Keperra to Ferny Grove Rail Upgrade

[SurfRail]

I think it is a good opportunity to free up DEDICATED freight lines. How did perth manage to separate the two?

By having orbital roads which ultimately accommodated corridors for cross-town rail freight lines.  Doing what they did would basically require a freight line from the Port of Brisbane down the M1 and through Park Ridge on to Bromelton with only limited (if any) interaction with the Cleveland line, and the already planned Ebenezer to Bromelton line. 

My guess is they also would have had an impetus to do it properly because most of that track is standard or dual gauge and not just a small stub of "multifunction" narrow gauge.  Plus, Perth's rail network has always been much smaller than ours and had less of a significant role until recently, and Perth is nice and FLAT.  Not offering excuses for us here, but purely some possible explanation.

In our case, with Cross River Rail you wouldn't even need a line along the M1.  The existing third track from Salisbury to the city would finally become a dedicated freight/XPT fifth track from Salisbury to Yeerongpilly and remain a dedicated third track as far as Dutton Park/the flyover/the Cleveland line/the Port.  That largely solves rail from the west and the south to the Port.  Rail to the north then involves using Tennyson and spare capacity on the Ipswich mains (plenty of room), maybe a fifth track at Milton (squeezy), Ekka loop and spare capacity on the mains to Strathpine.  Biggest choke points will be crossing the suburban tracks at Sherwood and getting around Milton to Normanby.

Probably need some grade-sepping and/or additional trackage in these spots, which is a lot more cost-effective than just building a brand new line to the west or trying to use Trouts Road (which we want to run with anywhere between 6-16 passenger trains per hour even into the evening depending on which strategy you look at, compared to a likely maximum of 4 per hour with refuges on the existing main line when Trouts Rd is open).

My guess is you ultimately need three tracks from Caboolture to Petrie, four from Petrie to Strathpine and maintenance of the existing three from Strathpine to Northgate.

[Golliwog]

For the record, I also don't think much, if any, of this freight stuff is going to happen anytime soon if at all. But I think it's something interesting to talk about, and that something does need to be done to reduce the number of trucks on the roads.

RTT: with regards to an intermodal facility, yes putting that on the FG line and trying to use it for all of north Brisbane would be a bad move. But my suggestion wasn't for anything massive, just a suggestion of something that could be done so that instead companies like Coles and Woolies trucking everything from wherever their Brisbane warehouse is all over town, they could rail it from there to Mitchelton, then use smaller trucks to take the goods from Mitchelton to their stores through The Gap, Mitchelton, Ferny Grove, Everton Hills, etc. Again, just an idea.

[colinw]

You're not worried it might be your house being resumed eh?    

Given how very far I live from the Ferny Grove line & Trouts Road corridor, that would be no.  Had a near miss with the Gateway Motorway southern extension a few years back 'though.

Actually, I wish somebody would resume some houses around my area, to knock some horrible curves out of the Beenleigh line.  Way down the list of priorities 'though. Still cursing that the the Salisbury to Kuraby upgrade resulted in no improvement to the rail service, which is in fact now several minutes slower than when I moved to the area. (Which just goes to show that Concrete over Services is a miserable failure.)

[SurfRail]

Actually, I wish somebody would resume some houses around my area, to knock some horrible curves out of the Beenleigh line.  Way down the list of priorities 'though. Still cursing that the the Salisbury to Kuraby upgrade resulted in no improvement to the rail service, which is in fact now several minutes slower than when I moved to the area. (Which just goes to show that Concrete over Services is a miserable failure.)

I think we're both still waiting for the real S2K upgrade (Salisbury to Kingston):

-   4 tracks Salisbury to Loganlea
-   Grade separation of Boundary Rd, Bonemill St, Warrigal Rd and Beenleigh Rd LXs (which taken with the works below and closure of the LX underneath Beaudesert Rd as part of CRR works will fully grade separate the line between the city and Bethania)
-   4th platform at Coopers Plains for operational flexibility
-   Tunnel from north of Banoon to north of Runcorn
-   Demolition of Banoon, Altandi and Runcorn, retain corridor as a rail trail or linear park with heritage structures at Sunnybank retained
-   New station and bus interchange at Centro Pinelands
-   Closure of corridor between Compton Road and Kingston including Trinder Park and Woodridge stations, retain corridor as a rail trail or linear park
-   Tunnel from Kingston to Compton Road with new stations and bus interchanges at Logan Central and Compton Road
-   Stabling facilities south of Loganlea

Then you would need to look at solving the Bethania LX, the very small one south of there and at Holmview and the configuration of Beenleigh.

