Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

I do not see parallel bus & rail services as a bad thing, provided they are timetabled to be complementary services rather than competing services.  The reason why this kind of operation has a bad name in Brisbane is because for a long time Brisbane Transport & QR have been effectively set up to compete with each other (even if the rhetoric being issued by the pollies & TransLink says otherwise). The reality in Brisbane is that the vast majority of potential bus/rail interchange points outside of the CBD are dysfunctional.

Agreed. This is why I have stated that it be done station by station, bus route by bus route.
But I also think there is large scope for turning many bus routes into feeders and simplifying the bus network. There is bus complementarity (e.g. GCL, 402 etc) with some parts of the rail network, but it is also true that many bus routes compete with the rail system by taking passengers out of the catchment or whizzing past railway stations. The Western Suburbs is the worst offender IMHO.

A bus service paralleling a rail line, as happens particularly in the inner Ipswich line area, provides a level of redundancy and choice of service that will attract more people to public transport than either mode alone.

I haven't looked at Ips services, so I can't comment right now, but I think what I said a about going through the network with a clean broom still applies.

A parallel bus service will be able to provide stops - access to the system - at many locations along a corridor that rail cannot, as rail services are more effective if the stations are not too closely spaced. (Aside: many Brisbane lines have stations too close together - I'd actually consider culling some stations).

In some places this will be true, in other places this will not be true. Hence the review.

While the ideal is frequent and fast rail with feeder buses, the reality in Brisbane is that the rail system does not carry even half of the public transport load, and does not yet have the capacity to cope if you suddenly funneled a majority of the suburbs to CBD trips that are on bus into the rail system.  The chaos at the Roma St & Central go card gates alone would render this idea comical at present, not to mention the fact that the rail capacity to take the extra patronage simply doesn't exists.

If there is a problem with the rail system, then money should be directed at fixing that problem on the rail system, not ignoring it and just buying 'band aid' buses. Trying to do the impossible- using buses to carry loads that are best served by rail is a bad idea. Rail vehicles last far longer than buses do, they can be refurbished and have a very long life and they use less staff than buses do. They also don't run on Coronation drive.

Therefore my position is that I am in favour of a dual mode rail/bus public transport system - eventually tri mode (bus/rail and light rail).  I would like to see overt competition between bus & rail eliminated in favour of complementary service, and I would like to see rail and bus-rail co-ordination developed over the years so that rail can progressively take over the line haul function.  But this is a work that will take years, and cannot simply be imposed by decree without causing chaos.

I agree. Change is hard but it must come. New modes will help, but the problem is in the planning IMHO not lack of modes or technology (maybe with the possible exception of rail signaling which could do with an upgrade).

[stephenk]

Seems to me that so long as we continue to expand the existing rail network - underground or overground - the issues of timetabling and congestion will be with us.

The CRRP is needed to alleviate current and future congestion, but talk of other lines (Toowong to Newstead etc) should be on the basis of a Metro-style subway, not an extension of the existing QR Citytrain network.  Rob Dow talks about "BUZification of rail" but this can't happen when timetabling issues restrict the number of trains per hour on given lines - trains will still have to sit and wait for switching and signaling issues.  You can only "BUZify" services that operate on an end-to-end basis like bus routes, subways or ferry services.  It is easy to slot new services in as hardware (buses, trains, ferries) becomes available which is how upgrades to the current City-Cat and "BUZ" services are proceeding.

Any new lines should be end-to-end subway style services that can be easily expanded to meet demand (ie BUZified) and that link in (interchange) with existing bus, train and ferry services.  We simply can't have a situation where more buses are added to address public transport demand because they only add to the congestion, or added QR Citytrain services which are hamstrung in years to come by the very issues that make the CRRP necessary.  Buses are not the answer because places like the Queen St  Bus Station are already approaching (if not at) full capacity now.  We need to think outside the box because this is a VERY long term investment that underpins the very development potential of the inner city itself.  We need subways, not Busways or Clem7's etc.

As I've just posted in the CityGlider thread, Brisbane cannot support a self-contained metro for many many years. The main public transport issue in Brisbane is getting people from the suburbs into the CBD. A new suburban rail line such as CRR can provide suburb to CBD, CBD to CBD, and suburb to suburb journeys. A metro can only support inner-city to inner-city journeys and would not help with Brisbane's biggest public transport issues. CRR is exactly what Brisbane needs! However, both the new tunnel, and infrastructure improvements across the network are required.

I agree. What signaling system is in use currently and would it be possible to upgrade it to one that allowed more trains. We have made major investments in buses and busway (billions), why not some money for whole-of-rail network?

