Proposal: Busway to Subway

[#Metro]

The people in Brisbane can get a better option simply by reforming the network a la the bus review, and see how things go from there. We do not need to take the axe to some of Brisbane's most popular bus services in exchange for Lapdog's ideology of 5 minute feeder bus frequency everywhere.

I keep explaining this and I will explain again: The Cross River Rail tunnel will be a combined tunnel. The Cross River Rail will be a combined tunnel. The option on the table is busway and heavy rail both in the tunnel. All I am saying is that I want the busway component replaced with subway probably based on the Vancouver Skytrain model. That's all.

Yes, by all means go ahead and simplify the network in the interim. It is going to take a while for the politicians to do all the planning and building etc. It could take them a decade. You can even buy the worlds largest capacity bus - the AutoTram Extra Grand bus and run that on the busway if you want in the meantime.

I've also mentioned this, but a day will come when the 130/140/150 feed to rail, maybe with a connection to Garden City/Griffith Uni. This is because heavy rail is what is designed for the job of hauling such high pax numbers. It will also save even more route km, and the loads on the SE Busway will no longer be high enough to justify a subway.

There will still be a need to get passengers to and from the locations on the SEB just for connection purposes. And I think you reveal here also that you are not against termination of BUZ routes as long as they terminate at Heavy rail stations rather than subway stations. So there you have it, not only are you not against terminating full buses in peak hour, but you are not even against terminating BUZ buses such as 130/140/150 buses at train stations provided that they are QR rail stations and not specifically subway stations.

So your real beef is the modal change of the busway to subway, and not the truncation of BUZ routes at stations.

[Gazza]

The Cross River Rail will be a combined tunnel. The option on the table is busway and heavy rail both in the tunnel. All I am saying is that I want the busway component replaced with subway probably based on the Vancouver Skytrain model. That's all.

For what it's worth, we haven't even seen the final design.

I strongly doubt that CRR and the busway will shadow each other from Wooloongabba to Roma St.

The way I'm imagining it, it'll be the one civil works project, and they'll probably do a little bit of piggy back tunnel around QSBS, but that's about the extent of it.

It's much like how the Northern Busway and Airport Link were done as one project, even though the actual shared piggyback sections are quite short and  both the busway and airport link actually have very different connections.

As I've said before, I'm comfortable with the bus loop to be done eventually since the underground arrangments between KGS and QSBS are a bit messy and $260 mil to sort it out isn't that much.

But once you start changing the scope that suddenly stage 1 is a full blown metro with an below grade stabling facility and full tunnels and bridges through the CBD then it's not really a comparable alternative.

[#Metro]

For what it's worth, we haven't even seen the final design.

This is a good point and FWIW I suspect the reason nobody has seen one is because they're still drawing it!

[James]

So the fact that the buses are full isn't the principle behind your reasoning. So it IS OK to terminate full buses at stations. Just making that clear.

Yes, but that does not mean we terminate all the buses at stations. It depends on the route. There is no blanket 'one-size-fits-all' rule. In many circumstances, terminating full buses at stations is OK. I do doubt your precedence that the 161 carries standing loads at any time, but by cutting it at Garden City, you can double frequency very easily and redirect resources elsewhere.

James, I think we both agree with each other when you advocate for a mass simplification of the bus network. I am with you there. But as I have made clear previously, I think in the longer term we will have to go beyond this. The politicians have placed on the table for a Cross River Rail Tunnel that contains QR Heavy Rail and a busway. I don't know if the 180 will disappear in to the new CRR/Busway tunnel. We can't give everyone a direct trip - even you acknowledge that. If it is true that most people are bound for the CBD then the trip you describe to Cultural Centre would be somewhat unlikely. On the other hand I would imagine that the network would be set up so that the person could transfer at Wooloongabba Subway not to a train but to another bus  such as 66 to Cultural Centre. That would be one transfer.

Why do I think subway is good rather than busway in the CRR tunnel? Because I think it is going to be a royal pain in the backside to try and retrofit a subway to the combined CRR/Busway Tunnel at some point in the future once it is full of even more buses. You'd have to shut the tunnel down and then what is going to happen with all those buses? Over Captain Cook again and Cultural Centre. You'd have to set up bus stops again all over the city during a retrofit. That will be fun (not!). Best to do it right the first time and build it as subway at the start. Although this is Queensland and we have so many have assed and half baked projects we have to go back to and fix up I have little hope...

