Cross River Rail Project

[Golliwog]

CEOs cannot be held responsible for everything! Yes the give the company its direction, and make the big decisions. But how much of the actual legwork do they do? There are that many other people in so many of these organisations doing a lot of the work, so how can you blame the CEO for approving what should have worked? You can't expect him/her to go through every single piece of work done by everyone within the company to make sure its correct.

[frereOP]

CEOs cannot be held responsible for everything! Yes the give the company its direction, and make the big decisions. But how much of the actual legwork do they do? There are that many other people in so many of these organisations doing a lot of the work, so how can you blame the CEO for approving what should have worked? You can't expect him/her to go through every single piece of work done by everyone within the company to make sure its correct.

No but that isn't necessary if the CEO puts in appropriate processes to ensure that he/she can achieve the objectives they are charged with effecting.  Ultimately CEO's ARE responsible for the actions (and safety) of their employees.

[mufreight]

That Mr Franzmann has had previous connections with Translink is doubtless cause for concern for many who have had the misfortune to have dealings with Translink in the past but he is a political appointee and as such is a figurehead.

CEO's are not figureheads.  They are the ones ultimately responsible for the performance of the organization and enuring delivery of outcomes which begs the question why the CEO of Queensland Health is still earning pay.

Since you raise that point then would you also argue that on the basis of Translink's recent track record the current head of Translink should no longer be polishing his seat.
Mr Franzmann gives the impression of a on hands on approach and from his efforts and the results achieved with the introduction of the intergrated ticketing a competent manager.
My point was that projects such as the cross river rail project would be better served with a practical competent person with a proven track record of project management with the engineering rather than a bureaucratic background.

[frereOP]

My point was that projects such as the cross river rail project would be better served with a practical competent person with a proven track record of project management with the engineering rather than a bureaucratic background.

No, the CEO is a bureaucrat charged with putting in place people with the skills and experience, and the administrative structure and processes to achieve the required outcomes within the project brief (including timeframes and budget).  these are dictated by the Board of Directors and ultimately the shareholders (ie the Government in the case of the CRRP).  The CEO is not the person to drive the detail nor necessarily have industry background but the Directors certainly do.

[somebody]

mufreight has raised a fair point.  CRR should be managed by engineering type people, not bureaucrats.

Also, CEOs are responsible for hiring and supervising a management team who can in turn hire and supervise good middle management.  In turn they hire and supervise the people who do the legwork.  The CEO makes a big difference to any organisation, but in something the size of Translink, it can take some time for these things to filter down to the bottom level.

[frereOP]

mufreight has raised a fair point.  CRR should be managed by engineering type people, not bureaucrats.

Also, CEOs are responsible for hiring and supervising a management team who can in turn hire and supervise good middle management.  In turn they hire and supervise the people who do the legwork.  The CEO makes a big difference to any organisation, but in something the size of Translink, it can take some time for these things to filter down to the bottom level.

CEO's are the people who design the business and drive it and this takes specialist managerial expertise.  The best CEO will not be an engineer or an accountant or a scientist but someone who understands how the business needs to operate within the corporate environment.  Brett Godfrey for example doesn't fly Boeings but he's been a great CEO of Virgin-Blue.

[somebody]

CEO's are the people who design the business and drive it and this takes specialist managerial expertise.  The best CEO will not be an engineer or an accountant or a scientist but someone who understands how the business needs to operate within the corporate environment.  Brett Godfrey for example doesn't fly Boeings but he's been a great CEO of Virgin-Blue.

That may be, but Brett Godfrey did have experience as the CFO of Virgin Express before running Virgin Blue.

[longboi]

CEO's are the people who design the business and drive it and this takes specialist managerial expertise.  The best CEO will not be an engineer or an accountant or a scientist but someone who understands how the business needs to operate within the corporate environment.  Brett Godfrey for example doesn't fly Boeings but he's been a great CEO of Virgin-Blue.

That may be, but Brett Godfrey did have experience as the CFO of Virgin Express before running Virgin Blue.

And CFO is an executive role just like CEO, however for that you would need some sort of experience in accounting/commerce but definately not flying experience.

[Golliwog]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80&Itemid=127

Be part of the local advisory group

Local advisory groups are being established to represent community interests during the detailed feasibility phase of Cross River Rail.

Local advisory groups will comprise a cross section of local residents, organisations, community groups and businesses to represent community views regarding local issues, impacts, benefits and opportunities.

Nominations for local advisory group members are now open.

To submit your nomination to be part of this group, read the terms of reference, complete a nomination form, and email your application to info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Nominations close Monday 21 June 2010.

