Newstead-Bulimba-Cleveland

[#Metro]

Well rather than have another online melee, if you like the idea, you can forward the idea
to the Dept. of Transport. The Cross River Rail group may also be able to pass info on to the right area.

Rails, Ports and Freight Division
Department of Transport and Main Roads
GPO Box 1549
Brisbane, Queensland 4001

[ButFli]

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.

The Ipswich line has 4tph and although the services are well patronised, there is a seat for everyone. How do you figure that the Cleveland line is any different?

[somebody]

The Ipswich line has 4tph and although the services are well patronised, there is a seat for everyone. How do you figure that the Cleveland line is any different?

Because the road alternatives here are poor.  Compare Old Cleveland Rd or Wynnum Rd/Storey Bridge to the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Hwy/Milton Rd alternatives.

[mufreight]

Ipswich line 4 TPH but only as far as Corinda, onlt 2 TPH beyond Coeinda to Ipswich

[ButFli]

The Ipswich line has 4tph and although the services are well patronised, there is a seat for everyone. How do you figure that the Cleveland line is any different?

Because the road alternatives here are poor.  Compare Old Cleveland Rd or Wynnum Rd/Storey Bridge to the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Hwy/Milton Rd alternatives.

I've driven those roads a number of times in off-peak and I can't say I've noticed any difference between them.

Ipswich line 4 TPH but only as far as Corinda, onlt 2 TPH beyond Coeinda to Ipswich

Yet there isn't a need for 8tph as far as Corinda? Or is there something magic about extending 4tph to the end of the line that instantly creates more demand than there is capacity?

[somebody]

Because the road alternatives here are poor.  Compare Old Cleveland Rd or Wynnum Rd/Storey Bridge to the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Hwy/Milton Rd alternatives.

I've driven those roads a number of times in off-peak and I can't say I've noticed any difference between them.

You didn't think that the never ending procession of traffic lights in the east is annoying?  Not to mention the inconvenient river crossing.

[ButFli]

Because the road alternatives here are poor.  Compare Old Cleveland Rd or Wynnum Rd/Storey Bridge to the Ipswich Motorway/Centenary Hwy/Milton Rd alternatives.

I've driven those roads a number of times in off-peak and I can't say I've noticed any difference between them.

You didn't think that the never ending procession of traffic lights in the east is annoying?  Not to mention the inconvenient river crossing.

I can't say I particularly noticed it. It isn't enough to convert the masses to rail, 15 minute frequency or not.

[#Metro]

Vs Eastern Busway? http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4113.msg30284#msg30284

[stephenk]

Oh, FFS 

-The Eastern Busway mainly serves a different market to the Cleveland Line.
-The Eastern Busway allows for one-seat journeys for people who do not live near the actual busway route - this is one of the major advantages of busways in a sprawling low density city over rail.
-Routing trains via Bulimba would create an operational imbalance from the North, and create a stub line from the South (which would also not be good for South Bank frequency post CRR).
-You are assuming costs (in the linked thread) based on other cities and construction techniques.
-Newstead to Bulimba could be served by buses and a green bridge much more cost effectively than by rail.

[#Metro]

Oh, FFS  Roll Eyes

Well, you can't say that you were not warned   Its well known what that thread contains.
Enter at your own risk!

-The Eastern Busway mainly serves a different market to the Cleveland Line.

Prove that they serve a different market, sufficiently different to warrant a separate estimated $1.8 billion dollar outlay.
Many of these stations can be reached by a direct bus. A spur line and Bus-Rail interchange plus park and ride at Carindale shopping centre would make this even more accessible.

-Routing trains via Bulimba would create an operational imbalance from the North, and create a stub line from the South (which would also not be good for South Bank frequency post CRR).

That spur line could continue to be matched with the Doomben line. Look at the Ferny Grove line. Ask yourself "what is at Ferny Grove?" there certainly isn't one of Queensland's largest shopping centres, and that line too is short compared to other ones. Perth built a spur line to Thornlie in recent years. This spur line is important to solve the South Bank frequency and split line problem.

I don't know what the, new, more direct, faster Cleveland line would pair with. Perhaps someone can offer a suggestion.

