Should Mayne move?

[mufreight]

The question arises again, what is affordable, what is realistic and what will work now with provision for future expansion.
The provision of a new cross river link and a new north south line servicing the CBD with interchange facilities bus - rail at the Gabba and RBH/Exhibition and a rail - rail interchange at Central not only resolves the basic existing constraint of capacity but also provides an alternative route through the CBD.
The extra capacity for the needed for Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast services both accross the river and through the CBD is provided.
Effectively at the present time there is ample capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture corridor for increased frequency.
All the debate at present as to the need to be able to operate Clevland line trains via any new link is less than constructive or realistic as the removal of Beenleigh/ Gold Coast services from the Merivale Street corridor would provide sufficent additional capacity not only for current needs but also for future expansion of services on both the Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines with the new areas services by rail relieving some of the load currently carried by bus and would also by adding two bus - rail interchange points make public transport more user friendly and attractive to commuters.

[somebody]

The extra capacity for the needed for Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast services both accross the river and through the CBD is provided.
Effectively at the present time there is ample capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture corridor for increased frequency.
All the debate at present as to the need to be able to operate Clevland line trains via any new link is less than constructive or realistic as the removal of Beenleigh/ Gold Coast services from the Merivale Street corridor would provide sufficent additional capacity not only for current needs but also for future expansion of services on both the Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines with the new areas services by rail relieving some of the load currently carried by bus and would also by adding two bus - rail interchange points make public transport more user friendly and attractive to commuters.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up debates about a Cleveland line river crossing, they don't appear to be in this thread. 

While the 2016 tunnel does serves the purposes you outline, the ICRS claims a need for another CBD route by 2026.  I believe that the Taringa/West End/CBD double river crossing is wasteful, reduces service to Milton and Auchenflower and possibly Toowong, and has few positives other than serving West End.  A Cleveland line-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket link would save about 10 minutes off current journey times, be considerably more attractive than driving for people that live along that line, serve New Farm and provide rail service to QUT KG which is a big trip generator.  Also speeding up Ferny Grove line services a bit is a plus.

Here's the link if you want to add to that discussion: http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0
I hope I didn't misunderstand what you are getting at.

[O_128]

The extra capacity for the needed for Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast services both accross the river and through the CBD is provided.
Effectively at the present time there is ample capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture corridor for increased frequency.
All the debate at present as to the need to be able to operate Clevland line trains via any new link is less than constructive or realistic as the removal of Beenleigh/ Gold Coast services from the Merivale Street corridor would provide sufficent additional capacity not only for current needs but also for future expansion of services on both the Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines with the new areas services by rail relieving some of the load currently carried by bus and would also by adding two bus - rail interchange points make public transport more user friendly and attractive to commuters.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up debates about a Cleveland line river crossing, they don't appear to be in this thread. 

While the 2016 tunnel does serves the purposes you outline, the ICRS claims a need for another CBD route by 2026.  I believe that the Taringa/West End/CBD double river crossing is wasteful, reduces service to Milton and Auchenflower and possibly Toowong, and has few positives other than serving West End.  A Cleveland line-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket link would save about 10 minutes off current journey times, be considerably more attractive than driving for people that live along that line, serve New Farm and provide rail service to QUT KG which is a big trip generator.  Also speeding up Ferny Grove line services a bit is a plus.

Here's the link if you want to add to that discussion: http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0
I hope I didn't misunderstand what you are getting at.

I agree aswell. The ipswich line really doesnt need more than 4 tracks anyway. More gains can be gotten by signaling upgrades. A tunnel entrance after morningside would significantly cut travel times.

[stephenk]

The extra capacity for the needed for Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast services both accross the river and through the CBD is provided.
Effectively at the present time there is ample capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture corridor for increased frequency.
All the debate at present as to the need to be able to operate Clevland line trains via any new link is less than constructive or realistic as the removal of Beenleigh/ Gold Coast services from the Merivale Street corridor would provide sufficent additional capacity not only for current needs but also for future expansion of services on both the Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines with the new areas services by rail relieving some of the load currently carried by bus and would also by adding two bus - rail interchange points make public transport more user friendly and attractive to commuters.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up debates about a Cleveland line river crossing, they don't appear to be in this thread. 

