Keperra to Ferny Grove Rail Upgrade

[#Metro]

It is one thing to influence, it is quite another to force.
People will use public transport voluntarily if the quality of it is improved. I don't believe reduced car ownership is the goal, people see cars like they see houses with a roof. Most houses have roofs, most people have cars. But with good PT they can leave the car at home most of the time and just use it on the weekend to go to the beach.

Well patronized, good public transport and low car ownership/TODs are two different goals. The first is essential. The last two are nice to haves IMHO and will follow anyway if #1 is in place.

There will always be a need for road and car transport. But none of that means we can't also have good PT.
There are cars in Paris, London and Hong Kong, and I think it is safe to say that there always will be.  But most people will choose to use the PT.  

[Golliwog]

It may give a better bang for buck to extend to Lanita Rd, but your forgetting the whole reason this is being done now, and not back when they duplicated Mitchelton to Keperra, is because funds are limited. They have to share the funding around. While some may prefer that they focused on each line individually and spruced it up completely with full dupliation and possible extensions before moving onto the next line, this would have to be justified and I would think it would be hard to do that and managed to satisfy those who are complaining about it. There is also the fact that those doing the complaining have a bias. Do those complaining about the poor quality service on the Sunshine Coast line care that, similar to their line, the Doomben line is operated 47.6% of the time by a rail bus? Or that outbound Doomben trains stop running almost 2 hours before the last Sunshine Coast train leaves the city?

[somebody]

It may give a better bang for buck to extend to Lanita Rd, but your forgetting the whole reason this is being done now, and not back when they duplicated Mitchelton to Keperra, is because funds are limited. They have to share the funding around. While some may prefer that they focused on each line individually and spruced it up completely with full dupliation and possible extensions before moving onto the next line, this would have to be justified and I would think it would be hard to do that and managed to satisfy those who are complaining about it. There is also the fact that those doing the complaining have a bias. Do those complaining about the poor quality service on the Sunshine Coast line care that, similar to their line, the Doomben line is operated 47.6% of the time by a rail bus? Or that outbound Doomben trains stop running almost 2 hours before the last Sunshine Coast train leaves the city?

If you want to think that way, then there is no real reason that we need the Keperra-FG duplication at all.  Just have 4tph All to Mitchelton + 4tph express Bowen Hills to Mitchelton, with 4tph All to Ferny Grove as the peak service.  I think 5tph cycles are also doable on that timetable, and also Shorncliffe/Airport/Gold Coast, but I haven't checked this, and it would have an impact on the Cleveland and Beenleigh lines.

[Arnz]

There is also the fact that those doing the complaining have a bias. Do those complaining about the poor quality service on the Sunshine Coast line care that, similar to their line, the Doomben line is operated 47.6% of the time by a rail bus? Or that outbound Doomben trains stop running almost 2 hours before the last Sunshine Coast train leaves the city?

A lot of Sunshine Coast commuters are very well aware of the Doomben line being operated by railbuses.  Fortunately for the Doomben commuters (in which patronage is a lot less than the Sunshine Coast line), they have a clock-face hourly off-peak timetable (Mon-Sat), whereas the Sunshine Coast timetable is all-over the shop when it comes to off-peak frequencies.

For example, the weekend timetable lists 1 hr gap, 3hr gap, then a 2hr gap.  It also doesn't help that the North Coast main line infrastructure is shared with freights and that freights have priority when it comes to scheduling.  Though fortunately for passengers, passenger trains are prioritised ahead of freight when it comes to "Dance of the trains" crossings at stops north of Landsborough.

[#Metro]

Dancing trains. That is just unbelievable, it just should not exist.
Look, if you want to reach beyond Ferny Grove, use bus. All you need is the bus, the driver, cash to pay them and bus stop poles. It could be done within 6 months and be really cheap too.

As for the population of Doomben vs the population of the Sunshine Coast, I have to say that I side with the Sunshine Coast commuters on this one. There isn't much money to go around, but that bottleneck is a drag on the economy and freight operations.

