Article: South Brisbane, West End population to increase three-fold

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

South Brisbane, West End population to increase three-fold

South Brisbane, West End population to increase three-fold
TONY MOORE
February 9, 2010 - 5:29AM

Brisbane City Council estimates the population of South Brisbane and West End will increase by 312.5 per cent over the next 20 years.

The resident population growth - triggered in part because the Queensland Government needs to find space for 156,000 new homes in south-east Queensland - is contained in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan, which goes to council today.

Council is eager to replace industrial land at Montague Road on the river - called the Kurilpa Precinct - with sustainable accommodation.

The population in the area was forecast to skyrocket from 8000 to 33,000.

"The South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan will facilitate the urban renewal of obsolete, industrial brownfield sites in the Kurilpa precinct and create opportunities for new vibrant, well designed and sustainable accommodation, close to employment and public transport," the BCC plan says.

"The projections council has prepared are an estimate only and are dependent on the market taking up the development opportunities in the plan.

"The current projections are approximately 33,000 residents and 72,000 employees by 2031."

Local councillor from the Gabba Ward, Helen Abrahams, said the population growth figures were too high.

"In July 2009, the projections in the South Brisbane Riverside Renewal Strategy document were 25,000 residents and 55,000 workers coming into the peninsula," she said.

"The community cannot have any faith in this planning process when the projected population figures keep changing."

Planning chair Amanda Cooper said the projected numbers had not changed and the ALP had added existing population figures to make it appear they had.

"Cr Abrahams has added the existing residents and workers to the forecast numbers of people to make it appear as though the figure has gone up," she said.

"This is desperate and dishonest stuff from a councillor who is trying to cover up the fact that she actually voted for high-rise and high density in West End and spoke in favour of the new town plan for this area."

The plan proposes a mix of building heights, including 12 storeys on sections near the river, eight storeys in some sections, eight storeys near Musgrave Park, and 15 storeys on Mollison Street in West End's cafe strip.

In May 2008, all ALP councillors voted to support a motion for increased building heights and densities for West End, South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley and the Kurilpa Precinct.

But Cr Abrahams last night denied the ALP backed the increased residential densities for inner-city Brisbane, which would see building heights of up to 30 storeys.

"I voted for a plan where the communities wishes were listened to, where there was going to be appropriate heights. I did not vote for these heights. Never did and never will," she said.

Cr Cooper said the council had to meet the population pressures asked by the State Government and 30-storey buildings were confined to just one area.

"The choice is clear in that we either we allow widespread development of our tin and timber suburbs or we build highrise closer to the CBD and protect the tin and timber," she said.

"The Labor Opposition specifically voted for this highrise plan and now Cr Abrahams is trying to pretend she didn't. That is shameful and she should be held to account for misleading her community."

[#Metro]

Metro, Metro, Metro!
3 stations in West End...

[verbatim9]

Metro, Metro, Metro!
3 stations in West End...

Extend the busway line from UQ to Indooroopilly via Driven and Cut and cover tunnels and then from just over the green bridge, driven and cut and cover tunnels via the new Kurilpa Precinct into the CBD QBBS and KGBS. Then run light rail along it with a few years. Order simultaneously with the light rail stock for the Gold Coast. (Bulk Deal)

[O_128]

How about we get pauls to move

[#Metro]

Then run light rail along it with a few years. Order simultaneously with the light rail stock for the Gold Coast. (Bulk Deal)

I keep forgetting that SEQ is getting light rail on the Gold Coast. That's right, ITS COMING!
Brisbane next...

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Council votes for higher density

Council votes for higher density
TONY MOORE
February 10, 2010 - 8:09AM

Brisbane City Council has voted in favour of a contentious plan that proposes high density living in South Brisbane and West End.

The South Brisbane Riverside Plan could boost the population of the area by more than 300 per cent and allow for the construction of buildings up to 30 storeys high in some areas.

As expected, councillors yesterday voted along party lines - 17 Liberal National Party councillors to Labor's 10 - to send the draft plan to the state government for further analysis.

Local Labor councillor Helen Abrahams spoke against the proposal, despite voting for higher density living in May 2008.

She said the plan would produce a massive population increase on the peninsula.

