Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

This sounds good!

The off-peak line pairings through the CBD after the first tunnel opening according to the ICRCS are:
Mains: Ipswich (2tph)/Rosewood (2tph) - Bowen Hills (2tph)/North Coast (2tph)
Suburbans: Springfield (4tph)/Beenleigh (4tph)/Cleveland (4tph) - Ferny Grove (4tph)/Petrie (2tph)/Caboolture(2tph)
New Tunnel: Gold Coast (4tph)/CBD (3tph) - Shorncliffe (4tph)/Airport (2tph)/Doomben (1tph)
(Numbers in brackets are trains terminating at that location).

Ipswich Line : Every 30 minutes off peak ( should be every 20 minutes IMHO)
Ipswich Line (Between Darra - Milton): Every 10 minutes 
Cleveland Line: Every 15 minutes 
Gold Coast: Every 15 minutes 
Shornecliffe: Every 15 minutes 
Beenleigh: Every 15 minutes 
Kippa-Ring: No service  

Lets hope they buy some more new trains before patronage jumps suddenly...

[somebody]

This sounds good!

The off-peak line pairings through the CBD after the first tunnel opening according to the ICRCS are:
Mains: Ipswich (2tph)/Rosewood (2tph) - Bowen Hills (2tph)/North Coast (2tph)
Suburbans: Springfield (4tph)/Beenleigh (4tph)/Cleveland (4tph) - Ferny Grove (4tph)/Petrie (2tph)/Caboolture(2tph)
New Tunnel: Gold Coast (4tph)/CBD (3tph) - Shorncliffe (4tph)/Airport (2tph)/Doomben (1tph)
(Numbers in brackets are trains terminating at that location).

Ipswich Line : Every 30 minutes off peak ( should be every 20 minutes IMHO)
Ipswich Line (Between Darra - Milton): Every 10 minutes  
Cleveland Line: Every 15 minutes  
Gold Coast: Every 15 minutes  
Shornecliffe: Every 15 minutes  
Beenleigh: Every 15 minutes  
Kippa-Ring: No service  

Lets hope they buy some more new trains before patronage jumps suddenly...

Actually that's 15 mins to Ipswich, and 30 mins to Rosewood
7.5 mins Darra-Milton, unless the swear words apply.

By the way, none of that is Government policy.  Just what Systemwide recommend.

The off-peak line pairings through the CBD after the first tunnel opening according to the ICRCS are:
Mains: Ipswich (2tph)/Rosewood (2tph) - Bowen Hills (2tph)/North Coast (2tph)
Suburbans: Springfield (4tph)/Beenleigh (4tph)/Cleveland (4tph) - Ferny Grove (4tph)/Petrie (2tph)/Caboolture(2tph)
New Tunnel: Gold Coast (4tph)/CBD (3tph) - Shorncliffe (4tph)/Airport (2tph)/Doomben (1tph)
(Numbers in brackets are trains terminating at that location).

That doesn't tell you about whether Ferny Grove trains will run to Beenleigh or Cleveland though, although they could easily do either.

I don't like this suggested pattern.  The new tunnel, unless they make a mess of it, will provide a significantly faster journey time and less walking for most people from the South as compared to the Merivale Bridge route.  Why not use it for Beenleigh line services, and especially peak hour express services.

I still didn't understand from your reply where the tunnel exit is proposed to be.  On the east side of the existing Quad tracks?  Does sextuplication continue until the Airport line turns off?

EDIT: I meant to add to the above that the current Central-Park Rd journey is tabled at 12-13mins.  To go what? 3km?  If they can't shave more than 5 mins off that, they aren't trying.

[#Metro]

Actually that's 15 mins to Ipswich, and 30 mins to Rosewood
7.5 mins Darra-Milton, unless the swear words apply. 

Excellent! Amazing!
Sorry. I forgets that the Rosewood line exists. No offence to the people who live out there.

By the way, none of that is Government policy.  Just what Systemwide recommend.