While the 2016 tunnel does serves the purposes you outline, the ICRS claims a need for another CBD route by 2026.  I believe that the Taringa/West End/CBD double river crossing is wasteful, reduces service to Milton and Auchenflower and possibly Toowong, and has few positives other than serving West End.  A Cleveland line-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket link would save about 10 minutes off current journey times, be considerably more attractive than driving for people that live along that line, serve New Farm and provide rail service to QUT KG which is a big trip generator.  Also speeding up Ferny Grove line services a bit is a plus.

Here's the link if you want to add to that discussion: http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0
I hope I didn't misunderstand what you are getting at.

The purpose of the 2026 route is to provide extra capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture Line. A line from Cleveland to Ferny Grove would not really help this. It would also complicate operations, as it will reduce services from South Bank/Brisbane, and still leave 2 stunted lines requiring trains. Milton and Auchenflower will have no lack of trains by the time the 2026 tunnel is required.

Sorry, another ill-thought out idea. It seems to be silly season on this forum at the moment?

[O_128]

The extra capacity for the needed for Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast services both accross the river and through the CBD is provided.
Effectively at the present time there is ample capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture corridor for increased frequency.
All the debate at present as to the need to be able to operate Clevland line trains via any new link is less than constructive or realistic as the removal of Beenleigh/ Gold Coast services from the Merivale Street corridor would provide sufficent additional capacity not only for current needs but also for future expansion of services on both the Clevland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines with the new areas services by rail relieving some of the load currently carried by bus and would also by adding two bus - rail interchange points make public transport more user friendly and attractive to commuters.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up debates about a Cleveland line river crossing, they don't appear to be in this thread. 

While the 2016 tunnel does serves the purposes you outline, the ICRS claims a need for another CBD route by 2026.  I believe that the Taringa/West End/CBD double river crossing is wasteful, reduces service to Milton and Auchenflower and possibly Toowong, and has few positives other than serving West End.  A Cleveland line-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket link would save about 10 minutes off current journey times, be considerably more attractive than driving for people that live along that line, serve New Farm and provide rail service to QUT KG which is a big trip generator.  Also speeding up Ferny Grove line services a bit is a plus.

Here's the link if you want to add to that discussion: http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0
I hope I didn't misunderstand what you are getting at.

The purpose of the 2026 route is to provide extra capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture Line. A line from Cleveland to Ferny Grove would not really help this. It would also complicate operations, as it will reduce services from South Bank/Brisbane, and still leave 2 stunted lines requiring trains. Milton and Auchenflower will have no lack of trains by the time the 2026 tunnel is required.

Sorry, another ill-thought out idea. It seems to be silly season on this forum at the moment?

But how many tracks does the ipswich line really need. 6 tracks seems like an overkill what is really needed is upgraded signalling and a restructured timetable

[#Metro]

Constructive ideas make me happy

[stephenk]

But how many tracks does the ipswich line really need. 6 tracks seems like an overkill what is really needed is upgraded signalling and a restructured timetable

According to the ICRCS, from 2026, with 2 new tunnels, these are the number of tracks through the CBD.
Ipswich/Rosewood - Caboolture/North Coast - 2 tracks
Petrie - Springfield/Beenleigh - 2 tracks
Ferny Grove - Cleveland/Kuraby - 2 tracks
Gold Coast - Airport/Shorncliffe/Doomben - 2 tracks
(Plus Exhibition Line used for freight and Mayne access - 2-3 tracks)

[stephenk]

Constructive ideas make me happy

Whilst new ideas and thinking outside of the box can be good, there have been a lot of unrealistic, ill thought out, and fantasy ideas surfacing in the last few weeks. This is detracting from the promotion of mature plans for Brisbane's future, that have been planned by people who actually know what they are on about.