I don't agree on the need for end to end, separate and self contained, but it would be helpful if we were starting from scratch. IIRC, there are metro systems that are not self-contained but are still reliable. I don't have time right now to see which ones, but Chicago springs to mind.

It may be possible to convert QR's CityTrain network with upgrades (that it deserves) to a more metro style service. Melbourne wants to be a real metro.

Just a few points:

Improved signalling would not massively increase the capacity of QR's network until the physical constraints such as single track sections, and at grade junctions are mostly eliminated. Once there are few physical constraints, then state of the art signalling could increase capacity by up to 30%.

"Self-contained" definitions can be a bit loose. A self-contained metro will not interact with with other rail traffic such as freight and suburban rail which should increase reliability. A non-self contained metro will interact with other rail traffic. Tokyo Metro seem to reliably manage not being self-contained, whilst the reliability of London's Bakerloo line is somewhat debatable.

A self-contained line, or end to end line will usually be highly reliable as there are less conflicting movements. Station dwell and terminus constraints tend to limit the lines reliability and capacity. A non-self contained line, or branched/split line is usually less reliable  as one late running train will delay another on another service. Examples being NYC subway, Chicago L, London's Sub-Surface Lines and Northern Line. To maintain reliability, capacity is often restricted to allow for more operating margin. On the plus side, multiple termini can eliminate terminus constraints. Chicago's L and London's Sub-Surface Lines are prime examples of how to not design railway! Sadly over 100 ago, designers did not know any better.

CRR and plans for future lines (that may be released in the near future) will allow for QR's operations to become more "metro-like". It will never be a true metro system, but then again, nor is Tokyo's Metro or London's Metropolitan Line (the line that started the name "metro").  

[somebody]

I actually think Airtrain is more than good enough if it was timetabled sensibly and didn't cut out ridiculously early at night.  It is, however, a shame it isn't integrated into the TransLink fare structure - it is a premium fare for an ordinary suburban rail service.

Brisbane is a very long way indeed from needing a Heathrow Express style rail service.

Yes.  It really should have been built with taxpayer funds and standard fares rather than the PPP.  Then we may well not even need the whole Airport Link.  $200m to save $2bn or whatever the actual prices are.

Still, there are a few silly things on the Airport line, like low speed points at the Eagle Junction end.  Equally, I'm not a fan of the viaduct but it may have been necessary at both ends.  Still it could have gone through the forest bit easily and shaved a few hundred metres off the line but much more importantly avoided the ridiculous speed restrictions on it.  But we are stuck with it the way it is now.

Chicago's L and London's Sub-Surface Lines are prime examples of how to not design railway!

I would add CityRail to that list.  The "Clearways" plan addresses a lot of the limitations though.

[#Metro]

Thanks StephenK. The tone of your posts is getting better. I'm sure mine will follow too.

As I've just posted in the CityGlider thread, Brisbane cannot support a self-contained metro for many many years. The main public transport issue in Brisbane is getting people from the suburbs into the CBD. A new suburban rail line such as CRR can provide suburb to CBD, CBD to CBD, and suburb to suburb journeys. A metro can only support inner-city to inner-city journeys and would not help with Brisbane's biggest public transport issues. CRR is exactly what Brisbane needs! However, both the new tunnel, and infrastructure improvements across the network are required.

I agree with you here! CRR is what we need. And infrastructure improvements. I agree!
But this will not happen so long as the city is distracted by bus, and rail services are neglected. I disagree about this statement

A metro can only support inner-city to inner-city journeys and would not help with Brisbane's biggest public transport issues.

becuase it isn't clear what a metro is- are we talking QR-metro, something like BART, or a sepreate self contained metro?

There are many assumptions that go into a public transport report and model. The forecasts are only as good as the limitations and assumptions that go into them. Knitting a web of interlocking and interconnected bus routes which feed into trunk bus lines or trunk rail lines or even light rail is the way to do. If this is done, then we may have enough passengers to argue for an upgrade or a metro- I know this is true because I am being told that "QR's network cannot cope!", which would suggest that we need to go to the next level in rail public transport provision- metro or metro style-heavy rail.

"Self-contained" definitions can be a bit loose. A self-contained metro will not interact with with other rail traffic such as freight and suburban rail which should increase reliability. A non-self contained metro will interact with other rail traffic. Tokyo Metro seem to reliably manage not being self-contained, whilst the reliability of London's Bakerloo line is somewhat debatable.

Freight is a problem. This one is a curly problem.

[somebody]

Freight is a service which I support remaining on rail.  Saying it is a problem is like saying that passengers are a problem.

[#Metro]

Freight is a service which I support remaining on rail.  Saying it is a problem is like saying that passengers are a problem.

To clarify I meant the interaction of freight and high frequency rail and how freight will increase, causing problems.

[STB]

Fire extinguisher!

