts that urban form is slow to change. Not trying to convert city into Paris/Amsterdam to make the transit plan work.
- If a competing road project is proposed, undercut it on cost, quality, value and utility factors, not outspend it.

I hope this taxonomy can assist members understand why we have the discussions we do.

I mean in that analysis you're assigning a negative/snide tone to approach 1 and its main points and a more positive tone to approach 2 so that's a bit of a joke post TBH.

I'm with Jonno, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I get it, the discourse on the forum and in the media didn't go the way you wanted it so now you're freaking out at everyone.....See I can take a negative tone too 

Quote from: #Metro on September 13, 2024, 07:24:43 AMIf you can get an ordinary QR train under the Brisbane River as per CRR, I think you can thread the Springfield line though the Centenary Suburbs with some engineering.

Could we use a combination of engineering methods such as cuttings, viaducts and tunnel sections? We could.

Why does it have to run in a median to follow the Centenary Motorway corridor alignment? It doesn't.

Leveraging the existing QR network will mean no new depot, tunnel required is minimised, no transfer required, and minimal new rolling stock (because although Springfield services are being added to Centenary, they are also being removed from running Darra-Chelmer).

All of that means a cheaper project ($5b vs $20b, 4x cheaper), which in turn means a better BCR, and better chance of qualifying for Federal Funding.

This will leave funds ($7.5-15b) to apply for the other things on a very long list that we all want.

What a load of sh%t.

CRR under the CBD is not in the same realm as a tunnel under Kenmore road. CRR in reality is close to a 20 billion dollar project. There are just lots of side projects that are lurking in the shadows marketed as separate infrastructure projects to confuse the public. Take the QTMP. Its necessity has spawned out of CRR. It's a side project but it will be the de facto train only permitted in CRR in the years to come. As has been said you are diverting resources away from the western line pairings so something has to fill this void. And if you jump into rollingstock you have your next problem. What fleet is allowed to use it. Take CRR. Only QTMP (which do not exist yet) and NGR (only the ones that have ETCS equipped) will be using the CRR tunnels. Rather than having a few depots for a couple hundred million you potentially could be looking at another multi billion dollar contract for a next gen fleet and mtce facility. You can't use QTMP or NGR mtce facilities as these aren't QR mtce facilities. They are QR/state owned but 3rd party operated facilities associated with the contract for that particular fleet (hence their big price tags). The network would be vastly different if money wasn't a consideration but that's not true. Coming up with pie in the sky ideas just puts you up there with Geebung maglev. You can have a discussion but don't go off on random tangents comparing things you think is similar with graphs and studies when someone raises the slightest objection or when in reality it's not. Look how well those airport link and legacy way studies turn out. How many buses per day were to be using it???

Quote from: GazzaI mean in that analysis you're assigning a negative/snide tone to approach 1 and its main points and a more positive tone to approach 2 so that's a bit of a joke post TBH.

You're only commenting on tone... You have not sought to deny that the metro suggestion meets most of those points in approach 1.

Can you point to any posts that have opposed increasing frequency, span and improved current network? The difference is, some people have the capability of looking at and talking about both the long term and the short term. Doing things only for the short term and nit looking at the long term is a fools game and is a big reason we have landed where we are now.
Also, out of interest, where did you get the $5b vs $20b figures from?

https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/131876-risks-self-fulfilling-travel-forecasts

QuoteThe Risks of Self-Fulfilling Travel Forecasts

Transportation agencies continue to apply predict-and-provide planning which simply extrapolates past trends to predict future needs. It's time to apply decide-and-provide planning to better achieve community goals.
5 Minute Read
September 23, 2024, 8:00 AM PDT
By Todd Litman

The U.S. Department of Transportation just released its latest Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Forecast which predicts that vehicle travel will grow between 0.4 percent and 0.8 percent annually between now and 2050, depending on economic growth rates. This is bad planning.

These forecasts simply extrapolate past trends; they assume that if vehicle travel grew at a certain rate in the past it will continue at that rate into the future, ignoring underlying factors that may affect travel activity. In particular, the DOT forecast assumes that vehicle travel always increases with economic productivity although recent trends indicate decoupling, and it assumes that per capita vehicle travel will grow although it actually peaked in 2004, as illustrated below. Many current trends -- aging population, rising travel costs, increased urbanization, new technologies (telework and e-bikes), increasing health and environmental concerns, plus changing consumer preferences -- are likely to suppress future vehicle travel growth if we let them; the DOT forecast ignores that possibility.

