Newstead-Bulimba-Cleveland

[#Metro]

Long Post Warning

A green bridge proposal, although with benefits, would not have the capacity, time savings, potential for development or connectivity on the scale that a rail link would provide. Here is why:

2)Rail lines are not computers, they should not need (highly expensive) redundancy.

Well no-one is suggesting that we build only for the purposes of redundancy.
But, as this is a side-benefit, why should it not be worth mentioning?
Long live the Tennyson Loop for it has served QR well when Ipwsich Line services went down.

3)This project is not required to allow a metro like service for Brisbane, this can be achieved by existing plans.

The "existing plans" (i.e. ICRCS) do not serve this area. One plan being developed is a metro service running from Bulimba to Newstead. I thought I would take your suggestions on board and see if heavy rail connection to the Cleveland line would be better. http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Brisbane+inner+city+metro

4)A high frequency bus route along with a Teneriffe to Bulimba green bridge would more cost effectively serve this area, and has been suggested by BCC.

This proposal has no benefits for the estimated 10 000 or so of morning AM-peak commuters* on the Cleveland line.
I can't see 10 000 people crossing this proposed green bridge in the morning. I'm not saying that the green bridge has no benefit- quite the opposite; I just think that the rail line would give even higher benefits: Access to Newstead, Bulimba and Hawthorne plus a 16 minute time saving. A new bridge can give the first benefit, but it can't give the second benefit at a scale even close to the rail option.

A bus (CityGlider Express) would take at least 25 minutes to do the trip from Bulimba. The train could do it in 10 minutes beginning from just after Cannon Hill.

Sure people could change from train to high frequency bus, but the bus would be slower, involve a time penalty, and be without a dedicated ROW. If the government plans to build a metro through here anyway, then they should kill three birds with one stone- fix cleveland rail line, a river (tunnel) crossing and a metro-style rail link all in one. As there are no car crossings in this area, so this would be a captive demographic of passengers for the train. Rail would be far faster, have higher capacity and far more direct than a bus winding through the routes of 199 or CityGlider. A rail station at Newstead would allow transfer to 199, CityGlider and CityCat.

5)Paris has a much higher population density than Brisbane, covers a much smaller area, and most of the metro system was built around 100 years ago when construction costs were a tad lower.

I know. I'm not suggesting we build a paris style network. I'm suggesting a 5.05km rail link. It also puts the cart before the horse- people want to live next to good PT- its why developers are building around Cannon Hill Station, Milton Station and Buranda Station to create TODs. The stations must go in first, developers are not going to risk their money on building high density on government speculation- the residents of Mango Hill and along the Kippa-Ring rail corridor and even poor Springfield have been victim to this fact. It is also bad planning to wait for a problem to mushroom and then try and apply expensive retro-fixes which cause disruption and usually need property resumptions.

* AM peak definition from the QR Passenger Load Survey defines the AM peak as trains arriving Central between 0600-0900 hours. There are 15 of these currently, in 2026 frequency will likely be increased to a train every 10 minutes to cope with demand (Mass Transit Report 2007).
I think out my proposals.

[longboi]

Splitting the Cleveland Line isn't going to make the curtains turn brown or the cows stop making milk in Queenslander-speak. It will also make things more convenient for Cleveland Line passengers. Both Melbourne and Sydney have split lines.

The 'split line' examples you gave are the inverse of what you're proposing. Those have many tracks branching outwards away from the City, your idea would have two lines feeding into one - the current Cleveland line at Cannon Hill and without significant upgrades of the entire line you would have to sacrifice services on the current alignment to put services on this new section.

[#Metro]

Those have many tracks branching outwards away from the City, your idea would have two lines feeding into one - the current Cleveland line at Cannon Hill and without significant upgrades of the entire line you would have to sacrifice services on the current alignment to put services on this new section.

Naturally there might have to be some changes, but these changes will improve services for Cleveland Line passengers.
I disagree with the idea that we should effectively put up with a 15 minute or so delay for passengers on that line. Why is a delay of 15 minutes or so acceptable on the Cleveland line? Why is a heavy rail solution not a good idea if the government may ultimately build a separate metro service through the area anyway. Why can't the Cleveland line get and upgrade at Cannon Hill, especially when other lines have got upgrades, duplications and triplications all over the network. Are there other possibilities to minimize or avoid the need to upgrade the entire line?