As I've stated, I completely oppose the idea that we need to build a bus tunnel with this rail project. I would much rather see CRR V2.0 have 4 tracks than a bus tunnel. Right now, what causes gridlock at Cultural Centre is an excess of air parcel services and an excessive amount of BUZ routes. Build the rail line along Mains Rd, and suddenly you can instantly remove almost 100 buses per hour from the busway (noting not all of them go via the Cultural Centre). All of a sudden, the busway (aside from in the inner section) only seems to have the 111+555/169/a few other routes. In other words, it becomes no better/worse than your usual railway line, which as is evident by current patronage, outside of peak, you could fit passengers onto one bendy bus every 10 minutes at the most.

Make a little note that aside from early in the morning, especially on weekends, the 111+555/169 essentially operate like a railway line (with 15 minute frequency). And I believe it would probably be on similar frequency if you combined services on weekdays too (I really doubt 111 + 160 + 555 all on 15 minute frequency is necessary off-peak). The amount of pax the busway will haul outside of the core section is not going to be huge once the railway line out to Flagstone is built.

Show me where I did write the words "going to the CBD". They may not be going to the CBD on it now but clearly people are making the connection. I would make them connect in my Busway to Subway conception. Perhaps you would not. Like I say before buses every 10 minutes x 85 passengers = 510 pax per hour, I don't think that's large by any standard to make them change.

The 402 is there for capacity when pax are left behind by 412s, nothing more. Uni students make the connection because:
1. They don't want to drive to Uni and pay for fuel, parking etc.
2. It is their only other option.

When going from suburban destination to suburban destination, you should expect to change, because naturally there is less demand from my bus stop to my friend's house vs. my bus stop to Queen Street Mall. For the former, either I make the connection or I drive.

A few minutes isn't the End Of The World. If you are going to use larger buses like in Bogota, these are high floor and therefore busway platforms would have to be raised, which means the normal buses could no longer run through the busway or stop at busway stations. You could use the AutoTram Extra Grand which is something more recent though. But it would have to be THAT bus (I don't know of any other manufacturers that has the capacity of greater than 256 pax) and you would be limited to 256 pax. This bus is 30 meters or so long so only one could fit on a 50 m platform and two on a 60 meter bus platform so you would have to extend the busway platform also or make some arrangement there.

Generally I would expect only one to be stopped at a platform at any one time - there may be other buses, but they would be normal buses.

But as we found out earlier in our conversation you are not against the principle of transferring full buses in peak hour. Otherwise you would be against full bus 161 termination in peak, which you are not. You are only against termination of full and high frequency BUZ routes on the grounds that it may add a few minutes to the trip for those passengers.

I take the opposite view on the basis that you would be able to increase capacity for those routes during peak and thus supply more spaces for more passengers, which would also make more money.

To add another service under your paradigm, you would need to buy a new bus at a cost of $1 million dollars or so each. You might argue that I need to buy a subway train, and I would, but when I do I would be able to boost frequency at all connecting locations along the line, whereas you would need to buy a bus for each and every bus route feeding the busway to increase capacity there. PLUS you would need to recruit more casual bus driver staff to drive these buses also. Maybe this is OK in the near term, but in the longer term I prefer terminate and transfer for most services in general. In Toronto this already occurs with the Viva BRT system feeding the edges of the TTC subway system. These BRT vehicles do not drive past the subway and then into the Toronto CBD. They stop, drop off their load and go back...

And under your subway conversion plan, it will cost several billion to install and massive amounts of inconvenience. Then the Mains Rd railway line gets built and your subway and its grand interchange at GU is a giant white elephant, to be put in the same category as the 'Taj Mahal' stations along the Beenleigh line.

I keep explaining this and I will explain again: The Cross River Rail tunnel will be a combined tunnel. The Cross River Rail will be a combined tunnel. The option on the table is busway and heavy rail both in the tunnel. All I am saying is that I want the busway component replaced with subway probably based on the Vancouver Skytrain model. That's all.

Yes, by all means go ahead and simplify the network in the interim. It is going to take a while for the politicians to do all the planning and building etc. It could take them a decade. You can even buy the worlds largest capacity bus - the AutoTram Extra Grand bus and run that on the busway if you want in the meantime.

Why does it need to be a combined tunnel, though? A bus tunnel effectively supports and endorses BCC's continued bus network failure. (Gazza does make a valid point, it could simply be expansion of QSBS which is on the table).