[somebody]

Dancing trains. That is just unbelievable, it just should not exist.

As much as I think SEQ has a concrete fetish, I fully agree with this point.

Look, if you want to reach beyond Ferny Grove, use bus.

That's fair enough for Samford, but less reasonable for Lanita Rd.

[Golliwog]

For the record, I would also side with the Sunshine Coast line being more important, but more for freight than for passenger movements. If freight was taken out of the equation, I would go for Doomben.

Back on topic though, Lanita Rd is itself, dead flat. From the Corner of Mur Rd to the station is roughly 1.5km, an easy bicycle ride. I would also point out that most of the side streets coming off Lanita Rd are also fairly flat and only start to rise towards the end. Or if you had a Mini bus or even just a Maxi Taxi, you could make a short route that just runs along Lanita, up Mur Rd and turns around on Outlook Tce/Hatia Grove. The catchment on Lanita Rd itself wouldn't be big enough to support a full time bus route, but perhaps something Flexilink-esque? Although, I would be a bit resitant to have a taxi company run it. I'm sorry but the way I see it, for a cabbie theres more money to be made in taking an actual cab fare than running as a fixed fare flexilink service and so the temptation would be for the cabbie to turn up not as the flexilink service, but just as a regular cab.

On the subject of the Samford bus service, I know its been mentioned time and again that the bus needs to become a full time service, but something that should be looked at is stops on Samford Rd. There are a number of picnic areas along that road, as well as a Scout Den that I'm think people would catch a bus to if they could. Also, this could provide a service to the Lanita Rd people as there are walking tracks that go through there.

[#Metro]

Why not a nice bikeway or bike lanes? Cycling can penetrate into those streets where buses can't.
what are the cycling facilities at Ferny Grove like/will be?

[Golliwog]

Well I would prefer the cycling option, but I do get there are those who can't cycle, or don't want to/don't have the time. There was a stand alone bike rack or two which you could just lock your bike to, or if you didn't want to go to that end of the station, the chain link fence was always there and is easy to chain a bike to. Theres also a number of QR bike lockers. I don't know exact numbers, but they are being maintained during the construction period, they're just being shifted around on site. I haven't seen anything regarding what will be available exactly, other than that they intend on keeping the bike lockers, and I think increasing the number of lockers or something. Given what they installed at Richlands, I figure something similar would be in order here.

But the more I look at it, the more I like the idea of putting a few bus stops on Samford Rd at the picnic areas/Scout Den and putting a path through the 100-150m of bush there. That way you have access to a full size bus.

[aldonius]

Regarding the flatness of Lanita Rd - it's actually the alignment from back when the railway extended to Kobble Creek.

Also, Samford's a tricky one regardless. There does need to be a better service to the Village, but it's never going to be a smash hit, even if a park and ride goes in out there eventually. Remember that Samford is Zone 5 whilst FG is Z3, and it's a 10 minute drive between the Village and FG.

[#Metro]

Take a look at the density out that way:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Samford+Village&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Samford+Village+Queensland&gl=au&ll=-27.378932,152.882566&spn=0.034297,0.106945&t=h&z=14

No public transport or active transport modes could serve that area. It's car to Ferny Grove Station + train I am afraid.

[Golliwog]

What about the current bus? Even with its terrible service periods I've seen it drop off maybe a dozen passengers, but I know of people out there who refuse to use it because they can't guarantee if they'll make the return bus in the evening. But still, it does provide a service between the Village and FG, as well as a big loop through the large, denser-than-the-rest-of-the-valley section along Mt O'reilly Rd and Showgrounds Drive. Greggs Rd has similar density and a new-ish estate has been progressively going in off Burton Lane which is just off Mt Samson Rd. I do concede though that Camp Mountain and Wights Mountain would both be better served by either the PnR at FG or a smaller one in/at Samford Village or somewhere along the bus route. The Village would make sense as it would allow passengers to do shopping on the way rather than having to make an extra trip.