Well I guess it would be too easy to throw it into the "too hard" basket.

[somebody]

The 'split line' examples you gave are the inverse of what you're proposing. Those have many tracks branching outwards away from the City, your idea would have two lines feeding into one - the current Cleveland line at Cannon Hill and without significant upgrades of the entire line you would have to sacrifice services on the current alignment to put services on this new section.

I was thinking the same thing: for Melbourne.

For the Sydney example, you can reach Sefton via Regents Park and via Bankstown, Epping via Macquarie Park and Strathfield, Glenfield via Liverpool and East Hills, Liverpool via Regents Park, via Bankstown and via Granville.  There are plans to cease Sefton (& Liverpool) via Regents Park operations and they also plan to cease Campbelltown via Granville, but 2 ways of getting to Epping is certain to remain, albeit with the all stoppers via Strathfield already terminating at Epping.

So running Cannon Hill terminators via South Bank, with Cleveland trains running via Newstead is similar to what CityRail would do.  Perhaps in peak times there is grounds to extend to Manly to make it easier to get to Park Rd and therefore UQ and many south of the river destinations.

[longboi]

I was thinking the same thing: for Melbourne.

For the Sydney example, you can reach Sefton via Regents Park and via Bankstown, Epping via Macquarie Park and Strathfield, Glenfield via Liverpool and East Hills, Liverpool via Regents Park, via Bankstown and via Granville.  There are plans to cease Sefton (& Liverpool) via Regents Park operations and they also plan to cease Campbelltown via Granville, but 2 ways of getting to Epping is certain to remain, albeit with the all stoppers via Strathfield already terminating at Epping.

So running Cannon Hill terminators via South Bank, with Cleveland trains running via Newstead is similar to what CityRail would do.  Perhaps in peak times there is grounds to extend to Manly to make it easier to get to Park Rd and therefore UQ and many south of the river destinations.

You wouldn't have the patronage to support a service to Cannon Hill, it would be like building another Doomben line.

[#Metro]

You wouldn't have the patronage to support a service to Cannon Hill, it would be like building another Doomben line.

Hmm, do you have recent the patronage figures for this section of line? I'll try dig some up. Not sure if it would be building another Doomben as the line is already there and there are more stations and TODs going in.

The Cannon Hills station is getting a TOD developed around it, as is Buranda. Coorparoo will probably take off too.
IMHO Cannon Hill station should have been built closer to the shopping centre. Never mind... Wynnum CBD is also being TOD-ified.

Buranda TOD

http://www.skyscraperlife.com/queensland-main-forum/16644-proposed-boulevard-buranda-tod-16f-28f-24f-29f-32f-mixed-use-3.html

Cannon Hill TOD
http://www.thebarrackscannonhill.com.au/site/ajgroup.htm

Wynnum CBD

http://www.wynnummanly.com.au/newsimages/tod/wynnum.jpg

[#Metro]

It will mean trains going past Buranda will have space to allow passengers on the train.
Rather than being extremely full as is the case now.

[STB]

TramTram, is that a proposed TOD or a definate TOD?  I ask this simply because while they say there may be a TOD in future doesn't mean that it will actually get built at these locations.

Also, each TOD will require it's own transport planning scheme and while every option gets looked at it all depends on environmental plans, plans with BCC and the State in terms of zoning and also depends on if the topography and geology is suitable (if tunnelling is required), among many other things.  In my opinion, I don't think this is the best option for various reasons.

As far as I'm aware, a Green Bridge has been floated in the past and seems to be the most favoured option.

[#Metro]

TramTram, is that a proposed TOD or a definate TOD?  I ask this simply because while they say there may be a TOD in future doesn't mean that it will actually get built at these locations.