Cr Abrahams said local residents supported higher density living, but asked whether the plan included the "appropriate density for the appropriate site?"

Neighbourhood Planning chair Amanda Cooper condemned Cr Abrahams for her stance.

"In this chamber she spoke and really held up the prospects of a wonderful outcome under the motion that was debated - not in this chamber - but in this forum in May 2008," she said.

The plan divides the region, from the river at South Brisbane into Boundary Street and Vulture Street in West End, into seven precincts.

Each area allows for buildings of different maximum storey heights, with a section near older industrial areas proposed to have 30 storeys.

Some sections near the river are proposed to have a maximum height of 12 storeys, while sections along Montague Road will have eight storeys.

The new City Glider bus station is proposed for Mollison Street, while a suburban hub proposed for an area on the corner of Mollison and Boundary streets will allow for buildings of up to 15 storeys.

Meanwhile, Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe issued a statement about the state government's intention to introduce self-assessable duplex developments, which shocked Brisbane City Council yesterday.

"By removing the full council assessment, which can cost up to $6500 in fees, were working to improve housing affordability for Queenslanders," Mr Hinchliffe said.

Now a single residential home, or a two-building duplex the size of a single residential home, has to assessed through a building assessment and then a second full council assessment.

Under the new Sustainable Planning Act, full council assessment can be replaced by a self assessable checklist of 22 town planning requirements.

Mr Hinchliffe said he was surprised by Brisbane City Council's reaction.

"This is astounding from a council that's approved many hundreds of duplexes all over the city," he said.

"We respect council safeguards. In Brisbane there are 22 and if any one is triggered it leads to a full council assessment. That will not change."

Councillors yesterday also voted on party lines to adopt a Neighbourhood Plan for the Centenary Suburbs, in Brisbane's west.

This Centenary Suburbs Plan now becomes part of Brisbane City Council's City Plan and comes into effect from July 1.

[stephenk]

Metro, Metro, Metro!
3 stations in West End...

West End will be served by the 2nd Cross City Rail route as well as the City Glider in the interim. No need for metro, metro, metro! 

[Derwan]

West End will be served by the 2nd Cross City Rail route as well as the City Glider in the interim. No need for metro, metro, metro! 

Only if they choose the most expensive option, which would be preferable if they're going to increase density in West End.  It would provide a direct route to the city.

[O_128]

Metro, Metro, Metro!
3 stations in West End...

West End will be served by the 2nd Cross City Rail route as well as the City Glider in the interim. No need for metro, metro, metro! 

West end is a large area surely 2 stations should be considered

[longboi]

Metro, Metro, Metro!
3 stations in West End...

West End will be served by the 2nd Cross City Rail route as well as the City Glider in the interim. No need for metro, metro, metro! 

I'm not sure why you are so negative re: metro. Both the State Government and BCC are putting resources into this, it is not pie in the sky stuff.

[cartel_brisbane]

West end is a nightmare already, without more cars..

[mufreight]

Pie in the sky, most definately, neither the state government nor the council has the resources for such a project and all the political posturing for votes does little towards the necessicary result.
In terms of priorities a new cross river rail link to provide capacity and service areas presently not serviced and currently reliant on other modes of public transport or car.
Lets fix those things that are most crucial rather than disperse what funds are avaliable on reports, feasability studies and less than well thought out ideas that can not be even started much less completed to provide a tangabile result at this time.
Ideas are great but to be realistic and actualy contribute to an actual workable result is a better return on effort. 

[#Metro]

I support the metro plan.
The ICRCS is not a substitute for the metro. They serve different purposes. We need both.

The ICRCS is $13 billion IIRC. That is equivalent to 8 brand new Parkland Gold Coast Hospitals or the 13 x Gold Coast Light Rail Projects IIRC. There is a need for that too, but I don't think the Metro should be sacrificed at the expense of scrounging funds for the ICRCS. Even with no metro, the ICRCS faces a financial mountain. The metro is to take the pressure off the busway which will be, at current modelling, at or over capacity at 2026.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/07/95891_about-gold-coast.html

PS: Welcome Cartel_brisbane

[longboi]

Pie in the sky, most definately, neither the state government nor the council has the resources for such a project and all the political posturing for votes does little towards the necessicary result.
In terms of priorities a new cross river rail link to provide capacity and service areas presently not serviced and currently reliant on other modes of public transport or car.
Lets fix those things that are most crucial rather than disperse what funds are avaliable on reports, feasability studies and less than well thought out ideas that can not be even started much less completed to provide a tangabile result at this time.
Ideas are great but to be realistic and actualy contribute to an actual workable result is a better return on effort.  