[Jonno]

Take a look at the density out that way:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Samford+Village&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Samford+Village+Queensland&gl=au&ll=-27.378932,152.882566&spn=0.034297,0.106945&t=h&z=14

No public transport or active transport modes could serve that area. It's car to Ferny Grove Station + train I am afraid.

The only cottrelation between density and public transport is the blinkers/false assumptions in poor transport
planning!

[#Metro]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=showgrounds+drive,+samford,+brisbane&aq=&sll=37.926868,-95.712891&sspn=32.455873,86.923828&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Showgrounds+Dr,+Brisbane+Queensland+4520,+Australia&ll=-27.369404,152.840681&spn=0.018903,0.058837&t=h&z=15

I am surprised that there is a bus out there.

Density does matter, because the number of people who can access the service is calculated by taking the area x density x trip making factor x mode split. So you have three levers:

1. You can expand the area that access is available from (integration with bicycle and bus widens the catchment area; car integration gives the widest area)
2. You can increase the density (put more people near the bus stops) or
3. You can try to change the (intrinsic trip making factor x mode split) (I highly suspect this has something to do with the quality of service).

There has been a lot of focus on pulling lever #2 (TODs etc...) I think it does work, but it is weaker and slower than pulling lever #1 (Integration) while pulling lever #3 (Service quality) also works but is probably the costliest and riskiest (would it make sense to run buses every 15 minutes in Samford when there are other denser places in Brisbane that need a bus service too?).

Of course, the best result is when you pull all three at the same time--- but often there are restraints on how far you can pull due to local conditions (i.e. NIMBYs affect #2, treasury departments and beancounters affect #3, transport planners who subscribe to the anti-interchange school of transport planning affect #1).

[#Metro]

PnR at FG or a smaller one in/at Samford Village or somewhere along the bus route. The Village would make sense as it would allow passengers to do shopping on the way rather than having to make an extra trip.

That's interesting. I also think a P & R at Samford would work nicely. 

The timetable could do with fixing up to be clockface as well as probably 1 extra service in the morning to FG and afternoon to Samford?

[BrizCommuter]

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.

Let's face it, it' almost impossible to live in an outer suburb (and beyond walking distance from a station) without requiring a car. Reducing car ownership in these locations is verging on futile, however reducing car usage is possible.

[#Metro]

I don't believe that public transport reduces congestion. I think the value of public transport is mobility for the masses (and thus an economy) than what would otherwise be possible without it. Not everyone can afford a car (and this will start to bite as petrol prices increase).

Does Paris have congestion? Does Berlin have congestion? Moscow? Hong Kong, New York? All these cities have world class metro systems.
And the answer is yes, yes and yes. To me, PT improvements is just like increasing freeway lane capacity- there are benefits initially, but this is eroded over time. Public Transport's benefit is that you can get that increased lane capacity without actually having to build that extra lane (and also it is impossible to accommodate all the cars in the CBD if everyone drives there). Or by building fewer lanes (and thus lower cost) than new road building (i.e. cost to build 2 lane busway vs 7 lanes worth of traffic).

Every person on a bus, train, ferry takes people off the road. And when you take people off the road, you are making driving on the road more attractive, not less. To get the first person out of the car and on the bus is easy, because congestion is so bad, they're willing. To get the last person out of the car and on the bus will be extremely hard because you have taken so many people off the road that it is now free-flowing and very attractive to drive on, so IMHO there is little or no incentive for that last person to shift over if they own a car (unless your train is on the Mandurah line, Perth and goes at 90-130km/hour, probably faster than car).

The exception to this is when there is no road to compete with, and PT has an absolute and total advantage. The Eleanor Schonell Green Bridge is one example of this- the only alternative is Coronation Drive and go the long way around. It is no accident that mind-bogglingly high bicycle, walking and PT usage on that bridge is due to the fact that there is no (real) alternative road option that is as fast or direct (and also a reason why all attempts to provide a car bridge from Dutton Pk to the UQ side was resisted).