Also, each TOD will require it's own transport planning scheme and while every option gets looked at it all depends on environmental plans, plans with BCC and the State in terms of zoning and also depends on if the topography and geology is suitable (if tunnelling is required), among many other things.  In my opinion, I don't think this is the best option for various reasons.

Fair enough 

[Golliwog]

I'm not sure about how much land take would be required, but couldn't you build a green bridge, but have it wider and have TT's rail cross the river on the bridge then tunnel into the CBD? Just floating the idea. Not a clue as to the feasability of it.

[#Metro]

What's interesting is that with a rail tunnel you can scale back and decrease the cost of a bridge to just a pedestrian + bikeway bridge.
There are ferries on both sides of the river (Tennerife will be a new CityCat stop). I hadn't thought of a bridge + rail option, but it is interesting.

Options could be:

1. Rail in tunnel + Green Bridge (Cycle, Walk only)
2. Rail in tunnel + Green Bridge (Busway, Cycle, Walk)
3. Rail on green bridge (Rail, Cycle, Walk)
4. Green Bridge only (Busway, Cycle, Walk)
5. Green Bridge only (Cycling/Pedestrian only).
6. Rail tunnel only

It would be a wasted opportunity if a metro was built but was incompatible with and did not connect with the Cleveland Line.

[somebody]

You wouldn't have the patronage to support a service to Cannon Hill, it would be like building another Doomben line.

I doubt that.  Although I will have a look at the patronage figures tonight and post them.  Of course, there would be transfers at Cannon Hill to go to Park Rd and South Bank.

We are also talking about something which wouldn't happen until the 2020s, so there would be growth by then.

[Golliwog]

What's interesting is that with a rail tunnel you can scale back and decrease the cost of a bridge to just a pedestrian + bikeway bridge.
There are ferries on both sides of the river (Tennerife will be a new CityCat stop). I hadn't thought of a bridge + rail option, but it is interesting.

Options could be:

1. Rail in tunnel + Green Bridge (Cycle, Walk only)
2. Rail in tunnel + Green Bridge (Busway, Cycle, Walk)
3. Rail on green bridge (Rail, Cycle, Walk)
4. Green Bridge only (Busway, Cycle, Walk)
5. Green Bridge only (Cycling/Pedestrian only).
6. Rail tunnel only

It would be a wasted opportunity if a metro was built but was incompatible with and did not connect with the Cleveland Line.

What I meant was a green bridge with both buses and rail on it. It would make the bridge more cost effective.

[#Metro]

Ok, we can add that to the list... 
Though 5 votes for the fantasy file...

[Jon Bryant]

Time to rename this forum Rail Back on Track Provided It Is Within Current Budget Constraints And Just Fiddles Around The Edges (RBOTPIIWCBCAJFATE).

Our city is about to face unprecidented changes in urban form and transport pressures.  Dealing with this is going to take massive investment in rail similar to Vienna, Zurich, etc.  Fiddling with our current system or even a doubling of buses is not going to be enough. 

 

[stephenk]

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

[Golliwog]

What if this newstead - bulimba - cleveland line was connected to the 2026 tunnel instead of the current main line? Cleveland could then be paired with Springfield or Beenleigh, and Ferny Grove could then get paired with Cannon Hill. Beenleigh could be with Shornecliffe/Doomben?

[longboi]

What if this newstead - bulimba - cleveland line was connected to the 2026 tunnel instead of the current main line? Cleveland could then be paired with Springfield or Beenleigh, and Ferny Grove could then get paired with Cannon Hill. Beenleigh could be with Shornecliffe/Doomben?

Its an idea but the benefits of providing another north-south connection for the Northern lines far outstrip the benefits of a Cleveland line realignment.

[Jon Bryant]

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

Somebody/Stephenk

Our city needs to dramatically transform itself over the next 10-15 years not 25-30.  It needs to become far more compact, walkable, mixed use, diverse, pedestrian oriented city than today. Almost European in density and form but clearly designed for our sub-tropical climate.  To not do so will result in economic, social and environment depression.  Our cities are currenlty not sustainable and are requiring massive investment to keep them operational.  They are in fact sending our Government's broke. 