[#Metro]

Delete Holmview
Delete Eden's Landing

[SurfRail]

Delete Holmview
Delete Eden's Landing

Yes to first one maybe (if feeder buses to Beenleigh are improved), definitely not to the second one.  The station spacing is adequate and it is a lot easier to serve Eden's Landing with rail than bus due to the layout.

[somebody]

With Trouts Road, there will be more than enough room for freight to run via the main lines, and the difference in time will not be that tangible enough to justify the investment in trying to retrofit the Ferny Grove line for it.

I expect that Trouts Rd would see Caboolture, Kippa-Ring and Sunshine Coast services routed down it, with an all stations Petrie to the city via Northgate and Ekka service to carry the existing corridor. (I also expect it will be easier to run this as an all stations to allow interchange between Albion and Ekka, otherwise people have to back-track, walk or transfer, and you are only missing 4 stations anyway). 

That pattern is probably going to be something like 15 minutes at absolute best in the off-peak or at night, and would be the only service using the mains between Northgate and the City. Shorncliffe, Airport and Doomben would be using the suburban tracks and be routed through the mains at Bowen Hills in the direction of Milton, with services from Windsor taking up the suburbans and heading for the Merivale Bridge.  Both the Petrie pattern and freight services would go via the loop and there would be dedicated tracks for each between Mayne and the CRR portal (the extra passener track is a semi-stranded investment from CRR once Trouts Road is open).

Plenty of room for freight this way, and you could refuge it all the way from Strathpine inwards where necessary with the third track in the middle.

Isn't the notion of Petrie via Trouts Rd and Petrie via Northgate a bit Cityrail-esque?  Terminate the via Northgate trains at Strathpine please, and provide completely separated via Trouts Rd and via Northgate facilities.

Actually, I wish somebody would resume some houses around my area, to knock some horrible curves out of the Beenleigh line.  Way down the list of priorities 'though. Still cursing that the the Salisbury to Kuraby upgrade resulted in no improvement to the rail service, which is in fact now several minutes slower than when I moved to the area. (Which just goes to show that Concrete over Services is a miserable failure.)

I think we're both still waiting for the real S2K upgrade (Salisbury to Kingston):

-   4 tracks Salisbury to Loganlea
-   Grade separation of Boundary Rd, Bonemill St, Warrigal Rd and Beenleigh Rd LXs (which taken with the works below and closure of the LX underneath Beaudesert Rd as part of CRR works will fully grade separate the line between the city and Bethania)
-   4th platform at Coopers Plains for operational flexibility
-   Tunnel from north of Banoon to north of Runcorn
-   Demolition of Banoon, Altandi and Runcorn, retain corridor as a rail trail or linear park with heritage structures at Sunnybank retained
-   New station and bus interchange at Centro Pinelands
-   Closure of corridor between Compton Road and Kingston including Trinder Park and Woodridge stations, retain corridor as a rail trail or linear park
-   Tunnel from Kingston to Compton Road with new stations and bus interchanges at Logan Central and Compton Road
-   Stabling facilities south of Loganlea

Then you would need to look at solving the Bethania LX, the very small one south of there and at Holmview and the configuration of Beenleigh.

This is foaming much, except the 4th platform at Coopers Plains.  Get CRR built without the planned knackerring at Salisbury.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Isn't the notion of Petrie via Trouts Rd and Petrie via Northgate a bit Cityrail-esque?  Terminate the via Northgate trains at Strathpine please, and provide completely separated via Trouts Rd and via Northgate facilities.

If Trouts road goes up I expect to see Kippa Ring trains routed via Northgate with a quad Strathpine-Petrie. Landsborough/Sunshine Coast spur can then run Caboolture express Petrie express Strathpine via Trouts road. When the triple between Petrie-Caboolture goes up freight trains can then seemlessly swap between the different sectors along with express services overtaking the all stoppers. With the removal of the Nambour/Caboolture lines, Kippa Ring services can then run express to Northgate stopping only at Eagle Junction then all stations to Kippa Ring.

[somebody]

Isn't the notion of Petrie via Trouts Rd and Petrie via Northgate a bit Cityrail-esque?  Terminate the via Northgate trains at Strathpine please, and provide completely separated via Trouts Rd and via Northgate facilities.