Aaargh!

[stephenk]

The off-peak line pairings through the CBD after the first tunnel opening according to the ICRCS are:
Mains: Ipswich (2tph)/Rosewood (2tph) - Bowen Hills (2tph)/North Coast (2tph)
Suburbans: Springfield (4tph)/Beenleigh (4tph)/Cleveland (4tph) - Ferny Grove (4tph)/Petrie (2tph)/Caboolture(2tph)
New Tunnel: Gold Coast (4tph)/CBD (3tph) - Shorncliffe (4tph)/Airport (2tph)/Doomben (1tph)
(Numbers in brackets are trains terminating at that location).

I don't like this suggested pattern.  The new tunnel, unless they make a mess of it, will provide a significantly faster journey time and less walking for most people from the South as compared to the Merivale Bridge route.  Why not use it for Beenleigh line services, and especially peak hour express services.

I still didn't understand from your reply where the tunnel exit is proposed to be.  On the east side of the existing Quad tracks?  Does sextuplication continue until the Airport line turns off?

I think it may be used for some Beenleigh services in the peak, but not off-peak. If Beenleigh services were run through the tunnel off-peak at well as Gold Coast trains, then it would only leave South Bank with  4tph which would be 2tph less than at present - this isn't acceptable.

The proposed northern tunnel exit is still not confirmed. It was recommended in the ICRCS to be north of Bowen Hills on the suburban tracks side (on the track layout shown in the ICRCS, the portal seems to be on the eastern side of the suburbans). The ICRCS shows 5 tracks between the portal and Northgate. The recent press release of the "cut price" tunnel shows the tunnel exits to be somewhere south of Exhibition.

[somebody]

I think it may be used for some Beenleigh services in the peak, but not off-peak. If Beenleigh services were run through the tunnel off-peak at well as Gold Coast trains, then it would only leave South Bank with  4tph which would be 2tph less than at present - this isn't acceptable.

4tph, but at least it's got even intervals if 4tph are running evenly to Manly.  The busway can supplement the frequency so that the effective frequency is still high off peak at South Brisbane & South Bank.  The new tunnel covers Park Rd, the main problem is if the southern exit doesn't allow service to Dutton Park.

What I'm saying is that I don't really see why it's "not acceptable".

[#Metro]

The busway can supplement the frequency so that the effective frequency is still high off peak at South Brisbane & South Bank.  The new tunnel covers Park Rd, the main problem is if the southern exit doesn't allow service to Dutton Park.

This is actually a good point.

There is a busway connection in four directions at Wooloongabba
1. Towards the City
2. Away from the City (to Carindale)
3. Towards UQ Lakes
4. Towards 8 Mile Plains

South Bank and South Brisbane have the busway.

I suspect that extra services will be put on to use that line anyway. It might be too early to speculate as ICRCS was only pre-feasibility, we might see some radical changes in the "real" feasibility study.
The tunnels open up all sorts of new possibilities.

Actually, in the Wilbur Smith Plan 1970, the Merivale Bridge was recommended to be built but only used very occasionally, including as a redundancy measure. The main traffic would be routed through the Woolloongabba-CBD line as that was the quickest way to the most people then. Granted, South Bank really didn't exist at that time.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Brisbane must quickly build new cross-river rail link

Brisbane must quickly build new cross-river rail link

   * Chris Hale
   * From: The Courier-Mail
   * March 25, 2010 6:06PM

THE latest plan for Brisbane's cross-river rail link is a visionary idea that needs to be built as quickly as practically possible.

But at this stage, we still wonder whether it might meet the same fate as Sydney's recent grand vision for a metro rail scheme. After spending close to $300 million - and several years of planning, engineering, land acquisition and economic analysis - the State Government scrapped the project just a month ago.

Presumably this was on the grounds that it was "all too hard", or that it failed to please absolutely everyone. There is a deceptive and seductive ease in cancelling a major mass-transit project that you certainly do not get from a tough decision to press ahead.