The 2026 ICRCS/Cross River Rail tunnels need developed by 2016 not 2026 with other routes/duplications and system enhacements (all outlined in this forum) either planned, underway and/or completed by 2026.  Thus many of us have moved on form the ICRC/CRR, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast Extension, Gold Coast Light Rail, Springfield to Ipswick, etc. on to the next idea as they are already in the To Do list.

If you look at many of the world leading transit systems (which we need to emulate) there are lines that join and separate all over the city to creat a a network of lines/routes that allow a traveller to esily move around/across the city.

It is easy to cry "Where's the money" but the money is currently being poured into roads, health, policy, puliuc housing, etc in a desperate attempt to keep our cities on their feet.  By redirecting this investment (particularly roads and road trauma) the money is there and can be redirected towards furthering and bettering the current systems. 

[Golliwog]

I didn't mean to say the the 2nd rail tunnel, the 2026 tunnel, would be for the realigned Cleveland Line only. The way I see it, the current 2016 tunnel will be for the GC line, and possibly some Beenleigh trains (but I can't see spliting the Beenleigh Line as a good option, perhaps if that other line that has been suggested here going to Acacia ridge? is built it could use it too). Then the 2026 tunnel (which I think should not connect to the Ipswich Line at Toowong, but should instead go through West End, have a stop at UQ and connect at Indooroopilly) would be used by some Northern trains, say all the Petrie trains, with the trains that go past Petrie sticking to the current main tracks. If this Cleveland-Bulimba-Newstead connector was built, I would route all the Cleveland trains through it and have it connect to the 2026 tunnel and then continue on to Richlands. Then the Ferny Grove trains can be paired with the inner remaining part of the Cleveland line and terminate at Cannon Hill (Cannon Hill station would probably require some extra platforms to accomodate this). Then the Beenleigh trains would be paired with the Shornecliffe and Doomben lines. Or if the Trout Road line (I don't see it connecting with the FG line, I imagine it continuing past there and connecting with the Ipswich line at say Auchenflower or Milton or somewhere around there) gets built this can get either Shornecliffe or Doomben.

[longboi]

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

Somebody/Stephenk

Our city needs to dramatically transform itself over the next 10-15 years not 25-30.  It needs to become far more compact, walkable, mixed use, diverse, pedestrian oriented city than today. Almost European in density and form but clearly designed for our sub-tropical climate.  To not do so will result in economic, social and environment depression.  Our cities are currenlty not sustainable and are requiring massive investment to keep them operational.  They are in fact sending our Government's broke. 

The 2026 ICRCS/Cross River Rail tunnels need developed by 2016 not 2026 with other routes/duplications and system enhacements (all outlined in this forum) either planned, underway and/or completed by 2026.  Thus many of us have moved on form the ICRC/CRR, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast Extension, Gold Coast Light Rail, Springfield to Ipswick, etc. on to the next idea as they are already in the To Do list.

If you look at many of the world leading transit systems (which we need to emulate) there are lines that join and separate all over the city to creat a a network of lines/routes that allow a traveller to esily move around/across the city.

It is easy to cry "Where's the money" but the money is currently being poured into roads, health, policy, puliuc housing, etc in a desperate attempt to keep our cities on their feet.  By redirecting this investment (particularly roads and road trauma) the money is there and can be redirected towards furthering and bettering the current systems. 

Nobodys arguing that transport isn't needed, But it has to be the right type. One which delivers the most benefits for the lowest cost and heavy rail is not always the answer for this - at least not this type; The 2026 metro running via Bulimba on the other hand...

[Jon Bryant]

Not sure I agree with the best outcome for the lowest cost.  It needs to deliver best value for money which is really the best outcome for a dollar invested.   There are enough studies including our own Gold Coast Light Rail study that show that the returns/benefits are far greater for investment in light and heavy rail over investment in bus as line haul services. 

The two need to work together but bus needs to feed support rail.

[somebody]

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

Can't you see that removing the Cleveland line trains from the Merivale Bridge frees up the suburbans for Ipswich/Springfield line trains?  This line seems to offer far better bang/buck than the Toowong/West End/CBD tunnel.