Stephenk isn't flaming you, he is asking a legitimate question. So far you have stated that bus commuters should be funnelled onto rail services which clearly would not be able to cope and then stated its important to have alternatives. What is your position?

I think stephenk had a valid point, so I'm jumping in here with my own opinion.

I do not see parallel bus & rail services as a bad thing, provided they are timetabled to be complementary services rather than competing services.  The reason why this kind of operation has a bad name in Brisbane is because for a long time Brisbane Transport & QR have been effectively set up to compete with each other (even if the rhetoric being issued by the pollies & TransLink says otherwise). The reality in Brisbane is that the vast majority of potential bus/rail interchange points outside of the CBD are dysfunctional.

A bus service paralleling a rail line, as happens particularly in the inner Ipswich line area, provides a level of redundancy and choice of service that will attract more people to public transport than either mode alone.

A parallel bus service will be able to provide stops - access to the system - at many locations along a corridor that rail cannot, as rail services are more effective if the stations are not too closely spaced. (Aside: many Brisbane lines have stations too close together - I'd actually consider culling some stations).

While the ideal is frequent and fast rail with feeder buses, the reality in Brisbane is that the rail system does not carry even half of the public transport load, and does not yet have the capacity to cope if you suddenly funneled a majority of the suburbs to CBD trips that are on bus into the rail system.  The chaos at the Roma St & Central go card gates alone would render this idea comical at present, not to mention the fact that the rail capacity to take the extra patronage simply doesn't exists.



cheers,
Colin

If I may jump in, the best example of a service running parallel but not competing, simply covering the rest of the area that would normally be outside a reasonable walking distance to the local railway station, would be the 500/501 out in Ipswich.

A possible example I would say a 'competing' service is would probably be the 227 (former 222), at least between Cannon Hill and the City.  The old 243 route (different from the current one) could've been seen as competing with rail as it provided a more direct trip and ran express for the majority of the way, including backwards running on the busway.

The current 243 route is simply now a rocket for the Wakerley/Gumdale/Manly West area.

Personally, I don't find that many routes in Brisbane that effectively compete with rail.  You could argue that the Coronation Drive is competing with the rail between Milton and Indooroopilly, as it effectively follows the same route with a similar frequency to the railway. 

The 390 is really simply to cover stops that would not normally be accessible by rail, for example the Kelvin Grove Creative Industries QUT Hub (a pity the outbound cityxpress stop is way up the hill where Red Rooster is and not opposite the inbound cityxpress stop - hence the 390 is useful to access that area).

[longboi]

If Brisbane is to get another style of rail network besides QR, it should be surface light rail, and complementary to the QR system.  A metro would simply dilute our spending & efforts and lead to a substandard outcome

How so?

A metro in the inner-city would complement the current strategic direction of the State Gov't and the BCC perfectly. As Inner-City population grows and the inner 5km becomes much more dense and urbanised, there is going to be a whole lot of demand for travel within the inner city area.

Buses are okay, but with the growth we've seen in the last five years alone its pretty obvious we can't just continually add more buses - eventually the city will choke. Heavy rail would benefit suburbs-city commuters but really doesn't do much for the inner city population as heavy rail stations are much more further apart compared to a metro.

[#Metro]

A metro in the inner-city would complement the current strategic direction of the State Gov't and the BCC perfectly. As Inner-City population grows and the inner 5km becomes much more dense and urbanised, there is going to be a whole lot of demand for travel within the inner city area.

Buses are okay, but with the growth we've seen in the last five years alone its pretty obvious we can't just continually add more buses - eventually the city will choke. Heavy rail would benefit suburbs-city commuters but really doesn't do much for the inner city population as heavy rail stations are much more further apart compared to a metro.

I'm not sure about this technology focus. I'm undecided now. I just want to see the existing assets used much better, and rail upgraded. Metro might be good, but will it be another distraction which will compete for funds and consign the heavy rail system to more decades of neglect?  I'm not sure what the answer is.

[mufreight]

Simply put, a metro is not a viable option at this time, the future well I would doubt it in my time.

[longboi]

A metro in the inner-city would complement the current strategic direction of the State Gov't and the BCC perfectly. As Inner-City population grows and the inner 5km becomes much more dense and urbanised, there is going to be a whole lot of demand for travel within the inner city area.

Buses are okay, but with the growth we've seen in the last five years alone its pretty obvious we can't just continually add more buses - eventually the city will choke. Heavy rail would benefit suburbs-city commuters but really doesn't do much for the inner city population as heavy rail stations are much more further apart compared to a metro.

I'm not sure about this technology focus. I'm undecided now. I just want to see the existing assets used much better, and rail upgraded. Metro might be good, but will it be another distraction which will compete for funds and consign the heavy rail system to more decades of neglect?  I'm not sure what the answer is.

