2026 tunnel

[mufreight]

Where are the tunnels on the Airport line,

I was talking about Sydney's airport line.

Where they have had quite significant noise level problems due to the rididity of the track despite the instalation of vibration insulators.

[Jon Bryant]

The 2008 Inner City Rail Capacity Study indicated that demand for peak train services was forecast to reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016 and between 105,000 and 130,000 by 2026. The number of existing services would need to double by 2016 and then increase again by half by 2026 to manage this demand.

This is the only part of the study I have an issue with.  An arbitary assumption is made about the trips PT can capture and demand is built off that.  Note this is an problem the whole planning industry is suffering from so it is not  the authors fault.  If this planning assumption was correct then our current PT system would not be stretched beyond capacity.  

The study (and all planning documents) need to set a desired target of PT such as 50 to 60% and demand built off this.  If we are only cater for the demand set out in the study then we are forcing 70-80% of trips onto the roads.  Thus we are planning for traffic congestion.  

[stephenk]

The 2008 Inner City Rail Capacity Study indicated that demand for peak train services was forecast to reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016 and between 105,000 and 130,000 by 2026. The number of existing services would need to double by 2016 and then increase again by half by 2026 to manage this demand.

This is the only part of the study I have an issue with.  An arbitary assumption is made about the trips PT can capture and demand is built off that.  Note this is an problem the whole planning industry is suffering from so it is not  the authors fault.  If this planning assumption was correct then our current PT system would not be stretched beyond capacity.  

The study (and all planning documents) need to set a desired target of PT and then demand such as 50 to 60%  If we are only cater for this demand set out in the study then we are forcing 70-80% of trips onto the roads.  Thus we are planning for traffic congestion.  

Jonno, this mythical 60% public transport share you keep mentioning - can you tell us how many cities actually achieve this share of public transport, and how many of them are sprawling low population density cities such as Brisbane?

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

[Golliwog]

A fair point Jonno. But can the Government really afford to build a tunnel to cater for that large a demand? I think this is worth bringing up with them at their community consultation sessions. I think at this stage building the tunnel at its current planned size is good enough for now, but their plans should allow for the eventuality that perhaps in the future this tunnel might need to be expanded to cope with demand. I did like the design that Stephenk had a youtube clip of, of the Line 9/10 metro in Barcelona. Instead of boring 2 smaller tunnels, they bored one large (15m I think) tunnel but split it in two vertically. Each floor was wide enough to have 2 tracks, although in their design they usually only had one per level, with the extra space either used by platforms, sidings, or ramps between the two floors. So, potentially, if the platforms were built outside of the bored tunnel, and ramps between the two levels were not necessary (I wouldn't see the point here anyway, its not a very long tunnel) then if this method was adopted then there could be the possibility of 4 tracks in the future. I don't know how this compares cost wise against their current plan of 2 smaller tunnels with 1 track in each.

[#Metro]

This is the only part of the study I have an issue with. An arbitary assumption is made about the trips PT can capture and demand is built off that.  Note this is an problem the whole planning industry is suffering from so it is not  the authors fault.  If this planning assumption was correct then our current PT system would not be stretched beyond capacity.  

I would agree with Jonno. Its not desirable to have the system run at capacity, it needs to run slightly below capacity to have some breathing space. The other thing is risk- by leaving it so late, the risk is that if the funds don't come along or something else pops up economically, the project will be delayed. Almost all projects suffer from cost blowouts and time delays- the exception of late being toll roads which all seem to be delivered early. I would suggest the cost for this would be 9.5 billion - 10 billion at completion. That said, on a per kilometre basis and for what the project will do, its good value for money.

Also how many tracks are going in; My impression was 4 tracks in the tunnel.

[stephenk]

Well they have some funding now. Although the upper price tag seems to have now gone up.
http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=63862

Minister for Transport
The Honourable Rachel Nolan
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Cross River Rail key to city's transport future


Transport Minister Rachel Nolan has welcomed the Federal Government's budget announcement of $20 million for Cross River Rail, a major rail project to improve rail capacity and frequency through the Brisbane CBD.

Ms Nolan said the committed funding would facilitate detailed planning including the selection of a preferred corridor, the preparation of an environmental impact statement and extensive community consultation."