Nominees will be advised as soon as possible on the outcome of their nomination.

The first local advisory group meeting will take place the week commencing 28 June 2010.

If you have any questions regarding your nomination, please call our project team on 1800 462 730*.

Form is available on the site. Not sure when this was put up, but nominations close in 20 days.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Underground train stations in Brisbane to cost $100m each

Underground train stations in Brisbane to cost $100m each

    * Ursula Heger and Sarah Vogler
    * From: The Courier-Mail
    * July 07, 2010 11:00PM

FOUR underground train stations planned for Brisbane's inner city will carry a price tag of more than $100 million each.

The city's second cross-river rail line – which will include a 7km tunnel from Fairfield to Bowen Hills running beneath the CBD – will be capable of carrying 30,000 people an hour in both directions.

The head of the $8.2 billion Cross River Rail project, Luke Franzmann, told industry leaders at the Valley Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday that a final decision on the location of the southern CBD station would be made within the next month.

The 30m-deep station will be situated at the southern end of the CBD, near the Botanic Gardens, on either George, Edward or Albert Sts.

Three other underground stations will be in the CBD north, at either Central or Roma Street stations, Woolloongabba and Park Rd or Boggo Rd in Dutton Park.

But Mr Franzmann said the cost of the stations – which will each have 225m platforms capable of carrying nine-carriage trains – would be hefty.

He said they involved "a lot of infrastructure", with the price tag for each in excess of $100 million.

"Really to get good value out of that we need it to be an active space," said Mr Franzmann, alluding to the possible creation of retail hubs to offset some of the cost.

"As we start to move into the next phase, we need to think about what are the opportunities to deliver these stations and how we might finance these stations," he said.

"Things like commercial opportunities in and around the stations is all a component for the business case."

Mr Franzmann said the project would investigate the existing underground infrastructure in the CBD, such as rock anchors for large skyscrapers.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said yesterday the project required significant input from the Federal Government.

A draft Environmental Impacts Study for the 19km-long surface and tunnel rail line from Wooloowin to Salisbury will be completed by year's end, with construction finalised by 2016.

Urban Futures Brisbane chairman Bevan Lynch said Cross River Rail would enhance urban renewal across the city.

"The two that are really exciting and give enormous commercial retail opportunity are the Woolloongabba and Boggo Rd stations and, of course, the RNA station (slated for development as part of surface upgrades)," he said.

Mr Lynch said the infrastructure would bolster the development of South Brisbane and the Valley into the city's other CBDs.

[ozbob]

Brisbane times  Valley minds the gap on tube route click --> here!

[colinw]

As I commented against that article on BT, the people complaining that it won't service the valley are missing the point!

Firstly, this project is critically necessary as a precondition both to more frequent services on existing lines, and before very many new lines can be built.

Second, it makes little sense to add yet another line in an area already very well serviced by a quad track main line.  Far better to build the network by adding destinations & interchange points to the system.  The cross river rail line should be routed via parts of the inner city not already on CityTrain.

IMHO the proposed route servicing the Gabba, southern CBD, interchange at Central, then a new Ekka station is ideal.

If the Valley is to receive an additional rail route, it will have to wait for the 2nd stage underground line that will come off the Ipswich line around Toowong and travel via West End & South Brisbane. This 2nd stage line would also make an ideal starter for an underground line heading towards Kenmore, although I wonder if it would perhaps be better to head a little to the south & west and service St Lucia and Indooroopilly rather than coming off at Toowong (which again is already well served & doesn't really need another rail route to the city).

Alternatively, if the people in the Valley want to lobby for their own rail project, how about light rail?  An inner city "distributor" light rail system would be the ideal complement to the greatly improved CityTrain that cross river rail will bring.

[somebody]

As I commented against that article on BT, the people complaining that it won't service the valley are missing the point!
...
IMHO the proposed route servicing the Gabba, southern CBD, interchange at Central, then a new Ekka station is ideal.

It is a fair point that the Gold Coast trains will no longer serve the Valley.  Such trips will have to done with either an interchange at Park Rd (groan), or a bit of a walk from the new line's Edward St station to Central under option C, or an interchange at Roma St under options A & B, or a bus from the city to the Valley.  I would agree though that is not a big deal.  I would also favour routing the Beenleigh line trains that way, even if it means closing the Dutton Park station.  Service could easily be replaced there by BUZing the 196.

I must say I strongly side with the authors of the Pre-Feasibility report in recommending the Edward St station option, but I don't see the value in the new Ekka station.

[O_128]

As I commented against that article on BT, the people complaining that it won't service the valley are missing the point!