There will still be a need to get passengers to and from the locations on the SEB just for connection purposes. And I think you reveal here also that you are not against termination of BUZ routes as long as they terminate at Heavy rail stations rather than subway stations. So there you have it, not only are you not against terminating full buses in peak hour, but you are not even against terminating BUZ buses such as 130/140/150 buses at train stations provided that they are QR rail stations and not specifically subway stations.

So your real beef is the modal change of the busway to subway, and not the truncation of BUZ routes at stations.

Minimal. In fact, I would say there would be greater inconvenience for those seeking to go to the Cultural Centre or South Bank under your subway plan. I do not support the conversion to subway because a railway line through the specific areas we are targeting for termination of services will be built within 20 years, rendering the subway moot, for reasons I have listed above.

[#Metro]

Yes, but that does not mean we terminate all the buses at stations. It depends on the route. There is no blanket 'one-size-fits-all' rule. In many circumstances, terminating full buses at stations is OK. I do doubt your precedence that the 161 carries standing loads at any time, but by cutting it at Garden City, you can double frequency very easily and redirect resources elsewhere.

Sure, this is a very good point and there does need to be discretion. Look I am currently working on a .kml file with a network in it and once I release it you (and anyone else) can play with it. It's that kind of diversity in points of view and approaches that will lead to many solutions, of which the best ones can float to the top. I've included your 415 idea in it as well as I think that is very sound indeed and have listened to what you have said in regards to that particular route so I've adopted it.

As I've stated, I completely oppose the idea that we need to build a bus tunnel with this rail project. I would much rather see CRR V2.0 have 4 tracks than a bus tunnel. Right now, what causes gridlock at Cultural Centre is an excess of air parcel services and an excessive amount of BUZ routes. Build the rail line along Mains Rd, and suddenly you can instantly remove almost 100 buses per hour from the busway (noting not all of them go via the Cultural Centre). All of a sudden, the busway (aside from in the inner section) only seems to have the 111+555/169/a few other routes. In other words, it becomes no better/worse than your usual railway line, which as is evident by current patronage, outside of peak, you could fit passengers onto one bendy bus every 10 minutes at the most.

I'm working on the assumption that the Lord Mayor will get his way and have a bus tunnel built. Years ago the head of BT was pushing the idea at a RAILBOT forum (as a replacement or complement for CRR) as well. The Lord Mayor has massive influence in transport due to political leverage and public council ownership of BT plus as an operator of the largest bus fleet in QLD. The BCC has killed off about three or four LRT proposals in Brisbane and you only have to look at his comments on CRR and the woeful Cleveland Solution 'alternative' proposal and the invention of CityGliders at whim to see this effect in action.

[#Metro]

Please also remember that if you choose high capacity high floor buses like Bogota, busway platforms will have to be raised which means that it will no longer be possible for standard buses to stop at busway stations. Also, a move to larger vehicles will also mean a drop in frequency as the vehicles are costly and have higher capacity (viz. Gold Coast light rail - 7.5 minute frequency, this is worse than the current buses along the GC Hwy spine). If very large buses are put on say Mains Road, the frequency will drop during rush hours, and thus the trip will be slightly longer anyway.

The 402 is there for capacity when pax are left behind by 412s, nothing more. Uni students make the connection because:
1. They don't want to drive to Uni and pay for fuel, parking etc.
2. It is their only other option.

When going from suburban destination to suburban destination, you should expect to change, because naturally there is less demand from my bus stop to my friend's house vs. my bus stop to Queen Street Mall. For the former, either I make the connection or I drive.

My philosophy is different and more hardline. There is a train station there, use it. Indeed I have seriously started thinking about termination of 412 at Toowong. Monash University has the 401 Express running every 4 minutes and this does not go down the highway all the way into the Melbourne CBD. The same is true of the 601 to Melbourne University which also terminates at North Melbourne Train station rather than go all the way into the CBD. I have demonstrated exhaustively that full high frequency buses are not by themselves strong enough reasons for direct CBD services and the amount of passengers they carry in one hour under maximum load assumptions could easily be handled, I have demonstrated that overseas places transfer far in excess of anything that would be needed in Brisbane (illustrated with my TTC 35 JANE example which has 15 buses per hour terminate and transfer) and I have given a precedent of BRT to the train station with York Region (Toronto's) BRT to Subway examples.