[#Metro]

-You are assuming costs (in the linked thread) based on other cities and construction techniques.

I am, but Epping-Chatswood is an extreme case. Rail gives a better service as well, and it would be more direct, which would be good justification if there were a higher cost anyway. The Epping-Chatswood line is something very extreme- extreme gradient, the whole thing is in a tunnel, very expensive. The busway would impose its own (hidden) costs on commuters: mixing with car traffic and car traffic delays, and the fact that it would be less direct by having to do the U bend to reach the CBD. And many of the buses in peak hour would also be pouring on to the riverside expressway, a perfect place to get caught in congestion and add to bus congestion on CBD streets.

Because rail offers a higher quality transport service, it would attract more passengers, which would help bring the cost per passenger down. It also uses less staff to operate.

-Newstead to Bulimba could be served by buses and a green bridge much more cost effectively than by rail.

Running buses over this bridge would flood Bulimba and Tenneriffe with buses and may elicit strong residential opposition. It is also slower to get to the CBD using buses over a bridge at this location and buses would have to run on surface streets with much more traffic and with no grade separation, which means more delays during peak hour. A 15 minute time saving for 1000s of Cleveland line users would be lost (how much is that worth?) as would TOD opportunities near rail. A metro link is planned in the area anyway, so it may as well be heavy rail.

The time savings may also make it viable to upgrade and extend the Cleveland line further.

A different solution would be a pedestrian + cycle bridge + ferry, much cheaper because there is no suspended roadway and the CityCat service on either end could be retained. People who want a high speed service to the CBD could catch a train at Bulimba or Newstead, or walk to the Citycat or cycle or walk across the pedestrian bridge.

This idea would:
* Save 15 minutes for Cleveland line users
* No need to flood Bulimba with buses
* Faster
* More direct (no U bend)
* More TOD opportunities
* Higher quality service
* Still allow for a green bridge at Bulimba (pedestrian, cycling + ferry)

[#Metro]

-The Eastern Busway allows for one-seat journeys for people who do not live near the actual busway route - this is one of the major advantages of busways in a sprawling low density city over rail.

This is the kind of argument that justifies the car and freeways from everywhere to everywhere else - a one seat, direct, fast (in theory) trip. Public transport needs networks, and that means transfers.

This one seat bus journey would be indirect, as it would have to do the U-bend. And I've already shown how it becomes an impossible and wasteful task to connect every destination with every other destination with a direct bus. The same effect can be achieved when buses integrate to feed rail. High frequency feeder buses collect passengers in low density suburbs, concentrate them and then take them to the nearest rail station. Transfers are essential. It happens at Central all the time; it happens at Cultural Centre all the time. And sometimes, even you transfer.

All these individual buses on a busway will need to empty on to a city street. They will flood the CBD with more and more buses, a CBD which is already flooded with cars, delivery trucks, taxis, pedestrians, cyclists and traffic. It only takes a single accident on the riverside expressway, or an incident somewhere on the surface to cause huge problems. Being completely separate, rail would be far more reliable.

And this might be better value for money for what its giving people- Rail Quality Transport. It would also have higher capacity than a busway. Very important for the future. Why spend that money on a solution with half the capacity and lower service quality when you could spend it on rail?  

[#Metro]

  I would love to have Dr Paul Mees on the forum.

[O_128]

While we are at it just continue from cannon hill to carindale. Problem solved. I personally think the busway is a huge waste of money as these buses have nowhere to go once they reach cultural centre. I remember asking why the eastern busway couldn't be a rail line and was told that it was because of the topography of the area, yet have a look at the plans and most of the busway is either elevated or tunnel or transitional. Why must bus and rail compete with each other.

[#Metro]

While we are at it just continue from cannon hill to carindale. Problem solved. I personally think the busway is a huge waste of money as these buses have nowhere to go once they reach cultural centre. I remember asking why the eastern busway couldn't be a rail line and was told that it was because of the topography of the area, yet have a look at the plans and most of the busway is either elevated or tunnel or transitional. Why must bus and rail compete with each other.

'Topography' I don't believe it either. What is more, Google has released a topographical feature as part of their google maps. So we will now be able to check this! Topography hasn't stopped a railway going to Ferny Grove.