Firstly, this project is critically necessary as a precondition both to more frequent services on existing lines, and before very many new lines can be built.

Second, it makes little sense to add yet another line in an area already very well serviced by a quad track main line.  Far better to build the network by adding destinations & interchange points to the system.  The cross river rail line should be routed via parts of the inner city not already on CityTrain.

IMHO the proposed route servicing the Gabba, southern CBD, interchange at Central, then a new Ekka station is ideal.

If the Valley is to receive an additional rail route, it will have to wait for the 2nd stage underground line that will come off the Ipswich line around Toowong and travel via West End & South Brisbane. This 2nd stage line would also make an ideal starter for an underground line heading towards Kenmore, although I wonder if it would perhaps be better to head a little to the south & west and service St Lucia and Indooroopilly rather than coming off at Toowong (which again is already well served & doesn't really need another rail route to the city).

Alternatively, if the people in the Valley want to lobby for their own rail project, how about light rail?  An inner city "distributor" light rail system would be the ideal complement to the greatly improved CityTrain that cross river rail will bring.

It makes total sense (so of course it wont happen) for the second tunnel to come off after indooroopilly then continue via st lucia, UQ, West end, City etc

[ozbob]

Editorial Courier Mail 8th July 2010 page 30

Rail project must be top of the list

[stephenk]

It is a fair point that the Gold Coast trains will no longer serve the Valley.  Such trips will have to done with either an interchange at Park Rd (groan), or a bit of a walk from the new line's Edward St station to Central under option C, or an interchange at Roma St under options A & B, or a bus from the city to the Valley.  I would agree though that is not a big deal.  I would also favour routing the Beenleigh line trains that way, even if it means closing the Dutton Park station.  Service could easily be replaced there by BUZing the 196.

I must say I strongly side with the authors of the Pre-Feasibility report in recommending the Edward St station option, but I don't see the value in the new Ekka station.

As long as frequencies are kept high enough (for example 15mins service on each line will result in approx 12tph running through Fortitude Valley off-peak), there shouldn't any major issues with people having to change to get to their destinations. In cities such as London you often have to change to get to your destination!

I disagree with sending Beenleigh trains via the new tunnel. South Bank requires 8tph, not 4tph which would result if it was only served by the Cleveland Line. It is already served by 6-8tph off-peak, so 4tph would be a huge step backwards for South Bank. South Bank/Brisbane to Roma Street/Central is a very popular train journey with both commuters and tourists. The busway is not a viable alternative for many reasons including capacity.

The new Ekka station has considerable operational benefit. The largest being that it will eliminate the need for Ekka loop services, and free up an extra 6tph on the northbound mains in the evening peak.

[somebody]

As long as frequencies are kept high enough (for example 15mins service on each line will result in approx 12tph running through Fortitude Valley off-peak), there shouldn't any major issues with people having to change to get to their destinations. In cities such as London you often have to change to get to your destination!

I disagree with sending Beenleigh trains via the new tunnel. South Bank requires 8tph, not 4tph which would result if it was only served by the Cleveland Line. It is already served by 6-8tph off-peak, so 4tph would be a huge step backwards for South Bank. South Bank/Brisbane to Roma Street/Central is a very popular train journey with both commuters and tourists. The busway is not a viable alternative for many reasons including capacity.

How many other cities require you to exit the station and then walk 300m to a different station though.  It is a disadvantage, but I think it has to be done.  It wouldn't be that bad if the Central pedestrian subway was connected to the station without needing to cross any roads (or the bit in the Adelaide/Ann/Edward Sts block which allows you to go under Ann St).

As for your second point, we've had this conversation before, although I'm not sure if pointed out the 12mins journey time it currently takes between Park Rd and Central.  If the new tunnel doesn't improve this considerably, they have botched it terribly.  We may have to agree to disagree about the busway being a viable (I say: far preferable) alternative.

[stephenk]

How many other cities require you to exit the station and then walk 300m to a different station though.  It is a disadvantage, but I think it has to be done.  It wouldn't be that bad if the Central pedestrian subway was connected to the station without needing to cross any roads (or the bit in the Adelaide/Ann/Edward Sts block which allows you to go under Ann St).

Isn't the latest plan now for an interchange station at either Roma Street or Central? I think the non-interchnage CBD station plan in the ICRCS (it's only major flaw) is likely to be dropped.

[somebody]

The link in the post below had it still as one of three options, and the best of them by far IMO.  Why should people on the affected lines who work on Eagle St or near Edward/Queen have to walk so far?

Brisbane times  Valley minds the gap on tube route click --> here!