How many times do I have to say this? It is NOT A PIE IN THE SKY PROPOSAL!

Please refer to: http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Brisbane+inner+city+metro and READ IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Pay particular attention to these two paragraphs:

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

Both are just as equally important to the future of Brisbane. The density within the Inner City will increase exponentially and with all associated traffic generated by that combined with a limited number of river crossings will result in huge bottlenecks in travelling within the boundaries of the Inner City area.

[#Metro]

Some sober reading....
We have made a lot of gains with the busway, but we need to go to the next level...

"Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro."

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Brisbane+inner+city+metro

[stephenk]

This proposed "inner city metro" follows much of the route of the 2nd Cross City rail line. If this was built as a self contained metro instead of a through suburban rail route, then it would restrict the increase in suburban rail capacity throughout Brisbane, in particular on the Ipswich Line. I sure wouldn't want to be commuting in from Ipswich or Springfield in 2026 if the self-contained metro option was chosen instead of suburban rail running with metro like frequencies.

Tramtrain, can you explain how a metro would be better than a suburban rail line along a similar route?

[#Metro]

  

[longboi]

This proposed "inner city metro" follows much of the route of the 2nd Cross City rail line. If this was built as a self contained metro instead of a through suburban rail route, then it would restrict the increase in suburban rail capacity throughout Brisbane, in particular on the Ipswich Line. I sure wouldn't want to be commuting in from Ipswich or Springfield in 2026 if the self-contained metro option was chosen instead of suburban rail running with metro like frequencies.

When and if the 2016 tunnel is constructed, I really don't see a capacity issue. The Ipswich line will most likely be quad tracked to Redbank or further by 2026 and that well and truly can accomodate both Ipswich/Rosewood and Springfield lines quite comfortably.

Although this self-contained metro may follow a similar alignment, it is different because it has the capability of much shorter distances between stations.

[stephenk]

 

I assume that means you cannot answer my question?

This proposed "inner city metro" follows much of the route of the 2nd Cross City rail line. If this was built as a self contained metro instead of a through suburban rail route, then it would restrict the increase in suburban rail capacity throughout Brisbane, in particular on the Ipswich Line. I sure wouldn't want to be commuting in from Ipswich or Springfield in 2026 if the self-contained metro option was chosen instead of suburban rail running with metro like frequencies.

When and if the 2016 tunnel is constructed, I really don't see a capacity issue. The Ipswich line will most likely be quad tracked to Redbank or further by 2026 and that well and truly can accomodate both Ipswich/Rosewood and Springfield lines quite comfortably.

Although this self-contained metro may follow a similar alignment, it is different because it has the capability of much shorter distances between stations.

You could have 20 tracks on the Ipswich Line at Redbank, but there will still only be 1 and half tracks per direction (50% more than present) for the Ipswich/Springfield Lines to use through the CBD without the 2nd Cross City tunnel. Thus if the 2nd Cross City tunnel is not built, the Ipswich/Springfield Lines capacity will be restricted in the future.

If you ran a self-contained metro from Toowong, this would remove many passengers at Toowong. However this won't help if the train filled up to capacity at Chelmer? If you ran through trains through a 2nd Cross City tunnel instead of a self-contained metro then not only do you have an inner city people mover, but you can increase suburban rail capacity as well. Everyone wins!

But can we have both a suburban rail tunnel, and a metro on a similar alignment? Well, the cost would not be justifiable. Why build two tunnels when you can build just one. This is why since the 1960s Paris has been rapidly developing it's RER network to connect suburban rail lines through the CBD. London is planning the same thing with Crossrail. Most of Tokyo and Osaka's metro lines are not in fact self contained metros, but allow suburban rail services to run through them. Munich and Berlin's S-Bahns also allow suburban rail services to run through the city with metro like frequencies.