Yes, there's a conflicting move near Roma St, but I don't think that's the biggest deal.

As for the patronage figures, in the AM peak, Buranda-Morningside gets 2458 while Buranda-Cleveland gets 8570.  If there is 50% growth by 2026, that becomes 3687 pax, but you should also add in several transfers at Cannon Hill, and a few Cannon Hill pax going via South Bank.  Easily enough to support 4tph or more.  In the PM peak, Buranda-Morningside gets 1870 and Buranda-Cleveland gets 6762.

Source: 2009 Passenger Load Survey

In fact, applying the growth forecasts from the ICRCS, 51% growth is reached after 2021.

So stunting the Cleveland line isn't a big deal.

Jonno, I don't have much argument with what you are saying in principle, but if we continue as present, new lines wouldn't get a reasonable train frequency on them.  We need to get a reasonable train frequency on existing lines to set a precedent.

[#Metro]

Hi there,
Seems like a lot of discussion has happened.
There are 5 fantasy file votes- interestingly nobody voted for "bad".
So it be that there is a particular aspect that is extremely problematic. I'd be interested to hear what that is.
Is it the cost? or the utility of the line? Splitting the line seems to be a big issue.

I know that people would like a clean cut proposal but being an non-professional/non-expert means that can't be the case.
I thought I'd put some proposals out there because when the money does comes around, its a bit too late to say "were working on something, wait!".

I don't expect everyone to agree, and some proposals will always be more worthwhile than another one. In the long run, good public transport will pay for itself because people will find it easy to use and frequent. BUZ 199 is already there, CityGlider not far behind...

[#Metro]

Not sure I agree with the best outcome for the lowest cost.  
It needs to deliver best value for money which is really the best outcome for a dollar invested.

I would agree. If there is no pressing budget constraint, the government should ideally pick the project with the greatest benefits.

Example:
Project A: Cost $10 million, benefits: $20 million, so the benefit: cost = 2
Project B: Cost: $100 million, benefits $200 million, so the benefit: cost = 2

Project A might be giving everyone a free government supplied push scooter to get to work, while project B could be a BRT busway.
Project A is cheaper and has identical value-for money. However, its project B that should be done, because project B has the higher benefits for the community absolutely. Indeed, 10 times as more benefits.

This is why other techniques have been developed, but this is more complicated to explain so I'll leave it.

Chapter 12 of the Mass Transit Report (2007) has a project evaluation. Ideally the project which has the highest net present value (NPV) should be the one the government picks, which was BRT in this case. LRT actually has slightly higher benefits; But I suspect that due to the time to get the thing up and running, the benefits from it had to be scaled back, which gave BRT the lead. All else equal, a benefit sooner is valued more highly than a benefit far far away in time.

I know that this might seem a bit of a "bean counter" approach to things, but this is how gov works. I agree that we shouldn't need to go to this detail to put up or talk about ideas, but I thought I'd have a crack at it.
See here http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/cost-benefit-analysis.html

[somebody]

So it be that there is a particular aspect that is extremely problematic. I'd be interested to hear what that is.

I think some hate the idea of stunting the inner part of the Cleveland line, although refer to my previous post.

[Jon Bryant]

Stunting is one description I would rather call networking the rail system.  Interconnectivity is the key to mass transit adoption.

[ghostryder]

Tramtrain

In regards to your comments that Cannon Hill station should have been built closer to the shopping centre, i guess it would have been hard to have forseen a large shopping centre in 1910. According to the details supplied in Destination South Brisbane published by John Kerr and John Armstrong for the ARHSQ the Cannon Hill station commenced operations July 15th 1910. The station had a siding that served a (now gone) nearby meatworks and had several stopping trains as well freight dedicated for the meatworks. When you read the available historical material you will see not all lines and stations were easily approved or if they were approval was by narrow margins, iirc the lien to Ipswich was passed by the casting vote of the Premier but the approval also included the approval for the line west from Rockhampton. So maybe to those unfamiliar with the rails aroudn Brisbane reading how and what was required to get them there might be of use when thinkign up new lines and options.

cheers

Scott

[ghostryder]

