Cross River Rail Project

[SurfRail]

I think the plan has always been (as far back as 2012) to have a gateline to the underground platforms, so yes. No penalty under the current fare structure given both stations are in the same zone and you won't pay anything for the CRR leg if you are going from say Banoon to Albert St.

Park Road to the Merivale Bridge needs retooling at some point as well because the flat cross between inbound Cleveland and outbound Beenleigh trains is not going away. 

My suggestion would be:

- For South Brisbane and South Bank - normally, all inbound trains approach via platform 3 and all outbound trains go via platform 1.  Platform 2 in the peaks is used for services to and from Cleveland (fixing it like this also makes it legible and prevents platform changes).  The entire middle track between the Merivale Bridge and Somerville House is basically just a passing loop to give added platform capacity at South Bank and South Brisbane, or to enable special event or disrupted trains to start on platform 2 at either station and head north or south as needed.

- Build crossovers around Somerville House allowing access from the dual gauge track to platform 2 and from platform 2 to the eastern track.  Then, another crossover from the eastern track (platform 1) to the middle track (which will be used by outbound Cleveland trains other than in peak hour when they will already be going into the platform 2 track off the Merivale Bridge)
- At the Gloucester St tunnels, the western (dual gauge) track carries all inbound trains, the middle track carries all outbound Cleveland trains and the eastern track carries all outbound Beenleigh trains
- Dig out the tunnel floor to sink the outbound Beenleigh track
- After emerging from the tunnel, the outbound Beenleigh track crosses under the  Cleveland track pair (which are now the eastern 2 tracks) and pops up in between the 2 inbound tracks.  The Cleveland inbound track merges with the Beenleigh inbound track so both use the dual gauge tunnel.
- At this stage you have 4 up-down-up-down tracks by the time you hit Annerley Rd (bridge needs to be rebuilt to allow 4 lines).
- Park Road is now fully up down up down (P1 Cleveland, P2 City, P3 Beenleigh, P4 City) and there are no flat crosses anywhere on the Merivale Bridge tracks south of the city during normal operations.

Eventually you would also need to do something about the approach to Roma St from the west to get rid of the flat cross between inbound all stations and inbound express services.

[verbatim9]

Motorists will notice some changes when travelling through Brisbane's CBD tomorrow morning, due to construction of the new Albert Street Station, part of the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project. @EmArnold_7 #bnetraffic #7NEWS https://t.co/6Ju1DpDodu

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1178219603417165825

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority-Annual Report 2018-19

> https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2019/5619T1702.pdf

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Trees go to make way for Cross River Rail access

Seventeen trees have been removed from an inner-city park to make for Cross River Rail works.

Seventeen trees in a central Brisbane park have been removed to make way for Cross River rail demolition activities to begin.

A Cross River Rail (CRR) spokeswoman said removal of the trees in Gallipoli Park near the Roma Street Transit Centre, began yesterday as part of planning for construction of the major infrastructure project.

She said despite people saying the trees were 100 years old, the oldest of the trees removed was 36-years and it was a "fig".

The vegetation was removed to make way for scaffolding and access to begin demolishing the first of three buildings.

The spokeswoman said Hotel Jen, nearest Gallipoli Park, would be the first building to be removed followed by the West Tower, which houses the Brisbane transit centre and then East Tower.

The spokeswoman said all necessary approvals were made for the tree removal and the public had been consulted twice regarding the changes to Gallipoli Park.

In addition, CRR had entered into agreements with the Brisbane City Council to replace, like for like, the vegetation that was removed.

The figs in Gallipoli Park were at the centre of a petition started by Hotel Jen.

The petition stated the "old fig tree is something that should be protected to ensure it continues to offer amazing benefit to the local community as the city evolves around it".

"We need your support," the petition said.

"This tree is a great specimen and a continuation of the great Ficus forest which surrounds our inner city."

"This species is quite tolerant of the activities and progression of the city life around them. They are also highly valuable for the environment, the community and for the aesthetic advantage such a lush and healthy tree can provide. This tree will provide many years of vigorous and extensive growth if managed correctly."

"As such, we need to ensure that this tree is protected from destruction or developments."

[Stillwater]

^ This tree was lit at night b y Jen Hotel and had coloured lanterns strung in its branches.  Not now.