Mixing strategic planning with politics is like fire and ice. You seem to invariably end up with lukewarm water.

And Sydney's problems with the cancelled metro rail scheme highlight the struggles that Australian cities, including Brisbane, face in getting serious infrastructure out of the fairytale "long-range plan" and into implementation and operation.

Much is being made of the lost time and resources that were dedicated to the Sydney Metro project before it was cancelled. But the real pain for Sydney residents, commuters and government will arrive when everyone takes a breath and recognises that they have cancelled a badly needed project, and lost a major opportunity to improve urban travel.

In Brisbane, the latest concept plan for cross-river rail seems to add something of genuine value for central city and north-south travel. Several important new stations are set to emerge - including at Woolloongabba, and new stops in the CBD. Upgrades to capacity in the north-south rail spine and a major station redevelopment at Bowen Hills are to be applauded.

What we really need now is accelerated implementation-readiness. We need to identify an integrated business concept for delivering the infrastructure, for effectively managing rail operations, for improving railway stations, and for delivering station-area transit-oriented development.

In losing the Sydney Metro example, Australian cities have also lost a potential new integrated business example for viably building, financing, expanding and running metropolitan rail transport. Sydney Metro was specifically set up to deliver transit-oriented development, and to be managed more efficiently than existing urban rail services.

In Brisbane, our only option is to do much better than Sydney. Let us stride ahead with sustainable urban infrastructure development using modern management approaches and "switched-on" planning.

There appears little prospect for a better urban future otherwise.

Taking a leap forward through our cross-river rail project and other potential metro and light-rail options only appears possible by combining the efforts of federal, state and local governments.

Integrated business models that leverage rail investment with better stations, land use changes and transit oriented development must also emerge.

In Sydney, pessimism and scaremongering were also predictable problems that just were not effectively countered.

In Brisbane, the general pessimism on rail needs to evolve into a sophisticated dialogue on the true value of sustainable mass-transit infrastructure and improvements to walking and cycling conditions.

In this vein, the recent concept proposal from architect Michael Rayner for multiple cross-river footbridges should also be investigated carefully - and funding quickly found.

If we want to beat competitor cities nationally and internationally by offering accessibility and quality of life of which we can be genuinely proud, then sustainable infrastructure must win out against the inevitable nay-sayers.

Brisbane residents and business stakeholders really need to start seeing the cross-river proposal as a make-or-break project - and do everything in their power to back its initiation and implementation.

Cross-river rail and new pedestrian bridges loom as vital exemplar projects for Brisbane's future, and a litmus test of our institutional, financial, design, technological and cultural maturity.

Where Sydney has failed, Brisbane will surely now stand and deliver.

Chris Hale is an urban economist with the University of Queensland's Centre for Transport Strategy.

Footnote.  Mr Hale will be the final session speaker at our Forum on the 4th September.  Provisional title for the presentation "Visions for a sustainable transport metropolis in SEQ - the future is now"

[stephenk]

What I'm saying is that I don't really see why it's "not acceptable".

Because in any city with decent public transport, an area like South Bank would have a train service at least every 10mins or better (as well as a parallel bus routes). 15mins in not an acceptable off-peak frequency for this busy stretch of line.

[somebody]

Because in any city with decent public transport, an area like South Bank would have a train service at least every 10mins or better (as well as a parallel bus routes). 15mins in not an acceptable off-peak frequency for this busy stretch of line.

Well, Bondi Junction (in Sydney) has for some had a 15 minute weekend service (10 minute weekday daytime now).  That would be a fair parrallel in my view due to the many bus connections to Bondi Beach and other places.  The buses at South Bank are also considerably faster for getting in to the city shopping district.

We may have to just disagree on this point.

But at this stage, we still wonder whether it might meet the same fate as Sydney's recent grand vision for a metro rail scheme. After spending close to $300 million - and several years of planning, engineering, land acquisition and economic analysis - the State Government scrapped the project just a month ago.