Ms Nolan said the project, which could cost up to $8.2 billion when completed, would provide a new rail link through the inner city, connecting the North Coast/Caboolture rail line with the Gold Coast/Beenleigh rail line.

"This is a small but important first step for this major project, which is so significant that it will remain a national priority for years to come," she said.

"This will provide south east Queensland's rail passengers with more frequent train services, new destinations and modern facilities.

"The proposed network improvements will deliver a more efficient and convenient way of travelling by train with easier, quicker interchanges both between rail services and with other types of transport.

"With more people expected to travel into and through Brisbane's CBD, by 2026 the inner city will remain the hub of south east Queensland's rail network."

The 2008 Inner City Rail Capacity Study indicated that demand for peak train services was forecast to reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016 and between 105,000 and 130,000 by 2026. The number of existing services would need to double by 2016 and then increase again by half by 2026 to manage this demand.

The study identified two major rail projects, one to link the northern and southern rail lines and a second project to link the northern and western lines to handle the additional service requirements.

Ms Nolan said a project director would soon be appointed for the Cross River Rail project.

"This signature project offers the opportunity to make a mark on the landscape of the inner city, providing its rapidly expanding population with an integrated and innovative transport solution," she said.

That press release has 2009 as the year.
Limited funding for "planning" purposes was provided in last years budget.

[somebody]

The 2008 Inner City Rail Capacity Study indicated that demand for peak train services was forecast to reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016 and between 105,000 and 130,000 by 2026. The number of existing services would need to double by 2016 and then increase again by half by 2026 to manage this demand.

This is the only part of the study I have an issue with.  An arbitary assumption is made about the trips PT can capture and demand is built off that.  Note this is an problem the whole planning industry is suffering from so it is not  the authors fault.  If this planning assumption was correct then our current PT system would not be stretched beyond capacity.  

The study (and all planning documents) need to set a desired target of PT such as 50 to 60% and demand built off this.  If we are only cater for the demand set out in the study then we are forcing 70-80% of trips onto the roads.  Thus we are planning for traffic congestion.  

You've made this point on a number of occasions.  Isn't the best way of increasing PT share upping off peak frequencies?  In peak PT already gets a pretty good share.

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

Huh?  How could only 54.2% of work commutes be on PT then?

[Golliwog]

That press release has 2009 as the year.
Limited funding for "planning" purposes was provided in last years budget.

My bad! I was tired and saw it on the CRR site and that it was dated May... didn't look at the year. 

[stephenk]

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

Huh?  How could only 54.2% of work commutes be on PT then?

The 75% car non-ownership (per household) figure is for Manhattan, which is only one borough of NYC.

The modal commute split for NYC is:
32% subway
25% drive alone
14% bus
8% commuter rail
8% walk
6% carpoo
1% taxi
0.4% bicycle
0.4% ferry

Note: 54% of households in New York City do not own a car.
Information from US Census 2006.

[Jon Bryant]

The 60% PT targets is an aspirational/design target not a mythical one.  It is based on the analysis of trips across most cities which shows that only 25-30% "need" to be by motor vehicile and these are mostly light commerical and local freight. (This is based on years of research reading and I cannot remember the exact source).  Note that this determination is based on the nature/type of trip.  In other words there is no physcial reason the trip could not have be made by public or active transport.  Currently the reason it is not by PT is no service, it is quicker/easier by car, perceived lower costs, love afae with the car, etc.  As I see it it, these trips have the potential to be converted to public/active transport (PT/AT).   To do this we have to do all the things this forum outlines from peak and off-peak service frequency, land use chnages, real time network information, better fares, freight separation and intermodal hubs, more lines, better urban design, etc., etc.. 

Density is not the sole determinant of the % of public transport ridership but it does influence the overall cost effectiveness of the system, which is important for Governments.  It also make better communities and improives housing availability/choice, etc.  But higher density does not automatically mean better PT patronage.  Look at the Gold Coast.  The main drivers of mode split is (1) car parking availablity at destination; (2) the available road capacity and (3) avaliability, reliabaility and convience of alternative modes. The split between PT and AT varies depending on the topography, climate, etc.   I am not saying we can do it with our current urban form (I was active in starting the acceptance of greater housing variety 15 years ago)  but unless we set high PT/ACT targets then we will always provide (1) and (2) to ensure the overall network does not grind to the halt and this then undermines any need to provide (3).  The low PT assumption that I have an issue with only exists now because we have made road space and car parking capacity to allow everybody to drive wherever they want whenever they want.  The problem with this is it is not sustainable financially.  The never ending need to provide more and more road space is sending our Government's broke not to mention paying for the associated road truma.  We are spendng billions of our taxes/super fund saving be spent on suporting the most inefficient form of transport.  This sheer economic madness. 

