Article: Brisbane Ekka site to be home to 10,000 residents

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Brisbane Ekka site to be home to 10,000 residents

Brisbane Ekka site to be home to 10,000 residents
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Rosemary Odgers

August 11, 2009 12:00am

UP TO 10,000 residents will call the RNA showgrounds home over the next 15 years after the $3b re-development project won State Government approval.

The Government's Urban Land Development Authority has given in-principle support for the masterplan which includes residential towers, commercial offices and retail space, as well as parks, walkways and bikeways on the 22ha site at Bowen Hills.

RNA president Vivian Edwards said the redevelopment would help ensure the long-term future of the Ekka at the site.

"If we didn't do this, we would wither on the vine in the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

Dr Edwards said plans were being finalised with Lend Lease, but construction of stage one was due to start early next year.

This will include a facelift for the showbag pavilion and a fresh food market modelled on the Victoria markets in Melbourne which will be open to the public every day.

There will also be an underground car park, new exhibition and meeting facilities and provisions for a hotel.

Premier Anna Bligh said the markets would help ensure the area was used year round.

"This is about bringing the site to life every day of the year, not just during the Ekka," she said. "This development will reshape this 132-year-old site.

"The development is one of the largest infill developments in Brisbane's history and a full assessment will now be undertaken by the ULDA."

Just over 5ha of land will be set aside for residential development. It will eventually house up to 10,000 people.

The Courier-Mail reported earlier this year that the plan included about 1600 apartments housed in residential buildings from 15 to 22 storeys high along the St Paul's Tce side of the site, while commercial office towers up to 12 storeys would be built along O'Connell Tce.

[Dean Quick]

Do these new plans include a major overhaul of facilities and services on the exhibition loop. Surely this must be included in this development.

[WTN]

Do these new plans include a major overhaul of facilities and services on the exhibition loop. Surely this must be included in this development.

While I hope that's the case, that remains to be seen.  I won't be surprised if they assume the underground carpark is what most people will use.  When asked about public transport, they might point to the nearby busway.  I can see the car-biased thoughts sprouting: "Only 12% will use it!  The rest will drive and park their cars!  Why bother with Exhibition station?"

[ozbob]

I have no doubt that the Exhibition loop will be brought into regular service eventually, if only to increase capacity through the CBD axis.  It could be incorporated with the Doomben line services and other innovations.  The busway will be at capacity, rail access into Exhibition (Herston) and Normanby will be needed.  

Footnote:  Just caught some live footage from the Channel 10 News Helicopter showing traffic gridlock on the ICB besides stark deserted Exhibition railway lines ....

[stephenk]

I have no doubt that the Exhibition loop will be brought into regular service eventually, if only to increase capacity through the CBD axis.  It could be incorporated with the Doomben line services and other innovations.  The busway will be at capacity, rail access into Exhibition (Herston) and Normanby will be needed.  

The Exhibition line should only be regularly used by services between Roma Street and Exhibition (such as trains entering and exiting service from Mayne via loop). Using the whole loop just causes track conflicts and reduces already limited line capacity on the main tracks (Ipswich-Caboolture). Running services to Doomben would cause yet more conflicts as the services would have to cross from main to suburban tracks as well (it would have to cross 6-7 busy tracks during a Doomben to Doomben via loop journey!).

A good example of why the Exhibition loop should not be used was observed by myself today at Bowen Hills. An Exhibition train had to wait on the curve for a green signal to enter the up loop track. This blocked and delayed a service on the down main track. Once the Exhibition train proceded, a train that seemed to running from Mayne to the up loop track via up main track was then blocked. This in turn blocked the down main line (again), and possibly the up main line. This would be a daily occurrence if the loop was used for regular services. Would you want this happening to the already congested Ipswich-Caboolture Line?

[ozbob]

As it is, agreed there are issues. I think we will eventually see those conflicts removed by the use of tunnels and fly overs.  I have grave doubts of any serious underground extensions being built in the foreseeable future, the only option will be to modify the loop, IMHO.