All

I think the current problem stems back the late 1940's and 1950's. The suburban network had been let slide a little due to the effects of the depression in the 1930s and the all out total war during the first half of the 1940s with QR bearing a heavy load of war traffic. In the late 1940s into the 1950s money was thrown at the railways to rehabilitate it and get it back to where it was, the only problem was much of the money was wasted and little or no return on it was shown, by the late 1950s the Government of the day sick of seeign no return for expenditure changed its focus to buildign roads and schools and other items needed by society. If it had not been for federal funds in the 1970's i wonder whether the electrification of the system would have been achieved as the subject of electrification had been kicked around by the railway and government since 1897. There have been some great ideas pitched and failed due to lack of support and some bad ideas pitched and accepted that have been detemintal to the health of the city one of these being the removal of the trams from around the city. Maybe if the elected official had to travel in by public transport each day instead of get a chauffer driven ride things might be different. We can see it as we either travel it each day or have travelled it on holidays but politicians have a limited view they only see things in three or four year cycles marked with an election.

theres my 2 cents worth.

cheers

scott

[somebody]

In the late 1940s into the 1950s money was thrown at the railways to rehabilitate it and get it back to where it was, the only problem was much of the money was wasted and little or no return on it was shown

I have concerns that building more tracks but not running many trains on them falls into the same category.

[stephenk]

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

Can't you see that removing the Cleveland line trains from the Merivale Bridge frees up the suburbans for Ipswich/Springfield line trains?  This line seems to offer far better bang/buck than the Toowong/West End/CBD tunnel.

Removing the Cleveland Line from the Merivale Bridge as you have just suggested would provide insufficient service to South Bank/South Brisbane. In fact at 4tph off-peak frequencies, it would provide less service than at present- doh!
Tramtrain's Bulimba Line , wouldn't solve issues with capacity issues from the North, as the Petrie and Ferny Grove Lines would still have to share a track through the City - thus there would be limited capacity for extra Kippa-Ring & Sunshine Coast services, and no room for Trout's Rd services.  

I would think that anyone who doesn't think the 2nd cross city rail tunnel is required, either has not read the ICRCS, or doesn't understand it.

Sorry, Tramtrain, it's another daft, ill-though out idea, that would just makes the real planners laugh at this forum.

Do you think that the 2026 ICRCS tunnel is a good idea, then?

Yes, it's essential, otherwise the Ipswich, Springfield Line & Ferny Grove Lines will run out of capacity in the mid-2020s. Future 2030ish network additions such as a line along the Trouts Rd corridor will be impossible without the 2026 tunnel.

Somebody/Stephenk

Our city needs to dramatically transform itself over the next 10-15 years not 25-30.  It needs to become far more compact, walkable, mixed use, diverse, pedestrian oriented city than today. Almost European in density and form but clearly designed for our sub-tropical climate.  To not do so will result in economic, social and environment depression.  Our cities are currenlty not sustainable and are requiring massive investment to keep them operational.  They are in fact sending our Government's broke.  

The 2026 ICRCS/Cross River Rail tunnels need developed by 2016 not 2026 with other routes/duplications and system enhacements (all outlined in this forum) either planned, underway and/or completed by 2026.  Thus many of us have moved on form the ICRC/CRR, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast Extension, Gold Coast Light Rail, Springfield to Ipswick, etc. on to the next idea as they are already in the To Do list.

If you look at many of the world leading transit systems (which we need to emulate) there are lines that join and separate all over the city to creat a a network of lines/routes that allow a traveller to esily move around/across the city.

It is easy to cry "Where's the money" but the money is currently being poured into roads, health, policy, puliuc housing, etc in a desperate attempt to keep our cities on their feet.  By redirecting this investment (particularly roads and road trauma) the money is there and can be redirected towards furthering and bettering the current systems.  

Do you think that maybe as a group we should be campaigning for things that are on the horizon, but are still minus funding, before suggesting new lines? Even if Tramtrain's Bulimba Line was built post 2nd cross river rail tunnel, I still see it being difficult to justify, both financially, and for journey benefits. Work out the number of projected passengers on the Bulimba Line vs costs, and it will be difficult to financially justify against other infrastructure.

