Cross River Rail Project

[mufreight]

again beg to differ,
19tph is less than a train every three minutes so there is still room to increase frequencies.
It is in practice feasable with the appropriate signaling to operate trains on two minute headways ie a station dwell time of 1 1/2 minutes plus 1/2 minute clearance time.
In reality it would be more reliable to operate to about 24tph which far exceeds the therotical 19thp requirement.
It all comes down to the reliability of the equipment and how much moner there is to spend.
I was surprised to hear from a highly qualified engineer that if provision is made in the initial planning for the future extension of platform lengths that he considered that platform extensions in a tunnel situation would be no more difficult than the extension of many above ground platforms, so it would seem that it all comes down to PLANNING for expansion.   

[somebody]

Hmm, OK, you are entitled to your opinion.

If they can be extended easily in the future then I think that would be fine.  But I would expect that would be pretty expensive as a retrofit on a running line.

I would also question the ability of the signalling to handle 19tph without slowing down services south of Beenleigh.

[stephenk]

You have to be joking, the beancounters work on capacity and to save staffing costs would reduce frequency even further off peak to cut costs arguing that they are providing more capacity.
Such a move would drive off even more commuters while the convenience of increased frequency operating six car sets using present infrastructure would cost less than the reconstruction of the entire cityrail network infrastructure to accomodate nine car sets and would attract higher levels of use.

In most cases of platform extensions in the UK, there has not been (or planned to be) a frequency decrease. In cases where there has may a small frequency decrease such as the DLR 3-car project, the decrease will result in a more reliable and robust timetable, whilst the longer trains will still allow an overall capacity increase.

So can we agree that if those 19tph forecasts are correct then the 2016 tunnel should have 9 car platforms?

As far as I'm aware the stations in the 2016 tunnel are planned to be built for 9-car trains.

again beg to differ,
19tph is less than a train every three minutes so there is still room to increase frequencies.
It is in practice feasable with the appropriate signaling to operate trains on two minute headways ie a station dwell time of 1 1/2 minutes plus 1/2 minute clearance time.
In reality it would be more reliable to operate to about 24tph which far exceeds the therotical 19thp requirement.
It all comes down to the reliability of the equipment and how much moner there is to spend.
I was surprised to hear from a highly qualified engineer that if provision is made in the initial planning for the future extension of platform lengths that he considered that platform extensions in a tunnel situation would be no more difficult than the extension of many above ground platforms, so it would seem that it all comes down to PLANNING for expansion.   

The current theoretical capacity of the suburbans is between 20 and 25tph depending upon the source of information. The current theoretical capacity of the mains is between 15 and 19tph. The theoretical capacity of the new tunnels with 2 platforms/direction at CBD stations is 23 to 25tph.

Whilst 30tph is theoretically possible on suburban rail (Paris RER A, Tokyo Chuo Rapid, and Munich S-Bahn), it requires state of the art signalling, and no infrastructure constraints (i.e no single tracks, adequate reversing capacity, grade seperated junctions, short dwell times). I can't see this happening in Brisbane without a major shift in spending towards public transport infrastructure.

[somebody]

As far as I'm aware the stations in the 2016 tunnel are planned to be built for 9-car trains.

Is that in the ICRS?  I haven't heard that before.

[stephenk]

As far as I'm aware the stations in the 2016 tunnel are planned to be built for 9-car trains.

Is that in the ICRS?  I haven't heard that before.

In the Pre Feasibility Report it is mentioned on p19, p74 & p76.

[Jon Bryant]

Whilst 30tph is theoretically possible on suburban rail (Paris RER A, Tokyo Chuo Rapid, and Munich S-Bahn), it requires state of the art signalling, and no infrastructure constraints (i.e no single tracks, adequate reversing capacity, grade seperated junctions, short dwell times). I can't see this happening in Brisbane without a major shift in spending towards public transport infrastructure.

It is this exact shift in spending and the transport planning assumptions that we must campaign hardest for.  Without this change PT will always be the poor cousin and the last choice of transport. The choice is between building more roads and encouraging the growth in car usage (nothing to do with catering forbpopulation growth) and active/public transport which caters for mobility on the most effivient way.  It is an easy choice to make.  Create a bigger problem or fix the one already created.

[somebody]

In the Pre Feasibility Report it is mentioned on p19, p74 & p76.

Yep, found that now.  Thanks.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Push for rail tunnel funding

Push for rail tunnel funding
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Ursula Heger

February 25, 2010 12:00am

BRISBANE will need another six King George Square bus stations within 16 years to cope with booming population growth unless funding for the city's second cross-river rail tunnel is found, the project chief has warned.