If Trouts road goes up I expect to see Kippa Ring trains routed via Northgate with a quad Strathpine-Petrie. Landsborough/Sunshine Coast spur can then run Caboolture express Petrie express Strathpine via Trouts road. When the triple between Petrie-Caboolture goes up freight trains can then seemlessly swap between the different sectors along with express services overtaking the all stoppers. With the removal of the Nambour/Caboolture lines, Kippa Ring services can then run express to Northgate stopping only at Eagle Junction then all stations to Kippa Ring.

That is also a defensible notion, of a quad Petrie-Strathpine, although why Kippa-Ring people should have to stop all those times seems a bit rich.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just an example. If they want an express service to the city they can swap at Petrie or Strathpine.

[SurfRail]

Isn't the notion of Petrie via Trouts Rd and Petrie via Northgate a bit Cityrail-esque?  Terminate the via Northgate trains at Strathpine please, and provide completely separated via Trouts Rd and via Northgate facilities.

Yes, it is I suppose.  Should have clarified that I think the Trouts Rd local should finish at Strathpine and not both continue on to Petrie.

My view on the subject is guided by the fact that the local pattern on Trouts Road is intended to be a via Windsor service, which makes it part of the "Merivale Bridge" sector (and ideally would have its own tracks).  The service via Northgate will have to go via Ekka, which makes it part of the Cross River Rail sector and so more closely tied to the Trouts Road express services than the local Trouts Road run. 

As a result, I've interpreted the Trouts Rd local as terminating at Strathpine rather than the via Northgate service so the sectorisation is preserved from Strathpine to Petrie.

This is foaming much

Obviously .  Never hurts to dream, as long as we keep the armchair network planning off the media releases.

[Gazza]

as long as we keep the armchair network planning off the media releases.

Didn't stop the one about the Logan Village line hahaha.

My view on the subject is guided by the fact that the local pattern on Trouts Road is intended to be a via Windsor service, which makes it part of the "Merivale Bridge" sector (and ideally would have its own tracks).  The service via Northgate will have to go via Ekka,

To clarify, are we assuming Trouts Rd would be built with the tunnel from Roma St?

It does seem a terrible shame to have the Trouts Rd Locals have the last bit of their journey 'crapped up' by having to go via Windsor, harming the attractiveness of the service.
IMO it would be better to run them straight into Roma St, like the 2 new lines in Perth.

[petey3801]

Yeah, it is a great pity they didn't try to realign some of the bad sections while putting the triple through!! Same with a number of dup/trip/quad projects that have been done. Even north of Petrie could do with a bit of work, get rid of those damn 80/90km/h curves and get the entire section up to 100km/h, wouldn't be difficult at all, for the most part!!

Same with the Kep - FYG dup (look at that, this is actually on topic for this thread!   ), surely, for not much extra money, they could have eased the curves a bit in order to increase the speed from 50km/h to 70+ without a lot of difficulty! Doing the original track would be easy, just open the new track and have all traffic on that while the old track is realigned. Yes, it would mean a bit longer time with single track restrictions, however it would result in a much better job when finished!

Straight track = property resumptions = more $$$$ from the non-existent pot of money.

With talk of freight on Ferny Grove Line, undergrounding the Ferny Grove Line, straightening the Ferny Grove Line, and quadrupling Trouts Road Line, this thread is rapidly heading towards fantasy foaming file territory.

Pretty much all the straightening (well, curve easing is more apporpriate) that I suggested Keperra - FYG would be done within the corridor, so no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

Don't disagree, however on a short line like FG if the EMU's were about to accelerate from station to 100km/hr, then only slow for stations from Bowen Hills, how much time do you think might actually be saved in total?

Keperra - FYG speed upgrade I mentioned was upgrading the long section of 50km/h to 70+km/h, wouldn't save a lot of time overall but would certainly help. Also, they could have done something to the 40km/h section through Groverly station (plus the 50km/h Up, 60km/h Down through Oxford Park reasonably easily I imagine) when duplication went through that area. I'm not really talking up to 100km/h, as that would be a waste of time for the majority of the Ferny line (small station spacings), but 70-80km/h along a lot of the line would certainly help timings.

[SurfRail]

It does seem a terrible shame to have the Trouts Rd Locals have the last bit of their journey 'crapped up' by having to go via Windsor, harming the attractiveness of the service.
IMO it would be better to run them straight into Roma St, like the 2 new lines in Perth.