There are hole lot of fish to fry before we should even start suggesting post 2nd cross river rail tunnel ideas. We don't even have a decent peak or off-peak rail service, we have an odd fair structure and poorly implemented smart card, we have a transport authority that seems to be incompetent, there is no funding for an urgently needed rail tunnel, etc, etc. These are things that we need to be discussing, not future fantasies.

[longboi]

Not sure I agree with the best outcome for the lowest cost.  It needs to deliver best value for money which is really the best outcome for a dollar invested.   There are enough studies including our own Gold Coast Light Rail study that show that the returns/benefits are far greater for investment in light and heavy rail over investment in bus as line haul services. 

When I say lowest cost, I don't mean cheap. I mean a project which delivers the maximum amount of realised benefits per dollar invested.

The main problem I have with this project is the cost and the little value for money it represents. You have this very expensive tunnel which may provide a slightly quicker journey for outer-Cleveland line commuters (This is a negligible benefit btw) and provides rail to a population catchment of roughly 15k - The scope is much too narrow for a heavy rail project.

If we have to go with heavy rail, then we should look at the proposed inner city metro. Here we could have a high-quality spine route for the inner city which could possibly span Hamilton-Bulimba-Newstead-Valley-CBD-South Brisbane-West End-Toowong (I think Golliwog mentioned something about changing the route slightly via UQ and terminate at Indro which would be better than the Toowong terminus). This would present so much more of a benefit to an infinitely greater number of people. Granted the Cleveland line wouldn't get the 16 minute time saving but that can be done with realignment of the current line.

[Jon Bryant]

We need to do both and in fact this forum is doing exactly that. We also must recognize that some members have deeper knowledge about operational aspects whilst others like myself are longer term planners.  I have always supported all the aspects you outline but focusing ONLY on the immediate means that long term may/will suffer. I do not argue that the long term is useless without fixing the short term.

It is well known that I believe we need to have public and active transport catering for 60%+ of all trips.  This needs significant investment and redirection of funding from roads.  All the areas you high light need to be done and done yesterday but that will take us to 15 or 20% of all trips not 50%.    

[somebody]

Removing the Cleveland Line from the Merivale Bridge as you have just suggested would provide insufficient service to South Bank/South Brisbane. In fact at 4tph off-peak frequencies, it would provide less service than at present- doh!

I don't think you can say it's insufficient though.  A train every 15 minutes isn't sufficient?  Add in the busway service, and the service here is actually really good.

Tramtrain's Bulimia Line (as I shall now call it), wouldn't solve issues with capacity issues from the North, as the Petrie and Ferny Grove Lines would still have to share a track through the City - thus there would be limited capacity for extra Kippa-Ring & Sunshine Coast services, and no room for Trout's Rd services.

I'm not really convinced that these issues are as bad as you fear.  For example, you could have the Ferny Grove, Doomben and Airport services using the suburbans, with Shorncliffe and Petrie on the mains and Caboolture/Nambour on the 2016 tunnel.  Took me a few minutes to come up with that based on the traffic forcasts in the ICRCS Rail Operations and Review p24.  Putting a bit more time into it, you may come up with something better.

It's clear that there is significant room for extra peak services from the north in our current network, and also in the ICRCS 2026 forecasts.  But by the time you are talking about the sort of patronage growth they are predicting, you have to be thinking about longer trains as at least one option.

Do you think that maybe as a group we should be campaigning for things that are on the horizon, but are still minus funding, before suggesting new lines? Even if Tramtrain's Bulimia Line was built post 2nd cross river rail tunnel, I still see it being difficult to justify, both financially, and for journey benefits. Work out the number of projected passengers on the Bulimia Line vs costs, and it will be difficult to financially justify against other infrastructure.

There are hole lot of fish to fry before we should even start suggesting post 2nd cross river rail tunnel ideas. We don't even have a decent peak or off-peak rail service, we have an odd fair structure and poorly implemented smart card, we have a transport authority that seems to be incompetent, there is no funding for an urgently needed rail tunnel, etc, etc. These are things that we need to be discussing, not future fantasies.