In terms of Cities with high PT/AT%.  Historically Brisbane had almost 60% PT and high AT in its day.  yes it was pre-car but it existed.   There is also the usual suspects Zurich, Berlin, Cophenhagen, Bogota, Turin,  etc.  There are many many city around the globe where motor vehicle trips are around the 30%.  We have local examples where we restrict car parking and provide high frequency public transport and the people not only happily travel by PT/AT they actually have fun doing it.   Thus it is possible to do and 60% is not mythial but aspirational.   It is possible to develop a city and transport service to have over 60% of trips by PT/AT.  There is a lot of work to get there (maybe more than our communities are willing to accept - and this is the really hard part) but unless we have high PT/ACT targets then we will only every achieve low % and most likely have a service that has full buses and trains in peak hour. Worse we will have an economy that is broke and chocking on congestion and its associated fumes.

I am not knocking the individual planners as the norm is to assume low % but I want to challenge the planning industry as a whole for planning for failure.

[#Metro]

Agreed. Other cities of all shapes and sizes can do it, so can Brisbane.
I think they are planning based on projection. They forecast the future demand from an equation or mathematical model and then figure out how much PT is required to serve that.

[Golliwog]

Jonno, this mythical 60% public transport share you keep mentioning - can you tell us how many cities actually achieve this share of public transport, and how many of them are sprawling low population density cities such as Brisbane?

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

As for cities with high PT ridership, Curitiba has a population of 2.2million, in an area of 803km2, and manages to get a massive 72% share on public transport (source, one of the busway links you put up elsewhere). As this being from a busway link suggest, they have done this entirely with buses. Yes we have a far larger area to cover, and yes they have a population density a lot higher and car ownership far lower, but saying that 60% is impossible so we simply shouldn't try for it is a cop out. With that sort of mentality we will keep providing for just the small percentage we currently have.

[#Metro]

Quote from: stephenk on May 14, 2010, 08:26:36 AM
Jonno, this mythical 60% public transport share you keep mentioning - can you tell us how many cities actually achieve this share of public transport, and how many of them are sprawling low population density cities such as Brisbane?

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

Bratislava, Slovakia 70% PT
Zurich, Switzerland 63 %
Bern, Switzerland 54%
Warsaw, Poland 54 %
Tallinn, Estonia, 50%

http://www.urbanaudit.org/

[stephenk]

Quote from: stephenk on May 14, 2010, 08:26:36 AM
Jonno, this mythical 60% public transport share you keep mentioning - can you tell us how many cities actually achieve this share of public transport, and how many of them are sprawling low population density cities such as Brisbane?

Even high density and well PT provided New York "only" manages 54.2% of work commutes (overall figure may be less) on public transport, and this is with 75% of the population of Manhattan not owning a car.

Bratislava, Slovakia 70% PT
Zurich, Switzerland 63 %
Bern, Switzerland 54%
Warsaw, Poland 54 %
Tallinn, Estonia, 50%

http://www.urbanaudit.org/

All of these cities are more compact, and have a higher population density that Brisbane. Brisbane will have a very hard task to achieve similar levels of public transport due to it's sprawling geographical size, poor town planning, low population density, and car culture.

[Golliwog]

But Stephenk, as Clem 7 has shown, Campbells tunnels are not effective in reducing congestion. I think the biggest time saving so far from that has been maybe 15 minutes of some trips if you're lucky (it was in the courier mail recently). As soon as these tunnels and other upgrades start coming online, I think the growth in patronage is going to be far bigger than expected.

Besides, even if I'm wrong and public transport growth continues as it is, these tunnels, like the current network, are still going to have a maximum capacity. It may cost a bit extra to plan and allow for this expansion to occur easily now, but it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive to upgrade it later if we don't.

[stephenk]

But Stephenk, as Clem 7 has shown, Campbells tunnels are not effective in reducing congestion. I think the biggest time saving so far from that has been maybe 15 minutes of some trips if you're lucky (it was in the courier mail recently). As soon as these tunnels and other upgrades start coming online, I think the growth in patronage is going to be far bigger than expected.