To think that a metro would allow stations closer together somewhat naive. Underground stations are a huge cost, it is rare to find stations closer than around 750-800m on new metro systems despite some older metros having stations as close as 250m. A self contained metro in Brisbane would probably require shorter and thus cheaper stations than suburban rail, but as mentioned above why build two tunnels when you can build one.

[#Metro]

Oh, I can answer the question   though I'm sure it would just be dismissed or unfairly labeled as pie in the sky.
It might be better to refer to the reports. I didn't write them, BCC did.
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

I don't work the BCC BTW or the QLD Gov, and I'm not in any way connected with these projects.

[stephenk]

Oh, I can answer the question   though I'm sure it would just be dismissed or unfairly labeled as pie in the sky.
It might be better to refer to the reports. I didn't write them, BCC did.
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698
I don't work the BCC BTW or the QLD Gov, and I'm not in any way connected with these projects.

The study you quoted only proposes a BRT system, with "a metro proposed for consideration after 2026".
It was also written in 2007, before the ICRCS suggested the shortlist of routes for the 2 Cross City rail lines in late 2008.

[mufreight]

A close reading of much of the reports mentioned is if one also reads the geotechnical reports more aspiration than practacility, lets fix or build what is needed now then consider the pie recipe and how much merangue we need then and what ingredients are needed rather than expend more of that rather scarce comodity, money on more less than productive reports and assessments that will do nothing for the next 20+ years other than employ more seat polishers producing nothing of substance.

[#Metro]

I don't see how the ground in that part of Brisbane is any different from the ground that the ICRCS is going to be digging through. I had a thought today. Though I supported the ICRCS on technical and demand grounds, I just didn't see how it would be funded given that the price tag was $13 billion and required to be built and open in 6 years flat.

However, an odd thought entered my mind today:
The price tag is ~$13 billion ( add a 20% or so loading for contingency purposes; I know BCC did it in the Mass Transit Report). ~ 15 billion.

The QLD Government asset privatisations would amount to ~$15 billion or so.
The asset sales are being rushed through--- the ICRCS project needs to also be rushed through quickly and is probably the biggest and most expensive project this city has seen yet.
There really isn't a quick source of $15 billion hanging around anywhere- and even federal funding cannot be relied upon in such a short time frame...

I might be wrong, but I can't help but think about the parallels?  
Is there a connection?

[stephenk]

I don't see how the ground in that part of Brisbane is any different from the ground that the ICRCS is going to be digging through. I had a thought today. Though I supported the ICRCS on technical and demand grounds, I just didn't see how it would be funded given that the price tag was $13 billion and required to be built and open in 6 years flat.

However, an odd thought entered my mind today:
The price tag is ~$13 billion ( add a 20% or so loading for contingency purposes; I know BCC did it in the Mass Transit Report). ~ 15 billion.

The QLD Government asset privatisations would amount to ~$15 billion or so.
The asset sales are being rushed through--- the ICRCS project needs to also be rushed through quickly and is probably the biggest and most expensive project this city has seen yet.
There really isn't a quick source of $15 billion hanging around anywhere- and even federal funding cannot be relied upon in such a short time frame...

I might be wrong, but I can't help but think about the parallels?  
Is there a connection?

The $13billion is for both Cross City rail tunnels and enhanced infrastructure on the branches (duplications, triplications, quadriplications, stabling, grade seperations etc etc).

[#Metro]

Yep, it all adds up!
Don't worry, I think Anna has a solution already and it will be funded... asset sale ...

[O_128]

Yep, it all adds up!
Don't worry, I think Anna has a solution already and it will be funded... asset sale ...

well northern link should start next year and be finished by 2014 so If they get there act together the absolute latest they can start is 2012. 13billion is still a huge sum considering airport link is 3.7 and that includes the busway.

[#Metro]

"The current projections are approximately 33,000 residents and 72,000 employees by 2031."