I know I mention it in nearly every post, but can forum members interested in future infrastructure please have a proper read of both the Inner City Rail Capacity Study Rail Operations Review (138 pages), and Inner City Rail Capacity Pre Feasibility Study (157 pages).

[#Metro]

Whilst new ideas and thinking outside of the box can be good, there have been a lot of unrealistic, ill thought out, and fantasy ideas surfacing in the last few weeks. This is detracting from the promotion of mature plans for Brisbane's future, that have been planned by people who actually know what they are on about.

I respectfully disagree.  Sure there will be ideas that don't have merit on closer inspection and discussion.
But this isn't obvious to all, especially non-experts such as myself. The penalty for putting forward a bad idea is nothing. 

I have a different ICRCS alignment in mind. I will post it up here soon, maybe it won't have merit. Maybe it will.
The purpose behind making these documents, studies and ideas "by experts" publicly available is so they can be investigated and challenged by the public, not passively accepted at their face value due to the mere fact of being produced by those more knowledgeable than ourselves. As people of the general public who substantially contribute to the funding of these $ multi-billion things, we have every right to question any and all aspects of the project whatsoever for no reason, ask for justification and ask why certain alternatives were not considered. 

More broadly, history tends to repeat itself, and urban planning philosophies change.
The Wilbur Smith Plan (The Experts) produced compelling evidence that Brisbane MUST build freeways on all directions of the compass and then encircle the city with 4 stacked Bowen-Hills style interchanges IIRC in the inner city.
Under a 1960s planning philosophy of big properties with low sprawling cities and cheap land, they would be right.
They are not right today, not because their study was wrong, but because the urban planning philosophical rug changed underneath them.

Experts get it wrong. They don't mind because you're paying for it.

[Derwan]

While we're posting off-topic in this thread, I'll jump in too.

The purpose of the Inner City Rail Capacity Study was to increase capacity through the city - which in turn will increase capacity on the lines up to their current infrastructure limits.

On the Ipswich line, we see 4 tracks - reducing to 3 until the Springfield branch.  On the Cleveland line, we see two tracks.  Which has more capacity?

On the north, a tunnel commencing north of Bowen Hills could service the Caboolture (with extension to Nambour/Gympie), Shorncliffe, Airport or Doomben lines.

On the South, a tunnel towards Ipswich would service the Ipswich (with extension to Rosewood) or Springfield lines.

A tunnel towards Cleveland would only service the Cleveland line and its limited capacity.  With the duplication of the remaining single-track sections also in the distant future, there is no point considering this tunnel as part of any current infrastructure plans (i.e. up to 2026).

[somebody]

While the 2016 tunnel does serves the purposes you outline, the ICRS claims a need for another CBD route by 2026.  I believe that the Taringa/West End/CBD double river crossing is wasteful, reduces service to Milton and Auchenflower and possibly Toowong, and has few positives other than serving West End.  A Cleveland line-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket link would save about 10 minutes off current journey times, be considerably more attractive than driving for people that live along that line, serve New Farm and provide rail service to QUT KG which is a big trip generator.  Also speeding up Ferny Grove line services a bit is a plus.

Here's the link if you want to add to that discussion: http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0

The purpose of the 2026 route is to provide extra capacity on the Ipswich - Caboolture Line. A line from Cleveland to Ferny Grove would not really help this. It would also complicate operations, as it will reduce services from South Bank/Brisbane, and still leave 2 stunted lines requiring trains. Milton and Auchenflower will have no lack of trains by the time the 2026 tunnel is required.

Well, I said bustitute Wilston, and Windsor is already served by a BUZ.  So how can you say *2* stunted lines requiring trains?  I'd think that a Cannon Hill via South Bank section would probably require no more than 4tph, and given that one would expect all the Beenleigh and GC line trains going via the 2016 tunnel, that leaves plenty of capacity for the Ipswich/Springfield line trains to use the suburbans.  Yes, there's a conflicting move at Roma St, but does the rail exist to provide a service, or avoid conflicting moves?

