Cross River Rail Project

[somebody]

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!

So, unviable because the frequency is hourly, or are you saying it's worse than that.  Earliest finishing route I could think of is the 359, which stops at 9pm 7 days a week.  But doesn't the 350 extend to cover that service after that time anyway?  I suppose if you are coming from Brendale it's worse, because the 357 is effectively peak only.

[frereOP]

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.

My point exactly!  Yes they can't cater for existing staff at their UQ offices let alone staff relocated from elsewhere and have now scrapped that idea, so its a public-transport-only workplace!  Hence my call for a dedicated subway (light rail) system that is an end to end service (no timetabling issues) and not integrated with or part of the existing QR network except that interchange stations would be needed at major transport hubs like Indooroopilly and UQ.  I support the BCC option of dedicated subway lines.

[#Metro]

You could build a heavy rail spur line from Toowong to UQ, with a station at St Lucia and another one at UQ lakes.
It would be expensive and require a lot of tunneling. On the other hand, it would be connected directly to the QR network, so services from North, Ipswich and possibly richlands could go directly to UQ & the city. It might be comparable in $$ to that required for a Metro.

Though there is just too much uncertainty- metro, rail, light rail and there is already busway there.

Ideas to turn 412 into a BUZ have been shelved. There is an idea to extend a bridge "uni link" from West End to the park on SF Schonell Drive. I think this should be far, far lower priority than a more important green bridge and or rail link from West End to Toowong.

[somebody]

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!

I'd have to say, that the situation here is only a bit better in Sydney.  While the frequency doesn't drop back to hourly Sunday morning or Mon-Thu nights, there's no trains after about midnight either.  Most lines are served by the Nightride hourly rail replacement buses, but this is only good if you actually live on a train line.  There's a handful of all night buses like the 380 & 373, but if you live in the Hills or the Macquarie park region or anything with a private operator's bus service, you are pretty likely unserved.

[#Metro]

Where is there all night late night transport every night of the week?

Berlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Berlin

Budapest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BKV

Bratislava, Slovakia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Transport_in_Bratislava

Brisbane- No

Night buses won't work until things stay open for longer.
After 5pm, everything shuts down. Which is crazy, because most people finish at 5pm, at it leaves at most 1 hour to grab things...

West End 199/CityGlider might be the most promising if there was a night route considered.

[#Metro]

Transport Mode Shares- Europe


Bratislava, Slovakia 70% Public Transport
Zurich, Switzerland 63% Public Transport
Budapest, Hungary 55% Public Transport
Berlin, Germany, 40%

Jonno's PT mode share targets are reachable...


They have metro, heavy rail, light rail and arctic buses.
Bratislava ( 1167 persons/km, 0.61 million people) is only a bit more denser than Brisbane (918 persons/ km2, 1.8 million).

[stephenk]

Transport Mode Shares- Europe


Bratislava, Slovakia 70% Public Transport
Zurich, Switzerland 63% Public Transport
Budapest, Hungary 55% Public Transport
Berlin, Germany, 40%

Jonno's PT mode share targets are reachable...


They have metro, heavy rail, light rail and arctic buses.
Bratislava ( 1167 persons/km, 0.61 million people) is only a bit more denser than Brisbane (918 persons/ km2, 1.8 million).

The population density of Brisbane SD was 340people/km2 in 2009. The population density for SE Queensland metropolitan area is not much over 100people/km2.

[somebody]

The population density of Brisbane SD was 340people/km2 in 2009. The population density for SE Queensland metropolitan area is not much over 100people/km2.

What's your source?  The Aust. Bureau of Statistics is with tramtrain: (Warning >20MB)
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/1DE1CF6BBB83B252CA25740E00799D92/$File/20303_2006.pdf


That covers the area from Caboolture to Moggill, Mt Crosby, Amberley, Ripley, Greenbank, Ormeau, Wishart, Capalaba and Redland Bay

Maybe you are thinking of the Noosa-Coolangatta density

[#Metro]

100/persons km2 seems implausibly low for the immediate Brisbane area.
My point was though, PT targets that are much above 8% are possible.

BUZ shows what can happen. Interestingly, those extra Ipswich line trains for bypassing the Hale St Link constructions were kept because they got full up with passengers. Take note QR!

You can't catch a service if it isn't there...

[stephenk]

The population density of Brisbane SD was 340people/km2 in 2009. The population density for SE Queensland metropolitan area is not much over 100people/km2.