[#Metro]

Even if the ICRCS were to go ahead, it would only get us to a situation similar to that of Sydney (they have a nice rail system which is a hybrid metro and suburban model with high capacity rail cars). And even Sydney is considering a metro right next door to their highest frequency routes [1]

As within 5 km of the CBD growth is projected to be 50%, the ICRCS will give people within the 5km a chance to get to the CBD quickly (or away from it). But will only be a chance. When the carriages pull up they will have quite a lot of previous long distance (Ipswich) commuters already filling up the service which makes boarding and de-boarding a service difficult. (Even today, I can't get out of a train at some inner suburban stations- too much crowding).

The proposed metro service will:
* Take pax that the ICRCS plan won't be able to (It will complement it, not substitute it)
* Focus on trips within the inner 5km circle and cater to a different market (inner circle-inner circle)
* Allow non-BUZ services to terminate and offload passengers at a time when the SE Busway will be unable to take any more buses and will be overcapacity (ICRC can do this, but there will already be BUZ 150 and BUZ 130 passengers who terminate & transfer)

The two systems have different, but complimentary functions. The ICRCS is not a substitute for the metro, and vice-versa.
IMHO We need both.

References
[1] http://www.sydneymetro.nsw.gov.au/where/overview/
[2] Costs for the Sydney system http://www.sydneymetro.nsw.gov.au/news/media_releases/sydney_metro_cost/
(This includes stations and tunneling under the harbour)

[stephenk]

Even if the ICRCS were to go ahead, it would only get us to a situation similar to that of Sydney (they have a nice rail system which is a hybrid metro and suburban model with high capacity rail cars). And even Sydney is considering a metro right next door to their highest frequency routes [1]

Most of the Sydney Metro route is not parallel to existing heavy rail alignments.

As within 5 km of the CBD growth is projected to be 50%, the ICRCS will give people within the 5km a chance to get to the CBD quickly (or away from it). But will only be a chance. When the carriages pull up they will have quite a lot of previous long distance (Ipswich) commuters already filling up the service which makes boarding and de-boarding a service difficult. (Even today, I can't get out of a train at some inner suburban stations- too much crowding).

If the Cross River rail tunnels are built for 9-car trains, and sufficient infrastructure and trains are available to operate the new tunnels at maximum capacity (23-25tph) then there should be capacity for people at inner city stations to board. New trains in the future may have more doors/car side to make loading/unloading easier. In most cities, people don't mind being in sardine conditions for a few stops. Brisbanites seem to currently think that 2.5passengers/m2 is a full train, this needs to change!

The proposed metro service will:

Is that the proposal by BCC, Queensland Government, ICRCS, or Tramtrain's Metro Company?

* Take pax that the ICRCS plan won't be able to (It will complement it, not substitute it)
* Focus on trips within the inner 5km circle and cater to a different market (inner circle-inner circle)
* Allow non-BUZ services to terminate and offload passengers at a time when the SE Busway will be unable to take any more buses and will be overcapacity (ICRC can do this, but there will already be BUZ 150 and BUZ 130 passengers who terminate & transfer)

If there is capacity on the trains when they reach the inner city, and alignments are similar, then the Cross City rail tunnels can do all of the above. Why have two systems, when you can build one. SE Busway could offload passengers onto the Gold Coast Line at Park Rd post 1nd Cross River Rail tunnel. Distances between stations wouldn't be much different, and the longer suburban rail stations could allow for exits around 250m apart so each station can serve a larger area.

The two systems have different, but complimentary functions. The ICRCS is not a substitute for the metro, and vice-versa.
IMHO We need both.

This statement makes me think that you are yet to crash land back into the sea of reality.  If both routes have a similar alignment, it would be crazy to build both a suburban rail line and a metro line, when you can build something that does both (such as Paris RER, Munich S-Bahn, Tokyo Metro, and proposed London Crossrail). Tramtrain, please try and find me an example of where both a suburban rail line, and metro line have been built along a similar alignment within 20 years of each other?

[longboi]

You could have 20 tracks on the Ipswich Line at Redbank, but there will still only be 1 and half tracks per direction (50% more than present) for the Ipswich/Springfield Lines to use through the CBD without the 2nd Cross City tunnel. Thus if the 2nd Cross City tunnel is not built, the Ipswich/Springfield Lines capacity will be restricted in the future.