Another idea is run services, say Doomben morning peak through CBD back through Roma St, Exhibition, Albion back to Doomben.  PM Peak opposite.  This avoids the conflict at Bowen Hills but as you point out there are the other issues. 

The fact remains though that trains are running through the loop every ten minutes as we type and QR have had no problems with OT performance due to this so far.

[ozbob]

The looming capacity constraint on the network through the CBD and particularly Merivale Bridge will lead to some real changes with the present train patterns I would suggest.  Looking at options, some GC trains at peak may be routed through Tennyson, Sherwood and Town (this was going to done some years ago, but was deferred).  More use of runs like IPS to IPS, CAB to CAB.  This cuts down on passes through the main CBD axis by spinning back through the loop. IPS , Valley, Exhibition, Milton, IPS. Similarly CAB Roma St, Exhibition, Albion, CAB. Also provides a service to Exhibition and Normanby should it be recreated. 

I know some of these sort of variations are being looked at as crunch time approaches.  There was some mention of this at the special CRG from memory as well. 

Does anyone really think that we will get an underground rail tunnel from Park Road to the other side of Bowen Hills?  It is nice to think we will, and there is a team being assembled to progress inner city rail capacity increases, but I think it will be a matter of using what we have in a smarter way as the first phase.  Long term underground rail extensions will surely be needed but, it is many years away I suspect.

[Arnz]

Suggestion is to connect Shorncliffe with the Cleveland line and re-route Doomben trains to the Exhibition.  The Corinda (soon Richlands/Springfield) service can simply be rerouted to Petrie/Mango Hill (Kippa Ring - LOL).

An improved Nambour (or CAMCOS) service slots inbetween the Doomben trains for a 15 minute RBH/Exhibition service.

[stephenk]

Another idea is run services, say Doomben morning peak through CBD back through Roma St, Exhibition, Albion back to Doomben.  PM Peak opposite.  This avoids the conflict at Bowen Hills but as you point out there are the other issues.  

...such as having to cross the down suburban, up and down main, entrance tracks to Mayne (twice), then cross the up main, down suburban, and finally cross the up suburban. Not forgetting the single track constraints of the Doomben Line. Very bad idea!

The fact remains though that trains are running through the loop every ten minutes as we type and QR have had no problems with OT performance due to this so far.

Observations from last year saw the Ekka Loop running at alternating 17/3min frequencies during the off-peak. I'm sure it was supposed to run at 10min frequency, but the reality was somewhat different! It also removes 6tph from the maximum capacity of the Northbound Ipswich-Caboolture Lines.

More use of runs like IPS to IPS, CAB to CAB.  This cuts down on passes through the main CBD axis by spinning back through the loop. IPS , Valley, Exhibition, Milton, IPS. Similarly CAB Roma St, Exhibition, Albion, CAB. Also provides a service to Exhibition and Normanby should it be recreated.  

It doesn't cut down on passes through the main CBD axis if you want to provide the same capacity. If you ran 15tph Ipswich to Caboolture, and 15tph to Caboolture to Ipswich through the CBD you would have 15tph on both tracks through the CBD, and no extra conflicting movements through the CBD. If you ran 15tph Ipswich Line to Ipswich Line via loop, and 15tph Caboolture Line to Caboolture Line via loop, then you would have 15tph on both tracks through the CBD, plus 30 extra conflicting movements per hour. Running trains via the loop would also require more trains/crew. So overall it would create a far more unreliable (read unworkable) service, and require extra trains/crew. Again, a very bad idea!

[#Metro]

Hmm. I think the residents would have sound access from the Roma St Busway, the new busways near the Hospital and Normanby, so I would agree with Stephen K. However though, platform 10 is rather quiet and perhaps that would be one option to use. I think there is also an unused line running between platform 10 and 9- what is this used for?