[BrizCommuter]

Are there any detailed plans of the Dutton Park to Salisbury station upgrades? Want to get my facts right that there is no provision in the designs for a future 4th track before writing an article.

[Gazza]

I think there is provision, hence Moorooka having its extra platform out in a stupid location on the other side of the yard.

[SurfRail]

Inbound of Yeerongpilly there isn't space without resumptions.

Outbound from Yeerongpilly, there's plenty of room if they were actually inclined - all the way to Kuraby should be clear.  Some clearance and access issues I think, but all of the bridge structures and the like should allow it to happen. 

[BrizCommuter]

Inbound of Yeerongpilly there isn't space without resumptions.

There might need to be resumptions then. 3 tracks is not sustainable!

[Gazza]

http://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-projects/cross-river-rail-project/project-changes.html

General arrangement drawings 1-11 show Salibury to Dutton Park.

-Salisbury seems odd, why didnt they put the new platform on the other side so it can act as an island for a quad?

-Rocklea involves an extra platform face onto the 3rd track, presumably a 4 track would involve slewing and a new platform

-No idea what they were thinking at Moorooka.

Looking at it, overall it seems like a 4th track would go on the eastern side, because there is more spare land, but it seems like yo'd lose about 14 houses between Dutton Park and Fairfield.
Around Fairfield itself, equity street would have to be dramatically narrowed.
South of Fairfield there is space next to the corridor, but one house on Venner Rd would need to go, and the bridge needs widening.
From then on its sports ovals etc but as you approach Yeronga another 10 properties are impacted.
At Yeeronga you'd lose all the parking spaces on Lake St.
South of Yeronga is the worst part, with the rail corridor hemmed in by Fairfield Road and multiple unit blocks close to the rail corridor.

Alternatively, they could have just tunnelled to Yeerongpilly like crr mk1, so you'd have 5 tracks through that corridor.

[kram0]

I think there is provision, hence Moorooka having its extra platform out in a stupid location on the other side of the yard.

A mate of mine is one of the lead engineers on the project, and he stated to me a couple weeks ago, they are back to the drawing board for Moorooka station and he doubts the far western platform will happen which is a good outcome.

[brissypete]

I'd have guessed Moorooka to do with the location of the dual gauge line being further west than say Fairfield for example.

That said is the 3rd platform likely to be used much anyway.

[SurfRail]

I'm very far from being convinced that the southside approach works at all.  I'm thinking it should be a lot closer to this:

- 4 tracks Kuraby all the way to Dutton Park.

- Kuraby, Salisbury and Dutton Park are the only stations that need 4 platforms.

- Remove redundant third platforms at Fruitgrove, Runcorn, Altandi, Sunnybank, Banoon and Coopers Plains and reconfigure these stations to have a single island platform with express passing tracks on the outside (up-up-down-down).  This will reduce the land requirement for the corridor and will make things like LX removals simpler.

- All outer Beenleigh and Gold Coast services merge onto a single track just south of the Acacia Ridge junction.  These services do not touch the dual gauge track at all from now on.

- Remove all 7 remaining level crossings from Beenleigh Road at Kuraby to Heaton St at Salisbury (inclusive) either by grade-separation or just closing them and putting in chain-link gates and leaving the paving in place for emergency or works access only.

- Flagstone trains fly-over these lines and take over the existing track pair feeding the platforms at stations from Salisbury to Dutton Park.  The corridor is up-down-up-down at this point.

- The CRR pair has access to the Clapham yard stabling without interfering with the Flagstone service.

- Dutton Park CRR platforms are separate from the Flagstone platforms and feed the tunnel.

- Flagstone trains and Cleveland trains use Park Road.  Future works between Park Road and South Bank (as I've contemplated elsewhere) would enable there to be no flat crosses between outbound Flagstone and inbound Cleveland trains while retaining peak hour special event platform space at South Bank and South Brisbane.

- Freight and commodities from the West Moreton system and beyond would access Acacia Ridge, Bromelton or the POB via the Inland Rail corridor from Ebenezer to Kagaru.  The POB connection would be at Forestdale (this would be all-points access so in addition to a connection between Kagaru and the POB, freight could access the POB from Acacia Ridge without needing to go via Salisbury etc).

