Cross River Rail Project

[Stillwater]

All too common ... the state government decides a course of action, then says 'oh, yeah, we have to do public consultation'.  Then get a shock when the public disagrees with the determined course of action.  The thing gets unpicked, at taxpayer expense.

[frereOP]

What benefit is there to be gained by the name change...

Well, I thought that was obvious.  Everyone knows where Boggo Rd Gaol is.  Park Rd could be anywhere.  Residents don't want the name changed because residents don't like change per se, simple as that.

... it is of note that many who use the bus to the Boggo Rd bus station to transfer to the train refer to the bus station as PARK ROAD when purchasing a ticket or inquiring of the driver if the bus goes to PARK ROAD there has to be a message there.

So where did you get these "facts" from, the "fiction" section of your local library?  If you are going to make statements like this, back them up with some reference otherwise you will be as credible as the average Party Hack politician.

With the Ecosciencs Precinct now in operation, people are going to "Boggo Rd", not "Park Rd".

[ozbob]

My own personal view is that I would like Park Road to be Boggo Junction, and I would also like Darra to be called Darra Junction.

It  means something as does Eagle Junction, and in time Petrie Junction.   Maybe I watched to many episodes of Petticoat Junction (because of the steam engines   ) ...  

But I can live with Park Road or whatever ...  

[SteelPan]

the ENTIRE idea of an underground, is to remove the physical impact and pressure of a rail system from a (usually) highly developed region - informing the would be passenger of a station location requires quality of signage which is a totally separate matter!

The idea of building underground is actually because the need exists to provide the transport route, but there is too much stuff in the way to make it possible or no corridor exists. If they could get away with building CRR above ground and save billions, they would. Nothing wrong with making the station entrances look nice, as you'd do with any other above ground building."

As I said, the ENTIRE idea of an underground railway, is to remove the physical impact and pressure (too much stuff/no corridor) of a rail system from a (usually) highly developed region (need) - why you needed to re-express it, I don't know!  There is NO WAY, repeat, NO WAY, the Qld govt would in a month of Sunday's - build, no matter how cheap,  an aboveground ie, (mostly) elevated railway, right the through the heart of Brishattan - even I would get out there and campiagn against that - noise pollution, visual pollution - bloody ugly as would be the best way to put it.

In any case, this is a seperate matter from the logical comments made by many, not just me - that the existing bus entry points in KGS are completely out of proportion to the task they perform and just look stupid and there is a strong possiblity the proposed entry points to the "Albert St" station my go the same way - look at the masterful new Indooroopilly station - it'd be right at home in Disneyland!  

[colinw]

I actually like the KGSBS entrances and the feel of the whole station.  Wonderful system presence and unique in feel.

I took a relative from Sydney there a few months ago, and their response was "wow!!!!, this is how buses should be run".

I have no issue with the Albert St plans, provided the airspace is developed properly above it.

[frereOP]

There is NO WAY, repeat, NO WAY, the Qld govt would in a month of Sunday's - build, no matter how cheap,  an aboveground ie, (mostly) elevated railway, right the through the heart of Brishattan

We got busways and they are essentially the same deal.

[somebody]

I took a relative from Sydney there a few months ago, and their response was "wow!!!!, this is how buses should be run".

I have no issue with the Albert St plans, provided the airspace is developed properly above it.

I was having a look at the "Moving Brisbane" presentation from the CPTF (available in the Members area) yesterday, and the responses from global visitors along the lines of "The best BRT in the world".

However, what has driven patronage isn't that much the busways (although I expect they didn't hurt), but BUZ.  To have 12 routes carry 37% IIRC of BT's patronage just shows what is required.  I do not believe the busway had a big effect on the 333, 345 or 444, although connecting QUT KG & Lutwytche Rd wasn't bad.

[Gazza]

There is NO WAY, repeat, NO WAY, the Qld govt would in a month of Sunday's - build, no matter how cheap,  an aboveground ie, (mostly) elevated railway, right the through the heart of Brishattan - even I would get out there and campiagn against that - noise pollution, visual pollution - bloody ugly as would be the best way to put it.

If they could get away with (it)

Not that it would actually ever happen in Brisbane of course, but in a perfect world where nimbys didn't exist you could bet that new rail lines in build up areas would be elevated, as what tends to happen in countries when those sort of public interest controls are weaker.