[Golliwog]

Somebody, 300m is nothing. I know of multiple stations in Paris that are marked as "connected" on their maps, yet you walk at least 500m through underground pedestrain tunnels to get between the two. And if you are handicapped and need a wheel chair or jsut can't use stairs, good luck. I don't remember seeing any stations at all really in Paris that had a lift.

[O_128]

it makes sense to have a City Station preferably Edward street with another interchange station at central.

[ButFli]

How many other cities require you to exit the station and then walk 300m to a different station though.  It is a disadvantage, but I think it has to be done.  It wouldn't be that bad if the Central pedestrian subway was connected to the station without needing to cross any roads (or the bit in the Adelaide/Ann/Edward Sts block which allows you to go under Ann St).

Hey, the old New York City subway has plenty of "connections" marked on the maps that require exiting one station and walking to another. I know plenty of members of RBOT that hold NYC out as being the bastion of great public transport cities and I have to say I agree as long as we are not riding the buses (no one rides the bus in NYC). Seriously, thinking connections have to be made in-station is soooooooo last century. A truly first-rate transport system in such world cities as Albuquerque or Kansas City would ignore in-station transfers in preference of a short walk of 500m or more. Seriously, get with the times!!!

[stephenk]

Somebody, 300m is nothing. I know of multiple stations in Paris that are marked as "connected" on their maps, yet you walk at least 500m through underground pedestrain tunnels to get between the two. And if you are handicapped and need a wheel chair or jsut can't use stairs, good luck. I don't remember seeing any stations at all really in Paris that had a lift.

Paris' Metro is 100 years old though, it can be excused for poor access in the older stations!

At Montparnasse Bienvenue, there is a very long transfer tunnel between lines. The French had the ingenious idea of a Travelator a Grande Vitesse to speed up the transfer. Unfortunately it disagreed with some peoples ankles, and will be replaced with a normal travelator.

London Underground and Tokyo Metro have some pretty long transfers as well, especially if you alight at the "wrong" end of the platform. I would hope that the interchange can be made a short as realistically possible at Central or Roma Street.

[somebody]

it makes sense to have a City Station preferably Edward street with another interchange station at central.

I think that would result in stations too close together.  Just having a pedestrian tunnel should be sufficient.

[frereOP]

Paris' Metro is 100 years old though, it can be excused for poor access in the older stations!

At Montparnasse Bienvenue, there is a very long transfer tunnel between lines. The French had the ingenious idea of a Travelator a Grande Vitesse to speed up the transfer. Unfortunately it disagreed with some peoples ankles, and will be replaced with a normal travelator.

London Underground and Tokyo Metro have some pretty long transfers as well, especially if you alight at the "wrong" end of the platform. I would hope that the interchange can be made a short as realistically possible at Central or Roma Street.

And in a more modern system, the transfer at Dhoby Ghaut on the Singapore MRT between the North-South line and the North-East line is equally as far via an underground transfer tunnel.  Unlike London or Paris, the transfer tunnels are wide, well lit and very modern glass and stainless steel structures in which you can feel quite safe.

[longboi]

it makes sense to have a City Station preferably Edward street with another interchange station at central.

But it makes even more sense to build stations at George St and Roma St.

George St station would serve a significant amount of Government offices and Parliament House, QUT, the casino and (one day) North Bank

Roma St is good because you have an interchange point to not only suburban/interurban services but also long distance and busway services. I'd also like to see a pedestrian connection to the Western side of Spring Hill - that way it would pretty much make up for the lack of an actual stop at Spring Hill.

[#Metro]

  I like the Roma St option. Integrates with the busway and far, far less claustrophobic.
Much better design, open air platforms, wide concourse.

[somebody]

I like the Roma St option. Integrates with the busway and far, far less claustrophobic.
Much better design, open air platforms, wide concourse.

The Albert St option is OK for the south side, but awful for the lines which will ultimately connect on the north side.

I hate almost everything about the George St option except the idea of serving the Parliament end of town.  But with no decent interchange options to get into the centre of town.

[frereOP]

I like the Roma St option. Integrates with the busway and far, far less claustrophobic.
Much better design, open air platforms, wide concourse.

I hate almost everything about the George St option except the idea of serving the Parliament end of town.  But with no decent interchange options to get into the centre of town.

Well, its about a 3 min walk from George St outside the Exec Building to the Queen St Mall and about 5-7 mins from Roma St.  I work in Margaret St (northern end near The Samford Plaza and Port Office Hotel) and its less than 7 mins walk from there to the Casino so it really ain't that bad. 