- Build a fifth track between the Tennyson fork and Salisbury running parallel to the CRR pair to accommodate freight to Acacia Ridge from north of Brisbane (via the Ekka loop and Sherwood) or anything that still has to come from the west that can't use the Inland Rail link, which should be rare.  The section is probably short enough that you don't need a passing loop but there should be room for it if needed.  This would be dual gauge to accommodate the XPT.

- The XPT can access Roma St by using that fifth track, and the CRR lines from the Tennyson fork to Dutton Park would be dual gauge.  There would be service connections between the CRR tracks and Park Road just before the portals, which would also be dual gauge, carrying the XPT to Park Road and its present route.

I think that would future proof things for quite a while.  It also gives you infrastructure that wouldn't necessarily be abandoned if Gold Coast trains are every re-routed onto a new alignment for faster speeds as you still have a freight track and separate track pairs for Beenleigh and Flagstone.

[achiruel]

^ Assuming Gold Coast trains continue to use the existing corridor, would you be removing Altandi from the current express stopping pattern?

Edit: I don't think you can really close Beenleigh Rd, Kuraby - it's quite a distance to crossings either way. Same with Warrigal Rd at Runcorn. Both need grade separation. Nathan Rd can be closed, Stones Rd can be closed, Boundary Rd needs grade separation. Have I missed one somewhere?

[timh]

^ Assuming Gold Coast trains continue to use the existing corridor, would you be removing Altandi from the current express stopping pattern?

Edit: I don't think you can really close Beenleigh Rd, Kuraby - it's quite a distance to crossings either way. Same with Warrigal Rd at Runcorn. Both need grade separation. Nathan Rd can be closed, Stones Rd can be closed, Boundary Rd needs grade separation. Have I missed one somewhere?

Both Beenleigh Road and Warrigal road intersections definitely can't be closed. Must be grade separated. I suggest putting the rail in a trench. Will be a pain in the arse for construction but if we do it right (ala Melbourne) it can be done. Start the trench north of Runcorn station, finish it south of Kuraby. Suggest also adding tunnel stubs just north west of Kuraby on the northern side of the track (bordering on Wally Tate park) to facilitate a new tunnel portal for Gold Coast trains.

That tunnel portal would most likely go southbound and be used for Gold Coast trains to bypass Beenleigh-Kuraby corridor. I expect north of Kuraby GC trains will continue to use the existing corridor, but it will absolutely need to be quad tracked all the way to the CRR portal.

[Gazza]

I'm thinking, apart from LX removals, dont spend any more on track amplification from Dutton Park South. Build a line along the M1, stopping only at Beenleigh, Hyperdome, Springwood, then nonstop to Dutton Park.

[timh]

I'm thinking, apart from LX removals, dont spend any more on track amplification from Dutton Park South. Build a line along the M1, stopping only at Beenleigh, Hyperdome, Springwood, then nonstop to Dutton Park.

Theres not really enough room in the M3 corridor for a dual track railway... The only way I could see that working is if you did it as a viaduct in the median.

I doubt TMR would go with this option

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[City Designer]

The levels do not work as well. Particularly around Toohey Forest.

[Gazza]

Broadly speaking, you'd do like so:


-Beenleigh either involves shifting the station or new subusurface platforms.

-Eagleby to Hyperdome is an elevated viaduct on the eastern side of the M1, over the service road, much like what airtrain does along Qantas drive.

-Hyperdome to Springwood, cross over to Western side and follow Nujuloo Drive on an elevated viaduct.

-Continue on Western side, past Ikea, Motorama etc.

-Springwood station on Western side of M1, with pedestrian bridge to link with Busway/"Metro" station.

-Continue north. Some houses by freeway (Approx 20) would need to be resumed, but it can run at ground level to Gateway Merge.

-6.5km single bore tunnel to from Gateway Merge to Gaza Rd. No stations (to put this in perpsective, this is shorter than the Forrestfield Airport line under construction in Perth)

-3.5km run down the M1 median through Holland Park, as far as Lewisham St

-1.5km tunnel from there to Dutton Park.



-

[aldonius]

Gazza, if we're going to go to the trouble of building a rail line along the M3, there's no way that a Mt Gravatt station should be left out.