US Motor Vehicle Travel Trends (FHWA 2024)



Motor vehicle travel grew steadily during the Twentieth Century, but per capita VMT peaked about 2004 and current demographic and economic trends are likely to suppress future travel growth unless governments encourage driving over other modes.
Of course, future travel trends are contingent on planning decisions. Although few motorists want to forego automobile travel altogether, surveys indicate that many would prefer to drive less and rely more on walking, bicycling, and public transport, provided those options are convenient, comfortable, and affordable. Many current policies favor driving over other modes, creating automobile-dependent communities. For example, zoning codes force property owners to subsidize costly parking, transportation funding favors faster modes over slower but more affordable, healthier, and resource-efficient modes, and development policies favor sprawl over compact infill. Reforming these policies would improve non-auto transportation options, reducing vehicle travel.

In fact, previous travel forecasts have proven to be wildly inaccurate, as described in the State Smart Transportation Initiative's research, States Overestimating VMT Growth, as illustrated in the following graph:



Previous predictions greatly overstated vehicle travel growth. This exaggerates future traffic problems and roadway expansion benefits, and undervalues investments in non-auto modes.

The problem is that vehicle travel projections tend to be self-fulfilling. Transportation agencies treat such predictions as inflexible futures that must be accommodated rather than possibilities that are influenced by their decisions. If practitioners predict that vehicle travel will increase by a certain amount they feel obliged to expand roadway capacity by that amount, a process called "predict and provide planning."

My previous column, Transportation Agencies: Improve Your Models or Hire More Lawyers, highlights the related problems of exaggerated vehicle travel forecasts, exaggerated predictions of future congestion problems, and exaggerated predictions of highway expansion benefits, resulting in far larger roadways than economically justified, and underinvestment in alternatives.

A better approach, called "decide and provide planning," means that policy makers set targets for agencies to achieve. For example, a community might have goals to reduce traffic congestion, crashes and emissions, improve public fitness and health, and create more affordable and livable neighborhoods. Individual planning decisions related to parking regulations, transportation infrastructure investments, roadway design and development policies are then aligned to support those goals.

Rather than simply extrapolating past trends, this approach recognizes changing user demands, emerging planning goals, capacity limits, and an expanded range of potential solutions. If a community's population is predicted to grow 10% during the next decade, decide and provide planning finds ways to reduce per capita vehicle trip generation by 10% during that period, so traffic problems don't increase, or a larger reduction if the goal is to reduce traffic problems below current levels.

Many jurisdictions are starting to apply this approach, as described in my column, When it Comes to Vehicle Travel, Less is More. For example, California has targets to reduce per capita light-duty VMT 25 percent by 2030 and 30 percent by 2045, and has developed guidance policies and analysis tools to support those goals. Washington State has targets to reduce vehicle travel 30% by 2035 and 50 percent by 2050, and has commute trip reduction programs that encourage employees to shift from driving to resource-efficient modes. Oregon has targets to reduce light-duty vehicle travel 20 percent by 2040. Minnesota has targets to reduce vehicle travel 14 percent by 2040 and 20 percent by 2050. Colorado and Ireland require major transportation projects to support emission reduction targets.

Recent data indicates that these jurisdictions are making progress toward those targets. Although vehicle travel grew in most U.S. metropolitan regions during the past five years, many California, Washington, and Colorado regions had reductions in per capita VMT. Los Angeles, Oxnard-Ventura, San Francisco, and San Jose experienced particularly large total vehicle travel declines, while Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle had VMT growth below their population growth rates, as illustrated below.

2019 to 2024 VMT Growth Rates (Streetlight 2024)



Between 2019 and 2024 vehicle travel grew less than population in states with vehicle travel reduction targets, suggesting that integrated travel demand management policies can be effective and beneficial.

These regions benefit from reduced consumer costs, traffic and parking congestion, road and parking infrastructure costs, crashes, and pollution emissions than would have occurred if VMT had grown at national levels.

Planners have a professional obligation to respond to future consumer demands and community needs. An important first step is to reform the way we predict future travel demands to avoid harmful self-fulfilling prophecies.[/quite]

https://x.com/fietsprofessor/status/1839701185176941041

(Video)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-01/division-over-bruce-highway-upgrade-funding/104419944

QuoteThe Bruce Highway connects Queensland from top to bottom and the largely single lane highway is often listed as one of our mostly dangerous.

While the need to upgrade the Bruce Highway is universally accepted, how to pay for is not as Will Murray reports.

I notice absolutely no mention of improving rail as part of the solution. 

 

It's official: BRISBANE is THE WORST!