Cross-River Rail Project director Luke Franzmann told a Business Development Association lunch yesterday the southeast's rail network would reach capacity within six years unless the vital second cross river link was built.

"Doing nothing is not an option, it means very limited opportunity to increase services on the rail network and not just in the inner city but across the rail network," he said.

"The cap on the capacity of the central area will lead to chronic rail crowding and effectively divert demand away from rail to congested roads and an already crowded bus network."

Mr Franzmann said the southeast's reliance on buses and building more roads was not sustainable, with an extra 1200 buses expected to be moving through the CBD every hour by 2026. "We know the inner city bus infrastructure can't cope with that," he said.

"The key drivers are a lack of set down and pick-up space and some key constraints on the network. To handle that we would require a significant investment in bus infrastructure – the equivalent of six King George Square busway stations, as well as the surface infrastructure that would be required."

The cross-river rail link could be expected to carry 30,000 commuters every hour on both the inbound and outbound lines.

A feasibility study for the $8.2 billion project is under way but funding for the second cross-river link will be reliant on the Federal Government.

The project has been submitted for funding through the Federal Government's Infrastructure Australia grant but is competing with a similar proposal from Melbourne and Brisbane-based projects such as Northern Link.

The new rail line would mean upgraded services for passengers, with nine-car trains and screen doors at underground stations.

Community consultation on the project is set to begin in March.

[O_128]

You have to wonder why KGS wasn't built as a multi level station with levels being opened as more capacity is needed.

[somebody]

You have to wonder why KGS wasn't built as a multi level station with levels being opened as more capacity is needed.

Got to say, that's a pretty interesting idea, but I do wonder if the grade from a sub-level of KGSBS to Roma St would be too steep?  Or are you thinking of an underground Roma St level as well?

I'd presume that the sub-level would be a dead end with a bus turn around at the end.

[stephenk]

You have to wonder why KGS wasn't built as a multi level station with levels being opened as more capacity is needed.

...because there isn't an bottomless pit of money! The depth of KGS compared to neighbouring stations would also make multi-levels somewhat complicated.

[Derwan]

The new rail line would mean upgraded services for passengers, with nine-car trains and screen doors at underground stations.

Whoa - nine-car trains!!!  First we've heard that!

I dare say the new stations would be built to handle them - but suburban stations (at least the major ones) would have to be upgraded before they were introduced.

[O_128]

The new rail line would mean upgraded services for passengers, with nine-car trains and screen doors at underground stations.

Whoa - nine-car trains!!!  First we've heard that!

I dare say the new stations would be built to handle them - but suburban stations (at least the major ones) would have to be upgraded before they were introduced.

Most likely that all the gold coast stations, beenleigh, loganlea, coopers plains, fairfield and bowen hills would be lengthened if the first tunnel is to be used by GC trains

[Jon Bryant]

Can Northern Link and make CRR the major priority.  Northern Link will not fix anything except the bank balance of the construction companies.

[stephenk]

The new rail line would mean upgraded services for passengers, with nine-car trains and screen doors at underground stations.

Whoa - nine-car trains!!!  First we've heard that!

I dare say the new stations would be built to handle them - but suburban stations (at least the major ones) would have to be upgraded before they were introduced.

Stations to be built to handle 9-car trains are mentioned in the ICRCS - Pre Feasibility Report.

[longboi]

Buses are not sustainable for mass transit. Gee there's a surprise  I have only been saying this exact same thing for at least three years.

[somebody]

Buses are not sustainable for mass transit. Gee there's a surprise  I have only been saying this exact same thing for at least three years.

And yet they shoulder 2/3 of the current PT loads in Brisbane.

KGSBS doesn't actually carry that much traffic 443/444/345/385/333/330/111 at 6/hour in peak and 66 at 12/hour for 54/hour total, which is less than 1/3 of what runs through the Cultural Centre, and about 1/3 of what runs over the Capt Cook Bridge.  So 6 more KGSBS's would be about 2 more Cultural Centres.  But there's no way that the Capt Cook Bridge is at bus capacity.

[mufreight]

One must question as to how bus services are relative to a thread on a cross river rail link unless it is proposed that this rail link be built so as to cater for future bus services or these phantom services are to operate as some form of rail bus.

[somebody]

One must question as to how bus services are relative to a thread on a cross river rail link unless it is proposed that this rail link be built so as to cater for future bus services or these phantom services are to operate as some form of rail bus.

I would refer you to this quote from the Courier Mail (quoted above):

February 25, 2010 12:00am

BRISBANE will need another six King George Square bus stations within 16 years to cope with booming population growth unless funding for the city's second cross-river rail tunnel is found, the project chief has warned.