I tend to agree but only to a point.

If CRR has 4 stopping patterns already (all the Trouts Rd services plus the presumably one pattern going via Ekka), I get the impression a lot of these lines are going to have compromised frequency by it being split everywhere - so you will still end up with bottlenecking.

At least with using some of the via Windsor capacity this is not as much of a problem, because Ferny Grove probably does not need a train every 3 minutes.  No matter which way you slice it, CRR is only going to give you 24 TPH without super-whiz-bang things like moving block signalling, DOO, ATP etc.  Employing that technology, the existing 2 track pairs can carry at least 24tph each as well, so they will still have to do the bulk (up to 2/3) of the work.

[Gazza]

the design intent of the CRR as I understand it is to have a double platform for each track

The station cross sections in the reference design don't reflect that, its only 2 tracks per station:

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design_overview/parts/Pdf-crr-reference-design-overview-august-2011-stations.pdf

See page 3.

[Golliwog]

4 plats was/is the plan for Trouts Rd though, maybe just a simple mixup? I thought CRR was planning on ATP or something in the tunnels?

[BrizCommuter]

Yeah, it is a great pity they didn't try to realign some of the bad sections while putting the triple through!! Same with a number of dup/trip/quad projects that have been done. Even north of Petrie could do with a bit of work, get rid of those damn 80/90km/h curves and get the entire section up to 100km/h, wouldn't be difficult at all, for the most part!!

Same with the Kep - FYG dup (look at that, this is actually on topic for this thread!   ), surely, for not much extra money, they could have eased the curves a bit in order to increase the speed from 50km/h to 70+ without a lot of difficulty! Doing the original track would be easy, just open the new track and have all traffic on that while the old track is realigned. Yes, it would mean a bit longer time with single track restrictions, however it would result in a much better job when finished!

Straight track = property resumptions = more $$$$ from the non-existent pot of money.

With talk of freight on Ferny Grove Line, undergrounding the Ferny Grove Line, straightening the Ferny Grove Line, and quadrupling Trouts Road Line, this thread is rapidly heading towards fantasy foaming file territory.

Pretty much all the straightening (well, curve easing is more apporpriate) that I suggested Keperra - FYG would be done within the corridor, so no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

Golf course resumptions aren't free you know. For a straight as possible alignment the resumptions would not give the golf course enough space for 18 holes - a slight problem for a golf course!  

[p858snake]

You make that sound like the goverment cares about logic.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Course hazard..... duhhhhhhhh. Treated the same as a water hazard. Hit it over or around

[Mr X]

Nothing the LNP gaggle can't fix.

[petey3801]

Yeah, it is a great pity they didn't try to realign some of the bad sections while putting the triple through!! Same with a number of dup/trip/quad projects that have been done. Even north of Petrie could do with a bit of work, get rid of those damn 80/90km/h curves and get the entire section up to 100km/h, wouldn't be difficult at all, for the most part!!

Same with the Kep - FYG dup (look at that, this is actually on topic for this thread!   ), surely, for not much extra money, they could have eased the curves a bit in order to increase the speed from 50km/h to 70+ without a lot of difficulty! Doing the original track would be easy, just open the new track and have all traffic on that while the old track is realigned. Yes, it would mean a bit longer time with single track restrictions, however it would result in a much better job when finished!

Straight track = property resumptions = more $$$$ from the non-existent pot of money.

With talk of freight on Ferny Grove Line, undergrounding the Ferny Grove Line, straightening the Ferny Grove Line, and quadrupling Trouts Road Line, this thread is rapidly heading towards fantasy foaming file territory.

Pretty much all the straightening (well, curve easing is more apporpriate) that I suggested Keperra - FYG would be done within the corridor, so no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

Golf course resumptions aren't free you know. For a straight as possible alignment the resumptions would not give the golf course enough space for 18 holes - a slight problem for a golf course!  

Sigh  Because I really said the whole course needed resuming...

Read what I wrote again... no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most)

I'll repeat, if you didn't catch it again... no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

So, as you can see, I was saying there most likely won't be ANY resumptions needed.

[BrizCommuter]

Yeah, it is a great pity they didn't try to realign some of the bad sections while putting the triple through!! Same with a number of dup/trip/quad projects that have been done. Even north of Petrie could do with a bit of work, get rid of those damn 80/90km/h curves and get the entire section up to 100km/h, wouldn't be difficult at all, for the most part!!