I think the money would be better spent on considering a train/metro/busway line to extend from Roma St, through Paddington, Kelvin Grove, to The Gap partially using the Ekka line. In this case, perhaps a station might be useful at Normanby, though the gov might be a bit reluctant seeing that people could easily change to buses at Roma St.

Perhaps a compromise would be to do a trial for short period of time (4-8 weeks) using services that would have to go through that way anyway (like services that terminate at Roma St in the morning) and see how many people catch it. The GoCard data could be used to tell if these were new people (no previous PT use, no history on their GoCard) or simply passengers who have switched from buses.

Perhaps run three services 10 minutes apart during am and pm peak during the trial? If nobody catches it during peak hour, then one would know for sure that it was really not worth doing, and spend the money on something else worthwhile (like more trains!). The trial would cost almost nothing because it uses services that terminate at Roma St and go through there anyway.

As for the Exhibition line being in it's own special zone, that is just funny. I suppose though, that the gov wants to recover some cost, and the people do have a choice to catch a (free?) bus in Adelaide street.

[ozbob]

All good counter points raised.  But we must continue to think outside the square and the traditional approaches.  I have suggested that flyovers and underpasses can be used to ease conflicts, this will be the way forward.  Present track arrangements I agree are restrictive but unless innovation is done we are heading for a failed system.

If half a billion can be spent on 1km of busway (Eastern busway stage 2), surely as a community a few simple flyovers can be constructed to maximum the utility of assets already in location?  Crazy ..

Cheers
Bob

[stephenk]

All good counter points raised.  But we must continue to think outside the square and the traditional approaches.  I have suggested that flyovers and underpasses can be used to ease conflicts, this will be the way forward.  Present track arrangements I agree are restrictive but unless innovation is done we are heading for a failed system.

If half a billion can be spent on 1km of busway (Eastern busway stage 2), surely as a community a few simple flyovers can be constructed to maximum the utility of assets already in location?  Crazy ..

Cheers
Bob

Whilst the addition of fly-overs and fly-unders would allow a bidirectional loop service to operate, the existing infrastructure would make this very difficult to build and the resulting cost would not be justifiable - I would estimate around $1.5b-$2b. All this to create a regular train service to a station that is only 5min walks from a busway, and 10min walk from rail? There would also be no net capacity increase to the CityTrain network.

This would money would be better used elsewhere on the system for projects such as adding extra tracks, reversing facilities, and improved signalling, which would allow for a net increase in capacity on the CityTrain network.

As I've mentioned before, if passenger services were to regularly run to Exhibition, it should only be for services running between Roma St and Mayne via Normanby. Not services running in a loop.

[O_128]

1.5 billion for a couple of flyovers? you must work the state goverment!

[Mozz]

1.5 billion for a couple of flyovers? you must work the state goverment!


Yes we must work the state government in terms of lobbying them to increase funding to provide key public transport infrastructure initiatives

[ozbob]

Hale St Link road congestion meltdown presents a good opportunity to again demonstrate what rail can do.  There will be a need for extra sweepers from Corinda/Darra to pick up the overloads at peak, the punters won't get on the long haul services as there is little room on some of the peak services.  The extras will run to the Valley and then turn back via the loop.  QR has been doing this unadvertised during the Corinda to Ipswich/Rosewood shut downs.  I have reported this previously.

The Exhibition loop will may be used as part of the underground extensions as well, should they go ahead.

Apart from services to stations on the loop, I think there is real value in utilising the loop for further increasing capacity through the CBD itself.  Most are suggesting we have looming capacity constraints but nothing much appears to be done about it.  In a normal day there are a lot of train movements on the loop, and during the Ekka there are a lot more.

Another option that has been looked at I understand is a new tunnel Roma St to Bowen Hills to gain further capacity.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the end.  Discussing various options is not to say that is the way, far from it, but it all again highlights the complete lack of forward planning for sustainable mass transit over the last 30 years and longer.   Crunch time is almost upon us. 

