Keperra to Ferny Grove Rail Upgrade

[Golliwog]

A possibility which may be justified at some point in the future.

That's exactly what mufreight is saying.  But at that "some point in the future", the new station building will have to be demolished.  If it was built with that "some point in the future" in mind, it would save taxpayers money as the building could remain.

Just having a think about this, and has anyone got anything to prove that the building will actually be in the way?  I know the concept design map had the station building at the end there, but nothing massivly clear about what that meant. When I was at the consultation session, I was told the plan is to have go-gates across the end of the platform, and that the platform is going to be 10m wide for the whole length. The station building (selling tickets, etc) would have to be set back a bit from the go-gates to allow pedestrian movements, but surely the station building isn't going to need to be more than 10m wide? I think it would be totally possible for the tracks to go around the station building, and in that case an overpass would be built. Perhaps the area marked is just the undercover area or something?

[mufreight]

Unless they have made radical changes to the design recently, to extend the tracks through the new station to continue along the Lanita Road alignment it will be necessicary to demolish just about everything but the actual platforms themselves

[Golliwog]

Unless they have made radical changes to the design recently, to extend the tracks through the new station to continue along the Lanita Road alignment it will be necessicary to demolish just about everything but the actual platforms themselves

Clearly you don't understand what I'm suggesting. If the station building itself is less than 10m wide (and why would it realistically need to be wider?) then it will fit between the tracks if/when the line is extended.

[mufreight]

The design as originaly proposed had the actual station accross the ends of the tracks which would leave no option if the line is extended but to demolish the building, a building 10m in length which is not very long built accross the end of the platform would occupy the full width of the proposed platform leaving no room for passenger access to the platform.
A far more practical and less grandiouse option would be to construct the station as a through station with the tracks extendind some two train lengths beyond the actual station and having a crossover both before and beyond the actual platforms, this would enable possibly two train sets to be stored there between peaks and any future exension to be simply a continuation of these (stabeling) tracks, with no disruptions to services while future construction work was carried out.   

[somebody]

I think you mean storing the trains there overnight.  You wouldn't want to store them there between the peaks.

This sort of thing is clearly taking second place to maximising the amount of parking.  Although you still could store two trains, one on each platform which would be very helpful for first/last services.  As used to be done at Shorncliffe (so I'm told), and should still be done.

[p858snake]

A far more practical and less grandiouse option would be to construct the station as a through station with the tracks extendind some two train lengths beyond the actual station and having a crossover both before and beyond the actual platforms, this would enable possibly two train sets to be stored there between peaks and any future exension to be simply a continuation of these (stabeling) tracks, with no disruptions to services while future construction work was carried out.   

Isn't that how it is now?

[Golliwog]

The design as originaly proposed had the actual station accross the ends of the tracks which would leave no option if the line is extended but to demolish the building,

Have you seen any of the technical designs? If you're going off the same map/design I am (the one on the QR website) then I wouldn't hold any faith in any large amount of accuracy. That is simply a map to convey to you everyday person roughly what the end product is going to be. I would want to see some proper plans before damning them for blocking future expansion.

a building 10m in length which is not very long built accross the end of the platform would occupy the full width of the proposed platform leaving no room for passenger access to the platform.

In the discussion I had with the team at the consultation session the plan is to have the go-gates at the end of the platform so it would be a safe assumption that there would be some clearance between the gates and any structure (ie: ticket office, etc) to provide pedestrian access, in which (if the line was extended to Samford or wherever)  a set of stairs and a lift could fit.

[mufreight]

The original actual drawings have been modified but still effectively block the future extension of the line, the original drawings were on the SEQIP website, the modified drawings are notably now not publicly avaliable seemingly having vanished after concerns were publicly expressed by a number of people which is consistent with the intransigent approach of the current government attempting to curb discussion on any contentious subject.   

[longboi]

I'd be interested to see those plans. I've only seen the basic 'mud map' plan on the QR website.

[mufreight]

I'd be interested to see those plans. I've only seen the basic 'mud map' plan on the QR website.

As would many other interested or concerned people which is in all probability why they have gone into smoke.
No doubt if there is sufficent public interest they will suddenly become avaliable again and it will be claimed it was an accidental computer glitch that made them unavaliable.   