Besides, even if I'm wrong and public transport growth continues as it is, these tunnels, like the current network, are still going to have a maximum capacity. It may cost a bit extra to plan and allow for this expansion to occur easily now, but it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive to upgrade it later if we don't.

Just a sec, I have never made any comments in favour of new road construction, and I'm against Campbell Newman's current toll road obsession. I believe that we should follow the Europeans and concentrate on public transport infrastructure instead of roads. All I'm saying is that given Brisbane's sprawling low density nature, it will still be exceedingly difficult (or maybe even impossible) to achieve 60% PT.

[Jon Bryant]

Agree totally that Brisbane's sprawling suburbs need to change dramatically to allow for a more cost effective public transport system and to encourage walking and cycling.  Absoutely no argument there.  The form of the city must change with the change in travel behaviour.  The 2 need to happen together with transport ahead so that the behaviour can change.  My concern is that at 15 to 20% PT levels and a more dense city our roads will reach gridlock and/or send our Governments/economy broke trying to out build the congestion. Unless we aim that high with PT/AT the we will keep making the same mistakes we are today.       

[Golliwog]

But Stephenk, as Clem 7 has shown, Campbells tunnels are not effective in reducing congestion. I think the biggest time saving so far from that has been maybe 15 minutes of some trips if you're lucky (it was in the courier mail recently). As soon as these tunnels and other upgrades start coming online, I think the growth in patronage is going to be far bigger than expected.

Besides, even if I'm wrong and public transport growth continues as it is, these tunnels, like the current network, are still going to have a maximum capacity. It may cost a bit extra to plan and allow for this expansion to occur easily now, but it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive to upgrade it later if we don't.

Just a sec, I have never made any comments in favour of new road construction, and I'm against Campbell Newman's current toll road obsession. I believe that we should follow the Europeans and concentrate on public transport infrastructure instead of roads. All I'm saying is that given Brisbane's sprawling low density nature, it will still be exceedingly difficult (or maybe even impossible) to achieve 60% PT.

I know you're not in favour of Campbells tunnels and roads (I don't think anyone on this forum is). I'm just saying that that is the council's current plans to reduce congestion, which may do a little good in the short term, but long term just encourages more private car use, which will cause worsening congestion which IMO will drive people towards public transport if its available and not already overcrowded. Which is why I think that when this tunnel opens and there is spare capacity on the rail network we will see a lot more people using it (not to meniton an increase in the complaints about people parking all over the place near stations). So even if they do build the 2016 at the recommended 2 track capacity, I think they should still build it so its easily exandable to 4 tracks. I'm not saying this in itself will achieve the 60% PT mode share, but just because a mode share that high is difficult to achieve doesn't mean we still shouldn't aim for it.

[stephenk]

So even if they do build the 2016 at the recommended 2 track capacity, I think they should still build it so its easily exandable to 4 tracks.

I'm not so sure, although it should be looked at in feasibility. Whenever two more tracks are required from the Beenleigh/Gold Coast(/Greater Flagstone ) corridor it may be more useful to build a new tunnel on a different alignment, for example running through the CBD to Trouts Rd corridor as opposed to the current Northern Lines as with the 1st tunnel.

With the 3031 document possibly having 3 rail tunnels (don't quote me on that), then I do hope that the 1st tunnel and other associated infrastructure enhancements are designed to make the 2nd and 3rd tunnels easier to engineer (e.g. track layouts allow extra tunnel portals to be added more easily).

[Golliwog]

Valid point, although given the small size of the CBD, and the problems that were given in the ICRCS detailing how the tunnel has to manouvre around building basements, it might be more economic to have say the Trouts Road tunnel connect to the 2016 tunnel near where the 2016 tunnel surfaces on the exhibition line.

Its not like we're designing a metro here, these are fairly long distance trains, so IMO having scattered stations for each line across the CBD is a dissincentive to use it, especially when people may be trying to transfer between lines.

[stephenk]

Valid point, although given the small size of the CBD, and the problems that were given in the ICRCS detailing how the tunnel has to manouvre around building basements, it might be more economic to have say the Trouts Road tunnel connect to the 2016 tunnel near where the 2016 tunnel surfaces on the exhibition line.