[mufreight]

That this discussion is taking place highlights the need for the cross river underground link through the CBD.
The connection between Fairfield/Dutton Park to the Exhibition line in the region of Boen Bridge Road via the Gabba (rail - Bus interchange), Parliament/QIT, Central (rail - rail interchange), Spring Hill resolves all of the present problems by providing the additional capacity and and an additional alternative route that will relieve loadings on inner city bus services.
On the cheap solutions merely move or delay the  problems and as such do not resolve it, building the underground link resolves the problems and as for those taking up residence in the Ecka precinct that development will be spread over a number of years and actual construction of the underground could based on the construction times for the road tunnels be accomplished in 2 years so what is the problem?   Disfunctional and uncordinated government.   

[O_128]

The idea of a roma street to bowen hills tunnel has merit but it is the park road to roma street area that needs more capacity. I read somewhere that with slight moderfications the hale street bridge could be used as another rail bridge.

[STB]

I personally doubt that the Exhibition station will open up for everyday use not only due to the above comments from others but also because you now have a busway station pretty much across the road and Fortitude Valley station is only a 10 min walk away.  There is no net benefit to your beliefs Robert and others, opening up Exhibition station would only oversatuarate the public transport options in the area for no real net gain, the line also generally needs to be clear too to allow movements into and out of the Mayne yards.  This can be hampered during Ekka. 

In fact I have heard from others who are more educated in this that special trains that teach new drivers are pretty much banned during Ekka due to a lack of available crew and clear runs through Exhibition to get them out and about.  I have heard that there are trains going out to the suburbs in the morning and afternoons running almost every 5-6 mins through Exhibition for peak hour.  Plus the 'Hole In The Wall' blocks trains trying to get into Bowen Hills station.  If one wanted to run trains through Exhibition, you'd not only have to build major infrastructure around Exhibition, you'd also have to move Bowen Hills station, including another platform, and duplicate the 'Hole In The Wall', which I don't think there is space to allow so.

The money would be far better spent on increasing the capacity in the city itself and increasing stabling capacity around SEQ to allow more trains to run.  Which would have a much greater impact on the network for a much larger amount of the population.

I'm learning that to understand public transport and the networking involved, you have to be open to points that may counter your own beliefs and be prepared that you may have not thought it out completely.  I agree there is always another way of doing something, but if you think of doing it a different way, you need to sit down and actually work it out properly on paper and have all the facts in front of you before jumping the gun and blowing the trumpet that this is the only way of doing it.  While I can see the point Robert and others are coming from, ie: they see the station being used and it's there, there is much more to be studied and worked out, such as how does this affect the greater network, what are the positives and negatives of train movements if we did this, and much more, before one can blow the trumpet and justify their beliefs.

I'm certain the rail planners out there aren't blind and stupid to not know that Exhibition station exists but there would be justified, modelled, costed and researched reasons for what they recommend to Government.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money, if the Government doesn't have the money to do what is recommended by the rail planners they employ then it simply won't happen, no matter how much one jumps up and down.  It would simply be swept underneath the carpet for another rainy day, the general public none the wiser, I would assume.

While I applaud this group for speaking on behalf of the general public, I am mystified if they (Robert and others) actually sit down and research correctly, the same way rail planners do it, what the public is suggesting before calling up the newspapers and basically making out that this group knows more than a rail planner does.  At least this is what I'm reading it as.  It's one thing to notify the public on suggestions, it's an entirely different matter when it's worded such that the rail planners and Government do not know what they are doing.

[ozbob]

No worries.  Discussion is good.   The Exhibition loop is already used heavily, no net benefit?   Who says Mayne will stay as it is?  I am thinking fast forward.  I am reminded of my youth and the huge yards at Flinders St (Jolimont).  What has happened is that  now effectively been moved to better placed stabling yards around the network.  Suspect similar things will happen here. Not many imagined the underground loop in Melbourne either during the 50s and 60s.  All good!  Thanks for your input.