[railguy83]

If anyone could reasonably suggest that the line will be extended in the next 10-15 years, then there would be merit in designing the station to allow for future extension. To make this a through station will require 3 lifts, a pedestrian bridge, stairs etc necesitating many changes, all of which will cost much more than relocating the office. This seems to be a lot of squabble about nothing. When you find the half billion to extend the line, then we can spend a couple million re-designing Ferny Grove Station. Im sure more detailed designs will be avaliable once they choose a contractor.

[Golliwog]

In other news, they have started giving the car park a new layout so that they can close the bunch of parking spots closest to the platforms and put a temporary platform in place. Some of the older trees have come down as well, but they are yet to start on the fig tree.

[railguy83]

I think the Fig tree goes next week...  I also believe that they are doing the changes to carparks this weekend, so the place will look very different next week!   

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I figured the carpark switch was probably this weekend. From the looks of it theres only one more kerby/traffic island thing to cut through (they did the first one today) then the rest is barriers and paint. I'm intrigued to see what they do with the temporary platform. As in is it going to be just a side platform and they will doing platform 1 and then platform 2 seperately. Or will they make a new island platform and do both the old platforms together? If you did an island you could keep the platform 1 track where it is, just have the doors open on the right instead of the left (in the direction of travel!)

[railguy83]

The temporary platform is going to be an Island platform to allow for the existing platform to be completely rebuilt, there will be a temporary track to the north of the existing to maintain similar services to current while platform works is completed

[aldonius]

The fig tree is going down as of today.

[Golliwog]

The fig tree is now half gone, and I believe the intention is to finish it off this week. They've changed the signs to say the carpark on the corner of Conavalla and Arbor streets will be closed on the 10th and 11th (I could be wrong with the dates, I wasn't looking to closely). They similarly closed the carpark last weekend when they started on the tree. However they've now added another line saying that any cars still in the car park when its closed will be towed. There was a car that sat for a week inside the barriers alongside platform 1 as it appeared to be a "long term" resident.

[p858snake]

It would be nice if the signage indicated where the drop off zoned moved to, when your going in there during peak time not knowing where things are its a bit hard.

[aldonius]

Couple pics of what was once the tavern

[Golliwog]

Oh, I didn't notice that was gone. Still, work seems to be progressing. They're pulling up the concrete where the temporary platform and track is going to be. I have not noticed much work within the corridor for the duplication other than some fill being dumped and trees on the inside of one of the corners being cleared, I assume to make enough room for the 2nd track and perhaps straighten it out a little to allow faster speeds through that section (IIRC its something like 50/60 until just before the straight section which is 80 heading outbound but 100 inbound).

[Jonno]

I officially declare this a TUD - Transit Unoriented Development.  We are supposed to be concentrating development around station not knocking it down.

[Golliwog]

They're rebuilding it though. And the plan is to put more in over the parking lot. And the Translink person I was talking to said that they wanted to talk with BCC about getting the existing houses close to the station (so along Conavalla St, etc) to be rezoned for at least 3 story residential. I doubt BCC will go for that, but thats what they wanted.

[Mozz]

It seems that with the BCC local neighbourhood plans that property in the 400metre zone around any train station is going to be rezoned 4-5 storeys regardless of community input. Corinda/Sherwood was done and approved by council now Oxley/Darra is being developed with pretty much the same outcome.

[Golliwog]

But to my knowledge, there isn't a local neighbourhood plan for Ferny Grove. They're having enough trouble with the Mitchelton one.

[Jonno]

They're rebuilding it though. And the plan is to put more in over the parking lot. And the Translink person I was talking to said that they wanted to talk with BCC about getting the existing houses close to the station (so along Conavalla St, etc) to be rezoned for at least 3 story residential. I doubt BCC will go for that, but thats what they wanted.

Please understand if I don't hold my breath waiting fir the reconstruction.

[petey3801]

They're rebuilding it though. And the plan is to put more in over the parking lot. And the Translink person I was talking to said that they wanted to talk with BCC about getting the existing houses close to the station (so along Conavalla St, etc) to be rezoned for at least 3 story residential. I doubt BCC will go for that, but thats what they wanted.

Please understand if I don't hold my breath waiting fir the reconstruction.

It's a PUB fer christ sake... And AIUI, it's in the contract for it to be rebuilt.

[mufreight]

And the rebuild of the station could have been carried out without the removal of the tavern, another splurge of taxpayers money to the glory of the local member.