Its not like we're designing a metro here, these are fairly long distance trains, so IMO having scattered stations for each line across the CBD is a dissincentive to use it, especially when people may be trying to transfer between lines.

You do have a good point. More choice of routes through the CBD opens up more areas, but may make interchange harder or provide "too many" route options for commuters. There is no point having 5 non-interchange CBD stations when you can have 2-3 interchange CBD stations.

I would hope that the new stations will be designed with multiple entrances at each end so that each station can serve a relatively large area.

[#Metro]

All of these cities are more compact, and have a higher population density that Brisbane. Brisbane will have a very hard task to achieve similar levels of public transport due to it's sprawling geographical size, poor town planning, low population density, and car culture.

Its always easy to make a case that the city is too small/compact, too big, too different.
That way you have an answer that fits all cases and cannot be proven wrong.
Its not a license to do nothing.

[ozbob]

There is no point having 5 non-interchange CBD stations when you can have 2-3 interchange CBD stations.

Yes indeed Stephen, a critical consideration for CRR IMHO.

[stephenk]

All of these cities are more compact, and have a higher population density that Brisbane. Brisbane will have a very hard task to achieve similar levels of public transport due to it's sprawling geographical size, poor town planning, low population density, and car culture.

Its always easy to make a case that the city is too small/compact, too big, too different.
That way you have an answer that fits all cases and cannot be proven wrong.
Its not a license to do nothing.

But I'm not saying do nothing. I'm just saying that will be almost impossible for a large sprawling city to reach levels of public transport usage attainable in a compact high density city.

[#Metro]

If it is "almost impossible" what should we do then?

[#Metro]

Anything over the current 8% PT mode share is an improvement.
The data I refer to is European as it was from a EU study, if there are other data sources, please post them.

Looking at pricing has not been discussed in detail. It is important because , by itself, it requires no alteration to city density.

Transportation Price Reforms

One of the most important categories of TDM strategies is to reform the way we pay for motor vehicle travel. Our report Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets examines the magnitude of distortions in our current transportation markets that result in inefficient, excessive and inequitable transportation choices. It finds a number of significant market failures that harm virtually everybody over the long term. This report concludes that an economically optimal transportation market would result in 35-60% reductions in motor vehicle travel. In other words a significant portion of current motor vehicle travel results from market distortions. Consumers would gladly choose alternatives for one-third to one-half of their trips if given a less biased market.

http://www.vtpi.org/approach/index.php

[stephenk]

If it is "almost impossible" what should we do then?

Put Brisbane in a 90 degree wash and shrink it 

Just because a PT % as high as is attainable in a compact high density city is verging on impossible, does not mean we still cannot increase the PT % to as high as is "realistically possible" in Brisbane. It's just the "realistically possible" mark will be lower in a sprawling low density city than a compact high density city, due to the lower efficiency and effectiveness of PT in sprawling low density city. Brisbane has a very very long way to go before we get anywhere near the "realistically possible" mark.

[#Metro]

Put Brisbane in a 90 degree wash and shrink it  Wink

Just because a PT % as high as is attainable in a compact high density city is verging on impossible, does not mean we still cannot increase the PT % to as high as is "realistically possible" in Brisbane. It's just the "realistically possible" mark will be lower in a sprawling low density city than a compact high density city, due to the lower efficiency and effectiveness of PT in sprawling low density city. Brisbane has a very very long way to go before we get anywhere near the "realistically possible" mark.

Ha ha.  Surely you don't mean that! Shrink it, that would take a while.
How could we go about "increasing PT% to as high as is "realistically possible" in Brisbane". Where do you think the mark is?

[Golliwog]

Given the number of major road corridors that are congested in peak hour that run parrallel to either a railway or busway/BUZ route, I think at least 30%. They just need convincing that there is spare capacity on those trains and buses for them. At the moment, I guess there is't much room for massive numbers of extra commuters, but theres still some capacity, especially in the peak shoulders.

[somebody]

Given the number of major road corridors that are congested in peak hour that run parrallel to either a railway or busway/BUZ route, I think at least 30%. They just need convincing that there is spare capacity on those trains and buses for them. At the moment, I guess there is't much room for massive numbers of extra commuters, but theres still some capacity, especially in the peak shoulders.

There's already plenty of capacity which could be used just about everywhere in our system, they just don't want to use them.  Only the Merivale bridge is near capacity.