[ozbob]

While I applaud this group for speaking on behalf of the general public, I am mystified if they (Robert and others) actually sit down and research correctly, the same way rail planners do it, what the public is suggesting before calling up the newspapers and basically making out that this group knows more than a rail planner does.  At least this is what I'm reading it as.  It's one thing to notify the public on suggestions, it's an entirely different matter when it's worded such that the rail planners and Government do not know what they are doing.

I find these comments way off base STB.  We are commuter group, that is our strength.  Experts can do what they wish, we will continue to put forward a view from the non expert perspective and will not be silenced because the popular opinion may not marry with the so called 'expert' opinion.  One only has to read the feedback from the general public on a whole range of transport related issues to understand that.  If the public or media want to take notice of our opinion then so be it.  They know we are not experts, and you know what, we don't pretend that we are.

That's the way democracy works.

Cheers!

[STB]

While I applaud this group for speaking on behalf of the general public, I am mystified if they (Robert and others) actually sit down and research correctly, the same way rail planners do it, what the public is suggesting before calling up the newspapers and basically making out that this group knows more than a rail planner does.  At least this is what I'm reading it as.  It's one thing to notify the public on suggestions, it's an entirely different matter when it's worded such that the rail planners and Government do not know what they are doing.

I find these comments way off base STB.  We are commuter group, that is our strength.  Experts can do what they wish, we will continue to put forward a view from the non expert perspective and will not be silenced because the popular opinion may not marry with the so called 'expert' opinion.  One only has to read the feedback from the general public on a whole range of transport related issues to understand that.  If the public or media want to take notice of our opinion then so be it.  They know we are not experts, and you know what, we don't pretend that we are.

That's the way democracy works.

Cheers!

Well I'm happy to be corrected on that Robert, my comments are simply a response on how I've been personally responding to what you say in media releases et al, which has kicked in again to what I'm reading in here, hence I responded to it.

Don't get me wrong, I am impressed and pleased that a commuter group has been brought together and is speaking up on behalf of the general public, it was needed in Brisbane, and has been going well in Melbourne (PTUA).  But I understand for myself that there is always a justification behind a decision in anything.

Back on topic however, I can see what you are saying, just not agreeing with what you are suggesting based on my reaction of reading both the for and against arguements and my own knowledge and understanding .

[ozbob]

No worries.

Have a read of the blog comments here -->   http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,,25910421-3102,00.html

General public thinks what they want.   Nothing wrong in raising the issue at all.  It just might help accelerate the real solution to the looming inner city rail capacity crisis?   Or would you prefer us to sit tight and say everything is wonderful?

No, we are interested in the public's perspective and will use that to continue to inform our efforts.  We get a lot of direct feedback from our form and member's post their ideas/suggestions/comments.  

One of the strongest public responses ever to articles at Fairfax was on the Exhibition loop line and its none use.  Public thinks there are options. Yes we all know there are heaps of problems and other options with the line as it is.  But as I said, raising the issues does ultimately assist in getting outcomes.

[ozbob]

That this discussion is taking place highlights the need for the cross river underground link through the CBD.
The connection between Fairfield/Dutton Park to the Exhibition line in the region of Boen Bridge Road via the Gabba (rail - Bus interchange), Parliament/QIT, Central (rail - rail interchange), Spring Hill resolves all of the present problems by providing the additional capacity and and an additional alternative route that will relieve loadings on inner city bus services.

mu has highlighted what it is all about.  I understand the group responsible for the planning and possible implementation (?) is forming to do just this.  Remember there was some funding in the IA round for early planning. 

Options as I understand at this stage include the Roma St - Bowen Hills extra two lines.   Tunnel from essentially Park Road - Exhibition. or perhaps other side of Bowen Hills. And, the extra bridge next to the Merivale and widening of the present rail corridor.  The best outcome would probably be what mu has suggested or variations.  But money being tight who knows what will happen?  Good to imagine though .. 