[SurfRail]

^ Assuming Gold Coast trains continue to use the existing corridor, would you be removing Altandi from the current express stopping pattern?

Edit: I don't think you can really close Beenleigh Rd, Kuraby - it's quite a distance to crossings either way. Same with Warrigal Rd at Runcorn. Both need grade separation. Nathan Rd can be closed, Stones Rd can be closed, Boundary Rd needs grade separation. Have I missed one somewhere?

Point 1 - yes.  The outer Beenleigh trains stopping at Altandi would be express Salisbury to Boggo Rd and in via CRR so faster than present anyway.  Salisbury would be more of an interchange than it presently is and can provide connectivity to GU Nathan and Garden City just as good as (if not better than) Altandi, and trains will have to stop there anyway as it will be a junction for 3 separate routes.

Point 2 - some could easily just be closed but yeah, not all.

[Gazza]

Gazza, if we're going to go to the trouble of building a rail line along the M3, there's no way that a Mt Gravatt station should be left out.

But if you are heading to Mt Gravatt, youd change at Springwood and use the Metro?

I mean, i wouldn't be opposed to a Mt Gravatt stop, but it would be a costly underground station.

[#Metro]

Everyone wants the RRR high speed rail station near them. Overall effect - speed is degraded to the same level as we have on trains now.

[aldonius]

@Gazza

Yes, it would be expensive, but so is the rest of this project. You've just proposed to dig a rail tunnel directly under the biggest transport hub for literally miles around yet not build a station there.

I'm thinking about the capacity and speed boosts towards the City.

@Metro

For rail roughly along the Pac Mwy corridor from Boggo Rd to Beenleigh, I suggest that there should be precisely 3 intermediate stations: Mt Gravatt, Springwood and Hyperdome. They're spaced at about the same distance (~8 km and ~5 minutes) as Ormeau-Coomera-Helensvale are. (For context, Ormeau-Beenleigh is ~12km and 7 minutes, so that's a line speed of 120 km/h and every station costs a minute.)

At the speeds we're talking, it should get the travel time from Mt Gravatt to the CBD down to about 10 minutes. It's double that on the 111. Beenleigh to the CBD on that alignment should be about 25 minutes. Again, it's double that today. I think the GC line can afford to give up a minute if it's getting 25.

[#Metro]

For rail roughly along the Pac Mwy corridor from Boggo Rd to Beenleigh, I suggest that there should be precisely 3 intermediate stations: Mt Gravatt, Springwood and Hyperdome. They're spaced at about the same distance (~8 km and ~5 minutes) as Ormeau-Coomera-Helensvale are. (For context, Ormeau-Beenleigh is ~12km and 7 minutes, so that's a line speed of 120 km/h and every station costs a minute.)

I would only have one. Remember, a whole heap of stations are being added to the GC line, that is say another minute per new station, and due to the spacing reduction, the HS train will be forced to travel at standard speeds IMHO for the entire GC section.

Hence, very important to have a fast run out of BNE to make up for that. As fast as possible.

[SurfRail]

I'd avoid tunnelling as much as possible.  You'd need one from CRR to the Greenslopes area, but I'd come up in the motorway median and then move to an elevated structure or surface running for as much of the rest of it as you could as far as wherever you make your connection to the Beenleigh line. 

[Golliwog]

For rail roughly along the Pac Mwy corridor from Boggo Rd to Beenleigh, I suggest that there should be precisely 3 intermediate stations: Mt Gravatt, Springwood and Hyperdome. They're spaced at about the same distance (~8 km and ~5 minutes) as Ormeau-Coomera-Helensvale are. (For context, Ormeau-Beenleigh is ~12km and 7 minutes, so that's a line speed of 120 km/h and every station costs a minute.)

I would only have one. Remember, a whole heap of stations are being added to the GC line, that is say another minute per new station, and due to the spacing reduction, the HS train will be forced to travel at standard speeds IMHO for the entire GC section.

Hence, very important to have a fast run out of BNE to make up for that. As fast as possible.

I think in this future state, you be running a 2 tier service on the GC as well. One all stops, and the express to BNE stopping at some key interchange stations.

[#Metro]

Mixed service patterns reduce capacity dramatically at high speed.