Same with the Kep - FYG dup (look at that, this is actually on topic for this thread!   ), surely, for not much extra money, they could have eased the curves a bit in order to increase the speed from 50km/h to 70+ without a lot of difficulty! Doing the original track would be easy, just open the new track and have all traffic on that while the old track is realigned. Yes, it would mean a bit longer time with single track restrictions, however it would result in a much better job when finished!

Straight track = property resumptions = more $$$$ from the non-existent pot of money.

With talk of freight on Ferny Grove Line, undergrounding the Ferny Grove Line, straightening the Ferny Grove Line, and quadrupling Trouts Road Line, this thread is rapidly heading towards fantasy foaming file territory.

Pretty much all the straightening (well, curve easing is more apporpriate) that I suggested Keperra - FYG would be done within the corridor, so no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

Golf course resumptions aren't free you know. For a straight as possible alignment the resumptions would not give the golf course enough space for 18 holes - a slight problem for a golf course!  

Sigh  Because I really said the whole course needed resuming...

Read what I wrote again... no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most)

I'll repeat, if you didn't catch it again... no resumptions needed (possible a small sliver from the Golf Course at most).

So, as you can see, I was saying there most likely won't be ANY resumptions needed.

If you looked at a map, parts of at least 3 holes would eaten up near the clubhouse! The most optimal track layout for speed would also eat into 2 more holes.

[BrizCommuter]

Anyway, back on topic for a minute. Does anyone know if the Keperra to Ferny Grove duplication will be in operation after the Easter closure?

[aldonius]

Advertisement in tomorrow's NW news says 'commissioning' and 'other corrective/preventative maintenance'. Make of that what you will.

[O_128]

You're not worried it might be your house being resumed eh?    

this thread is rapidly heading towards fantasy foaming file territory.

I do believe on the Spectrum of Authorities this is called 'Vision', and is at the top. Everyone on this forum falls along that scale, some of us are visionaries and can imagine things independently of what is current, others are rationalist. You need a bit of both.

Unfortunately in QLD even a dual track line is foaming 

[Golliwog]

No word on what the FG train timetable changes are, but the following would suggest they are opening the duplicated track after the closure.

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/bulletin/1332820994
Changes to Ferny Grove station bus services

From Tuesday 10 April, we'll be making minor timetable changes to afternoon peak bus services connecting with train services at Ferny Grove station:
• 367 (Ferny Grove to Upper Kedron)
• 396 (Arana Hills to Mitchelton)
• 397 (Ferny Grove to Mitchelton)
• 399 (Samford to Ferny Grove)

Queensland Rail are making minor timetable changes to train services operating on the Ferny Grove line and we're making these minor bus timetable adjustments to ensure you are able to connect with train services.

Please check your new timetables as your service make may arrive a few minutes earlier or later.


http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/bulletin/1332889948
Routes 223 & 224 - train times timetable update

From Tuesday 10 April, TransLink will make minor adjustments to train times within the route 223 and 224 timetables. These changes will not affect bus services.

Queensland Rail are making minor timetable changes to train services operating at Ferny Grove station and we're making these updates to ensure your timetables are up to date and you are able to connect to these train services.

Be sure to check out your new timetables:
• 223
• 224

[somebody]

Cue BrizCommuter having kittens: Expresses retained on Ferny Grove line!  Just retimed.

[somebody]

When did CN say the 15min timetable would start? Perhaps it will take a few months for QR to sort out its crewing rostering and where the trains will run to?

I don't think he did say.

[BrizCommuter]

Cue BrizCommuter having kittens: Expresses retained on Ferny Grove line!  Just retimed.

This side of the phase 2 timetables it could be too difficult to remove the all the expresses and some Mitchelton services due to track slots through the CBD. If these services still exist after phase 2 then BrizCommuter will have more than kittens!

It is disappointing that less than 2 weeks from the minor new timetable, the timetable hasn't been published. Still not a Can Do state when it comes to public information from TransLink.

[somebody]

It'll take some time for the new top level management to filter down.  I'm willing to wait and see if things improve.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Personally I think the minor timetable changes are just to the Ferny Grove services between the terminus and Keperra resulting from the removal of the single track. Any major changes such as 15 min frequencies and running patterns would come in after the major timetable review.