So I think it can be done on technical grounds (political grounds may be different). Lots of capacity was added to the Ipswich line in peak in the last review. We need to start getting away from excuses and start making efficiencies. A full 412 coming every 10 minutes in peak is only carrying 510 pax at an absolute maximum. When you consider the number of trains passing through the station in one hour, and that these have ~1000 pax capacity at peak load, it is not a big deal.

Generally I would expect only one to be stopped at a platform at any one time - there may be other buses, but they would be normal buses.

Yes, but something so large would require platform extension or create congestion at platforms if run very frequently. I have listened to what you have said on this and think it would be a good transition. My network conception would require these buses to operate anyway so I've included them on some high volume lines.

And under your subway conversion plan, it will cost several billion to install and massive amounts of inconvenience. Then the Mains Rd railway line gets built and your subway and its grand interchange at GU is a giant white elephant, to be put in the same category as the 'Taj Mahal' stations along the Beenleigh line.

Disagree. The major cost component - ROW acquisition and earthmoving has already been completed. There also may be operational cost savings over the lifecycle of the infrastructure which are savings. You still need to get people to GU right, not everybody is going to the CBD, some people are going to uni from the Sunnybank/Browns Plains area, no???

[#Metro]

Why does it need to be a combined tunnel, though? A bus tunnel effectively supports and endorses BCC's continued bus network failure. (Gazza does make a valid point, it could simply be expansion of QSBS which is on the table).

That's what the politicians have put on the table. If you can convince them otherwise, then obviously plans would change. But this is my working assumption. One has to start somewhere.

Minimal. In fact, I would say there would be greater inconvenience for those seeking to go to the Cultural Centre or South Bank under your subway plan. I do not support the conversion to subway because a railway line through the specific areas we are targeting for termination of services will be built within 20 years, rendering the subway moot, for reasons I have listed above.

There would be hardly any inconvenience. So long as connecting services are frequent, there is not really an issue. People in Paris, London, Tokyo, Toronto and Melbourne make connections all day. People get a bus to the train station, hop on a train, and then catch a tram to work. No one has died. You would still need significant line haul as you have Logan which will grow even more during this time and you still have the Eastern Busway catchment area, Garden City which has heaps of buses terminate at the interchange above the busway station and UQ Lakes, the second busiest destination after the Brisbane CBD.

[Gazza]

If this thread is about coming up with big expensive transport plans, I'm just going to throw it in that I'd rather the SEB corridor be used for heavy rail, with GC trains shifting onto that allignment. 

[techblitz]

If this thread is about coming up with big expensive transport plans, I'm just going to throw it in that I'd rather the SEB corridor be used for heavy rail, with GC trains shifting onto that allignment. 

goodbye overcrowded 130s,140`s and 150`s
The feasibility study make a good thesis topic 

[#Metro]

If this thread is about coming up with big expensive transport plans, I'm just going to throw it in that I'd rather the SEB corridor be used for heavy rail, with GC trains shifting onto that allignment. 

Gazza, do you support the inclusion of a busway tunnel into CRR or not?

You know, your idea could also be feasible - you'd have the tunnel, you have the ROW (might need significant modification) all you need is a place to make it jump off the beenleigh line.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Don't be silly Gazza.

MAGLEV!

[STB]

If this thread is about coming up with big expensive transport plans, I'm just going to throw it in that I'd rather the SEB corridor be used for heavy rail, with GC trains shifting onto that allignment. 

Now that's an idea I could support!  Something I've been thinking about for years.

[Gazza]

If this thread is about coming up with big expensive transport plans, I'm just going to throw it in that I'd rather the SEB corridor be used for heavy rail, with GC trains shifting onto that allignment. 

Gazza, do you support the inclusion of a busway tunnel into CRR or not?

Why don't you read the darn thread, I've duly answer the question whenever you've asked 

As I've said before, I'm comfortable with the bus loop to be done eventually since the underground arrangments between KGS and QSBS are a bit messy and $260 mil to sort it out isn't that much.

And

I wouldn't mind a bus loop as being the one long term solution for the areas unable to be feederised, but it shouldn't happen till bus routes are rationalised, and the BNE underground is built.

Not at all keen on the bus tunnel to the valley though.