[O_128]

No worries.  Discussion is good.   The Exhibition loop is already used heavily, no net benefit?   Who says Mayne will stay as it is?  I am thinking fast forward.  I am reminded of my youth and the huge yards at Flinders St (Jolimont).  What has happened is that  now effectively been moved to better placed stabling yards around the network.  Suspect similar things will happen here. Not many imagined the underground loop in Melbourne either during the 50s and 60s.  All good!  Thanks for your input.

I agree with this. eventually QR will move its stabling yards adding a huge amount of land to the urban renewal project at bowen hills. Places such as thornside have been identified for fuutre stabling and i can imagine the robina yard will be expanded.

[david]

I personally doubt that the Exhibition station will open up for everyday use not only due to the above comments from others but also because you now have a busway station pretty much across the road and Fortitude Valley station is only a 10 min walk away.

I also agree. There are plans for light rail conversion of the busway, so when that gets off the ground, the area should be serviced quite well by public transport. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone has some means of public transport at their front door and people should be willing to walk a reasonable distance to gain access to public transport. A 5 to 10 minute walk is pretty reasonable in my opinion.

eventually QR will move its stabling yards adding a huge amount of land to the urban renewal projext at bowen hills. Places such as thornside have been identified for fuutre stabling and i can imagine the robina yard will be expanded.

With the removal of the old Corinda yards, perhaps a new stabling yard can be created in its place. This could help to service the Richlands/Springfield line, as well as the Ipswich line.

[Jon Bryant]

STB would you be referring to the same transport planners who have spent the last 40 years blindly building more and more road space in a mad attempt to out run congestion.  It is these same planners who have created the car oriented/oil addicted city we have today.  The same planners who have still not learnt the lesson (despite it being evident to almost everyone else) that building more road space encourages more people to drive further more often.  Thus their solution are actually the cause.  I can send you all the research you need to back this up. 

I have attached the London Underground Map not as a proposal but to demonstrate that a public transport system that is going to handle 50%+ of trips (and thus make us a sustainable city) need to be a web of routes that allows people to quickly move around the city.

The Ekka Line clearly has its issues but it will and must play a role in our public transport system. We can not feed all public transport through the CBD we need to allow them to move around the City.

[ozbob]

What an impressive network      When do we start digging?   

[#Metro]

I'm certain the rail planners out there aren't blind and stupid to not know that
Exhibition station exists but there would be justified, modelled, costed and researched reasons for
what they recommend to Government.

I like the diverse responses on this thread- I think that strong ideas need strong discussion.
The rail planners may well know what they want, but remember that this is done via politics as well,
so there is an extra layer of "hands in the pie". Political considerations have to be taken into account.
Fortitude Valley station was on the backburner for a long time, and it was only after public disappoint was published in the newspapers that it got the kick it required.

Discussing various options is not to say that is the way, far
from it, but it all again highlights the complete lack of forward planning for sustainable mass transit
over the last 30 years and longer.

This is a good point; though I think that one must also be
careful about planning too far into the future, simply because the uncertainties increase
and projections become less reliable as they are extended.
It sounds nice to have a plan for the next 30 years, but just imagine if we were today still following a plan created in the late 70's, - I don't know- Queensland Public Transport Plan 1979 - it would be grossly inadequate and downright unsuitable.

With regards to the Mayne Yards- I think that this land will become valuable as the Valley and City grow in size.
There may well come a time where it would be better to have this depot relocated/split to Pinkenba/Port of Brisbane and Tennyson/Willawong. There used to be rail yards a Woolloongabba and South Brisbane- not anymore!

With regards to the Hale St bridge. I was originally very much opposed to the project in its entirety. I thought it was going to utterly and completely destroy beautiful West End. Now that the bridge is going up and the BCC are talking about street boulevarding and making the place really nice, I have changed my opinion. The bridge now also opens up new possibilities to let BCC buses onto Coronation Drive from CBD -> Cultural Centre -> Coronation Drive and improve transit times for buses. Whether the council has explored this idea yet, I don't know, but it would be a shame if it weren't used to it's full benifit.