[SurfRail]

I don't see any need for mixed stopping patterns south of Beenleigh.  The difference would just be where services terminate.  I suspect Helensvale would be a good terminus in peak, and there is more than enough room for a third platform to facilitate that.

I want to see 15 minute headways between Ormeau and the outer end.  Initially these can be formed from current services with locsl trains overlaid in the contra and off peak.  Notionally they could start this with very minimal extra infrastructure - just need crew facilities at Ormeau (there should be room in the station building).  Turnouts and signalling permit this already.  The big issue is stabling room.

[James]

I'd avoid tunnelling as much as possible.  You'd need one from CRR to the Greenslopes area, but I'd come up in the motorway median and then move to an elevated structure or surface running for as much of the rest of it as you could as far as wherever you make your connection to the Beenleigh line.

The issue is the grades going up through Toohey Forest around Mount Gravatt itself - there's a decent incline on the M3 through there and not one that could be easily managed by trains.

I see space being a big issue with running a train down the M1 - likewise underground & viaduct lines come with big challenges. I would still want to see a business case comparing straightening out the existing line vs. building an entire new line. If this new line costs $8bn to build, what sort of existing line straightening could you achieve for the same money? You then open up much better transit for the entire Beenleigh line, rather than leaving us with the existing poor alignment.

[SurfRail]

I'd avoid tunnelling as much as possible.  You'd need one from CRR to the Greenslopes area, but I'd come up in the motorway median and then move to an elevated structure or surface running for as much of the rest of it as you could as far as wherever you make your connection to the Beenleigh line.

The issue is the grades going up through Toohey Forest around Mount Gravatt itself - there's a decent incline on the M3 through there and not one that could be easily managed by trains.

I see space being a big issue with running a train down the M1 - likewise underground & viaduct lines come with big challenges. I would still want to see a business case comparing straightening out the existing line vs. building an entire new line. If this new line costs $8bn to build, what sort of existing line straightening could you achieve for the same money? You then open up much better transit for the entire Beenleigh line, rather than leaving us with the existing poor alignment.

The vertical alignment is only problematic if you insist on following the same surface geometry as the M3 which of course you don't have to.  I envisage something a lot closer to the Airport line for the most part.

[Gazza]

^Are you thinking that the line over the hill ramps up a lot sooner than the motorway and , and likewise ramps downhill and lands further away from the base of the hill

[timh]

I've been pondering over this a lot over the last couple of days, regarding capacity of the Beenleigh line for Gold Coast trains.

Here's my solution:

- Altandi - Kuraby is sunken in a trench to eliminate the LX.
- Dual-track Tunnel heading south, starting at Wally Tate park in the trench NW of Kuraby station. This tunnel would be exclusively for Gold Coast trains, and would have stations at Slacks Creek near IKEA, and at Hyperdome. Tunnel would then head south and intersect with Beenleigh station and create an underground station, with the tunnel emerging to the surface south of Beenleigh station on the existing alignment. (no need for station at Springwood - it already has busway)
- Quad track Kuraby tunnel portal to CRR portal, no questions about it. Some resumptions needed north of Moorooka. Cheaper than tunneling and will be sufficient for capacity. This way Beenleigh and Gold Coast trains have their own exclusive track pairs at-surface for this section

I really think the whole M3 running idea would never be picked up. The M3 already has a mass transit corridor, the SE Busway. No need to double up, and the viaduct solution running in the median to solve the space/elevation problem would be an engineering and traffic nightmare during construction. NIMBYs would also complain about the "eyesore" as has been seen on basically every skyrail project in Melbourne.

The question for me really now is how to future proof the Salisbury - Dutton park section to allow enough capacity for Beaudesert trains. I propose, when Beaudesert trains come in, two possible ideas:
1 - New tunnel dual track tunnel portal in the rail corridor west of the existing tracks, just north of Salisbury station. SG branch to the tunnel portal would possibly need 6 tracks (many resumptions) but not sure if this is possible. Salisbury station also 4 platforms at least. Tunnel joins with CRR at Boggo Road station
2 - New dual track tunnel portal just north of Yeerongpilly station on the Eastern side. Beaudesert trains share the quad tracks with Beenleigh and gold coast services between Salisbury/Yeerongpilly. Yeerongpilly station upgraded to have more platforms (6?? There's almost room enough for 6 platforms now). Tunnel joins with CRR near boggo road station. Yeerongpilly tunnel can also allow for Springfield trains to use CRR, much as per the original CRR idea before they cheaped out...