[James]

I'm working on the assumption that the Lord Mayor will get his way and have a bus tunnel built. Years ago the head of BT was pushing the idea at a RAILBOT forum (as a replacement or complement for CRR) as well. The Lord Mayor has massive influence in transport due to political leverage and public council ownership of BT plus as an operator of the largest bus fleet in QLD. The BCC has killed off about three or four LRT proposals in Brisbane and you only have to look at his comments on CRR and the woeful Cleveland Solution 'alternative' proposal and the invention of CityGliders at whim to see this effect in action.

And chances are BT would also oppose a subway. BT is bus bus bus bus bus, nothing else. I think we actually have a better chance of convincing Emerson/Newman that he'd be better off saving the money and not building the bus tunnel, rather than arguing for subway conversion of the SE Busway.

Please also remember that if you choose high capacity high floor buses like Bogota, busway platforms will have to be raised which means that it will no longer be possible for standard buses to stop at busway stations. Also, a move to larger vehicles will also mean a drop in frequency as the vehicles are costly and have higher capacity (viz. Gold Coast light rail - 7.5 minute frequency, this is worse than the current buses along the GC Hwy spine). If very large buses are put on say Mains Road, the frequency will drop during rush hours, and thus the trip will be slightly longer anyway.

I would look to make the buses low-floor. And your point regarding a drop in frequency is more one in my favour - a subway carrying ~500 pax maximum/trip would make a case for a significant reduction of busway frequency - a lot lower than currently.

My philosophy is different and more hardline. There is a train station there, use it. Indeed I have seriously started thinking about termination of 412 at Toowong. Monash University has the 401 Express running every 4 minutes and this does not go down the highway all the way into the Melbourne CBD. The same is true of the 601 to Melbourne University which also terminates at North Melbourne Train station rather than go all the way into the CBD. I have demonstrated exhaustively that full high frequency buses are not by themselves strong enough reasons for direct CBD services and the amount of passengers they carry in one hour under maximum load assumptions could easily be handled, I have demonstrated that overseas places transfer far in excess of anything that would be needed in Brisbane (illustrated with my TTC 35 JANE example which has 15 buses per hour terminate and transfer) and I have given a precedent of BRT to the train station with York Region (Toronto's) BRT to Subway examples.

So I think it can be done on technical grounds (political grounds may be different). Lots of capacity was added to the Ipswich line in peak in the last review. We need to start getting away from excuses and start making efficiencies. A full 412 coming every 10 minutes in peak is only carrying 510 pax at an absolute maximum. When you consider the number of trains passing through the station in one hour, and that these have ~1000 pax capacity at peak load, it is not a big deal.

I sometimes think that that idea would be nice in theory - but then you have to look at it in practice. Interchange facilities have to be inviting and easy to access (think any Gold Coast line station). The other issue is the 412 is on 10 minute frequency vs. 15 minute (off-peak) rail frequency, and cutting the 412 at Toowong ignores the demand along Coronation Drive. I think 8bph (i.e. two BUZes) is the minimum Coronation Drive should be served by. Anything less really isn't acceptable - that corridor is only going to become more active and more dense.

Boosting rail frequency is not the answer either, because you do not want to run a train to Toowong, and then run it practically empty for another 20km+.

Disagree. The major cost component - ROW acquisition and earthmoving has already been completed. There also may be operational cost savings over the lifecycle of the infrastructure which are savings. You still need to get people to GU right, not everybody is going to the CBD, some people are going to uni from the Sunnybank/Browns Plains area, no???

Once the Mains Rd railway line is built, the demand for transit to GU will be a lot lower than it is currently, because pax going to the CBD/UQ are no longer going past there.

There would be hardly any inconvenience. So long as connecting services are frequent, there is not really an issue. People in Paris, London, Tokyo, Toronto and Melbourne make connections all day. People get a bus to the train station, hop on a train, and then catch a tram to work. No one has died. You would still need significant line haul as you have Logan which will grow even more during this time and you still have the Eastern Busway catchment area, Garden City which has heaps of buses terminate at the interchange above the busway station and UQ Lakes, the second busiest destination after the Brisbane CBD.

Once again, you ignore that for your first and last examples, you are imposing a change on all passengers. Doing this will force interchange just to get to the CBD. Especially if you kept the direct trip from the 412, unless pax were living along/near this subway, your change would just drive passengers to flood the 412 as using the 109 to the CBD would require interchange - and getting to Mater Hill would require double interchange.

[#Metro]

And chances are BT would also oppose a subway. BT is bus bus bus bus bus, nothing else. I think we actually have a better chance of convincing Emerson/Newman that he'd be better off saving the money and not building the bus tunnel, rather than arguing for subway conversion of the SE Busway.