I'm learning that to understand public transport and the networking involved, you have to be open to points that may counter your own beliefs and be prepared that you may have not thought it out completely.

I would agree with this. For example, with the combination of routes 109 and 66 (no extension), this is
actually cutting services, reducing net buses on the route and reducing funding... but counter-intuitively
this is also simultaneously increasing access and levels of service. The benefits come from doing more with less (increased efficiency), not less with more.

I guess what I would like more of is simply knowing what was in planner's heads.
Often one sees "this is how much it will cost", and "this is how awesome it will be for you" but rarely is information
about the explanation or other options which were later not taken released.
QR lets us "meet the managers", perhaps Translink should open it's doors and let us "meet the planners" so everyone can get a better understanding of how they work.

[#Metro]

Yes we must work the state government in terms of lobbying them to increase funding to provide key public transport infrastructure initiatives Smiley.

Ha ha this is very tongue-in-cheek!
The truth is that everyone who works, works for the state government in some way;
When we go to work, part of our hourly wage finds its way into the State Treasury; in effect, we are (partly) working for the State.

[mufreight]

Surely the developers of the site should have to make a proportional contrubition to the costs of providing the transport infrastructure needs to service the development.
The developers of Springfield are making a major contribution to the rail and road infrastructure required  for their project such as the Centenary Highway extension which provides an alternative bypass route between the Cunningham Highway at Yamanto and the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Highway at Darra so why does the same seemingly not apply to the developers of the Ecka site who could fund the construction of part of the underground rail link between their project and Central at least.

[stephenk]

I read somewhere that with slight moderfications the hale street bridge could be used as another rail bridge.

The person who wrote that obviously doesn't know what they are talking about!

One of the strongest public responses ever to articles at Fairfax was on the Exhibition loop line and its none use.  Public thinks there are options. Yes we all know there are heaps of problems and other options with the line as it is.  But as I said, raising the issues does ultimately assist in getting outcomes.

Unfortunately what the public thinks is possible is often different to reality. I once thought that regular loop services were a good idea, until I worked out the rail operations and realised that it would cause more problems than good.

Likewise the average member of the public thinks that Brisbane should use double decker trains, again not knowing that they are too large for the QLD loading gauge and have long dwell time issues.

There are plans for light rail conversion of the busway

I'm pretty sure are no plans for light rail conversion of busways (aside from inside the head of some day dreamers). As discussed recently, it would be technically difficult, a huge waste of money, increase some journey times, and with none or little increase in the capacity of the public transport corridor.

With the removal of the old Corinda yards, perhaps a new stabling yard can be created in its place. This could help to service the Richlands/Springfield line, as well as the Ipswich line.

I agree. Moving stabling nearer to the ends of the line is a sensible solution with many operational benefits. Mayne should still be kept for heavy maintenance, Traveltrain, and for lines where extra stabling cannot be built such as the Ferny Grove Line.

It may be possible to develop over Mayne on decking, with the property development generating money for the government and/or QR. Hong Kong's MTR makes most of it's money in property development, with some depots having high density housing on top.

[Jon Bryant]

I fully support the Inner City Capacity Study tunnel from Park Road under the City, Spring Hill and onto Bowen Hills (Option A).  It seems such a waste to not use the line.  Could the following options not be considered:

1. moving the Bowen Hills platforms to the northen side of the ICB (what a mistake that road is) add a few platforms and split trains throught the CBD and Exhibition line (in association with a Maybe yard move/redevelopment); or
2. tunnel from the northern border of the RNA site to adjacent to the current Bowen Hills station.

Capacity should also be included to allow a line from Normandy Station to the Gap and a line from Spring Hill under Enoggera Road then along the Trout Road alignment to connect to a Redcliffe line.