And the via West End tunnel would complicate things also, presumably with a conflicting move where two tracks branch off to go underground.

Yes, service to South Bank would be significantly reduced, but who cares?  You already have a much better bus service there as compared to the rail service.  Even if frequency was every 3 minutes at South Bank, journey times and frequency would favour the bus for getting in to the city.  The only real problem would be requiring Cleveland line people to interchange to get to South Bank etc.  The advantage to the majority far outwieghs this disadvantage.

Oh, and BTW, you didn't appreciate my initial comments on the Northern Busway.  I think this makes us even.

A tunnel towards Cleveland would only service the Cleveland line and its limited capacity.  With the duplication of the remaining single-track sections also in the distant future, there is no point considering this tunnel as part of any current infrastructure plans (i.e. up to 2026).

Yes capacity is limited, but it's present utilisation is around the 8tph mark in peak.  Factor in the expected doubling in patronage on Citytrain by 2026 and you are starting to get to the limit of a track pair.

[Jon Bryant]

Whilst new ideas and thinking outside of the box can be good, there have been a lot of unrealistic, ill thought out, and fantasy ideas surfacing in the last few weeks. This is detracting from the promotion of mature plans for Brisbane's future, that have been planned by people who actually know what they are on about.

I know I mention it in nearly every post, but can forum members interested in future infrastructure please have a proper read of both the Inner City Rail Capacity Study Rail Operations Review (138 pages), and Inner City Rail Capacity Pre Feasibility Study (157 pages).

If the above fore mentioned planners are so good the why is our city sprawled across a whole region, car dependent, with worsening traffic congestion, minimal and disfunctional public transport, choking to death on the fumes of cars, etc.   There is no doubt that the cross river rail and greater frequencies on all bus and rail lines is desperately needed but current transport planning still assumes relatively low PT usage. The levels assumed are not sustainable at all levels.  Far higher active and public transport levels are needed.  If we continue to plan for low PT levels then that the maximum that will be achieved.  Rather we need to plan for far higher levels, restrict road space and car parking.  This will require plans and capacity far beyond those already on the table.     

[Derwan]

Yes capacity is limited, but it's present utilisation is around the 8tph mark in peak.  Factor in the expected doubling in patronage on Citytrain by 2026 and you are starting to get to the limit of a track pair.

Yes - you're right.  This is an issue - and the Government is not doing enough to address it.  The Eastern Busway is supposed to alleviate some of the congestion on the Cleveland line, but we all know it won't be enough.

However, the patronage will increase across the board - especially in areas of high growth, which include the Springfield and Ipswich areas.  They will be in greater need of more capacity options such as the alternative route through the city.

[somebody]

The Eastern Busway is supposed to alleviate some of the congestion on the Cleveland line, but we all know it won't be enough.

However, the patronage will increase across the board - especially in areas of high growth, which include the Springfield and Ipswich areas.  They will be in greater need of more capacity options such as the alternative route through the city.

That's a crazy way of dealing with congestion!  What about increasing train frequency?  I suppose in peak this more or less requires the 2016 tunnel, but getting rid of 3 car sets running around would be a good start for the meantime.

Yes patronage growth is likely to be high on the Ipswich line, with the Springfield line coming on stream this decade sometime.  But you have a quad track corridor, and all of those tracks are connected to the CBD.  The only problem with that is use of the suburbans would reduce Merivale Bridge capacity.  What if Merivale bridge capacity was no longer important?

[stephenk]

Whilst new ideas and thinking outside of the box can be good, there have been a lot of unrealistic, ill thought out, and fantasy ideas surfacing in the last few weeks. This is detracting from the promotion of mature plans for Brisbane's future, that have been planned by people who actually know what they are on about.

I know I mention it in nearly every post, but can forum members interested in future infrastructure please have a proper read of both the Inner City Rail Capacity Study Rail Operations Review (138 pages), and Inner City Rail Capacity Pre Feasibility Study (157 pages).