Its not a competition - Its about providing the right infrastructure for the right circumstances. Providing public transport is just as important for people living in the City as it is for people in the suburbs, if not moreso because people living in a dense urbanised area with high quality PT links are more likely to ditch the car altogether than your average suburban commuter.

[#Metro]

Its not a competition - Its about providing the right infrastructure for the right circumstances. Providing public transport is just as important for people living in the City as it is for people in the suburbs, if not moreso because people living in a dense urbanised area with high quality PT links are more likely to ditch the car altogether than your average suburban commuter.

I understand this, and I previously did support a metro concept. But now I've become more undecided. We already have very a very good network of busways (can these be upgraded to higher capacity?) and a very good (but underutilised) railway system (can this be upgraded to higher capacity)?

It is a competition for funding.
It will be complimentary if the metro is fed and connected by buses, but if it is not, then it will be competitive.

I'm really undecided about this metro now. Let's see the Metro study and what it has to say. No use making decisions without clear info.

[colinw]

If Brisbane is to get another style of rail network besides QR, it should be surface light rail, and complementary to the QR system.  A metro would simply dilute our spending & efforts and lead to a substandard outcome

How so?

Quite simply, the rail system as it is now needs a decade or more of concerted upgrade effort to avoid the whole system choking itself to death.  Starting to build an alternative system just for the inner city before we have the long term future of the existing rail system secured would be irresponsible in the extreme, as it would take funding away from the inner city upgrades (like Cross River Rail and stages beyond) that are required to keep the current system viable.

I do not reject a metro for Brisbane some time in the future - beyond the 2031 or so horizon of current planning - but to start building one now while the existing rail system is so under invested and in urgent need of major works would be ridiculous.

[longboi]

If Brisbane is to get another style of rail network besides QR, it should be surface light rail, and complementary to the QR system.  A metro would simply dilute our spending & efforts and lead to a substandard outcome

How so?

Quite simply, the rail system as it is now needs a decade or more of concerted upgrade effort to avoid the whole system choking itself to death.  Starting to build an alternative system just for the inner city before we have the long term future of the existing rail system secured would be irresponsible in the extreme.

I do not reject a metro for Brisbane some time in the future - beyond the 2031 or so horizon of current planning - but to start building one now while the existing rail system is so under invested and in urgent need of major works would be ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is saying it should be built now - We're talking about the 2026 stage two phase.

The "decade or more of concerted upgrade effort" is happening as we speak and the bulk will be completed by 2026.

Also I don't know how many times I have to say this but it is not an 'alternative' or 'pseudo-citytrain' it would be markedly different from the current heavy rail network and would serve an entirely different purpose as part of the broader transport network. This would be high capacity, frequent rail rapid transit which would connect all the major centres/interchanges within the inner city area as a spine service. The distances between stations would be much shorter than conventional heavy rail and they would be placed at strategic locations to maximise efficiency and patronage.

[Golliwog]

I agree, the rail network does need a lot of effort put into it so they can upgrade the whole thing. A good example would be the Ferny Grove line. While I don't know if the 2nd track between Keperra and FG is needed right away, I know the 3rd platform at FG certainly isn't needed for a bit, but that doesn't stop them doing it. The way I see it, once those 2 upgrades are done (by 2012 they claim) the FG line will not be needing any upgradeing for a long time. Once they have those 2 pieces of infrastructure added, the FG line itself doesn't really pose much of a restriction on timetabling (assuming of course that they only run all stations services (FG doesn't NEED expresses!)) The restrictions then get passed on of course to the CBD rail network and the Beenleigh/Cleveland lines. Which is of course where CRR and various other upgrades come into play. The point being, they are certainly working to remove constraints on the network, which is definatly working (although how many services are actually run is then limited by Translink)

Any "psuedo-citytrain" network/service should work to cover the routes that are currently covered by BUZ services (or at least the inner parts of such services). However, I would agree with colinw that currently, funding needs to focus on upgrading what we already have, instead of starting to construct a 3rd transport system. I agree that a 3rd mode (light rail) will definatly be needed (at some stage), but I'm not sure that right now is the best time to have it added and thus competing for funding with much needed rail and bus upgrades.

[longboi]

^^

Again, I have to ask the question...Who here is saying a new rapid transit system needs to be built now? I know I'm certainly not.

[#Metro]

I think network planning (making lines connect) and co-ordination (making the bus meet the train) are being overlooked.
It does not matter what the technology used is, be it bus, busway, light rail, metro, heavy rail or high speed rail. If you, the passenger, cannot get to the station without a car, and if the bus does not connect to the train station (or any other mode) then the network will not work, no matter what mode is used.