[stephenk]

I fully support the Inner City Capacity Study tunnel from Park Road under the City, Spring Hill and onto Bowen Hills (Option A).  It seems such a waste to not use the line.  Could the following options not be considered:

1. moving the Bowen Hills platforms to the northen side of the ICB (what a mistake that road is) add a few platforms and split trains throught the CBD and Exhibition line (in association with a Maybe yard move/redevelopment); or
2. tunnel from the northern border of the RNA site to adjacent to the current Bowen Hills station.

Capacity should also be included to allow a line from Normandy Station to the Gap and a line from Spring Hill under Enoggera Road then along the Trout Road alignment to connect to a Redcliffe line.

Option A would probably be underground and emerge from tunnel between Bowen Hills and Albion. Stations at Exhibition and Bowen Hills would be underground. This is because the current surface Exhibition Lines would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic, and a grade-separated junction is required North of Bowen Hills so that trains using the new tunnel do not make conflicting moves with other services.

In regard to your latter comments. Whilst it would be great for there to be rail line along the Trout Road alignment, I think that sadly Brisbane needs to sort out it's existing congested rail system before more lines are added to the mix. Maybe LRT to Alderley or Enoggera? Rail to The Gap would not be cost effective.

[mufreight]

Unfortunately at this point in time while a wish list is great the reality is that there is not room on the existing network for all the additional services that demand will require over the next 5 years much less what we as individuals would like to see and it all costs, someone pays and directly or indirectly it is the users and those who benefit from increased public transport use.
At this point in time various studies tell that within five years the network between Toowoong/Park Road/Bowen Hills will not be able to cope with a deficit of required train paths through those points (the CBD exceeding 15 by 2015 if no additional lines are added and the increase in growth does not exceed the average growth in demand over the past five years which is in the region of 7+%.
As the CBD bottleneck is the most in need of capacity amplification it is ligical that it be attended to as having the greates priority.
Increases in the rollingstock are useless it there is not the track capacity to allow the additional services to operate.
A link between Park Road to the Exhibition loop will achieve that, provide the additional capacity both accross the river and through the CBD and procvide service to areas currently not serviced while allowing better intergration with other modes of public transport.
The developer of the Exhibition should be making a meaningful contribution to the infrastructure costs by footing the bill for the construction of the new underground line between the Exhibition and Central with the government funding the line from Central to the southern line to a point between Dutton Park and Fairfield.
This would free up train paths for additional services through the CBD from the Ipswich and Springfield lines, the Shorncliffe and Petrie (Kippa Ring) lines.
If it is not started now in a few years time it will be unaffordable by any means. 

[Jon Bryant]

Guys, I am not disagreeing with you at all.  The existing situation certainly needs to be fixed now not by 2016 or 2026. My point (maybe badly made) is that we need to be targeting public transport/active usage of 60-70%, not 4.3% or even a generous 4.8% as stated in the report, in the next 10-20 years to avoid the damaging impacts of Peak Oil, traffic gridlock, air pollution, etc.   This will require significant investment in rail (heavy and light), buses, cycleways and we need to be building capacity through the CBD now to cater for not just the existing lines operating at the maximum capacity but for future lines that also need to be built.

Our planning needs to start setting public transport targets not making asusmption about growth rates that have been shown to be totally inaccurate over the past 5-10 years. Whilst we build for such low public/active transport usage and provide capacity for the rest to be by motor vehicle we are simply planning to fail.  We need to be designing a public/active/rail freight transport sytem that can handle 60-70% of all trips and a road system to handle 30-40%.  Transport planning is a supply issue not a demand one.  By building the right capacity and frequency we can influence the mode of transport people choose.  If we achive the numbers then the cost of building the system becomes very affordable as the network is very efficient and we have not wasted billions building roads that only encourage more traffic.

I had not realised the Option A was underground and underground station at Exhibition and Bowen Hills as well. This is great to see/read.