Presumably this was on the grounds that it was "all too hard", or that it failed to please absolutely everyone. There is a deceptive and seductive ease in cancelling a major mass-transit project that you certainly do not get from a tough decision to press ahead.

Sydney's metro was not a good idea.  It didn't solve capacity constraints on CityRail, which is something which regretably must be done. (Regretable becase CityRail are a very inefficent operator.) It is the equivalant of the metro proposals for Brisbane which aren't a priority.  I wonder what they were smoking when they started down that route.

[#Metro]

Long Post Warning
Chris Hale writes some decent and enjoyable pieces, but sometimes I don't agree with everything that is said...

But at this stage, we still wonder whether it might meet the same fate as Sydney's recent grand vision for a metro rail scheme. After spending close to $300 million - and several years of planning, engineering, land acquisition and economic analysis - the State Government scrapped the project just a month ago.

Presumably this was on the grounds that it was "all too hard", or that it failed to please absolutely everyone. There is a deceptive and seductive ease in cancelling a major mass-transit project that you certainly do not get from a tough decision to press ahead.

I too questioned where we would get $8-$14 billion from. From the outset it does look precarious to announce a big project and not have secured funding for it. However, the Federal Government can't give lots of money just on "an idea". They need to see that it is worthwhile. This is why there is the study and funds for assessments and reports etc.

Chris Hale makes the mistake of assuming that there is one big solution,  and conflating the ICRCS with the Sydney Metro project. Scrapping the Sydney Metro project is allowing other worthy projects to proceed- CityRail, Western Suburbs, and Light Rail for example. These too are viable solutions to the same problem. Secondly, there appears to be evidence that the Sydney Metro proposal was unsound for a number of reasons and that it was more motivated by "lets have a big showy project to show off to the voters" than a sound engineering and economic foundation. CityRail criticised it on the basis that there was some capacity left in lines that ran near it, and it partially duplicated the Light Rail areas as well.

No project pleases everyone. I've never heard of a project being approved on these grounds. There is absolutely no "deceptive and seductive ease" with cancelling a major project. What is so "deceptive" or "seductive" about it? It looks terrible, but better lose $300 million rather than spend billions and billions running empty carriages all day.

Despite all of the positioning about the funding and ICRCS, I think that the government is just trying to be strategic and drum up federal funding. The Queensland Government could cover the entire cost of this project from privatisation alone. Indeed, I'm almost certain that this is where the money is coming from. This project is urgent and needs to be fast tracked. The assets sale is being fast tracked for no obvious reason- put two and two together...

[somebody]

Scrapping the Sydney Metro project is allowing other worthy projects to proceed- CityRail, Western Suburbs, and Light Rail for example. These too are viable solutions to the same problem. Secondly, there appears to be evidence that the Sydney Metro proposal was unsound for a number of reasons and that it was more motivated by "lets have a big showy project to show off to the voters" than a sound engineering and economic foundation.

Congratulations for understanding this.  I thought you'd be in the Sydney Metro cheer squad.

Sydney's metro was largely announced because an incoming premier wanted to have a big announcement.  It's the sort of thing that you read about in Dilbert.

[mufreight]

Quote from previous post by Tramtrain

No project pleases everyone. I've never heard of a project being approved on these grounds. There is absolutely no "deceptive and seductive ease" with cancelling a major project. What is so "deceptive" or "seductive" about it? It looks terrible, but better lose $300 million rather than spend billions and billions running empty carriages all day.

This statement is far from the mark,

The proposed cross river underground link providing as it will additional stations servicing high commuter density areas not presently served by rail and providing additional capacity for additional services through a section that is currently at capacity would be running full trains if brought into service tomorrow

[somebody]

The proposed cross river underground link providing as it will additional stations servicing high commuter density areas not presently served by rail

Only at the Gabba, or are there other locations this applies to?  And if only Gold Coast trains use the tunnel off peak this will have an awful frequency.  Got to say, I think this is far more "unacceptable" than only running 4tph through the South Bank section.