[somebody]

Let's face it, it' almost impossible to live in an outer suburb (and beyond walking distance from a station) without requiring a car. Reducing car ownership in these locations is verging on futile, however reducing car usage is possible.

This ignores the effect of 2 car households which could otherwise go to one car households.

Also, the proposed Lanita Rd station does increase the numbers which are in fact within walking distance to the station.

I don't believe that public transport reduces congestion.

Because it makes trips possible which otherwise wouldn't be possible?

[Jonno]

It is exactly this low density means poor public transport usage $%¥! that had put us where we are today. 

Plenty of examples in Europe and research to show it is a flawed belief

railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5511.0

[p858snake]

I don't believe that public transport reduces congestion.

Well it stoped me from having to be driven to TAFE (both, the Ithaca/Red Hill campus as well as Braken Ridge) when I added, Every car off the road (for periods longer than it needs to be) is in fact reducing the possibility of congession.

And if anyone has ever driven to braken ridge (going via St Pauls private school way (Before going via Bunnings at brendale/carsldine) will know what I mean. (Espically in the mornings).

[#Metro]

It is exactly this low density means poor public transport usage $%¥! that had put us where we are today.  

Plenty of examples in Europe and research to show it is a flawed belief

railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5511.0

Jonno, page 65, Transport for Suburbia by Paul Mees:

So what can we conclude from our X-ray reports? All other things equal, density does have an impact. But all other things are definitely not equal, and the effect of density is outweighed by other factors unless the differences in density are huge.

Dr Paul Mees isn't arguing that density has no impact. If he was, we could build metros in the middle of deserts and get high patronage. What Mees is arguing is that there are other factors at play as well as density, and I have listed these as:

1. Integration. You can expand the area that access is available from (integration with bicycle and bus widens the catchment area; car integration gives the widest area)
2. Density. You can increase the density (put more people near the bus stops) or
3. Service Quality. You can try to change the (intrinsic trip making factor x mode split) (I highly suspect this has something to do with the quality of service).

It is a very subtle, but important, difference.

Well it stoped me from having to be driven to TAFE (both, the Ithaca/Red Hill campus as well as Braken Ridge) when I added, Every car off the road (for periods longer than it needs to be) is in fact reducing the possibility of congession.

And if anyone has ever driven to braken ridge (going via St Pauls private school way (Before going via Bunnings at brendale/carsldine) will know what I mean. (Espically in the mornings).

When you take 1 person off the road, you create a 'slot' on the road that another person can (and at peak hour, usually does) fill. If a capacity of a motorway fills after widening, then what is the difference between that and increasing the capacity by the same amount using PT? In both cases capacity is being increased. The fact that cities with some of the best PT on Earth still have clogged and congested roads shows that PT does not eliminate or reduce congestion, at least long-term. It simply allows more people to access where they want to go than otherwise what would have occurred IMHO.

From HumanTransit: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion.html

Now and then, someone mentions that a particular transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that was evidence of failure.  Years ago, politicians and transit agencies would sometimes say that a transit project would reduce congestion, though most are now smart enough not to make that claim.

To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, no transit project or service has ever been the clear direct cause of a substantial drop in traffic congestion.  So claiming that a project you favor will reduce congestion is unwise; the data just don't support that claim.

To my knowledge, and again correct me if I'm wrong, there are exactly three ways for a city to reduce its traffic congestion measurably, quickly, and in a lasting way.  (Widening roads is not one of these ways, because its benefit to traffic congestion is temporary unless new development in the road's catchment is completely and permanently banned.)

[Jonno]

Sure density has a role but it is used as the sole determinate of service provision.  It was being used in this debate to effectively say "because of lower density we must have a car park because no one will use the train otherwise".

If we dropped our false mode split assumptions and provided a high quality frequent, integrated and legible active and public transport system then the density would be a small factor and there would be little need for the car park and it can be developed as valuable mixed use lovation.