If the above fore mentioned planners are so good the why is our city sprawled across a whole region, car dependent, with worsening traffic congestion, minimal and disfunctional public transport, choking to death on the fumes of cars, etc.   There is no doubt that the cross river rail and greater frequencies on all bus and rail lines is desperately needed but current transport planning still assumes relatively low PT usage. The levels assumed are not sustainable at all levels.  Far higher active and public transport levels are needed.  If we continue to plan for low PT levels then that the maximum that will be achieved.  Rather we need to plan for far higher levels, restrict road space and car parking.  This will require plans and capacity far beyond those already on the table.     

The ICRCS was written by various consultants from independant companies such as Systemwide. They are not responsible for Brisbane's lack of urban planning, car dependancy, and the sinking of the Titanic. In fact on page 3, it reads "The contents of this report do not represent Queensland Transport or State Government policy".

Please get your facts right before hitting the post button. 

[Derwan]

Considering many of the recommendations will either not be implemented - or not implemented anywhere near the recommended timeframes - it's no wonder they specifically distance themselves from "Queensland Transport" and "State Government policy"! 

[#Metro]

They are not responsible for Brisbane's lack of urban planning, car dependancy, and the sinking of the Titanic. In fact on page 3, it reads "The contents of this report do not represent Queensland Transport or State Government policy".

We have every right to pull apart their plans and examine them.
The buck stops with the politicians, but they usually listen to whatever the "experts" recommend.

[#Metro]

Click here to go back to the future --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3304.0

[Jon Bryant]

Whilst new ideas and thinking outside of the box can be good, there have been a lot of unrealistic, ill thought out, and fantasy ideas surfacing in the last few weeks. This is detracting from the promotion of mature plans for Brisbane's future, that have been planned by people who actually know what they are on about.

I know I mention it in nearly every post, but can forum members interested in future infrastructure please have a proper read of both the Inner City Rail Capacity Study Rail Operations Review (138 pages), and Inner City Rail Capacity Pre Feasibility Study (157 pages).

If the above fore mentioned planners are so good the why is our city sprawled across a whole region, car dependent, with worsening traffic congestion, minimal and disfunctional public transport, choking to death on the fumes of cars, etc.   There is no doubt that the cross river rail and greater frequencies on all bus and rail lines is desperately needed but current transport planning still assumes relatively low PT usage. The levels assumed are not sustainable at all levels.  Far higher active and public transport levels are needed.  If we continue to plan for low PT levels then that the maximum that will be achieved.  Rather we need to plan for far higher levels, restrict road space and car parking.  This will require plans and capacity far beyond those already on the table.      

The ICRCS was written by various consultants from independant companies such as Systemwide. They are not responsible for Brisbane's lack of urban planning, car dependancy, and the sinking of the Titanic. In fact on page 3, it reads "The contents of this report do not represent Queensland Transport or State Government policy".

Please get your facts right before hitting the post button.  

I fully support the findings of the ICRCS and those who wrote it.  I, as do many members, wanted digging to have start last year.  My concern is a wider industry problem with the approach to PT planning that shows that this extra capacity is all that is needed by 2026.  For example on Page 33 of the ICRCS states:

Public transport currently undertakes a relatively small percentage of trips across South East Queensland. The model estimates this as being only 3.9% of trips in 20069. Public transport will be expected to increase its role in the future. The mode share should rise to 4.5% of all trips by 2016 and again to 4.8% by 2026 in the base case (which assumes no new rail stations in the inner city). Although the mode share figures remain small in absolute terms, the increase in actual trips associated is large. Figure 4-5 shows the estimated compound annual growth rates for transport by all modes, by public transport and by QR Citytrain. It can be seen that although all trips will grow by an average of 2.3% per annum between 2006 and 2026, the number of rail trips will grow by nearly 5% per annum over the same period.

It is this "demand growth" driven approach to PT planning that has resulted in the mess of traffic congestion we have to day.  Transport planning is a supply issue which is the approach taken to road planning yet for PT it is demand planned.  Thus the mess we have to day.  If we are moving only such low numbers by PT in 2026 then our region is doomed economocially, socially and certainly environmentally.