[railguy83]

mufreight, the demo of the pub is not about rebuilding the station, its about more carparks, for what will be the end of the line for a long time to come, catering for more carparks could be considered forward planning, especially if new developments will need to be built over the carparks...   Perth built a large carpark at the end of their new line because it makes sense.

[Jonno]

Development but over a ground level car park IS NOT A TOD and never will be. It is a Tranlink abomination!!

[#Metro]

I used to have the same view- however I would agree with railguy83.  
IMHO you need carparks there and it brings in a lot of people at that station. How many people would a TOD bring in vs those carparks?
Not everyone can or will live near the station. Even if you built residential towers on that land, there would still be people further out in those hills that need access.

Reducing access by car will not automatically make people catch the bus. Car-Rail integration, as horrible as it might sound to some, is integration and pulls in passengers. While this is not something that can or should be done at most stations, it does have its off applications, and I think this is one of them.

If there are 1000 carparks at Ferny Grove station x 1.2 occupancy = 1200 people per day being brought into that station over the course of the day.
If 50% of people living around the station will use the train (optimistic mode share, but something to aim for) then you would need (assuming 800m walk
up catchment)

area: pi x r-squared, so 3.14 x 0.8km x 0.8 km = 2km-squared area

Houses: 1200 people / 2 persons per house = 600 houses, but since we assume 50% mode share, multiply by 2
600 x 2 = 1200 houses again

divide houses into area = 1200 houses / 2 = a "density" of 600 dwellings per km2. How long would this take to construct?

The average density of Brisbane is something like 9.5 persons km2... double this (assuming 2 people per house) = 19 dwellings per km2.

I welcome TOD around stations... but Heaven and Earth IMHO would have to be moved before even coming close to generating the patronage that those
carparks at Ferny Grove are generating. By all means put on the feeder buses, encourage development around stations and so on, but I think that railguy83 has a point
we can't wait for that. This is why I prefer integration measures such as feeder buses and cycling to train stations... you can pull in patronage now.

[#Metro]

Note: Feeder bus.. this is why bus to train station is so important!...

1200 pax / 65 seats on a bus = 19 buses per day
Assume buses run for 19 hours in the day

19 buses / 19 hours = 1 full bus per hour to the train station, or 2 half-full buses per hour.
Number of carparks required- zero.

[Gazza]

The average density of Brisbane is something like 9.5 persons km2... double this (assuming 2 people per house) = 19 dwellings per km2.

Be careful with stat's like that...
Wiki says Ferny Grove is 3.8km^2 in area with a population of 5420...1429 people per km^2

[#Metro]

Point taken--- but 600 new dwellings within 800m of Ferny Grove station and 50% public transport mode share...

IMHO the car park can serve those people now... if buses to the train station were put on, maybe you could get TOD... just not right up next to the station. Does TOD have to be within 800m? Is it a distance thing or is it an access thing? If a TAD is development next to a station but not a TOD, then is it also possible to have a TOD not right next to a station, where people can bicycle or jump on a bus and get in?

[mufreight]

mufreight, the demo of the pub is not about rebuilding the station, its about more carparks, for what will be the end of the line for a long time to come, catering for more carparks could be considered forward planning, especially if new developments will need to be built over the carparks...   Perth built a large carpark at the end of their new line because it makes sense.

By extending the line out to the end of Lanita Rd they could have saved money, increased the catchment area and withour resumptions built  a car park of possibly 1000 spaces on government owned land, leaving the option of building a second story car park at Ferny Grove which could have been extended over the actual station.

[Jonno]

The building of a car park instead of mixed uses development means not only does the surrounding development sprawled more but it reduces multi-purposes and/or local trips.  It reinforces the dormitory suburb mind set. It is not just a commuter trip consideration. It is urban design and pedestrianisation of our city.  We have to create a community that thinks:

1. Walk
2. Cycle
3. Public Transport
4. Motor Vehicle.

Car park at railway stations reverse this so the first thought is Motor Vehicle.  I heard a child the other day walk past their patents car and say "We have to take the far if we are leaving the house!". Had tombite my tounge verbiage!

[#Metro]

I don't know. Some people say that some development near stations is not TOD and call it TAD instead.
I think the main thing from my perspective is maximizing patronage in the fastest time possible. Even if that carpark
were converted to development it would have little or no impact on the existing surrounding residential areas.
They are still going to be sprawly no matter what you do around the station.