One reason why bus shows patronage increases is because the passenger can get to the busway station on the bus from their suburbs and, if they want to, transfer at Cultural Centre to travel in almost any other direction. Why can't this be done for heavy rail?

One reason why heavy rail does not show patronage on a scale like buses, is because the passenger cannot get to the station on the bus from their suburbs. It's not because passengers don't like transfers-- transfers happen on 402 and at Park Road interchange, Buranda and Cultural Centre easily -- but because there is no high frequency feeder service to take them to the rail station in the first place. The lack of one limits the patrons to those living within 800m of the station- walk up patrons.

Or they must take a car and transfer (may as well drive the whole way, or build giant expensive car parks), take a risk by transferring with no idea if they will catch the train, or go and get a direct bus to the CBD. Transfers are essential- big increases in patronage in 2004 came about not because of busway (that opened in 2001), but because passengers were now able to transfer from bus-rail-ferry because fares were integrated and charges for transfers were abolished. This turned a bunch of separate modes into a more integrated network. The key to this is increased freedom to transfer.

The three silver bullets are:
* Frequency (it stokes demand, up to 100% to 300% increase)
* Network planning (it adds many more destinations, through a transfer, than just CBD-Suburbs)
* Timed co-ordination (it reduces time to interchange, and passengers can be sure that they will not miss their service).

Brisbane has discovered the first silver bullet. The other two have not been fired yet.
Rail must be upgraded massively to become the backbone.

[stephenk]

becuase it isn't clear what a metro is- are we talking QR-metro, something like BART, or a sepreate self contained metro?

When referring to metro in Brisbane, I'm referring to the rather odd Government plan of a "metro" from Toowong towards Newstead along pretty much the same route as CRR2. I seriously hope this line or alternative routings are connected to the existing QR network for previously mentioned reasons.

BART is an interesting case. It is completely segregated, but very spread out like a suburban rail system. I see it as a modern S-Bahn style system (Berlin's S-Bahn is completely segregated from other rail systems as it uses 3rd rail power). It is by most definitions a metro, although the 15min frequencies in the outer stretches make this claim dubious. However, if Bart is defined as a Metro, then so I think should the now segregated Joondalup and Mandurah Lines in Perth.

The distances between stations would be much shorter than conventional heavy rail and they would be placed at strategic locations to maximise efficiency and patronage.

I really don't think that is the case anymore. With the possible exception of some VAL systems, the majority of new metro systems have stations spaced at least 800-1000m apart. It's simply too expense to build them as close together as 100 years ago!

In CRR inner-city stations will be 250m(ish) long, and have entrances at both ends of the station. Thus each station will have a very large area coverage. A good example of this train of thought is with London's proposed Crossrail, where each station will have 2 entrances, and cover an area served by 2 adjacent tube stations (for example Liverpool St and Moorgate will be served by 1 Crossrail station even though they are adjacent stations on the Sub-Surface Lines).

[#Metro]

Thanks for sharing this information Stephenk

It is by most definitions a metro, although the 15min frequencies in the outer stretches make this claim dubious. However, if Bart is defined as a Metro, then so I think should the now segregated Joondalup and Mandurah Lines in Perth.

But maybe it should? Is it the technology that defines a metro? Do people really care about what kind of train is used? My dissenting view is that as long as the trains appear at high frequency, i don't know, every 10 minutes or below that all day, who cares whether the service is done by metro trains or CityTrains. I just want my service to turn up! The images of the Yamanote line show the train has hardly any seats, just like a metro- but it is heavy rail. Sydney has an excellent hybrid service, and Melbourne is going to have a crack at turning its heavy rail service into a more metro one. Both these cities are far more dense than Brisbane.

Joondalup line IIRC runs trains every 5 minutes during peak. Whether or not it is a metro-- I don't think the customers using that line really care. They're just happy to have such good service.

I really don't think that is the case anymore. With the possible exception of some VAL systems, the majority of new metro systems have stations spaced at least 800-1000m apart. It's simply too expense to build them as close together as 100 years ago!

Here is one idea, it might work, it might not.
The same effect might be achieved IMHO, without spending billions, by simply using light rail on trunk routes, and high frequency buses connecting to stations and stopping every 400-600m or so. And maybe a few strategic extensions to the Heavy rail service. How will this work-- by making connections and using transfers.

If the planners want a metro from Toowong to Newstead, then maybe they can build a tunnel from Cannon Hill to Newstead and run QR trains off the Cleveland line using the heavy rail network and CRR. Diverting the billions to be spent on metro, existing station platforms could be extended, 9 or larger car trains could run, choke points grade separated, and signaling upgraded to the best one available.

The problems might be: reliability and non-automation, but even these might be overcome.