Not necessarily. If the first cross city tunnel were to be built, you would be freeing up space on the existing alignment. All that would be required is a small reconfiguration at Roma St to allow Ipswich/Springfield services to use the old tunnels.

If you ran a self-contained metro from Toowong, this would remove many passengers at Toowong. However this won't help if the train filled up to capacity at Chelmer? If you ran through trains through a 2nd Cross City tunnel instead of a self-contained metro then not only do you have an inner city people mover, but you can increase suburban rail capacity as well. Everyone wins!

That's a fair point but I still don't feel it addresses the transport needs of the inner city. Buses and light rail are subject to congestion, ferries don't cover all of the inner city and heavy rail already serves a purpose to move people from the suburbs and further afield in/out of the city, not around it.

But can we have both a suburban rail tunnel, and a metro on a similar alignment? Well, the cost would not be justifiable. Why build two tunnels when you can build just one. This is why since the 1960s Paris has been rapidly developing it's RER network to connect suburban rail lines through the CBD. London is planning the same thing with Crossrail. Most of Tokyo and Osaka's metro lines are not in fact self contained metros, but allow suburban rail services to run through them. Munich and Berlin's S-Bahns also allow suburban rail services to run through the city with metro like frequencies.

Sure, but that is only one line. Ideally this self-contained metro would eventually expand to provide walk up rail services to most, if not all people within the inner 5km of the City.

To think that a metro would allow stations closer together somewhat naive. Underground stations are a huge cost, it is rare to find stations closer than around 750-800m on new metro systems despite some older metros having stations as close as 250m. A self contained metro in Brisbane would probably require shorter and thus cheaper stations than suburban rail, but as mentioned above why build two tunnels when you can build one.

Of course you wouldn't build both. However it completely stands to reason that a self-contained metro, utilising vehicles with much faster acceleration/deceleration than your standard EMU can sustain shorter distances between stations.

[stephenk]

You could have 20 tracks on the Ipswich Line at Redbank, but there will still only be 1 and half tracks per direction (50% more than present) for the Ipswich/Springfield Lines to use through the CBD without the 2nd Cross City tunnel. Thus if the 2nd Cross City tunnel is not built, the Ipswich/Springfield Lines capacity will be restricted in the future.

Not necessarily. If the first cross city tunnel were to be built, you would be freeing up space on the existing alignment. All that would be required is a small reconfiguration at Roma St to allow Ipswich/Springfield services to use the old tunnels.

The 1st tunnel will free up space on the suburbans to be shared between Cleveland and Springfield Line trains, and mains to be used by Ipswich Line trains as at present. Thus the Ipswich/Springfield Lines will have 1 and a half tracks per direction. This is approximately a 50% increase in capacity. Once more than this 50% is required, then the 2nd tunnel will need to be built. The ICRCS states that this 2nd tunnel would be required in 2022. Not building the 2nd tunnel will result in Ipswich/Springfield services filling up before the inner-city in the am peak.

[longboi]

You could have 20 tracks on the Ipswich Line at Redbank, but there will still only be 1 and half tracks per direction (50% more than present) for the Ipswich/Springfield Lines to use through the CBD without the 2nd Cross City tunnel. Thus if the 2nd Cross City tunnel is not built, the Ipswich/Springfield Lines capacity will be restricted in the future.

Not necessarily. If the first cross city tunnel were to be built, you would be freeing up space on the existing alignment. All that would be required is a small reconfiguration at Roma St to allow Ipswich/Springfield services to use the old tunnels.

The 1st tunnel will free up space on the suburbans to be shared between Cleveland and Springfield Line trains, and mains to be used by Ipswich Line trains as at present. Thus the Ipswich/Springfield Lines will have 1 and a half tracks per direction. This is approximately a 50% increase in capacity. Once more than this 50% is required, then the 2nd tunnel will need to be built. The ICRCS states that this 2nd tunnel would be required in 2022. Not building the 2nd tunnel will result in Ipswich/Springfield services filling up before the inner-city in the am peak.

Even so, this doesn't negate the need for a metro, perhaps not on this alignment but definately within the inner 5km connecting major centres and interchanges in one linear route, as opposed to the current mish-mash of high frequency and abysmal bus services.