What's your source?  The Aust. Bureau of Statistics is with tramtrain: (Warning >20MB)
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/1DE1CF6BBB83B252CA25740E00799D92/$File/20303_2006.pdf

The source is also from Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the 340people/km2 is for Brisbane statistical division.
http://www8.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features62008-09?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2008-09&num=&view=

This document shows the coverage of Brisbane statistical division.
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/8EA943A639BE6767CA2576320019FDC1/$File/12160_jul%202009_qld%20maps.pdf

[O_128]

Though there is just too much uncertainty- metro, rail, light rail and there is already busway there.

Try getting on a bus at 4pm its near impossible, had to wait 30mins today

[Jon Bryant]

Either way Density is not the key issue. It is the planning for 66-75% of trips to be by public and active transport and the remainder to be by motor vehicle plus the restriction of car parking availability.  The trips are there to make public transport an effective and efficent mode of transport.  Zurich for example has high PT usage even in the rural hamlets.  

If we target high levels of PT then we provide the services tp cater for those levels (frequent, fast networked/integated) and and people will catch it.  Brisbane's BUZ and Busway are home grown proof.

[#Metro]

My point was that we can reach far higher PT mode share, now.
Increased density will help. I gave examples.

I used the Brisbane City Council area (Urban area) rather than the Statistical Division (SD), as the SD includes places like Caboolutre/Logan etc. Also the big empty Stradbroke Island will never have busway on it, etc so it does need to be removed (I've tried as best I can...)

Statistics here

BCC area here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_City_Council
divide the two numbers and I get 1170 persons/km2, which is about right I think.

Either way Density is not the key issue.

It is a key issue IMHO, but I also agree that the elephant in the room is Frequency

It is a great disappointment that new services have been bus bus bus bus bus bus in that conga line at Cultural centre and there has been 0% new RAIL seats delivered since we got fare hikes imposed upon us.

Cross River Rail will help, but it will be rather useless if money for new trains and frequent services are not forthcoming...

[Jon Bryant]

Density does help indeed but as we both agree our current lowish density is not a reason to provide infrequent services.  It may drive the mode we provide but not the need for high frequency services in their own dedicated lanes/right of way.  The trips are there.

[somebody]

stephenk, that includes south towards places like Beaudesert (not completely sure if it gets there), includes the Stradbroke islands, Bribie Island, past Samford Valley etc.  I think beyond Ferny Grove and Greenbank, it can't sensibly be called Greater Brisbane.  You may disagree.

[stephenk]

stephenk, that includes south towards places like Beaudesert (not completely sure if it gets there), includes the Stradbroke islands, Bribie Island, past Samford Valley etc.  I think beyond Ferny Grove and Greenbank, it can't sensibly be called Greater Brisbane.  You may disagree.

I agree, I just wanted to make a point that comparing city densities and thus expecting similar public transport between these cities with supposedly similar densities is not necessarily the best comparison. Other things need to be taken into account such as definition of urban area (as we've just showed), overall population, population distribution, work distribution, geographic layout of urban area, socio-economic factors, relative oil prices, car ownership, etc, etc.

[#Metro]

Hmmm.
So what can we compare to Brisbane?
Perth?

[somebody]

Try getting on a bus at 4pm its near impossible, had to wait 30mins today

Where was this?

[mufreight]

While all of this debate sometimes brings up some ideas that have a practical foundation and makes various authorities aware of differing opinion, system failures and alternatives unfortunately much is simply so much hot air from the point of personal self interest that obviously has not been thought through from the point of what is practical and realistic.
Keep your thoughts comeing but please think them through and the ramifications for other services, lack of consideration of the overall effects is how the system has reached the stage that it is today and improvement needs to be well considered rather than an ongoing series of knee jerk reactions that resolve one problem for a few but then creates a series of other problems elsewhere in the system untill the point is reached where the system becomes unworkable.
     

[frereOP]

While all of this debate sometimes brings up some ideas that have a practical foundation and makes various authorities aware of differing opinion, system failures and alternatives unfortunately much is simply so much hot air from the point of personal self interest that obviously has not been thought through from the point of what is practical and realistic.
Keep your thoughts comeing but please think them through and the ramifications for other services, lack of consideration of the overall effects is how the system has reached the stage that it is today and improvement needs to be well considered rather than an ongoing series of knee jerk reactions that resolve one problem for a few but then creates a series of other problems elsewhere in the system untill the point is reached where the system becomes unworkable.
     

That's why all transport options have such thorough modeling studies (timetabling, passenger usage and financial models) carried out before they are implemented.  Doesn't mean they will get it right (like the predicted chaos on Coronation Drive during construction of the Hale St Link).