Anyway, back to what you were saying....Yeah the point of tunneling is to remove surface level impacts, but station portal buildings don't have the same impacts as the rail line itself (no noise, dust, no linear path cutting through an area....it's just another building!), Hence I think KGS style portals are fine, because they don't generate any annoyances, except for perhaps visual amenity (But that's subjective   )

[somebody]

A large part of the point of tunnels is to reduce the acquisition costs.

[colinw]

Brisbane Times: Ekka site development a step closer

Opportunity for a developer contribution to CRR?

The $2.9 billion redevelopment of the RNA showgrounds at Bowen Hills has won conditional development approval.

The plans include a new fresh food market, a refurbished industrial pavilion, new large animal pavilions and a hotel to accommodate business and tourist visitors.

About 340,000 square metres of new residential, commercial and retail development is proposed. The RNA will sell up to 5.5 hectares of land around the edges of the site for the development.

...

[#Metro]

I was having a look at the "Moving Brisbane" presentation from the CPTF (available in the Members area) yesterday, and the responses from global visitors along the lines of "The best BRT in the world".

Let's keep our feet on the ground here. BOGOTA is the best BRT in the world, not Brisbane.

[colinw]

Let's keep our feet on the ground here. BOGOTA is the best BRT in the world, not Brisbane.

Yep, and now they have outgrown it and are building a Metro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_of_Bogot%C3%A1

[#Metro]

 

[somebody]

Let's keep our feet on the ground here. BOGOTA is the best BRT in the world, not Brisbane.

Probably correct.  So how come those quotes could be made?

[#Metro]

Such a quote is interesting. It might indicate that PT is still being looked at from a bus vs train vs LRT vs ferry vs CityCat perspective and not from a "one network" perspective.

Even if Brisbane did have the best BRT in the world, it certainly would not have the best PT system in the world.
And the latter is what the end-goal is, not the former.

[somebody]

Even if Brisbane did have the best BRT in the world, it certainly would not have the best PT system in the world.
And the latter is what the end-goal is, not the former.

Good point.  But, based on PT market share, we are still better than Perth.

[#Metro]

PT mode share

Perth 10.4%
Brisbane 13.8 %

and the winner is...

... Sydney! 21.2% <--- right up there with the world's best, despite all the complaints (New York = 24.8%)

Will be interesting to see once new data is available

Source: http://www.promaco.com.au/2009/soac/PDF/Mees%20Paul.pdf

[somebody]

Wow.  I'm pretty dubious about some of those figures, and it is only peak hour commutes it is referring to.  Brisbane might do better relative to Sydney off peak.  New York has 67% car mode share?  Seems odd.

I'm pretty sure more recent figures would put Melbourne higher.

[colinw]

Hmmmm ....

Looking at those figures, it seems to me that the best predictor of public transport mode share for a city, regardless of density, is the intensity, extent & system presence of its rail services.

Every one of those cities with 10% or higher PT share has an old and well established rail system (even Brisbane qualifies - suburban rail has been here for a very long time), except for Ottawa.

All of the ones over 20% (including Sydney) are very old, very intensive and very extensive operators of heavy rail or subway, again except Ottawa which has BRT.

Melbourne's mode share seems anomalously low in that table.

All those low PT share basket cases in North America are either bus only, or have tiny start-up metro or LRT systems.

[#Metro]

You can always email and ask--> http://rmit.net.au/browse;ID=m6y24xgvy6as
He does reply, which is surprising!

Journey to work does not necessarily mean 'work' is in the CBD. This is why cross town, and orbital routes are so important.
Brisbane lacks these. At least Sydney has an inter-meshing rail network and busway where trips like this can be done.


http://www.ptua.org.au/publications/connecting/

[#Metro]

Hmmmm ....

Looking at those figures, it seems to me that the best predictor of public transport mode share for a city, regardless of density, is the intensity, extent & system presence of its rail services.

Every one of those cities with 10% or higher PT share has an old and well established rail system (even Brisbane qualifies - suburban rail has been here for a very long time), except for Ottawa.

All of the ones over 20% (including Sydney) are very old, very intensive and very extensive operators of heavy rail or subway, again except Ottawa which has BRT.

Melbourne's mode share seems anomalously low in that table.

All those low PT share basket cases in North America are either bus only, or have tiny start-up metro or LRT systems.

The best predictor is ... competent government!!!

[somebody]

Looking at those figures, it seems to me that the best predictor of public transport mode share for a city, regardless of density, is the intensity, extent & system presence of its rail services.