[stephenk]

You could have 20 tracks on the Ipswich Line at Redbank, but there will still only be 1 and half tracks per direction (50% more than present) for the Ipswich/Springfield Lines to use through the CBD without the 2nd Cross City tunnel. Thus if the 2nd Cross City tunnel is not built, the Ipswich/Springfield Lines capacity will be restricted in the future.

Not necessarily. If the first cross city tunnel were to be built, you would be freeing up space on the existing alignment. All that would be required is a small reconfiguration at Roma St to allow Ipswich/Springfield services to use the old tunnels.

The 1st tunnel will free up space on the suburbans to be shared between Cleveland and Springfield Line trains, and mains to be used by Ipswich Line trains as at present. Thus the Ipswich/Springfield Lines will have 1 and a half tracks per direction. This is approximately a 50% increase in capacity. Once more than this 50% is required, then the 2nd tunnel will need to be built. The ICRCS states that this 2nd tunnel would be required in 2022. Not building the 2nd tunnel will result in Ipswich/Springfield services filling up before the inner-city in the am peak.

Even so, this doesn't negate the need for a metro, perhaps not on this alignment but definately within the inner 5km connecting major centres and interchanges in one linear route, as opposed to the current mish-mash of high frequency and abysmal bus services.

A metro could still be justified in the distant future on an alignment completely different to the 1st and 2nd rail tunnels, but I doubt they would be justified until after the latter have been built. The ICRCS states that both rail tunnels are required by 2022. The BCC study states that a metro does not need to be considered until 2026.

[#Metro]

The cross city tunnel is only to free up today's problems and keep our head above water/avert yet another QLD Gov induced crisis.
These tunnels should have been built in 1995 at the latest as per the 1970 Wilbur Smith Plan.
They are already late as it is.

The stations will be built to accomodate 9 car sets. That does not necessarily mean that 9 car sets will run. Indeed how are these 9 car sets going to run without platform extensions on every Beenleigh/Gold Coast Line/Ipswich line? Or will it be the short platform protocol a la Tennyson?

Today we are still running rollingstock that might go back to 1980!

[#Metro]

... and 1979 frequency!

study states that a metro does not need to be considered until 2026.

Not sure how they can say this when most people on this forum experience bus jam, sorry bus full, BUZ off,  and extensive waits at bus stops and rail stations all over Brisbane. Its 16 years away, we need to get planning NOW as these things take a long time to go from paper to practice.

I don't work the BCC BTW or the QLD Gov, and I'm not in any way connected with these projects.

Is that the proposal by BCC, Queensland Government, ICRCS, or Tramtrain's Metro Company?

I wish!

[#Metro]

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Brisbane+inner+city+metro

"Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro.

The proposal to build underground rail under Brisbane city over the next two decades would help south east Queensland cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

A metro system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and high frequency services. It is usually separated from other traffic and is unchallenged in its ability to transport large amounts of people quickly over short distances — making it perfect for urban areas like Brisbane."

Its all about short distance... Its still rail, but it will be metro-rail.

[stephenk]

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Brisbane+inner+city+metro

"Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro.

The proposal to build underground rail under Brisbane city over the next two decades would help south east Queensland cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

A metro system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and high frequency services. It is usually separated from other traffic and is unchallenged in its ability to transport large amounts of people quickly over short distances — making it perfect for urban areas like Brisbane."

Its all about short distance... Its still rail, but it will be metro-rail.

Congratulations in taking this thread around in a complete circle.

1) Do you believe everything you read on a government website?
2) The above route is the same as the 2nd suburban rail tunnel, expect for Bowen Hills to Hamilton (which happens to near an under-utilised suburban rail line).
3) Building both a suburban rail line and a metro on the same route would be a big waste of money, and unrealistic.
4) The 2nd tunnel will increase suburban rail capacity, and transport people around the inner-city.
5) The metro will only transport people around the inner city, resulting in suburban rail congestion (again).
6) Station to station distance will probably be similar between both systems.
7) System capacity can be similar between systems.
8 ) Both systems can operate at metro like frequencies.
9) The 2nd suburban rail tunnel is required in 2022, a metro is not required until after 2026.