If we are to be a truely sustainable region then upwards of 60% of trips by active or public transport.  It is these levels of active and PT usage that we should be planning for inclluding many of the ideas floated in this forum.  The proposals are above and beyond the Cross River Rail not instead of it and do not in anyway detract from it. We need to develop a system that looks like the London Undergrond on a map of the region.  

PS. I will post whatever I like in this forum.  

[#Metro]

Hi Jonno,

In 1960 public transport carried 45% of trips! (stated in the Wilbur Smith Plan)

I fully support the findings of the ICRCS findings and those who wrote it.  I, as do many members, wanted digging to have start last year.

I support the ICRCS findings, but not after some serious questioning about the exact alignment.

[ozbob]

In terms of passenger trips, Brisbane trams during the 1940s did as many trips as the sum total of bus and rail today!

What a shame the trams were not left intact and the Wilbur Smith rail extensions not done ...  Brisbane would be a world leader in public transport today.  Trams would have evolved as the rail.


http://www.brisbanetramwaymuseum.org/images/014.jpg

Still better late than never ...

[Jon Bryant]

PS. I would love to see the proposal the ICRCS consultants would come up with with the target of active and public transport levels of 60% plus.

[#Metro]

What a shame the trams were not left intact and the Wilbur Smith rail extensions not done ...  Brisbane would be a world leader in public transport today.  Trams would have evolved as the rail.

There was one thing done: The Merivale Bridge was proposed and built, despite what appears to be a tight turn.

Yes, the plan throws light on this too. Rather than conspiracy theories (there is room though - Paddington depot tram fire was the straw that broke the camel's back) the truth is rather more plain:

1. Huge movement to cars from PT in 1960, tram patronage dropping 5% in 1965, enormous car registrations (something like 200%) and increasing wealth, cheap petrol and cars meant people were switching away from trams in huge numbers. This was all in the pre-freeway era, before the freeways went in.

2. Diesel buses were significantly cheaper to operate, maintain and buy. They were also able to be re-routed and change route quickly and cheaply- necessary for a growing city. To do the same with a tram, one would have to likely close the road, lay track and wire the thing up- which would take ages and cost far in excess of doing it with buses.

3. With increasing traffic, passengers in boarding/alighting from trams in the middle of the road became more dangerous. Buses on the other hand could stop at the kerb and let passengers off

4. Trams could not take advantage of the new freeways proposed. Buses were thought of as better as they could travel on the Expressway and take advantage of the higher speeds, which is true today (Rockets use the Riverside Exspressway and the Western Freeway)

Trams and LRT are still not viable yet. I emphasise the 'yet'. The time will come.

[Jon Bryant]

It is not doubt a shame the trams were not kept but hindsight is always 20:20.  The car seemed to be the answer.  We know better now. 

In reference to Light Rail's time not here yet I recommend reading the Victoria Transport Policy Institute study that compares public transport performance in U.S. urban areas that expanded rail transit with urban areas that expanded bus transit from the mid-1990s through 2003.

Link here www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf

Conclusion

This analysis indicates that U.S. urban areas that expanded rail service on average significantly outperformed urban areas that only expanded bus service in terms of transit ridership and financial performance. Cities that expanded their rail transit systems gained far more total transit riders than cities that expanded bus transit systems. Measured in constant dollars, operating and maintenance expenses per passenger-mile declined for rail cities but rose in bus cities. In 2003, overall operating cost per passenger-mile in the cities with New-Start rail transit systems was only about 74% of that in cities with New-Start bus services.

While there may be other factors involved, this analysis refutes criticism that developing new rail transit systems reduces overall transit ridership and cost efficiency. This study is consistent with other research indicating that rail service is effective at attracting riders and increasing transit system efficiency. It indicates that rail transit investments are often economically justified due to benefits from improved transit performance and increased transit ridership.

[ozbob]

Blast from the past ...

--> Brisbane:  Forty years since the trams went silent