It would be interesting to see an upgraded metro style QR network with localised LRT and Bus connections vs brand new metro in a feasibility study.

[mufreight]

A bit off topic I feel but a response to a previous post in this thread where a couple of valid points were made but the the context of the basis upon which they were made is questionable.

I think network planning (making lines connect) and co-ordination (making the bus meet the train) are being overlooked.
It does not matter what the technology used is, be it bus, busway, light rail, metro, heavy rail or high speed rail. If you, the passenger, cannot get to the station without a car, and if the bus does not connect to the train station (or any other mode) then the network will not work, no matter what mode is used.

One reason why bus shows patronage increases is because the passenger can get to the busway station on the bus from their suburbs and, if they want to, transfer at Cultural Centre to travel in almost any other direction. Why can't this be done for heavy rail?

One reason why heavy rail does not show patronage on a scale like buses, is because the passenger cannot get to the station on the bus from their suburbs.

The three silver bullets are:
* Frequency (it stokes demand, up to 100% to 300% increase)
* Network planning (it adds many more destinations, through a transfer, than just CBD-Suburbs)
* Timed co-ordination (it reduces time to interchange, and passengers can be sure that they will not miss their service).

Brisbane has discovered the first silver bullet. The other two have not been fired yet.
Rail must be upgraded massively to become the backbone.

If Brisbane has discovered the first silver bullet it has been by accident not design, and this silver bullet has only applied to bus services, yes increased frequency does increase demand but the increased frequencies of bus services (Brisbane Transport controlled area mainly not the Translink administered area as a whole) has been because a bus is more limited in crush loadings and to meet the loadings has required more buses hence resulting higher frequency.
Rail has had the capacity to carry higher crush loads and as a consequence has not seen the increased frequencies that would create higher loadings because of availability of service.
An increase in passenger numbers of say 25 would require an additional bus service while with rail an increase in passenger numbers in the region of 400 would be required before the bean counters at Translink would allow QR to increase the train frequency and operate an additional service.
Even more telling is the situation in outer areas where buses operate on at best hourly frequencies and do not interconnect with other services (bus or rail) which rather than attract custom effectively deters PT usage and authorities then cite the low usage as the reason for failure to improve service frequencies or in some cases justification for the removal of services.

[somebody]

If Brisbane has discovered the first silver bullet it has been by accident not design,

This criticism is unduly harsh, although it is fair that it only applies to BT bus services.  The BUZ services have become high frequency as a matter of policy, not by accident or due to loadings.

[#Metro]

Hi Mufreight,
Thanks for your post! I have answered you in a separate thread to keep this one for CRR. 
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4107.0

[colinw]

From Brisbane Times - click here

Gabba expands skyward and downward
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
July 19, 2010 - 1:00PM

Forty-storey tower planned for Woolloongabba


An artist's impression of the planned commercial and high-density living centre just one kilometre from the Brisbane CBD.

Skyscrapers up to 40 storeys high have been given the go-ahead to tower over Woolloongabba's new underground railway station, brisbanetimes.com.au can reveal.

The towers are a feature of the government's master plan for the Gabba precinct between Vulture and Stanley streets, which would see it become a transit-oriented residential and commercial hub.

Premier Anna Bligh said the proposal would allow for high-density living and commercial office space, with easy access to public transport and shopping and dining facilities, directly opposite the Gabba.

"This plan details an inner-city community of residential, retail, commercial, employment, recreation and community facilities, with unparalleled access to public transport and for pedestrians and cyclists," she said today.

"It's a glimpse of the future for this part of inner city Brisbane."

Under the proposal, the precinct would also house one of four new underground rail stations as part of the Cross River Rail project, to add transport options to the existing busway.

The 10-hectare site, one kilometre from the CBD, is currently home to the government's Go-Print and Lands Centre buildings.

The plan allows for a 40-storey tower to be built over the underground rail interchange, and 20- to 30-storey buildings on other parts of the site.

Construction could begin as early as 2012, with the final development scheme set to be approved next April.

Ms Bligh declared the site an "Urban Development Area" in April following the Queensland Growth Management Summit, which identified the need for more transit-oriented developments in Brisbane.

"This new Gabba Precinct is a prime example of that," she said.

The precinct, bordered by Main, Vulture, Stanley and Allen streets, would also include a public park the size of Anzac Square, pedestrian boulevards, a plaza, restaurants, bars and cafes.

Infrastructure and Planning Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said new units would be geared towards middle-level income earners, like teachers, nurses and emergency services workers.

"The range of housing choice provided within the Woolloongabba UDA will respond to housing affordability pressures being faced by key workers employed in the Mater Hospital Precinct and nearby Brisbane CBD," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"This will also be a great place for commercial businesses to be based."