[O_128]

The proposed cross river underground link providing as it will additional stations servicing high commuter density areas not presently served by rail

Only at the Gabba, or are there other locations this applies to?  And if only Gold Coast trains use the tunnel off peak this will have an awful frequency.  Got to say, I think this is far more "unacceptable" than only running 4tph through the South Bank section.

maybe 2 beenleigh trains will use the tunnel so 6tph for southbank and 6tph for tunnel

[#Metro]

This statement is far from the mark,

The proposed cross river underground link providing as it will additional stations servicing high commuter density areas not presently served by rail and providing additional capacity for additional services through a section that is currently at capacity would be running full trains if brought into service tomorrow

I was referring to the Sydney metro. It is a minor point.
I'm not a member of any cheer squad. No cheer squads for me please.
I did like the idea, but after I saw the video link posted by FrereOP I had a change of mind...
Not all relevant background is apparent from the outset.

[somebody]

maybe 2 beenleigh trains will use the tunnel so 6tph for southbank and 6tph for tunnel

Only just noticed the 4tph to the Gold Coast off peak.  I'll believe this when I see it.  Moreover, it's not required.  The current frequency is excellent, and increases wouldn't attract much more patronage.  While stephenk has mentioned some comparable lines in other countries with better frequencies, these all have better average speeds too, and presumably better patronage.

Can we please stop trying to improve the Gold Coast line's service?  It's already by far the best line, for what it has to do and the subsidy involved. (O_128, I'm not targetting you in this, or anyone in particular.)  All other lines (except Doomben), including the Airport, are far more deserving.

Back to topic, splitting the Beenleigh line's frequency would be the worst possible option.  You need a single CBD station to go to to get the next train.

[O_128]

Somebody i hate the idea as much as you do but seeing as that is what everyone is saying im using that as an example

[stephenk]

Splitting lines off-peak as per O_218s suggestion is a bad idea. Very confusing to passengers and would cause timetabling issues - simplicity is the key to good railway operations. I still think a better option would be to reverse trains on the new tunnel south to north at Park Rd instead of in the CBD. Thus both South Bank and the new tunnel would have a half decent frequency.

[#Metro]

There IS some space at Park Rd I am sure for this suggestion.
Not sure what QR will decide.

[ozbob]

Who knows, the inner City loop service may actually be an option (a loop service utilising both the Exhibition and Tennyson lines), these may provide the inner city frequency when the Gold Coasters go underground. 

[stephenk]

Who knows, the inner City loop service may actually be an option (a loop service utilising both the Exhibition and Tennyson lines), these may provide the inner city frequency when the Gold Coasters go underground. 

Only you spend over a billion $ on grade-seperated junctions in 4 locations, put excess pressure on some parts of the network, and complicate the timetabling, then yes. However, since there is already evidence of cost cutting in the latest plans, the former requirement will not occur.

I don't understand this unhealthy obsession with running loop services for the sake of it. There are far too many negative operational issues that I have mentioned time and time again.

[#Metro]

This is a good question. What were the reasons behind the Melbourne and Sydney rail loops?
I think the driving force is that people want fast inner city distribution.

Something I would like to see is the Cleveland line was routed through New Farm or Bulimba/Tennerife... anyway, that it something in the non-priority folder.

Sydney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Circle
Melbourne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Underground_Rail_Loop
Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Ringbahn
Oslo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Line_%28Oslo%29
Copenhagen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Circle_Line

Brisbane Times blogs http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/06/innercity_rail.html

[stephenk]

What were the reasons behind the Melbourne and Sydney rail loops?
I think the driving force is that people want fast inner city distribution.

If the Cleveland line was routed through New Farm or Bulimba/Tennerife...

Sydney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Circle
Melbourne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Underground_Rail_Loop


Brisbane Times blogs http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/06/innercity_rail.html

Just because Sydney and Melbourne have loops doesn't mean that Brisbane needs to have one. Many cities do not have or require rail loops, and have simple end to end services that run across the CBD. It should also be noted that both Sydney and Melbourne's loops have grade separated junctions at each end to prevent conflicts - doing this in Brisbane would cost over a billion extra, for no operational advantages.

