Map of All New Lines Proposed/Discussed/Dreamt

[Jon Bryant]

It is pure dreaming but I have wanted to see what all the proposed/discussed and dreamt lines would look like on a map.  

--> click here!

It is not perfect and not always exact but the intent of the lines is there.  I will add the Northcoast over the next few nights.

Have look and send any thoughts...or not.

[#Metro]

Wow, I can just see how many rail and crossing conflicts there would be on this system!
There needs to be separation.
Its very radical though, but I like it. After all, just look at the map - there are roads everywhere!

Some lines running through empty land (Blue one near Ips.) are only a good idea if there is an undertaking to develop housing estates at the same time as the rail IMHO.

Inala could become a major centre like Carindale, Indro, Garden City etc.
Ha ha, everyone in Samford misses out...

[Jon Bryant]

I have not even added nor will I the tram lines than run down our major roads. 

This could only work with lots of separation. 

The blue line near Ipswich is the published Springfield to Ipswich corridor and is pure there to cater for projected urban development.

My Dad wants Samford included but it is too far to build...but maybe one day.  I just tell him to live closer to town.

The key would be to be able to jump off and on different routes that ran on these lines with very little wat time.  For local trips and mevements in betwwen some of the lines would be serviced by buses running along the major roads in bus lanes.

IMHO

[O_128]

i like the idea of the eastern busway being rail and connecting with cleveland. though i would continue the route through the city as the proposed cross river rail link and include another entrance at fairfield.

[stephenk]

Jonno - where do you you think the funding for all of this would come from? Money doesn't grow on trees! Also, your plans would be an operational nightmare with too many junctions and conflicts.

Maybe we need a "Fantasy Railway" forum, so that unrealistic ideas don't get mixed up with more sensible and realistic threads.

[ozbob]

Well done Jonno!  Fixed up the link for you.  Nothing wrong with dreaming  ...   

Good points for discussion.

[Jon Bryant]

Stephenk, the same place the billions that are spent on roads come from. NSBT is 4 billion for 6 km. Plus the billions spent on road deaths and truma, pollution related health cost, etc, At least our ideas will solve traffic congestion. Why should this be fantasy. Why should we just accept the current spending on rail will not change.  Also a lot of this is just mapping out existing plans plus a few more.

[stephenk]

Stephenk, the same place the billions that are spent on roads come from. NSBT is 4 billion for 6 km. Plus the billions spent on road deaths and truma, pollution related health cost, etc, At least our ideas will solve traffic congestion. Why should this be fantasy. Why should we just accept the current spending on rail will not change.  Also a lot of this is just mapping out existing plans plus a few more.

Even if all SE Queensland road projects were cancelled and the money put towards public transport, there still wouldn't be anywhere near enough money to pay for what you have proposed.

Brisbane has a very low population density, which makes it harder for public transport to be efficient and increases the need for car ownership compared to more dense cities such as New York, Paris, and London. I'm all for diverting road funds (especially from Campbell Newman's road building extravangance) and increasing public transport infrastructure. However, only a limited amount of money is available for all transport infrastructure, and thus it can only be spent where it is cost effective. Many of your ideas are not cost effective in the slightest - for example a new rail line to Beaudesert is laughable!

I would like to see improvements in rail infrastructure and thus increased capacity on existing rail lines, as well as building new lines to key population centres such as Springfield, Sunshine Coast, and Redcliffe. However due to SE Queensland's low population density (Brisbane is semi-rural by European standards), rail is not suitable or cost effective for many parts of SE Queensland. Ramping up bus services would be a more cost-effective use of taxpayers money for areas where rail cannot be justified. Light rail may also be an option for some areas. Feeder bus services to rail stations need to be improved considerably too.

[#Metro]

Jonno - where do you you think the funding for all of this would come from? Money doesn't grow on trees! Also, your plans would be an operational nightmare with too many junctions and conflicts.

In the 1960s, planners had a dream- that there would be roads and freeways connecting every place to every other place.
And it came true. But it wasn't a dream, it was a nightmare!

Jonno is onto something. But Stephenk has an important point, it needs to be funded and prioritised.
We could do with more lines, but we really could do with upping the frequency as the biggest improvement.
A few of us had a thread where we were trying to calculate how much it was to run a extra train for 1 hour.
The ballpark was somewhere between $1500-$2500 IIRC, the main cost being electricity.

This is peanuts from a government perspective. Though I admit that it is an estimate; I don't have a way to check the figure against reality as they omit the numbers I need from publication.


Funding sources/savings (Just as radical)

1. Privatisation (well Ms B is going to do it anyway, may as well grab the cash before some other cause grabs it).
2. Rail/infrastructure Fund (Surpluses, if QLD Gov ever makes one) can go into a fund much like the Brisbane City Council Fund or the future fund.
3. Land tax/levy on adjacent area being developed to capture "spillover" benefits.
Properties near the south east busway tend to rise in value, so this captures some of that
4. TOD Development: MTR corporation does this in Hong Kong
5. Congestion levy
6. Loans, treasury debt issues
7. Get down on one knee and plead to Infrastructure Australia/Federal Govt
8. Rail technology grants to bring the cost down/improve efficiency
9. Cheaper power source / more efficient and aerodynamic rail vehicles.
The biggest cost to run an extra service appears to be electricity costs...
10. A "leaseback" scheme

During the process, ideas change, some are dropped or proposals are modified, the mode might change (to bus, light rail, tramtrain, cycling route) etc.
Good to dream!

[p858snake]

My Dad wants Samford included but it is too far to build...but maybe one day.  I just tell him to live closer to town.

Samford just needs something in between FG station and the village, like a light rail or a monorail or the like that runs along the range or the likes, then you could easily do some bus routes around the area so that people could get to it.

[Jon Bryant]

PS Not all these need or should be rail.  I agree totally that there is a lot that should be being done around frequencies, bus lanes on all roads and any investment needs to prioritized to maximize short term improvements.  We also need to stop the Federal Government spending almost 6 billion on
only 50 km of Freeway.  We cannot just sit back and let the current transport funding continue as the nightmare will devolop into a living hell. 

[O_128]

The map would be better if the current lines were there usual colours

[Jon Bryant]

The map would be better if the current lines were there usual colours

I ran out of colours on google maps.  Let me see what I can do.

[elwood p dowd]

Hi Jonno,

I like your Idea, though there are far too many Houses which would have to be Demolished and that would cause Political Pressure which will Always Win out.

The parts of the Line that followed Moggil Rd. and over the River were Fine.

Good on you for having a Go.

David.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

Brisbane has a very low population density, which makes it harder for public transport to be efficient and increases the need for car ownership compared to more dense cities such as New York, Paris, and London.

However, Perth and Vancouver are low-density cities, and their public transport systems are way ahead of ours. They're the sorts of cities we ought to be emulating.

[Jon Bryant]

Exactly. There are plenty of trip being made even in our lower density city.  It is the percentage of all trips that we plan to be made by PT that matters.  As we over build road space we only get low PT volumes.  Restrict road space and car parking abd the PT volumes will soar. 

[ozbob]

Yes, and make the ticketing one that encourages maximum use of the public transport asset ...  around the clock ...