I think that we have a kick arse smart card, far better than what's in Sydney, and by all accounts, better than Melbourne too.  I don't know why some are so anti-Go Card.  I would agree that the fare structure which unduly subsidises long distance commuters is a problem.  Also, I agree about the incompetent transport authority and non-decent off peak rail frequency.

I still argue that such a line is far better than the 2026 tunnel as proposed in the ICRCS.  That proposal is poor.  Not least the suggestion that Beenleigh trains need to loop around via Tennyson, suggesting 9 car platforms then modelling train number requirements based on 6 car trains.  I'm sure that there's other issues I'm not thinking of right now.

may provide a slightly quicker journey for outer-Cleveland line commuters (This is a negligible benefit btw) and provides rail to a population catchment of roughly 15k - The scope is much too narrow for a heavy rail project.

I think it's a very significant benefit.  You can actually make commuting by rail the prefered option for Cleveland line people even off peak, so long as you have a decent train frequency.  I think if this line had even 4tph running on it off peak, demand would be such that it would need to be increased to more like 6-8tph just to give the majority a seat.

[Golliwog]

So Stephenk, we shouldnt think about anything other than the 2026 tunnel until its built, or both peak and off-peak frequencies are improved? Yes these things are important and need to be focused on, but if we don't think of improvements to do after then, what will we do once those things have been accomplished? Theres nothing wrong with suggesting new things.

[stephenk]

Removing the Cleveland Line from the Merivale Bridge as you have just suggested would provide insufficient service to South Bank/South Brisbane. In fact at 4tph off-peak frequencies, it would provide less service than at present- doh!

I don't think you can say it's insufficient though.  A train every 15 minutes isn't sufficient?  Add in the busway service, and the service here is actually really good.

A train every 15mins to a busy employment, education, and entertainment hub such as South Bank is very poor. A similar district in Europe would have around 12tph off-peak. Since the current off-peak service is 6-8tph, 4tph would be a big step backwards.

As you cannot wait for both the busway and train at the same time, the argument for the busway making up for lower train frequencies is poor.

So Stephenk, we shouldnt think about anything other than the 2026 tunnel until its built, or both peak and off-peak frequencies are improved? Yes these things are important and need to be focused on, but if we don't think of improvements to do after then, what will we do once those things have been accomplished? Theres nothing wrong with suggesting new things.

Maybe once we actually get the 1st new tunnel, start discussing the 3rd. But at the moment, discussing lines such as Tramtrain's Bulimba Line (play on words, regurgitated idea) which would handle around 2/3 of one existing branch lines passengers is really a waste of breath. I also find is somewhat amusing that people think they know far better than independent public transport analysts.

People influential in public transport decisions do read this forum. However if the number of fantasy threads increased compared to number of sensible threads then they will not take this forum seriously. It's up to forum members to decide which way they want to go.

Rant over

[ozbob]

Ideas are welcome.  Just explain why you think the ideas are not good is fine.

This thread has been closed.

Please read this thread everyone.  We aim to for a forum that there is a robust exchange of views, in line with this post

-->  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3444.0

Thanks.

[ozbob]

Thread has been re-opened.

[somebody]

A train every 15mins to a busy employment, education, and entertainment hub such as South Bank is very poor. A similar district in Europe would have around 12tph off-peak. Since the current off-peak service is 6-8tph, 4tph would be a big step backwards.

As you cannot wait for both the busway and train at the same time, the argument for the busway making up for lower train frequencies is poor.

I would argue that even if the train was running every 5 minutes, the busway service would still be preferable for travel to most CBD locations, except for travelling to Roma St and possibly on to Ipswich or the NW.  Therefore saying we need a train here for local commutes doesn't really work.

Thread has been re-opened.

Thank you.  I really wanted to answer that one.

[Golliwog]

Plus, trains stick to timetable (IMO) far better than buses. So no, you can't wait for both, but if you know a train isn't going to be coming for another 10 minutes, if you're just going to the CBD you would wait for a bus instead.