For an example of the kinds of analysis that are necessary, have a look at the CRC for Rail Innovation's report on the adoption of High Speed Rail in Australia (http://www.railcrc.net.au/publications/downloads/R1109-High-Speed-Rail-Ausralian-ContextFV.pdf) which puts the whole HSR debate into a context that can be sensibly debated and thoroughly thought through.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the government is not a bottomless pit of money although people tend to think they are by wanting the governemnt to pay for everything.  Remember, that for every dollar spent somewhere, it's a dollar less spent somewhere else.  Nonviable public transport services must be paid for somehow either by subsidy or increased fares that reflect the real cost of providing the service.   No one wants increased fares but remember every subsidy or rebate ever paid for by any government is ultimately paid for by you in the form of taxes anyway.  Paul Keating famously once said "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and it so true!

[#Metro]

More trains, more lines, better connections, higher frequency.
It think that covers the main points in a single sentence.

Rail and bus assets are not being used to their full potential. The system is supposed to serve us, not us serve its faults, bottlenecks and constraints. I know this sounds very unreasonable but that is what the general public is like. They want the best service for the least price, with the greatest coverage on demand. And there are some places in the world which get very close to this ideal. Like... Bratislava, Budapest or Lille.

Nonviable public transport services must be paid for somehow either by subsidy or increased fares that reflect the real cost of providing the service.

There is a third option: Make non-viable services viable. BUZ took routes that looked non-viable and changed them.
The more people that use the service, the cheaper per passenger-km it becomes to provide the service.
The cost per passenger km in Perth on all modes has been falling over time.

In 2009/2009 year, on average, to take one passenger one kilometre by PT in Perth:

* by bus, 12 cents cheaper than the previous year
* by train,16 cents cheaper than the previous year
* by ferry, 43 cents cheaper than the previous year

Removing inefficiency and altering routes to better match demand would help. Changes to 66 for example have seen patronage increase. There is a lot of wasted capacity on contra-peak flow services. If these could be put to good use with work-TODs in the suburbs, we'd see a big change.

* Average cost per passenger kilometre definition: The average cost it takes to transport one passenger one kilometre.
http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Portals/0/annualreports/2009/service-and-financial-achievements/index.html

[somebody]

TT, re-read your link.  That was target vs actual, not current year vs previous year.  The stunning result was caused by much more patronage than expected.

[O_128]

Try getting on a bus at 4pm its near impossible, had to wait 30mins today

Where was this?

UQ lakes

[somebody]

Try getting on a bus at 4pm its near impossible, had to wait 30mins today

Where was this?

UQ lakes

Which route did you want?

Regardless it's pretty shocking with the frequency down there.  Do they get many bendy buses?

[#Metro]

TT, re-read your link.  That was target vs actual, not current year vs previous year.  The stunning result was caused by much more patronage than expected.

Thanks for your observation! I stand corrected, the correct information is now there. 
Yes, this was for all modes... rail included.

[O_128]

Try getting on a bus at 4pm its near impossible, had to wait 30mins today

Where was this?

UQ lakes

Which route did you want?

I can get any route as i change at park road/ boggo road, usually i get the 209 or 139 as they arent as busy, the 109 is almost always a normal bus yet the line gets up to 50m long, the 169 is the same but has some bendy buses so not as bad

Regardless it's pretty shocking with the frequency down there.  Do they get many bendy buses?

[#Metro]

I can get any route as i change at park road/ boggo road, usually i get the 209 or 139 as they arent as busy, the 109 is almost always a normal bus yet the line gets up to 50m long, the 169 is the same but has some bendy buses so not as bad

They should get more bendy buses. Perhaps two or three rocket buses during the am and on peaks.

[somebody]

I can get any route as i change at park road/ boggo road, usually i get the 209 or 139 as they arent as busy, the 109 is almost always a normal bus yet the line gets up to 50m long, the 169 is the same but has some bendy buses so not as bad

Continuing the blatantly off topic conversation:
I for one wouldn't be in favour of more frequency for those routes, they already run 8/hour in peak, and 12/hour for the 109.  I'd rather more bendy buses and a further peak time single seat connection.  Perhaps a 159 Warrigal Rd route in peak time only.  Perhaps this is what the planned UQ Lakes upgrade is for.

[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.

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

In case anyone is interested, I've just been having a look at the ICRCS "Rail Operations Review" and it states the requirement for 19tph in 2026 is based on the assumption of 6 car trains.  Refer to p15.  19tph demand is on p24.

Seems like 9 car trains for the Gold Coast would head off the requirement to have the Beenleigh trains loop around via Tennyson in 2026 and probably for a few years after that.

[ozbob]

--> http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/projects/transport/rail/cross-river-rail.html

Projects
Cross River Rail

Have your say on the draft terms of reference (TOR) - consultation open until 5 pm Monday 17 May 2010. Find out more about making a submission.  