[O_128]

One must question as to how bus services are relative to a thread on a cross river rail link unless it is proposed that this rail link be built so as to cater for future bus services or these phantom services are to operate as some form of rail bus.

I would refer you to this quote from the Courier Mail (quoted above):

February 25, 2010 12:00am

BRISBANE will need another six King George Square bus stations within 16 years to cope with booming population growth unless funding for the city's second cross-river rail tunnel is found, the project chief has warned.

Just with that quote is that implying that funding has been found for the first tunnel.

[somebody]

Just with that quote is that implying that funding has been found for the first tunnel.

I would say that it's implying the exact opposite.  If it was already funded, there would be no need to lobby for its funding.

[ozbob]

Yes, it is just bad phrasing in the article, what was implied I suggest  "unless funding for the city's second cross-river rail crossing" is found ...

[#Metro]

Funding isn't just "found"... if they want it they will have to pull out all stops to get it.
It would have been cheaper I think if they had built it earlier in the 1990s like was proposed.
Now the cost has ballooned.

Funding this project is now no small task- it is equivalent to:

* 7 brand new Gold Coast Hospitals
* or  13 Gold Coast Light Rail Projects
* or 6 Gateway upgrade projects
* or 13 parallel runways at Brisbane Airport

The building Australia fund (Federal Government) is $20 billion in total for everyone.
QLD Government Asset Sales are $15 billion

This project might just make it through, but it will be very close...

1. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/gcuhospital/default.asp
2. http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/07/95891_about-gold-coast.html
3. http://www.gatewayupgradeproject.com.au/asp/index.asp?sid=5&page=aboutIntro
4. http://www.newparallelrunway.com.au/content/home.asp?

[mufreight]

One would think that there will be a start made in the not too distant future if only to salvage the present governments position on public transport.
The opposition to replace the present government at the next election will have to commit to the cross river link and millions of votes swing on either side taking positive action, political reality at work.

[longboi]

tramtrain just remember those figures aren't adjusted for inflation so what seemed cheaper in the 1990's could very well be akin to the costs we are looking at Today's terms.

[#Metro]

Yes, there has to be a contingency. + 45% minimum (i.e. 5.8 billion)
The costs have already blown out due to delay...

This makes for sober reading:

How common and how large are cost overruns in transport
infrastructure projects?

BENT FLYVBJERG*, METTE K. SKAMRIS HOLM and SéREN L. BUHL
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg Uni

Transport Reviews, 2003, VOL. 23, NO. 1, 71-88

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/COSTFREQ4.pdf

p79

After we have established beyond statistical doubt that large cost escalations are
the rule rather than the exception in transport infrastructure projects, in this section
we test whether different project types perform differently as regards cost escalation.

Statistical analyses of the data in table 1 show both means and standard
deviations to be different with a high level of confidence. Rail projects incur the
highest difference between actual and estimated costs with an average of no less than
44.7%,

Conclusions
* 9 out of 10 transport infrastructure projects fall victim to cost escalation
*  For rail, average cost escalation is 45% (strongly statistically significant)
* Cost escalation has not decreased over the past 70 years. No learning seems to
take place. Or, alternatively, project promoters and forecasters have learned
what there is to learn, namely that cost escalation pays off; cost escalation is a simple consequence of cost underestimation and underestimation is used
tactically to get projects approved and built.

[#Metro]

tramtrain just remember those figures aren't adjusted for inflation so what seemed cheaper in the 1990's could very well be akin to the costs we are looking at Today's terms.

Page 116 of the 1970 Wilbur Smith Plan details that the cost in 1969 dollars was $53 999 000 for the bridge & viaduct option. This included the line, all stations above and below ground, river/road tunnel and bridges, signaling and communications, electrification and land resumptions.

Using the Reserve Bank of Australia's Inflation calculator (http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html)
the 1970 option if done as directed  if done would have cost a mere 528 million dollars (2009 dollars, inflation adjusted).

I think that makes it 2462% cheaper... (estimate) than the current proposal.

[stephenk]

tramtrain just remember those figures aren't adjusted for inflation so what seemed cheaper in the 1990's could very well be akin to the costs we are looking at Today's terms.

Page 116 of the 1970 Wilbur Smith Plan details that the cost in 1969 dollars was $53 999 000 for the bridge & viaduct option. This included the line, all stations above and below ground, river/road tunnel and bridges, signaling and communications, electrification and land resumptions.

Using the Reserve Bank of Australia's Inflation calculator (http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html)
the 1970 option if done as directed  if done would have cost a mere 528 million dollars (2009 dollars, inflation adjusted).