Every one of those cities with 10% or higher PT share has an old and well established rail system (even Brisbane qualifies - suburban rail has been here for a very long time), except for Ottawa.

All of the ones over 20% (including Sydney) are very old, very intensive and very extensive operators of heavy rail or subway, again except Ottawa which has BRT.

Interesting observation.  Vancouver still has 16.5% and has a metro rail system which is neither old nor extensive AFAIK, but does get good patronage.  Calgary at 15.6% has an LR system which is pretty small but also gets a lot of pax.

Melbourne's mode share seems anomalously low in that table.

It wasn't that long ago that Melbourne's rail system only carried 88m/year.  Now, it's over 200m/year.  Can't remember the exact period, but it does seem that privatisation has been a big success, and core rail frequencies have been improving there.

I think part of Sydney's strength is that all the main non-CBD destinations (Parra, Chatswood, North Sydney, St Leonards, Hurstville, Kogarah, Bondi Junction) have a rail service which receives a reasonable counter peak service.  A point apparently lost on Brisbane's planners with the unsatisfactory counter peak service to Milton, Park Rd, Toowong and Ipswich, and the plan to do little about it.

[#Metro]

Interesting observation.  Vancouver still has 16.5% and has a metro rail system which is neither old nor extensive AFAIK, but does get good patronage.

The frequency on that thing is off the planet! Vancouver also has 1 motorway within the city bounds.
None of this encircling "bypass" business just outside the CBD.

Calgary at 15.6% has an LR system which is pretty small but also gets a lot of pax.

Calgary has integrated their bus system with their LRT and took a great deal of time and planning to preserve the corridors
very early on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Train; They have been very no-frills about the service. They also have BRT (though AIUI not on busways)
in corridors earmarked for LRT.

Really, i think it comes down to a combination of network connectivity and frequency and policies. There is no single mode that causes high ridership. PT in a reasonably well sized city is best done by a number of modes, fit to the task at hand, co-ordinated from above and well funded and connected.

[BrizCommuter]

... Sydney! 21.2% <--- right up there with the world's best, despite all the complaints (New York = 24.8%)

That data is incorrect, and this has been discussed before on this forum. 54% of NYC commuters use public transport. The rate of car non-ownership in Manhattan is more than 75%, and is >50% in NYC as a whole.

[somebody]

Perhaps it counts other boroughs.

[frereOP]

Hmmmm ....

Looking at those figures, it seems to me that the best predictor of public transport mode share for a city, regardless of density, is the intensity, extent & system presence of its rail services.

Every one of those cities with 10% or higher PT share has an old and well established rail system (even Brisbane qualifies - suburban rail has been here for a very long time), except for Ottawa.

All of the ones over 20% (including Sydney) are very old, very intensive and very extensive operators of heavy rail or subway, again except Ottawa which has BRT.

Melbourne's mode share seems anomalously low in that table.

All those low PT share basket cases in North America are either bus only, or have tiny start-up metro or LRT systems.

The best predictor is ... competent government!!!

That my friend is an oxymoron.

[#Metro]

Drop Dr Mees and e-mail and let us know what his reponse is  

[#Metro]

That my friend is an oxymoron.

The private sector can be just as bad. Clem7 - how could they get the numbers SO wrong?
Airtrain? PPP projects, Banking and Finance sectors? HIH/One Tel/Lehman Brothers?

Failure and incompetence knows no bounds...

[frereOP]

That my friend is an oxymoron.

The private sector can be just as bad. Clem7 - how could they get the numbers SO wrong?
Airtrain? PPP projects, Banking and Finance sectors? HIH/One Tel/Lehman Brothers?

Failure and incompetence knows no bounds...

And Ansett of course.  There will be failures but the worst part about government is that they are managed by people who get elected to parliament based on their membership of a political party, not through their supposed expertise in corporate management.  Their sole purpose in life is to get re-elected by being seen to be doing something useful.  Hence, government is a bit like a camel (a horse designed by a committee) and it works just a well.

Airtrain's revenue and profitability is following the traditional "j" curve.  Clem7, Tiger Airlines and even Jetstar will be the same (expecting losses for several years before turning a profit). The problem for Clem7 is that the only way to make a profit out of a tunnel is to build is a subway.