[BrizCommuter]

After a quick look at the new bus timetables, it appears that the "minor" changes are indeed the removal of the up to 3 min wait at Keperra, thus some services will arrive at Ferny Grove up to 3 minutes earlier. The 367 has had it's last service moved later, which is possibly a good thing for those who rely on public transport in Upper Kedron.

At least FG Line passengers should experience better reliability during the interim timetable period. Less late running may also reduce the wait outside of Bowen Hills for passengers on other inbound services on the suburbans.

[O_128]

Cue BrizCommuter having kittens: Expresses retained on Ferny Grove line!  Just retimed.

This side of the phase 2 timetables it could be too difficult to remove the all the expresses and some Mitchelton services due to track slots through the CBD. If these services still exist after phase 2 then BrizCommuter will have more than kittens!

It is disappointing that less than 2 weeks from the minor new timetable, the timetable hasn't been published. Still not a Can Do state when it comes to public information from TransLink.

There 3 days in, they have more important things to do than that, but I'd it still happens in 6 mOnths we have an issue, I can see a review of translink happening soon, department of transport/translink/we/bcc way to much , Ideally you'll have the department and then translink taking over all of qr and bcc

[Mozz]

.... says the person responsible for the bus network carrying the majority of public transport commuters (more than heavy rail each and every day here in our world class public transport network in SEQ) for the last 7+ years..........just sayin.....

[O_128]

.... says the person responsible for the bus network carrying the majority of public transport commuters (more than heavy rail each and every day here in our world class public transport network in SEQ) for the last 7+ years..........just sayin.....

Sigh, The bus system has improved dramatically over the last few years, And as I have said countless times before why is it a mayors issue to get people using rail? If i was mayor I wouldn't be wasting time on a state issue.

[SteelPan]

.... says the person responsible for the bus network carrying the majority of public transport commuters (more than heavy rail each and every day here in our world class public transport network in SEQ) for the last 7+ years..........just sayin.....

IF, you're saying it's a negative for Newman, that more "Brisbane" people catch a bus than catch a train - that makes makes no sense.   1) Surely it's a good thing people are keen on buses after Newmans time in City Hall - that's got to reflect well on him?  2) Newman had absolutely nothing to do with rail in his role of Lord Mayor - rail is totally a STATE matter.  3) In truth, it reflects poorly on the STATE if rail usage numbers are suffering.   :conf  not sure what you're trying to say here pls?

I think Newman's statement is a good one, two years might be a bit hard to show BIG changes, but should give people a clearer picture of where things are headed.

[aldonius]

Platform announcement today - new (old) platform and dual track in use as of Tuesday 10th.

[ozbob]

...
He did heavily promote the bus system over rail saying its operating subsidy was cheaper ...

What he did was promote the bus system as an extension of the politics of BT, rather than seeing BT as an important part of an integrated network.  I have spoken to him on just that and have explained in the past that supporting the rail network properly actually improves the bus system as much as the rail system.  Mr Newman used to get upset because non-BCC rate payers where using 'his' buses.  Not much more evidence needed than that why the current BT model needs changing.

It really is time that BT was brought into the wider TransLink as an operator rather than as planner/operator for the political advantage of BCC, for an improved network for true integration.

[SurfRail]

And as I have said countless times before why is it a mayors issue to get people using rail? If i was mayor I wouldn't be wasting time on a state issue.

Because Council's job should be for the development of PUBLIC TRANSPORT, not pushing their own mode-specific agenda.  This is counterproductive and is not in the best interest of the city, even if it means one little subset of economic activity (ie operation of the BCC bus fleet) is being advanced.

This is why GCCC has got a much better approach - nothing mode-specific, capital funding given for rail projects (money handed over for GCRT and they have previously looked at contributing to additional heavy rail upgrades) and operational funding given for bus services.  GCCC does not have a bus fleet, and BCC does.  Spot the difference in approach.

[Jonno]

And as I have said countless times before why is it a mayors issue to get people using rail? If i was mayor I wouldn't be wasting time on a state issue.

Because Council's job should be for the development of PUBLIC TRANSPORT, not pushing their own mode-specific agenda.  This is counterproductive and is not in the best interest of the city, even if it means one little subset of economic activity (ie operation of the BCC bus fleet) is being advanced.

This is why GCCC has got a much better approach - nothing mode-specific, capital funding given for rail projects (money handed over for GCRT and they have previously looked at contributing to additional heavy rail upgrades) and operational funding given for bus services.  GCCC does not have a bus fleet, and BCC does.  Spot the difference in approach.

+100000