POLL: Do you favour CRR under Central or Roma St?

[ozbob]

The detailed planning for the chosen route will confirm if Roma St or Central station is to be part of the CRR.  (CRR will pass directly underneath and will become part of that station, with deeper platforms)

Do you have a preference for one above the other?  Does it matter?  What are your reasons?


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201003/r536797_3091978.jpg

[Jon Bryant]

Central is a more direct route through the City from the Gabba.   

[curator49]

As Jonno says Central gives a more direct route from the 'Gabba.

It is also close to the business districts around Eagle Street as well as the main shopping areas of the CBD plus interchanges between rail journeys at the Central Station complex would be very attractive.

[Derwan]

Playing Devil's Advocate, Roma St has the attraction of the Bus interchange.  What if you had to change to a bus to continue your journey?

[Jon Bryant]

An option is to locate the underground Central to the South of current Station and link via travelator to current Central and King George Square Busway.  London Underground has a few stations that do this.

[#Metro]

Roma St
Central is too busy. We are going to get CBD 2 station anyway under George St or Queen St Mall/Albert Street.
We need to know more about this yellow inter-connector thingy is. What exactly is that? Is it a track going from ICRCS tunnel and surfacing onto the existing track?

[stephenk]

I'll refrain from commenting on the daft comment above (which has now been edited out).  

As the majority of CBD passengers travel to Central, then Central seems like the most obvious solution by far. How about the platforms being built to the north of the existing line with entrances at both ends. The southern entrance would thus be in or around the existing station complex, and the northern end located a bit further towards Spring Hill to slightly make up for the cost cutting loss of Spring Hill station.

[mufreight]

A four platform station at Central below the existing station but extending back towards Adelaide Street, such an arrangement would allow for a greater number of services and some dwell time for timetable recovery and if needed enable services to be terminated and turned back at that point giving more operational flexibility than is the case with the layout of the existing Central station.
Commuters would have the bus/rail interchange at Wooloongabba and possibly if the Exhibition station were relocated either back under Bowen Bridge Road or before Bowen Bridge Road a further bus/rail interchange at RBH, this would reduce both congestion and loadings in the actual CBD.
As for a station under George Street in the proximity of the Queen Street Mall, it would be preferable to locate a station adjacent to the Gardens in the proximity of Alice Street which would cater for the QIT/Parliament House precinct which is a major commuter generating point and would become even more so with the development that such a transport link will bring in the Alice/George Street area.

[Emmie]

I'd go for Roma St because of the busway link as well as its connections to the Transit Centre.  Spruced up (and boy does it need it) the TC could handle a lot more passengers than Central, which is already pretty overcrowded.

But I'm not an engineer - and it may come down to the comparative costs of tunnelling in the two locations - Central is built on a rocky ridge, Roma St in the riverine valley - I've no idea which is preferable from an engineering perspective.

[somebody]

I feel compelled to side with the ICRCS.  How about that?

We don't need interchange at either location, really.  You can change for northern lines at Bowen Hills, it's only a short walk between the Edward St station and Central.  The majority of people are making this walk now.  I'd rather save the walk for the 80% and inflict it on the 20% than the other way around.

Also, interchange at Central does nothing for bus transfers, and at Roma St it does very little for that. The bus transfers are more important than interchange between this tunnel and a single line (Ipswich).  The walk for a bus transfer would be less with the Edward St station than at Central, and even at Roma St except for a minority of routes.  Bus transfers are also far more important than train transfers, and especially train transfers between two lines only.  A final point is that it is possible to implement a full time Tennyson service which would further reduce the importance of interchange between this line and the Ipswich line.

While Roma St is superior in its interchange options, it makes the line less direct in its connections to the north, unless of course it connects to the Ferny Grove line, but I doubt that will happen.

<Dons flame proof suit>

[ozbob]

No worries at all somebody, all opinions valid.

I have a slight  leaning towards Roma St.  Roma St TC is to undergo a considerable redevelopment, there is more room and it might be easier to do.  It also has a direct bus connection.  Central would also work well, and maybe Jonno's point about positioning so there is a connection to KGBS would work equally well.   I guess the engineering considerations will be the final determinant but this is a very interesting thread and some great reasons either way put forward already.

It is I think clear though that the CRR will connect directly to the surface in the general precincts of either Roma St or Central.

[stephenk]

I feel compelled to side with the ICRCS.  How about that?

We don't need interchange at either location, really.  You can change for northern lines at Bowen Hills, it's only a short walk between the Edward St station and Central.  The majority of people are making this walk now.  I'd rather save the walk for the 80% and inflict it on the 20% than the other way around.