I think that makes it 2462% cheaper... (estimate) than the current proposal.

As mentioned before, the routing of the line in the Wilbur Smith Plan is now not possible.  So the price comparison is somewhat irrelevant.

Even without the Wilbur Smith Plan, there has been considerable capacity increase through the core network in the period 1970-90s. If the Wilbur Smith Plan went ahead, would we now have 4 tracks Roma Street to Bowen Hills? We might still have been no better off even if the Wilbur Smith plan had been built!

[#Metro]

As mentioned before, the routing of the line in the Wilbur Smith Plan is now not possible.  So the price comparison is somewhat irrelevant.

The purpose was to show that there had been a cost blowout due to excessive delay.
For this purpose, the comparison is highly relevant. Had the line been built earlier, we would be saving an astronomical amount of money. Enough for 13 light rail systems, brand new QR trains and higher 15 minute frequency AND we would have our new portal to the CBD from Woolloongabba as well.

Even without the Wilbur Smith Plan, there has been considerable capacity increase through the core network in the period 1970-90s. If the Wilbur Smith Plan went ahead, would we now have 4 tracks Roma Street to Bowen Hills? We might still have been no better off even if the Wilbur Smith plan had been built!

I disagree. This must be why we still have 1979 rail frequency. Please look at the route alignment below.
The last claim that "we would have been no better off" is clearly false. A new track is an increase in capacity, a new line and portal would increase that and that would have benefits which would represent an improvement from the status quo, not a reduction in it. The use of a viaduct also has precedent for this option- there is a viaduct adequately and safely crossing Ipswich Road for the Cleveland line which allows Citytrains to access Buranda station.

This plan, had it been built would have looked somewhat like that, or like the Airtrain does today. And Airtrain only cost $220 million to build. The Clem 7 project cost $3.2 billion and that is for parallel tunnels containing 2 car lanes each- (quite wide enough for a train possibly?) from Ipswich Road (near the Park Rd rail junction) to pop out at Bowen Hills end. That cost also includes 18 bridges.

Now we do the same for rail, we also build 2x single tunnels and the cost is 4 times that amount.
So naturally I ask questions. Perhaps the assumptions in the engineering modeling need to be re-examined, particularly in regard to maximum gradient...


This is what was proposed, click to enlarge.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clem_Jones_Tunnel
2. http://www.ourbrisbane.com/transport/clem7-all-facts-and-figures
3. http://www.airtrain.com.au/aboutus.php

[stephenk]

Even without the Wilbur Smith Plan, there has been considerable capacity increase through the core network in the period 1970-90s. If the Wilbur Smith Plan went ahead, would we now have 4 tracks Roma Street to Bowen Hills? We might still have been no better off even if the Wilbur Smith plan had been built!

I disagree. This must be why we still have 1979 rail frequency. Please look at the route alignment below.
The last claim that "we would have been no better off" is clearly false. A new track is an increase in capacity, a new line and portal would increase that and that would have benefits which would represent an improvement from the status quo, not a reduction in it. The use of a viaduct also has precedent for this option- there is a viaduct adequately and safely crossing Ipswich Road for the Cleveland line which allows Citytrains to access Buranda station.

This plan, had it been built would have looked somewhat like that, or like the Airtrain does today. And Airtrain only cost $220 million to build. The Clem 7 project cost $3.2 billion and that is for parallel tunnels containing 2 car lanes each- (quite wide enough for a train possibly?) from Ipswich Road (near the Park Rd rail junction) to pop out at Bowen Hills end. That cost also includes 18 bridges.

Now we do the same for rail, we also build 2x single tunnels and the cost is 4 times that amount.
So naturally I ask questions. Perhaps the assumptions in the engineering modeling need to be re-examined, particularly in regard to maximum gradient...

I don't think you understood my point.

In 1970, there were 2 tracks through the CBD between Roma St and Bowen Hills (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). Trains could be routed via the Exhibition Line, but this could not increase capacity to the rapidly developing CBD.
If the Wilbur Smith Plan went ahead, there would have been 2 more tracks through the CBD at the capacity restricting point. 2+2 = 4 tracks.

The Wilbur Smith Plan didn't go ahead. However, 2 extra tracks were added between Roma Street and Bowen Hills as part of the inner-city quadruplication project, which = 4 tracks. I would expect that this alignment would have been much more cost effective than the Wilbur Smith Plan.

So if the Wilbur Smith Plan had gone ahead, we would now be in the same situation, with 4 tracks through the CBD, and we would still be in need of building extra tracks through the CBD.