Looking at the fact you'd potentially have up to 4 different lines using the dual track CRR, we then have a new set of capacity problems. Dilemmas...

[Gazza]

- Altandi - Kuraby is sunken in a trench to eliminate the LX.

Ok, but there is still the issue of the turns through this section,

(no need for station at Springwood - it already has busway)

The idea though is that an motorway alignment has interchanges at Beenleigh and Springwood to allow passengers to change onto the old line, or the metro without having to backtrack.

I really think the whole M3 running idea would never be picked up. The M3 already has a mass transit corridor, the SE Busway. No need to double up

Hang on a sec.

The busway is an existing mass transit corridor.
The Beenleigh line is an existing mass transit corridor.

In both cases we are duplicating it establishing an express track along it, the only difference is along the motorway the mode is different.

and the viaduct solution running in the median to solve the space/elevation problem would be an engineering and traffic nightmare during construction. NIMBYs would also complain about the "eyesore" as has been seen on basically every skyrail project in Melbourne.

What Nimbys though? It's all industrial and commercial along the M1 so its not like you have that issue of trains looking into backyards or spoiling a pretty area.
I've noticed too in Qld we don't seem to get the same outrage about elevated infrastructure....Springfield went in without a hitch, RBWH busway, PAH Busway airtrain etc.

Even the current SE busway is elevated in many parts.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.5039171,153.0397759,3a,75y,353.31h,99.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYJWl6ztd1ZEfJ2VAeCB62g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Long story short, it's not just about capacity, it's about getting travel times to the GC down to an acceptable level, because the average speeds north of Beenleigh are way too slow.
Off peak, driving to the GC is still faster which isn't really good enough.

[timh]

- Altandi - Kuraby is sunken in a trench to eliminate the LX.

Ok, but there is still the issue of the turns through this section,

Ooh ok, I didn't realise that the curvature was a problem in this bit, my bad. I thought the alignment north of Kuraby was fine, my mistake.

(no need for station at Springwood - it already has busway)

The idea though is that an motorway alignment has interchanges at Beenleigh and Springwood to allow passengers to change onto the old line, or the metro without having to backtrack.

My point behind this was ultimately just to avoid doubling up of the mass transit corridor between Springwood-Hyperdome, if the ultimate long term plan is still to run the busway there. It just seems redundant. I thought by bypassing Springwood in a moreso straight line SSE from Kuraby you'd get a faster alignment, and service a different area by having the stop at IKEA/Paradise road

I really think the whole M3 running idea would never be picked up. The M3 already has a mass transit corridor, the SE Busway. No need to double up

Hang on a sec.

The busway is an existing mass transit corridor.
The Beenleigh line is an existing mass transit corridor.

In both cases we are duplicating it establishing an express track along it, the only difference is along the motorway the mode is different.

Same again. I just feel like if we're looking at an entirely new alignment for a mass transit corridor, use it to service areas that are currently devoid of a high frequency service, rather than provide said service to an area that is already perfectly well connected. I understand that between the Beenleigh line and the M1/busway running an entirely new third alignment here may seem redundant anyway, and my idea probably wasn't the best either (truthfully I don't know the Logan suburbs West of the M1 well enough to judge). I just think that we ought to provide service to the areas currently devoid of it. Way too many black holes in our PT network.

and the viaduct solution running in the median to solve the space/elevation problem would be an engineering and traffic nightmare during construction. NIMBYs would also complain about the "eyesore" as has been seen on basically every skyrail project in Melbourne.

What Nimbys though? It's all industrial and commercial along the M1 so its not like you have that issue of trains looking into backyards or spoiling a pretty area.
I've noticed too in Qld we don't seem to get the same outrage about elevated infrastructure....Springfield went in without a hitch, RBWH busway, PAH Busway airtrain etc.

I was referring to the M3, not the M1, where much of the highway is through residential area. But you're right that since the busway, V1, even the M3 itself is elevated already then you make a good point, there probably wouldn't be that much opposition to simply adding another layer here. Again though running a new mass transit corridor up the M3 when one already exists seems pointless.