Ps whilst Southbank has higher densities its over provision of parking (it is a CBD parking station really) it is not a TOD and proves that density is not always a determining factor in choice of mode.

[#Metro]

I agree, though for the case at hand you could make 399 improved, but there would still be the access problem in that area because a lot of the houses are away from that bus route. The access problem is the gap that exists between the train door and the front door of a person's house. In this case it is filled by a very limited bus service (which is amazing because at most other stations it is walk in access only). At all other times you are going to have to have car. IMHO its not possible to put a bus near most people out that way, even cycling integration is going to be hard because it is hilly and the distances involved.

Context cannot be ignored.

Even if you have TOD built at Ferny Grove, the access problem will still exist for that area further out. TOD is not going to solve that.
Only a carpark (and to some degree better buses) will solve that.

Typical of this area looks like this: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Samford,&aq=&sll=-27.367747,152.845273&sspn=0.012463,0.022531&ie=UTF8&t=h&rq=1&ev=zi&split=1&radius=0.83&hq=Samford,&hnear=&ll=-27.372682,152.848685&spn=0.012462,0.022531&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-27.374202,152.846894&panoid=wNc4reMlmRNeRA3GxPBxvw&cbp=12,220.7,,0,7.06

Let's think about what could work in this area with the three categories:

1. Integration. There is already a connecting bus service. The bus service could be improved by perhaps cycling racks and a park and ride at Samford Village.
Better cycling facilities could probably also be developed at Ferny Grove station.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Samford&aq=&sll=-27.374206,152.846925&sspn=0.012538,0.022531&ie=UTF8&hq=Samford&hnear=&ll=-27.394993,152.865164&spn=0.01246,0.030706&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-27.372857,152.886711&panoid=y6KGyldGQKyeGBkVqrVKbQ&cbp=12,2.85,,0,10.81

2. Density. That area (Samford and surrounds is low density IMHO). I note that TOD/TADs at Nerang and Yeerongpilly don't seem to have made a big impact on patronage there, so I think this lever will be limited in effectiveness. I guess around FG is much higher density, but the people from Samford etc still need carparks to access the FG station under any scenario.

3. Service Quality. Some extra services could be added, but because there aren't many people out that way, it would have some, but limited impact IMHO.

It is true that density isn't always the determining factor, but I just don't think that TOD is going to wholly or even significantly substitute access to Ferny Grove station at that location by car or bus modes. Increasing density around FG station could be justified on urbanist goals, but IMHO not on transport planning/patronage goals.

I would have no objection to TOD/TAD/development above carparks at Ferny Grove. That might be the compromise position, people who can only access the station by driving in get access, and the people who want TOD can get their developments. If it gets bums on seats, then IMHO that's great.

[#Metro]

Car-Rail integration is integration and does support PT patronage at this location. It's probably the most expensive and ugly but there are last-resort cases where IMHO it is legitimate do use.

None of this is an argument against TOD at FG. But any TOD will have to be developed in such a way that also permits carparks for the people who drive in (underground?).

[somebody]

Federal Government policies are also factor.  In Europe, petrol is taxed much more than here or in the US.  Also, company cars still receive tax concessions here for some people.

Not good.

I'm not sure about Canada.  Anyone know?

[Gazza]

Also, the proposed Lanita Rd station does increase the numbers which are in fact within walking distance to the station.

Wouldn't a station there have a bit of a crappy catchment area since most of it is steep hilly bushland/parkland, and the rest is built up (Eg little space for TOD)

http://img849.imageshack.us/f/fernyextension.jpg/

[somebody]

Wouldn't a station there have a bit of a crappy catchment area since most of it is steep hilly bushland/parkland, and the rest is built up (Eg little space for TOD)

Yes.  About half a normal station.  But half of something is still >0.

[#Metro]

I don't think the expenditure is justified.
How much do new train stations cost? $ 25 million perhaps for the station, plus 1.6 km of new rail @ an optimistic "perth" value of 14 million/km - you are looking at 40 million dollars maybe.