[#Metro]

One must question as to how bus services are relative to a thread on a cross river rail link unless it is proposed that this rail link be built so as to cater for future bus services or these phantom services are to operate as some form of rail bus.

I'll answer your question. If the Woolloongabba rail station is built, it is likely that this area would create a busy environment - lets call it Cultural Centre II. You have a very big bus interchange, a rail station, the stadium and intensive TOD development. Buses could terminate & turnaround at Woolloongabba, which might be an option to consider as the SE busway itself will be well over capacity under both superbus and light rail options in 2026 (image below).


The image reproduced here is from the Lord Mayors Mass Transit Report.
It appears here for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

Buses 150 and 130 are already proposed as an option to terminate & transfer to feed the rail line rather than run into the CBD for this reason. A similar thing could be done with the Woolloongabba bus/rail station.

[O_128]

People probably wont need to g into the CBD anyway. If all goes to plan wollongabba should become the equivalent of north sydney

[frereOP]

tramtrain just remember those figures aren't adjusted for inflation so what seemed cheaper in the 1990's could very well be akin to the costs we are looking at Today's terms.

It's always the case that the best time to do something was last year or last decade.

[frereOP]

People probably wont need to g into the CBD anyway. If all goes to plan wollongabba should become the equivalent of north sydney

And Indooroopilly, Toowong, Chermside and Mt Gravatt.  Remember, we are not talking now or even 10 years, we are talking up 50 years.  Planning and building the infrastructure is needed now.

[#Metro]

Not always. Timing depends on 3 things mainly:

- cost
- government attitude
- demand


The short Route 66 was a few years before its time. Few people caught it, the way it was, and it tied up a lot of good articulated buses at a time when people couldn't fit on a bus in other parts of the city. 393 is in the same position. Both their routes need altering. The 66 has now been altered, and it could be altered further still.

It was cheaper to rip up the trams in 1969 than continue to pay to run them. More recent light rail proposals didn't get up because they too were before their time. I'm sure that this will not be the case in the future.

The Brisbane Airtrain (2001) was almost before its time. It almost went broke, and the government was teetering on the edge of having to take over it. But due to worsening traffic congestion, a harsh restructure and and increase in air transport at the airport, it is now on a sound footing. [1]

The general cost increase in the ICRCs comes from the tunneling options and presumably also the astronomical increase in land values since the mid nineties. The $7 billion first tunnel would pay for the construction of 37 Brisbane Square Skyscrapers (2009 dollars, inflation adjusted). The land is probably worth quite a bit.

If the Government was smart, it would realise that its expenditure to build stations in the CBD increases the value of things and land immediately next to it and above it. A substantial amount of this value could be recaptured if development around, or rights to develop above it, were sold.

[1] http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24385018-3122,00.html
[2] http://www.infolink.com.au/c/Baulderstone-Hornibrook/Brisbane-Square-prepares-to-open-n764300

[O_128]

What a shame if the gov would have had to take over it

[somebody]

The Brisbane Airtrain (2001) was almost before its time. It almost went broke, and the government was teetering on the edge of having to take over it. But due to worsening traffic congestion, a harsh restructure and and increase in air transport at the airport, it is now on a sound footing. [1]

Not too sure I agree with this example.  It probably should have been built long ago a public project.  It's taken time for the option of using the Airtrain to be accepted by the public.  Sydney experienced the same thing.  But a $4.8m full year profit for a $200m+ investment is not an economic return, although that profit is probably after debt funding has been taken into account.

The problem will be that once the Airport Link tunnel goes through, it will be much more attractive to drive to the Airport or use a taxi than at present.  This will no doubt hurt Airtrain pretty hard.

[#Metro]

Sigh, yes. It is going to make private car, taxi faster and bus operators faster. Oh well.
What will happen when they get all get to the airport carpark and start driving around for a car space? Gridlock.
Parking for 1 hour at the airport is $13 dollars, and an Airtrain ticket is $14.50...

Airtrain.

99% on time running, effectively free construction, zero operating subsidy and $400 late train refund and a limo waiting outside the rail station if you want it is something on the regular commuters can only dream about.

[frereOP]

99% on time running, effectively free construction, zero operating subsidy and $400 late train refund and a limo waiting outside the rail station if you want it is something on the regular commuters can only dream about.

Seems you are quoting the spin.  "Take the train, Make the plane", "99% on time runnng" etc etc etc.  The reality doesn't quite match the rhetoric because it seems that many Airtrain sevices - especially the early morning services - run up to half an hour late.  This is the observation of an Airservices Australia employee who uses it every day.  He says take the train and miss the plane.

[#Metro]

Ah yes, hmm... I wonder how that comes about?