[#Metro]

And Ansett of course.  There will be failures but the worst part about government is that they are managed by people who get elected to parliament based on their membership of a political party, not through their supposed expertise in corporate management.  Their sole purpose in life is to get re-elected by being seen to be doing something useful.  Hence, government is a bit like a camel (a horse designed by a committee) and it works just a well.

There seems to be a general dislike of them. But we keep voting them in. Go figure...

[Stillwater]

Actually, the experience is that governments are voted OUT of office rather than voting IN fresh faces and ideas.  The exception might have been Gough in the 1970s, who ran on the 'It's Time' campaign slogan.

[paulg]

I've been looking through the Reference Design Overview (http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design/pdf_cross_river_rail_reference_design_overview.pdf) and I'm still no closer to understanding why they want to build four new platforms at Yeerongpilly instead of just two. The existing platforms are actually completely unused in the proposed design (see pages 38-39 and page 74). Why on earth do they need to cause so much disruption to the community (and potentially create opposition to the project) when they appear to have two spare platforms there sitting unused? Any ideas?

Cheers, Paul

[somebody]

Actually, the experience is that governments are voted OUT of office rather than voting IN fresh faces and ideas.  The exception might have been Gough in the 1970s, who ran on the 'It's Time' campaign slogan.

I don't remember that campaign, but "It's time" sounds a lot "It's time to vote those bozos out!"

Any ideas?

Not one from me.

[Fares_Fair]

Actually, the experience is that governments are voted OUT of office rather than voting IN fresh faces and ideas.  The exception might have been Gough in the 1970s, who ran on the 'It's Time' campaign slogan.

I don't remember that campaign, but "It's time" sounds a lot "It's time to vote those bozos out!"

Any ideas?

Not one from me.

Hey, steady on, some of us are professional clowns and we resent you calling them Bozos. 
It degrades our profession !

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

I've been looking through the Reference Design Overview (http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design/pdf_cross_river_rail_reference_design_overview.pdf) and I'm still no closer to understanding why they want to build four new platforms at Yeerongpilly instead of just two. The existing platforms are actually completely unused in the proposed design (see pages 38-39 and page 74). Why on earth do they need to cause so much disruption to the community (and potentially create opposition to the project) when they appear to have two spare platforms there sitting unused? Any ideas?

Cheers, Paul

Maybe it is for a new line- Salisbury to Flagstone??
Freight?

[O_128]

I've been looking through the Reference Design Overview (http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design/pdf_cross_river_rail_reference_design_overview.pdf) and I'm still no closer to understanding why they want to build four new platforms at Yeerongpilly instead of just two. The existing platforms are actually completely unused in the proposed design (see pages 38-39 and page 74). Why on earth do they need to cause so much disruption to the community (and potentially create opposition to the project) when they appear to have two spare platforms there sitting unused? Any ideas?

Cheers, Paul

Maybe it is for a new line- Salisbury to Flagstone??
Freight?

I agree saves them having to build 2 more platforms in the future if the need arises

[Golliwog]

If you look at the detailed map it shows that the tracks serving the old 2 platforms will have their southern connections severed leaving only the connection to Corinda via Tennyson, but will also still have their connections to the north. Perhaps they will look at running trains via Tennyson again in the future. Perhaps they could just terminate at Corinda on the 5th platform and thus wouldn't have any conflicts with the IPS line.

Interesting though that the pictures in the reference design (pg 38-39) seem to show them having removed the stairs access to the overpass from the old platforms.

[colinw]

It looks to me like the old platforms will remain in place, awaiting reinstatement of services via Tennyson, which will be much more feasible after CRR due to the spare capacity on Merivale bridge and elimination of junction conflicts with much of the Gold Coast / Beenleigh traffic.  There will remain an at grade crossing of the dual gauge freight line, but it would be feasible to grade separate even that by raising the dual gauge line up onto a viaduct to fly over the lines toward Tennyson from Yeerongpilly.

[somebody]

The flyover is an option, but I do not see the bang/buck in that flyover or the proposed one at Park Rd.  Post CRR, both these junction conflicts become not so significant as far as I can see.

[Golliwog]

The flyover is an option, but I do not see the bang/buck in that flyover or the proposed one at Park Rd.  Post CRR, both these junction conflicts become not so significant as far as I can see.

But post CRR would be the perfect time to do them! They most likely wouldn't be needed for quite some time after that but while traffic is low (relatively) on the junctions it would be the perfect time to construct them before they are once again at capacity. Plus it would allow for more flexible timetables.