Assuming that $ is available, why not spend that money on a short section of road, say 100 meters (yes I know, road!  ) to link Samford Road to Lanita Road
and then place a number of bus stops along Lanita Road (say, every 500 m or so) and divert the 399 bus to drive down Samford Road and then turn right into Lanita Road, continue down Lanita Rd to Conavalla St bus interchange at Ferny Grove station.

Not only would it be far cheaper, it would be closer to the people and it would have more access points (multiple bus stops vs 1 train station). If quality bicycle racks and modest shelters for them were provided, the catchment area could be increased to penetrate right into the cul de sac streets. In addition to walking, people could take a short 5 minute bike ride to Lanita Rd, lock their bike to a bike rack, catch the bus to Ferny Grove Station and catch the train. The increase in passengers might allow more 399 services to be run as well.

I concede however, that the main benefit of a rail extension would be the frequency. With a rail extension, a train would be there every 30 minutes (still pretty crappy) and more frequently during peak. As the bus only has 2 or 3 services the opportunity to catch a service would be lower, however, this has to be weighed up against the costs and benefits- is it really justified to spend $40 million on a handful of people out this way?

[Jonno]

By urbanist goals also include transport goals.  The one cannot exist without the other

[somebody]

I don't think the expenditure is justified.
How much do new train stations cost? $ 25 million perhaps for the station, plus 1.6 km of new rail @ an optimistic "perth" value of 14 million/km - you are looking at 40 million dollars maybe.

But you are ignoring the savings if you don't mess with the current Ferny Grove station.  I guess that is in the realms of hypotheticals now.

[#Metro]

I need to point out that if you argue that density doesn't influence transport patronage strongly, then the logical conclusion from that is that TOD doesn't influence transport patronage strongly either. And so then they are actually mutually exclusive.

See, if you argue that high patronage can be achieved with low density, then logically, the case for TOD (density increases/higher density around stations) is greatly weakened on transporation patronage goal grounds simply because you would have effectively argued that you don't need it for patronage.

If people want to argue that density doesn't matter, then why should density increases around stations matter? 

For the record, and just so there is no misunderstanding, I think that density and TOD around stations will help, but as I wrote earlier integration and
quality of service also matter and these two levers can be very powerful.

I feel that for the specific case at hand, Car-Rail integration is very important for Ferny Grove station and would
do more for patronage than urbanist development. I have no issue with development at FG, but if it comes at the expense of the carparks that attract huge
patronage IMHO, it will reduce Car-Rail integration and thus access and thus patronage. I don't think that it would be easy to fully substitute that access mode
by bicycles or walking, Samford is quite far, and particularly up Patrics Rd etc, it is extremely hilly for cyclists.

There are general principles, but sometimes there are specific exceptions. I think FG is one of those exceptions.

As for a new station, how much is the re-development costing?

[#Metro]

I am looking at the TMR website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/F/Ferny-Grove-Station-Precinct.aspx

(From the Newsletters:)

The cost to extend the line to Samford is in excess of $500 million. Patronage demand does not currently warrant the cost.

TransLink will work with QR, local bus operators and the community to review bus and train services prior to the opening of the upgraded Ferny Grove Station and the new bus interchange in 2012. Commuters will be notified of any changes to services.

http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/NetworkServices/SEQIP/CurrentProjects/KeperratoFernyGrove/Pages/introduction.aspx
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/F/Ferny-Grove-Station-Precinct.aspx

Both visions will:

capitalise on the railway track duplication and station upgrades
integrate with the upgraded station facilities
deliver Transport Associated Development outcomes
create a pedestrian focussed environment
promote activity in and around the station core
provide commuters with access to a broader range of convenience uses
address Brisbane City Council's Upper Kedron/Ferny Grove Local Plan.

DTMR says it will be a TAD. If a TAD goes up, good. The carparks will be retained though.

[somebody]

The cost to extend the line to Samford is in excess of $500 million. Patronage demand does not currently warrant the cost.