Also, interchange at Central does nothing for bus transfers, and at Roma St it does very little for that. The bus transfers are more important than interchange between this tunnel and a single line (Ipswich).  The walk for a bus transfer would be less with the Edward St station than at Central, and even at Roma St except for a minority of routes.  Bus transfers are also far more important than train transfers, and especially train transfers between two lines only.  A final point is that it is possible to implement a full time Tennyson service which would further reduce the importance of interchange between this line and the Ipswich line.

While Roma St is superior in its interchange options, it makes the line less direct in its connections to the north, unless of course it connects to the Ferny Grove line, but I doubt that will happen.

<Dons flame proof suit>

I don' think you need to don a flame proof suit, as there is logic behind your answer. The alignment recommended in the ICRCS has interchange at Bowen Hills (new line is underground), with Exhibition being underground, a station in Spring Hill, and a more central CBD station. Whilst this has interchange at both ends (Bowen Hills and Park Rd) which will shorten journey times for many users, it would make it difficult for someone coming from Ipswich/Springfield to get to Gardens Point/Southern CBD station and Wooloongabba by train.

Whilst the new "cut price" tunnel possibly emitting Bowen Hills and Spring Hill stations, then there has to be interchange at either Central or Roma Street. Thus everyone can now get to their destination by train with only one change (I think).

[paulg]

I'm in favour of a Roma Street connection because of the additional interchange possibilities with buses, and also because of the opportunities for a new concourse with more room for circulation of large numbers of people.

Suppose the new line was to take an Albert St alignment such as this:


This would allow
(a) Access from the end of the existing Roma St tunnel down into a new CRR concourse
(b) Access from the King George Square busway into the southern end of a new CRR concourse
(c) Potential for a subterranean walkway to Central Station
(d) Lift access to Wickham Terrace improving PT accessibility from Spring Hill

The southern end of Albert St is a good compromise location for the second CBD station since it could serve both QUT/government and Riverside workers.

Apparently they are now undertaking basement surveys to determine constraints in each of the potential George / Albert / Edward St corridors.

Cheers, Paul

[#Metro]

Paul, I really like this idea.
Thanks for putting it up.

[somebody]

paulg, wouldn't an Albert St alignment require greater station depth due to the busway, and possibly the KGS car park.  I'm not sure if that has levels below the busway.

it would make it difficult for someone coming from Ipswich/Springfield to get to Gardens Point/Southern CBD station and Wooloongabba by train.

Whilst the new "cut price" tunnel possibly emitting Bowen Hills and Spring Hill stations, then there has to be interchange at either Central or Roma Street. Thus everyone can now get to their destination by train with only one change (I think).

Not really difficult.  Just leave the station at Central, <5 min walk, re-enter at Edward St and head to the Gabba. Easy, really.  Compare that to what you have to do now to get from a QSBS terminating bus to any northern train line in the PM peak.  While you can walk from the Cultural Centre to South Brisbane, this is not attractive as the frequency isn't very good at the train: There's a lot of Roma St starters, and you can walk from QSBS to Central in 5-8mins, that's not particularly attractive either.  The best option is to change at the Cultural Centre for an Adelaide St bus then change again near Edward St for Central.

This is first I've heard of omitting Bowen Hills station possibly being dropped.  That's crazy!  We need that station for interchange.  (Yes, Cenral/Roma St would remove this need, but why would you want to?)

[stephenk]

This is first I've heard of omitting Bowen Hills station possibly being dropped.  That's crazy!  We need that station for interchange.  (Yes, Cenral/Roma St would remove this need, but why would you want to?)

The ICRCS-Pre Feasibility Report mentioned that using the existing Exhibition Line alignment would mean that stations at Spring Hill and a Bowen Hills interchange would not be possible.

If there was a Bowen Hills station it would have to be on the other side of the "Hole in the Wall" and this would not be convenient for interchange. It would cause issues with the positioning of the required grade-seperated junctions at Maybe.

I think using the surface alignment along the Exhibition Line is a poor idea, and I hope that the planners follow the ICRCS-Pre Feasibility Report by dropping the idea.

[somebody]

I think using the surface alignment along the Exhibition Line is a poor idea, and I hope that the planners follow the ICRCS-Pre Feasibility Report by dropping the idea.

That seems pretty obvious.  Is the reason for the Exhibition 2 station then to prevent the need to run a special service during Ekka, which effectively must be catered for year round?

[paulg]

paulg, wouldn't an Albert St alignment require greater station depth due to the busway, and possibly the KGS car park.  I'm not sure if that has levels below the busway.

Yes, I suspect the Albert St alignment may end up being scrapped due to the depth of the KGS busway station.