Bypassing Kuraby-Beenleigh is definitely essential because I know thats where the slowest alignment is. Kuraby-Dutton Park, is it possible to achieve decent speeds along the existing corridor, if it were quad tracked all the way, with some LXs removed and maybe some curve straightening?

[achiruel]

Bypassing Kuraby-Beenleigh is definitely essential because I know thats where the slowest alignment is. Kuraby-Dutton Park, is it possible to achieve decent speeds along the existing corridor, if it were quad tracked all the way, with some LXs removed and maybe some curve straightening?

Actually most of the alignment problems between Kuraby and Beenleigh are easily fixed. It might require a small number of resumptions, but real estate in Logan is (relatively) cheap, and the State already owns a fair bit around Woodridge anyway (public housing). The major issue is that you'd have to cut off a corner of Karawatha Forest, but the fact we've already got a 4 to 6-lane motorway going through it seems to indicate no-one really cares. The number of resumption needed around Edens Landing could be an issue as well. Why this wasn't re-aligned around 25 years ago before all the houses were built is anyone's guess.

The most expensive part (to my mind) will be Runcorn-Yeerongpilly, where you'll either need to tunnel or spend $$$ on resumptions.

[SABB]

Bypassing Kuraby-Beenleigh is definitely essential because I know thats where the slowest alignment is. Kuraby-Dutton Park, is it possible to achieve decent speeds along the existing corridor, if it were quad tracked all the way, with some LXs removed and maybe some curve straightening?

Actually most of the alignment problems between Kuraby and Beenleigh are easily fixed. It might require a small number of resumptions, but real estate in Logan is (relatively) cheap, and the State already owns a fair bit around Woodridge anyway (public housing). The major issue is that you'd have to cut off a corner of Karawatha Forest, but the fact we've already got a 4 to 6-lane motorway going through it seems to indicate no-one really cares. The number of resumption needed around Edens Landing could be an issue as well. Why this wasn't re-aligned around 25 years ago before all the houses were built is anyone's guess.

The most expensive part (to my mind) will be Runcorn-Yeerongpilly, where you'll either need to tunnel or spend $$$ on resumptions.

I was around (on the sidelines really) when the Bethania Holmview deviation was designed. A speed of 80kph was selected on the basis that a 100kph design speed only saved a couple of seconds over that distance and needed more resumptions.
So, in summary, short sighted thinking and lack of any QR strategic plans was the reason that no re-alignments were considered.

[timh]

Bypassing Kuraby-Beenleigh is definitely essential because I know thats where the slowest alignment is. Kuraby-Dutton Park, is it possible to achieve decent speeds along the existing corridor, if it were quad tracked all the way, with some LXs removed and maybe some curve straightening?

Actually most of the alignment problems between Kuraby and Beenleigh are easily fixed. It might require a small number of resumptions, but real estate in Logan is (relatively) cheap, and the State already owns a fair bit around Woodridge anyway (public housing). The major issue is that you'd have to cut off a corner of Karawatha Forest, but the fact we've already got a 4 to 6-lane motorway going through it seems to indicate no-one really cares. The number of resumption needed around Edens Landing could be an issue as well. Why this wasn't re-aligned around 25 years ago before all the houses were built is anyone's guess.

The most expensive part (to my mind) will be Runcorn-Yeerongpilly, where you'll either need to tunnel or spend $$$ on resumptions.

I was around (on the sidelines really) when the Bethania Holmview deviation was designed. A speed of 80kph was selected on the basis that a 100kph design speed only saved a couple of seconds over that distance and needed more resumptions.
So, in summary, short sighted thinking and lack of any QR strategic plans was the reason that no re-alignments were considered.

SABB: Do you have a map of what this alignment would have been? I'm assuming though it's just drawing a straight line from Holmview to Bethania cutting through the houses in Eden's Landing...

[Gazza]

Perhaps one big thing to keep in mind, even if you ease curves on the Beenleigh line, it still swings a fair way off the direct route overall.

[City Designer]

The image highlights that the Pacific Motorway and Gold Coast line follow each other reasonably closely between Brisbane and Beenleigh.