Pretty sure I've already agreed with that.

[Jonno]

If taken in isolation like that yes but if we don't build it it is not long before more residential growth occurs and all of a sudden north west freeways is required because we are moving people using the least efficient mode of transport.

[#Metro]

If more residential growth occurs (and I doubt that it would increase dramatically, although there are signs of infill development, density changes only very slowly) then you could start running buses to serve them- a 30 minute frequency to borrow a term used by Brizcommuter and Somebody is mediocre. What's needed first is a good PT system. A good PT system will induce development around the stations. Maybe not within 800m due to the carpark, but further out where the buses, bicycles and cars reach. That is a kind of TOD, not a walk up one, but it is still development supported by access to the station.

The real problem is places like Ripley, Flagstone and Yarrabilla! These are just paddocks in la la land that have NO PT infrastructure and
there is likely to be a lag before proper rail goes in.

If there is market demand for it, then TAD can happen at FG. The presence of a carpark does not exclude that, and if I recall correctly, there are TODs (or TADs?) happening in Perth even along the Mandurah line that has big carparks. Even at Nerang station on the Gold Coast line, there is development despite there being a gigantic car park there. The buses and carpark bring far more passengers in than the TOD/TAD next to it does.

[#Metro]

Gazza, when I look at that image and I look at Ferny Grove station, I don't see a train station. I see a rapid transit station- it could be a busway if my vision wasn't good.

The complete and utter failure to provide decent frequency and thus decent PT options on the train system should be absolutely condemned IMHO.  No only is it holding back TOD and TAD development, it is leading to poor patronage.

[colinw]

The real problem is places like Ripley, Flagstone and Yarrabilla! These are just paddocks in la la land that have NO PT infrastructure and
there is likely to be a lag before proper rail goes in.

Past experience indicates the delay would be likely to be of the order of 20 years.  The first study into the Springfield line was performed in 1994.

I see little benefit in extending the line beyond the current terminus, unless it goes as far as Samford.  The proposed Lanita Road extension would achieve little, as it would be extending toward the edge of an existing area of low density suburbia, nor would it bring the end of the line close enough to Samford to be any more attractive.  Put it another way - how many years worth of 15 minute or better frequency services to Ferny Grove could be paid for by the $40M+ cost of a piddly extension to Lanita Rd?

I therefore believe the line should stay where it is for now, until such time as developments in the Samford valley justify an extension out there.  That is a long term (25+ year) proposition, but should not be discounted entirely.  In 1965 a few years after closure beyond Lota the thought of trains once more reaching Cleveland would have been just as ridiculous.

[Golliwog]

Back to the project at hand, they have started assembling the temporary platform. When I went through at about 7am they had put up some of the frames and platform but seemed to be working on getting the skeleton out before filling it in. Also noticed diggers and trucks in the old tavern site working to clear away all the rubble to allow for the expansion of the car park.

[ozbob]

Some photographs from Golliwog



The gap between the temporary platform and the current tracks it will be serviced by. I expect when they come into service (possibly this weekend with the track closure?) they will be shifted closer to remove the gap, and to move them away from the existing platform which will become a construction site.



The other side of the temporary platform, they've dug it out but are yet to place ballast or tracks. This is what makes me think that it may not be this weekend that they switch platforms.



The ex-Tavern site, being prepared for its next use as a carpark. A windshield letter drop stated that this would be a gravel (not bitumen) carpark for the time being. Didn't state anything about too far into the future.



The temporary drop off bay and bike lockers. By my count there is space in those for 114 bikes.

Photographs Golliwog 14th March 2011

[railguy83]

Looking at it there is still significant works to occur before the new platform can come into action. There are signaling and overhead line works still required on top of the trackworks, including a swaping of the turnout leading into the station. Not to meantion a new ticket office, platform services and ticketing, far too much to slap in over a couple days i think...

I would think it is more likely that Easter would be a major closure of Ferny Grove to allow the new platform to be commissioned as my guess...