From this perspective, I feel that putting buses, cycling and so on feeding into stations will encourage development not just within the
400 m walk up catchment, also outside it up to distances of -- I don't know -- a few kilometres because of access. Does TOD have to be walk up? Could TOD be more to do with access (which could be done by bike, or feeder bus?).

Development takes time. We need bums on seats now.
None of this is to say that TOD can't or shouldn't happen, but it seems that people have more of a bone to pick with carparks
than actual development. I have no problem with development above carparks if that is what is needed, call it what people like, TOD, TAD,
if it gets bums on seats and is cost-effective and timely then I'm all for it.

Is SouthBank a TOD? It has carparks below the parklands with development on top, and I have no issue with something like that.
There is a TOD at Nerang Station- and while it helps, I don't think that development is yielding anywhere near the amount of patronage
that feeder bus from Surfers Paradise is feeding into that station.

The main reason why I think QR patronage is low is because they have created a system which can only really be accessed by foot. And that is really going to limit patronage. If we chop out the carpark at Ferny Grove, that is going to reduce the access to the station. So my question is this: how many units would we need/population within the 800 m walk up zone of Ferny Grove station to replace those estimate 1200 people brought in per day by the carparks?

Not against TOD, but bums on seats now is my guiding principle. If development + carparks can be done, that's good enough for me.

[BrizCommuter]

A car in a QR car park = one less car driving into Brisbane.

I'm all for TODs, and feeder buses, but car parks will always be an essential requirement for many of SE Queensland's rail stations. The reason why FG is SE Queensland's busiest suburban station is the large car park!

[Gazza]

Plus the issue with Ferny Grove is that beyond the station in the hills it's very low density, too low for even an effective feeder bus system to capture many people.
Lets be honest here too...people don't live on acreage for a car free lifestyle, so you might as well give them something.
I'm definitely against parking in inner suburban areas etc, but if its right on the fringe then its more acceptable.

Development but over a ground level car park IS NOT A TOD and never will be.

Why not?

[Golliwog]

mufreight, the demo of the pub is not about rebuilding the station, its about more carparks, for what will be the end of the line for a long time to come, catering for more carparks could be considered forward planning, especially if new developments will need to be built over the carparks...   Perth built a large carpark at the end of their new line because it makes sense.

By extending the line out to the end of Lanita Rd they could have saved money, increased the catchment area and withour resumptions built  a car park of possibly 1000 spaces on government owned land, leaving the option of building a second story car park at Ferny Grove which could have been extended over the actual station.

I'm sorry, but how is building an extra km or so of track, a whole new station and an entire new massive carpark and a multi story carpark at Ferny Grove cheaper? Sure it doesn't resume the tavern but there are houses along the northern side of Lanita Rd that would have to be resumed.

[somebody]

mufreight, the demo of the pub is not about rebuilding the station, its about more carparks, for what will be the end of the line for a long time to come, catering for more carparks could be considered forward planning, especially if new developments will need to be built over the carparks...   Perth built a large carpark at the end of their new line because it makes sense.

By extending the line out to the end of Lanita Rd they could have saved money, increased the catchment area and withour resumptions built  a car park of possibly 1000 spaces on government owned land, leaving the option of building a second story car park at Ferny Grove which could have been extended over the actual station.

I'm sorry, but how is building an extra km or so of track, a whole new station and an entire new massive carpark and a multi story carpark at Ferny Grove cheaper? Sure it doesn't resume the tavern but there are houses along the northern side of Lanita Rd that would have to be resumed.

Mightn't be cheaper but increases walk up patronage without anyone losing anything.

Resuming the Tavern would have cost in excess of $10m.  Messing with the current car park has also cost some money, and the removal of run off areas at FG has also its own price in the operation of the line in the future.

The Lanita Rd extension wouldn't have been cheap, but could have been better bang/buck.

A car in a QR car park = one less car driving into Brisbane.

I'm all for TODs, and feeder buses, but car parks will always be an essential requirement for many of SE Queensland's rail stations. The reason why FG is SE Queensland's busiest suburban station is the large car park!

That's a bit simplistic isn't it?  Ormeau and all stations to the south also have large car parks, and I think larger than the old Ferny Grove car park.

While it may mean one less car on the roads between FG & CBD, it has been done in a way which reduces many of the benefits of PT, a large part of which is reduced need for car ownership.  This only reduces car use.