I'm sure that if looping services were a sensible option, they would have been mentioned in the ICRCS. Thankfully the people writing the ICRCS have knowledge of railway operations that extends further than looking up wikipedia pages and dreaming of unrealistic ideas.

[#Metro]

Berlin



Each city is different. One size does not fit all.

[ozbob]

Stephen,  we are well aware of the operational issues with loop services.   The new track layouts may well permit novel routes.  There is no point to being completely closed to different approaches that may be possible once projects completed.  The reality is there is plenty of capacity via Tennyson.  Even last night the Ippy services were running via Tennyson during the evening peak for a while.  What I would like to really see is some trial routes, eg. Maybe a service or two Cleveland to Ipswich during peaks.

With the new track arrangements for the Exhibition loop who knows what might be possible.

[somebody]

At one time (I think about 1930), St James in Sydney was a terminating station, with 4 platforms I believe.  The loop saved the need to turn trains around there.  It also saved the need to turn trains at Wynyard, and added the Circular Quay station for connection with ferries.  Many people now board trains for the St James side of the City Circle at Wynyard, which wasn't possible before.

I can't see where a CBD loop would fit in Brisbane.  Our CBD is too small by at least a factor of 4 in area to use such an idea.

And if there is a need to reverse trains in the CBD, why not use South Bank, like the current weekend Shorncliffe trains do.  No need to spend a gazillion dollars on an underground reversing facility that I can see.

[#Metro]

Hmm.
I don't like the idea of reversing trains in or near the CBD (Park Road might be OK though). I prefer through-routing.
Park road should get a major TOD or redevelopment around it. It has a lot of potential for offices, shops etc.

[somebody]

Hmm.
I don't like the idea of reversing trains in or near the CBD (Park Road might be OK though). I prefer through-routing.
Park road should get a major TOD or redevelopment around it. It has a lot of potential for offices, shops etc.

Google Boggo Rd.  around 1000 workers will be there in about a year, maybe less.  Then there will be apartments too, apparently.

[#Metro]

There are no food outlets, shops etc though. Where are these people 1000 hungry workers and more commuters going to eat lunch?

[frereOP]

There are no food outlets, shops etc though. Where are these people going to eat lunch?

I don't know but more importantly where are they going to park?  Boggo Rd has no parking space for workers and the organisation my wife works for is looking at providing parking at UQ.  I still believe an end-to-end subway using smaller and more appropriate rolling stock from Indooroopilly via UQ to the city via Boggo Rd and out to the north and West End is a better option than a tunnel running services integrated into the rest of the QR network.  I'm not saying we don't need the Cross River rail link (we do), we just need a smarter way to do things and turning a QR service into a subway is not the answer.

[Derwan]

A figure 8 loop would be a novel idea.  No delays for turn-backs.

From Central, go to the Valley and then via the Ekka loop into the tunnel (no conflicts) to the Beenleigh line, then via the Tennyson loop (conflicts at Yerongpilly and near Corinda) to the Ipswich line back into the city.

As Stephen mentioned, there would be conflicts - but I guess it depends on frequency of services, etc.  We already have conflicts at Northgate, Eagle Junction (both Airport and Doomben lines), Park Rd and Roma St (at times).  (Have I missed any?)  What's a couple more gonna do?  Cripple the system?

The only other issue would be crew changes - as the service wouldn't stop at Bowen Hills.

[somebody]

There are no food outlets, shops etc though. Where are these people going to eat lunch?

I don't know but more importantly where are they going to park? 

They aren't going to park, they're going to use PT.

I presume there will be some food outlets nearby.  Hadn't heard that there wouldn't be.

[stephenk]

A figure 8 loop would be a novel idea.  No delays for turn-backs.