The Department of Transport is investigating the feasibility of developing additional rail network capacity between south of Salisbury station and north of Wooloowin station.

The Cross River Rail project includes:

   * a new underground north-south rail crossing of the Brisbane river, connecting the existing southern rail network at or near Fairfield with the existing northern rail network at or near the Exhibition loop
   * additional above ground tracks and infrastructure to remove junction conflicts and allow for increased frequency of passenger and freight movements.

The new underground rail line will pass under the central business district of Brisbane with new underground stations at Woolloongabba, the southern end of the CBD and possibly Spring Hill, Park Road, and either Roma Street or Central. Surface stations at Bowen Hills, Park Road, Exhibition and potentially between Dutton Park and Salisbury may also be upgraded ...


Resources

A copy of the IAS for the project dated 16 February 2010 is available for downloading:

   * Cross River Rail project IAS (PDF  363 KB)

   * Cross River Rail study corridor map (PDF 262 KB)

[stephenk]

Thanks for providing those links. I haven't had a full read yet, but I'm glad to see that quadrupling the Exhibition Line north of the portal, and a grade separated junction around Mayne has been taken into consideration. Both of these are absolute musts if the new tunnel is to provide the maximum extra capacity possible.

[Golliwog]

Grade seperation seems to be a key feature of the plan. They also want to, as part of the project, provide grade seperation between the Cleveland line and the Beenleigh/GC line. Grade seperated intersections is definatly the way to go.

[longboi]

I have to say I'm almost as excited about the above-ground upgrades than I am about the tunnel itself 

[stephenk]

Having read some more of the study, I'm wondering why the study corridor only extends from Salisbury to Wooloowin. The ICRCS states that a 5th track is required to Northgate, and a 4th track required to Banoon. Are these outside of the scope of the study, or have Cross River Rail neglected these important infrastructure requirements?

[Golliwog]

Here's hoping that those extra tracks are things that QR has already got plans to build and the ICRCS is just saying they will have to be built before the tunnel or at the same time. If not, they yay for government planning

[somebody]

Having read some more of the study, I'm wondering why the study corridor only extends from Salisbury to Wooloowin. The ICRCS states that a 5th track is required to Northgate, and a 4th track required to Banoon. Are these outside of the scope of the study, or have Cross River Rail neglected these important infrastructure requirements?

The 5th track to Northgate isn't needed by 2016 though.  Perhaps it should be constructed in one go though.  As for the 4th track to Banoon, that's more needed to allow 15 minute bi-di frequency to Beenleigh while running Gold Coast trains without having to slow them.  Seems pretty independant of the requirements of CRR.

[#Metro]

The 5th track to Northgate isn't needed by 2016 though.  Perhaps it should be constructed in one go though.  As for the 4th track to Banoon, that's more needed to allow 15 minute bi-di frequency to Beenleigh while running Gold Coast trains without having to slow them.

Well seeing that they'll have everything organized and ready to go, they may as well.
It might be cheaper than going back later.

[stephenk]

Having read some more of the study, I'm wondering why the study corridor only extends from Salisbury to Wooloowin. The ICRCS states that a 5th track is required to Northgate, and a 4th track required to Banoon. Are these outside of the scope of the study, or have Cross River Rail neglected these important infrastructure requirements?

The 5th track to Northgate isn't needed by 2016 though.  Perhaps it should be constructed in one go though.  As for the 4th track to Banoon, that's more needed to allow 15 minute bi-di frequency to Beenleigh while running Gold Coast trains without having to slow them.  Seems pretty independant of the requirements of CRR.

According to the ICRCS the 5th track to Northgate is required in 2015.

I don't think that more infrastructure is required for 15min off-peak Gold Coast & Beenleigh services aside from 4th track to Banoon and CRR tunnel. Duplication between Coomera and Helensvale would be highly desirable for reliability and timetabling, but isn't essential. Further infrastructure on these lines such as triplications progressing towards Beenleigh are required for increased peak services rather than off-peak services.

[Golliwog]

I think, as the mucking around with the Richlands line has shown, that it will definately be more expensive to come back and do it later. Just do it all in one big hit. Hopefully less disruptions to commuters that way too. So what if it may not be needed right away.

[mufreight]

The key section is the cross river link, by its construction it gives the required additional capacity through the CBD choke point that is needed now, doing things on the cheap has never worked for rail infrastructure in the past and will not work on this project, doing things is stages will no doubt spread the cost but it is inevitable that with this governments dithering, posturing and delay that they will manage to have the costs blow out and only deliver part of the required infrastructure.
Do it now, do it properly and do it once.