[mufreight]

If the route selection were to be decided on the basis of logic and potential levels of service, there is little question that it would be via Central on the basis of both as the rail interchange point and as the destination point for the greatest numbers of commuters.

Via Roma Street there is possibly a potential to save a few dollars to build a less operationally effective route that will deter numbers of commuters due to the inconvenience of having to change transport modes.

[somebody]

via Central hasn't really been proposed.  The ICRCS had an Edward St station.  Is this what you are referring to?  Or are you saying that the Edward St station should be more northerly at Central.

[Derwan]

via Central hasn't really been proposed.  The ICRCS had an Edward St station.  Is this what you are referring to?  Or are you saying that the Edward St station should be more northerly at Central.

This was updated a few months ago.  The proposal now is for an interchange at either Roma St or Central - and a station further down towards the gardens along either Edward, Albert or George St.

Here is the "current" diagram:  http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/crossriverrail_detailmap.pdf

[somebody]

So the link above from just a few days ago was based on an old map then?

[Derwan]

Which one are you referring to somebody?

The small picture within the Brisbane Times article is new to me - and seems to suggest that there are 2 options with 2 city stations (both having one station connecting with Roma St) - with a 3rd option (C) only having one city station.  (The budget option?)

The Courier Mail one is more like the Cross River Rail diagram that I linked to.

So who knows? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Golliwog]

I suppose we will, but I really do hope they got for the 2 stations option. Only having one, while saves money, is definatly wasting an opportunity that really can't be changed (easily anyway) once the tunnel is built.

[somebody]

Brisbane times  Valley minds the gap on tube route click --> here!

I'm refering to the above one.

[colinw]

Somebody, 300m is nothing. I know of multiple stations in Paris that are marked as "connected" on their maps, yet you walk at least 500m through underground pedestrain tunnels to get between the two. And if you are handicapped and need a wheel chair or jsut can't use stairs, good luck. I don't remember seeing any stations at all really in Paris that had a lift.

That arrangement is very common in London as well, a number of the interchanges marked on the tube map as a connecting station are actually two stations separated by quite a long pedestrian tunnel.  However, if you were designing "from scratch" it would make sense to minimise the distance, as the easier the transfer is the more attractive it will be to potential users.

IMHO Central, or slightly toward the CBD from Central, is the way to go.  Roma St is too far from the centre of the CBD.

Regarding re-routing the Beenleigh Line via the new tunnel -a decent level of service must be maintained via the old route.   The whole idea here is to add capacity and destinations to the system - a goal which will not be achieved if we simply switch all services from one two or three track line to another.  This is not a replacement - we are building a network here.

[stephenk]

Somebody, 300m is nothing. I know of multiple stations in Paris that are marked as "connected" on their maps, yet you walk at least 500m through underground pedestrain tunnels to get between the two. And if you are handicapped and need a wheel chair or jsut can't use stairs, good luck. I don't remember seeing any stations at all really in Paris that had a lift.

That arrangement is very common in London as well, a number of the interchanges marked on the tube map as a connecting station are actually two stations separated by quite a long pedestrian tunnel.  However, if you were designing "from scratch" it would make sense to minimise the distance, as the easier the transfer is the more attractive it will be to potential users.

IMHO Central, or slightly toward the CBD from Central, is the way to go.  Roma St is too far from the centre of the CBD.

Regarding re-routing the Beenleigh Line via the new tunnel -a decent level of service must be maintained via the old route.   The whole idea here is to add capacity and destinations to the system - a goal which will not be achieved if we simply switch all services from one two or three track line to another.  This is not a replacement - we are building a network here.

Some wise words in that post! 

[mufreight]

Effective public transport has to be as convenient as possible in terms of access and interchange,
frequent, reliable and affordable.
Just because in other locations there are walks in excess of 300m between modes does not make such a walk desirable and such a walk becomes even less desirable here in a new construction if they are avoidable with better planning.

[somebody]

Effective public transport has to be as convenient as possible in terms of access and interchange,
frequent, reliable and affordable.
Just because in other locations there are walks in excess of 300m between modes does not make such a walk desirable and such a walk becomes even less desirable here in a new construction if they are avoidable with better planning.

Yes, but the majority of people are not interchanging.  Central is in an awful location.  I do not see how the walk is avoidable without devaluing the line in other, more important ways.

Regarding re-routing the Beenleigh Line via the new tunnel -a decent level of service must be maintained via the old route.   The whole idea here is to add capacity and destinations to the system - a goal which will not be achieved if we simply switch all services from one two or three track line to another.  This is not a replacement - we are building a network here.

By that logic you can't re-route the Gold Coast trains via the new tunnel either.