From Central, go to the Valley and then via the Ekka loop into the tunnel (no conflicts) to the Beenleigh line, then via the Tennyson loop (conflicts at Yerongpilly and near Corinda) to the Ipswich line back into the city.

As Stephen mentioned, there would be conflicts - but I guess it depends on frequency of services, etc.  We already have conflicts at Northgate, Eagle Junction (both Airport and Doomben lines), Park Rd and Roma St (at times).  (Have I missed any?)  What's a couple more gonna do?  Cripple the system?

The only other issue would be crew changes - as the service wouldn't stop at Bowen Hills.

There are plenty of other issues. For example this loop can only run in one direction, which rather limits it's usefulness. You have more services running on one track than it's counter direction track. This will complicate timetabling and severely restrict peak track capacity. Also as it has to fit in with timetables on two line groupings instead of just one, timetabling will be complicated further. The conflict at Yerongpilly and Corinda would be across two or three tracks resulting in further timetabling complications and decreased reliability.

The key to reliable railway operations is to keep things simple! Is that not a difficult concept to grasp?

[longboi]

What Stephen said...

That particular sort of operation would be a nightmare to route.

[Emmie]

Boggo Rd has no parking space for workers and the organisation my wife works for is looking at providing parking at UQ. 

FrereOP - your wife's organisation has GOT to be kidding!  There isn't any surplus parking at UQ, which is chockers by 9am every week day during term time.  And parking extra cars there means more choked roads into the campus.  Whatever the parking options at Boggo Road, those at UQ are many times worse.

[Jon Bryant]

The high availability of car parking and the elasticity of price is second main reasonfor our car dependant city after available road space.  It is amazing that a company that it located close to well service PT is looking to provide car parking access.  Might as well just buRn a stockpile of old tyres and get the pollutiong of our air over and done with.  It is this MUST HAVE CAR PARKING philosophy that is killing this city. 

[stephenk]

The high availability of car parking and the elasticity of price is second main reasonfor our car dependant city after available road space.  It is amazing that a company that it located close to well service PT is looking to provide car parking access.  Might as well just buRn a stockpile of old tyres and get the pollutiong of our air over and done with.  It is this MUST HAVE CAR PARKING philosophy that is killing this city. 

Maybe for 9-5 workers, but many shift workers require car parking as there is no or limited public transport alternative for much of the population very early morning or late at night.

[somebody]

Maybe for 9-5 workers, but many shift workers require car parking as there is no or limited public transport alternative for much of the population very early morning or late at night.

That's true, but at least PT runs in most corridors until 11pm 6 days a week.  It's not so good for all night industries like health care though.

I'd think what would be more annoying is how late in the morning services start.  Can't get to the city for a 6am start on a weekend?  Or a 5:30am start on a weekday?  In Sydney, I've used PT with no real dramas to catch 6am flights.  Perhaps this is more what you meant.

[Jon Bryant]

It is a catch 22 everyone demands car parking so there are no services but when challenged to not drive the answer is no services.  We have to break this viscous circle.  The trips are there we just need to convert them from car to public transport.

[stephenk]

Maybe for 9-5 workers, but many shift workers require car parking as there is no or limited public transport alternative for much of the population very early morning or late at night.

That's true, but at least PT runs in most corridors until 11pm 6 days a week.  It's not so good for all night industries like health care though.

I'd think what would be more annoying is how late in the morning services start.  Can't get to the city for a 6am start on a weekend?  Or a 5:30am start on a weekday?  In Sydney, I've used PT with no real dramas to catch 6am flights.  Perhaps this is more what you meant.

I sometimes finish my shift at midnight. No public transport at that time on 5 days/week. Also getting into work for a 8am start on a Sunday, or getting home after 11pm on weekdays is a pain with hourly trains. On-call cannot be done with public transport. 

For many of my work colleagues public transport is not an option for shifts finishing after around 6pm. Many bus routes become too infrequent or even non-existant around this time. Why take over an hour on public transport when the drive is 15mins!