Urban Land Development Association CEO Paul Eagles said the metropolitan precinct would also benefit sports fans.

"With the Australian cricket team, the Queensland Bulls and of course the Brisbane Lions all playing matches at the Gabba, the local area is often awash with patrons looking for dining venues and entertainment before and after the big game," Mr Eagles said.

Although full development of the Gabba precinct was expected to take up to 20 years, the ULDA was expected to release the first parcel of land for development late next year.

The Woolloongabba Draft Structure Plan is now available for public comment through www.ulda.qld.gov.au.

[colinw]

Government Media Statement - click here

Joint Statement:

Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh

Minister for Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Stirling Hinchliffe

Monday, July 19, 2010

GABBA RENEWAL PRECINCT FUTURE LOOKS GOOD

Premier Bligh has released plans for a new Gabba precinct to include a public park the size of ANZAC square and based around a major transport hub linked to the Cross River Rail project.

The Woolloongabba UDA Draft Structure Plan follows last week's announcement that one of four new underground Cross River Rail stations will be located at the South Brisbane suburb.

Ms Bligh said the plan has been prepared by The Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) and will be released for community consultation today.

Construction could start on the new precinct, which is largely at the Go Print site, as early as 2012.

"This plan details an inner-city community of residential, retail, commercial, employment, recreation and community facilities, with unparalleled access to public transport and for pedestrians and cyclists," she said.

"A key outcome of the recent Queensland Growth Management Summit was a need to progress more transit orientated developments and this new Gabba Precinct is a prime example of that.

"It is also true that re-developing inner city sites like this one really takes the development pressure off our suburbs.

"This Gabba precinct will become an iconic area of our City and a place where visitors from all over the world will gather after the cricket or a Lions game.

"Of course this will also be a place where Queenslanders will live, work and play. It's a glimpse of the future for this part of inner city Brisbane and I think the future is looking pretty good."

Ms Bligh said that under the plan pedestrian boulevards and plazas will be designed to take full advantage of Brisbane's sub tropical climate with restaurants, bars and cafes.

"The creation of new urban park the size of ANZAC Square, new public spaces and connecting tree lined boulevards are exciting features of this plan," said Ms Bligh.

A major bus and train transport hub, incorporating the existing Wooloongabba bus station and proposed underground Cross River Rail station is central to the plan, which outlines a special transport investigation area.

The plan also proposes mixed use development of up to 40 stories above the transport interchange and 20 to 30 maximum story heights across other parts of the site.

Infrastructure and Planning Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said the ULDA was seeking to deliver a diversity of housing options, great public spaces, outstanding transport links and new employment opportunities all within a unique shopping and entertainment hub.

"We are looking to create a transit orientated metropolitan precinct that functions on many levels; it will be a great place to work, fantastic to live in and exciting to visit," he said.

"The range of housing choice provided within the Woolloongabba UDA will respond to housing affordability pressures being faced by key workers employed in the Mater Hospital Precinct and nearby Brisbane CBD.

"This will also be a great place for commercial businesses to be based and a smart business choice.

"The Woolloongabba UDA will provide a significant amount of high quality commercial office space creating new employment opportunities for local residents as well as maximising commuter access via the busway and proposed Cross River Rail."

Paul Eagles ULDA CEO highlighted that the Woolloongabba Draft Structure Plan shows a large amount of new green and open space for the area, and that pedestrian access to and from the "Gabba" on games days will be improved.

"The whole precinct will be great to walk around and with the Australian cricket team, the QLD Bulls and of course the Brisbane Lions all playing matches at the "Gabba", the local area is often awash with patrons looking for dining venues and entertainment before and after the big game," Mr Eagles said.

"While full development of the Woolloongabba UDA is expected to take 15 – 20 years, the ULDA is identifying short and medium term residential and mix-use development opportunities.

It is anticipated that the first site ready for development will be released to the market later next year, after approval of the final Development Scheme in April."

The Woolloongabba Draft Structure Plan is available for public comment from 19 to 30 July and can be viewed on the ULDA website at www.ulda.qld.gov.au

A community information session is being held Saturday 24 July 10am – 2pm at The German Club, 416 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba. Community members will be able to talk to planners one-on-one about what is intended for the UDA and provide feedback.

Responses from the community regarding the Draft Structure Plan will be considered during the preparation of the Woolloongabba UDA Proposed Development Scheme.

Contacts 07 3224 4500

[Golliwog]

I've had a look, and it looks good to me. Although there does seem to be a bunch of parking underground still. Also, they seem to be wanting to relocate the Wooloongabba busway station to be with the CRR station and so be further away from the 'Gabba. But it didn't show if the busway was still connected to Stanley St or if it was going to be connected to somewhere else.