If you want to support a boycott of the bus tunnel, fine, but I won't be supporting it. I take your point about BT's bus obsession, though to be fair there is a lot that can be done with bus. I happen to think line haul though on the SE section at least is better done by rail.

I would look to make the buses low-floor. And your point regarding a drop in frequency is more one in my favour - a subway carrying ~500 pax maximum/trip would make a case for a significant reduction of busway frequency - a lot lower than currently.

Can you give me an example of any busway in the world which carries more than 10 000 pphd during peak hour that uses high capacity (150 -200+ pax) low floor buses primarily.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is desireable to be running buses at ultra high frequency (every few seconds) because that wastes labour ($$$) wastes capital equipment (you need more buses) ($$$) and has lots of duplication. The buses passing through cultural centre in peak hour carry 50% air and this is hugely expensive.

Can you also explain why the Gold Coast decided to go with rail at a reduced frequency (7.5 minutes) despite the fact that the frequency would actually be worse than the current bus operation?

[#Metro]

I sometimes think that that idea would be nice in theory - but then you have to look at it in practice. Interchange facilities have to be inviting and easy to access (think any Gold Coast line station). The other issue is the 412 is on 10 minute frequency vs. 15 minute (off-peak) rail frequency, and cutting the 412 at Toowong ignores the demand along Coronation Drive. I think 8bph (i.e. two BUZes) is the minimum Coronation Drive should be served by. Anything less really isn't acceptable - that corridor is only going to become more active and more dense.

Boosting rail frequency is not the answer either, because you do not want to run a train to Toowong, and then run it practically empty for another 20km+.

I am looking at it in practice. As I have stated previously it is a serious mistake to only consider current users of any particular bus route and ignore everyone else on the wider network. That may be how an individual may see it (through their self interest - I don't blame them) but from the perspective of a government or network planner where you have a city and there are people in entire suburbs who do not have decent services or coverage and you have a limited budget and an expanding transport task/city I am in my conception going to terminate the 412 at Toowong because I believe that is fair and equitable on a holistic scale and furthermore everybody funds public transport. If people want a direct, express trip everywhere, they have the choice of doing that, at their own personal cost of course.

And now I am going to present some real-world counterexamples to your assertions: Route 601 Monash University to Huntingdale Station.


Can you explain how the 601 to Monash University runs at higher frequency than our 412 despite the fact that UQ is a much larger university than Monash? Can you explain how it is that this bus running at ~5 minute frequency feeds passengers into Huntingdale Station where the trains only run every 15 minutes?

Can you further explain how it is that this bus route which is often full has no interchange facilities (like Toowong) whatsoever at the train station and requires passengers to cross a road at Traffic Lights, walk down a set of stairs into a pedestrian subway and then up a ramp??

May I only suggest to you that 412 and 411 Termination at Toowong is desirable and feasible.

Here's my proof:

Huntingdale Train station - trains to the CBD are 15 minute frequencies during the day



An extract of the 601 timetable and route:



Services run every 4 minutes or so (~15 buses per hour, well above anything to UQ on the 412)
ALL passengers on ALL services are terminated at the train station.



This is the street view, looking towards Huntindale Station. There is just a plain bus stop and bus shelter and the train station is across the road and down a flight of stairs.

http://goo.gl/maps/yanpF

[#Metro]

Boosting rail frequency is not the answer either, because you do not want to run a train to Toowong, and then run it practically empty for another 20km+.

In the longer term, depending on how successful things go, it would be possible to have 4 trains/hour go to Richlands and two trains per hour (ideally 4  trains/hour) run express to Ipswich all day. You'd make the Ipswich ones stop at Toowong, and there you have frequent services to connect to.

Once the Mains Rd railway line is built, the demand for transit to GU will be a lot lower than it is currently, because pax going to the CBD/UQ are no longer going past there.

Demand for GU will be the same, though yes, one would expect some drop off if there were improvement to Beenleigh line services. But that is only if the beenleigh services actually use the new CRR tunnel and are not routed over the Merivale Bridge. Otherwise there would be little if any time saving. You would still have to force interchange and you would still have double interchange to get to either Cultural Centre (if it goes via CRR) or to access Mater hill. Furthermore, the CRR tunnel needs to have a connection at Park Road. I am assuming it will but nobody has seen the govt's plans yet.