In which case my second preference is for a George St alignment:


This has the advantages:
(a) New concourses at Roma St could connect to both the existing subway and Emma Miller Place (and via pedestrian overpass over Roma St to the new public square between the courthouses)
(b) Underground subways could link the new southern concourse to both Central and KGS busway, and lift access to Wickham Terrace would still be possible
(c) Provision could be made for an additional future station between Adelaide and Queen, providing interchanges with Adelaide St and Queen St Busway Station buses
(d) Southern CBD station is ideally suited for QUT and government workers

I agree that the benefits of daylighting on the Exhibition Loop may be marginal given the extra costs of land acquisition for the additional tracks and the need for flyovers at Mayne. That will require some cost analysis and engineering feasibility work given the grade limitations. However, regardless of the form of the station at Bowen Hills, I think an interchange with Central or Roma Street is vital for this project. The Ipswich line services a very large chunk of Brisbane and it needs to have easy access to Wooloongabba and Gold Coast services.

Cheers, Paul

[somebody]

But those city station locations are only good for the minority.  The majority may change at Roma St for a bus, which would have a big full bus problem.

I'm going to re-iterate that I side with the ICRCS in having stations at Park Rd, the Gabba, Edward St, ? and Bowen Hills.  It's the ? that I'm open to discussion on.  Spring Hill seems ho-hum - most residents would just walk.  Exhibition 2 seems pretty wasteful.

[paulg]

Exhibition 2 seems pretty wasteful.

The RBWH is a major trip attractor, and a rebuild of Exhibition would allow it to be moved closer to Bowen Bridge Rd (where a nice wide pedestrian underpass already exists).
Once the RNA redevelopment gets underway there will also be an army of office workers needing good PT access.

A major problem with the Spring Hill idea is the topography. With the deep tunnel proposed in the ICRCS, the Spring Hill station box was extremely deep
(~60m - see http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/ebb7a74433a45c8/Pdf_icrcs_stage_3_technical_pre-feasibility_figure_5-1-2-3.pdf)
This would have been an expensive station to build and operate, and a pain for passengers to use with very long escalators. The deepest station on the London Underground is 58.5m (Hampstead).

Cheers, Paul

[stephenk]

A major problem with the Spring Hill idea is the topography. With the deep tunnel proposed in the ICRCS, the Spring Hill station box was extremely deep
(~60m - see http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/ebb7a74433a45c8/Pdf_icrcs_stage_3_technical_pre-feasibility_figure_5-1-2-3.pdf)
This would have been an expensive station to build and operate, and a pain for passengers to use with very long escalators. The deepest station on the London Underground is 58.5m (Hampstead).

There is no doubt that this station would be a tad pricey due to it's depth, but there are plenty of stations deeper than 60m around the world, with a few around 100m deep in Russia (served by escalators). It's just a case of whether the cost can be justified. Of course if the tunnel surfaces onto the Exhibition Loop then the gradients will mean that Spring Hill stations will have to be eliminated anyway.

The very deep Line 9/10 on the Barcelona Metro uses large vertical cylindrical bores to access the track to reduce construction costs. 6 lifts at each station carry passengers from platforms to surface considerably faster than escalators.

[longboi]

At first I though Roma St because of the enormous interchange opportunites and the fact it is much more suited to handle large volumes of interchanging pax.

However, I'm now leaning more towards an Edward St station with escalators/lifts to the current Central station. You have a relatively short walk to Adelaide St/QSBS/KGS and a majority of pax will infact be heading to a destination around that Inner CBD area around QSM.

[somebody]

Of course if the tunnel surfaces onto the Exhibition Loop then the gradients will mean that Spring Hill stations will have to be eliminated anyway.

Really?  What prevents a station at a shallow depth?

EDIT: Also, even if the cut price tunnel is done, the main downside appears to be lack of interchange between the tunnel and the Ferny Grove line.  And my short walk along Edward St argument would still apply to that one.

[Markus]

Im glad Anna has put her name on the line and brought up this proposal knowing her name may be mud, IF its all talk. I like the idea of the line passing through Roma st as i see more opportunity for movement of people here along with the bus terminal.
Also, the closer to Garden Pt/ Uni the better. For all the amount of money to be spent I sincerely trust the decision makers to do a census of how many people would use rail stations in certain parts of the CBD incl. the suggestion the the BNE CBD will need to expand into Spring Hill/ Valley within a few decades. Im Very dissapointed , however, that theres not 2 or 3 proposed alignments for commuters to comment upon. How come theres no interchange with other lines at its Northern end nr. Bowen Hills. Come on planners - get serious !