[somebody]

they seem to be wanting to relocate the Wooloongabba busway station

I'm confused as to why they would want to mess with this.

[Golliwog]

It didn't really explain much about why, other than something about having it next to the park space meant there was somewhere for crowds to gather/wait to catch the bus/train. So perhaps the current spot is a little cramped and too close to major roads so its for safety reasons? Also they seemed to say the current spot is 100m from the stadium whereas the new one would be 500m as if this was a good thing?

[mufreight]

Could well be that they might have no choice because of the location of the Clem 7 tunnel infrastructure or more probably they intend to relocate the bus station into a position under a building to provide more construction space that they can sell.

[Golliwog]

I have no problem with it being relocated so it's under a building. Its a bit of wasted inner-city space to have nothing above the station. So long as it doesn't end up like Fortitude Valley station where the only access is through a privately owned mall so they only let you in 15 minutes before you train when its late at night.

[paulg]

I think they are looking at relocating the Gabba busway station so that it is an "on-line" station on the main SE Busway trunk route. When combined with a rail-bus interchange this will give good connectivity.
Cheers

[somebody]

It didn't really explain much about why, other than something about having it next to the park space meant there was somewhere for crowds to gather/wait to catch the bus/train. So perhaps the current spot is a little cramped and too close to major roads so its for safety reasons? Also they seemed to say the current spot is 100m from the stadium whereas the new one would be 500m as if this was a good thing?

After game services don't use the bus station!  I don't get it either.

[Golliwog]

I didn't know after game services didn't use the busway station. Thats just stupid, I thought that was the whole reason they put the busway station there. Although paulg's suggestion that they're changing it to be an "on-line" station would be good and could make sense, although I thought from the look of the map the location they had marked still wasn't quite over the current busway.

[frereOP]

I didn't know after game services didn't use the busway station. Thats just stupid, I thought that was the whole reason they put the busway station there. Although paulg's suggestion that they're changing it to be an "on-line" station would be good and could make sense, although I thought from the look of the map the location they had marked still wasn't quite over the current busway.

Buses to the city do use it, buses to Mt Gravatt depart from Stanley St opposite The Gabba for ease of access to Ipswich Rd and to prevent congestion of the Busway Station which is chockers with buses to the city already.

[somebody]

Hmm, when I used it to the city after a game the bus didn't use it.  Used a really wierd route to get to Roma St too.  Was something like Annerley Rd portal - Melbourne St portal, Grey St, Roma St.

[STB]

I stopped by at the CRR public consultation this afternoon and there are still people wanting the line to service Central and not Roma St  .

[mufreight]

The line would be shorter and service more of the CBD with better rail to rail interchange if built via Central rather than via Roma Street.
The Roma Street is being promoted to avoid the potential problems with the foundations of existing buildings and other underground infrastructure if the line is built via Central.

[Golliwog]

Yes, but also given that the new Roma St platforms would be underground and how close Central and Roma St stations are, surely there is definatly an opportunity to put in some more entrance points to Roma St, or possibly even an underground pedestrain walkway connecting the two?

[mufreight]

Would be far more beneficial in terms of the gathering area for commuters for the station to be built on an alignment that ran from the corner of Adelaide and Edward Streets under Central with entrances either via Central towards Creek Street and the corner of Adelaide and Edward Streets. 

[somebody]

Saw the consultation at Morooka today.  Seems that the current thinking is to connect the new tunnel to the mains.  Didn't think about this at the time, but that means there is no increase in capacity for trains from the north until the 5th track to Northgate is built.  The 5th track is really unnecessary if the new line attaches to the suburbans, unless the "new river crossing for the Cleveland line" is done.

Someone that worked for QR heard my suggestion for the Beenleigh line trains to route through the new tunnel, and said: "You can't do that because they wouldn't be able to continue to Ferny Grove and everyone would bitch about that."  This cracked me up, and I had to bite my tongue to refrain from making rude comments about QR.

[#Metro]

Saw the consultation at Morooka today.  Seems that the current thinking is to connect the new tunnel to the mains.  Didn't think about this at the time, but that means there is no increase in capacity for trains from the north until the 5th track to Northgate is built.  The 5th track is really unnecessary if the new line attaches to the suburbans, unless the "new river crossing for the Cleveland line" is done.

But will it be needed for the Petrie-Kippa ring line, CAMCOS and The Northern Line (Trouts Road)?

Someone that worked for QR heard my suggestion for the Beenleigh line trains to route through the new tunnel, and said: "You can't do that because they wouldn't be able to continue to Ferny Grove and everyone would bitch about that."  This cracked me up, and I had to bite my tongue to refrain from making rude comments about QR.

Not really in the loop here. What is so funny about that?