I also remember somebody's comment about railway gradients.

[somebody]

While we are at it just continue from cannon hill to carindale.

I don't think you could do that.  It's too indirect.  You could branch off at Norman Park for Carindale though, although I think this is unlikely.

I remember asking why the eastern busway couldn't be a rail line and was told that it was because of the topography of the area, yet have a look at the plans and most of the busway is either elevated or tunnel or transitional. Why must bus and rail compete with each other.

Part of me finds the alignment weird.  Also, there is a bit of bus priority on the current corridor via Deshon St.  Sure the busway is better, but it is also expensive.

I'm not opposed to the busway, and it does offer positives, but this one is very expensive.  I am reserving judgement.

Oh, FFS 

-The Eastern Busway mainly serves a different market to the Cleveland Line.
-The Eastern Busway allows for one-seat journeys for people who do not live near the actual busway route - this is one of the major advantages of busways in a sprawling low density city over rail.
-Routing trains via Bulimba would create an operational imbalance from the North, and create a stub line from the South (which would also not be good for South Bank frequency post CRR).
-You are assuming costs (in the linked thread) based on other cities and construction techniques.
-Newstead to Bulimba could be served by buses and a green bridge much more cost effectively than by rail.

Stephenk, in answer to your comments:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) The most problematic aspect.  See below (although, pretty much things I've already said).  Are you sure you aren't just resisting change here?
4) What reason do you have to assume they are different?
5) It could, but that adds far less value as it doesn't speed up the Cleveland line or provide rail service to New Farm.  Also, as TT points out it may be politically difficult to implement.  Also, Brunswick St in New Farm is really only a 2 lane street + parking.  A green bridge would send a lot of buses down here.  Wouldn't they get caught in a lot of traffic in peak?

Regarding the making the "more trains from the north" problem worse, this could be solved by continuing from Central to QUT KG & Newmarket.  Yes, that would close Windsor & Wilston stations but given that Windsor is served by the 333 BUZ & 370/375/379 buses, I do not see that as a deal breaker.  Wilston is a bit more problematic as that only has the 325/335/346/353, however I see that some sort of upgrade is completely doable.  The major problem could be crossing Breakfast Ck, although I expect that to be able to be solved, and probably no bigger deal than crossing the Lane Cover River for the Epping-Chatswood link.  (FWIW, they stopped the river to build a cut and cover tunnel here.)  This also gives a rail service to QUT KG which is surely a plus.

Regarding creating a stub line via Norman Park.  The calcs in another thread on this worked out that 4tph would only be a satisfactory peak service until 2021, didn't they?  I see no issue with 4tph all day, but by sometime in the 2020s there would need to be more peak service.  Where's the problem with the stub line?

Regarding your comments about "an unsatisfactory service to South Bank".  If 4tph route via Norman Park, then one of the other northern lines could connect to South Bank and reverse as the weekend Shorncliffe trains do.  But at present there are gaps >10mins at South Bank anyway.  I do not see that this is worth worrying about due to what would still be a poor rail service to the city even at 10tph.

[#Metro]

Regarding the making the "more trains from the north" problem worse, this could be solved by continuing from Central to QUT KG & Newmarket.

Couldn't this also be solved by letting it loop back on itself? Cleveland trains would no longer go to or originate from Bowen Hills or Mayne Yard.
This would solve both the line pairing problem and the split line problem at once.

Example:

Cleveland ---> Cannon Hill ---> Newstead-Bulimba tunnel and stations ---> Fortitude Valley ---> Central ---> Roma St ---> Park Rd ---> Cannon Hill ---> (Spur line) Carindale and terminate.

[Golliwog]

So somebody, you're idea would be Cleveland line --> Cannon Hill --> Newstead/Bulimba --> FV+Central+Roma St --> Exhibition line --> QUT KG -->Newmarket --> Remainder of FG line?

[colinw]

So somebody, you're idea would be Cleveland line --> Cannon Hill --> Newstead/Bulimba --> FV+Central+Roma St --> Exhibition line --> QUT KG -->Newmarket --> Remainder of FG line?

While probably a bit of a foaming fantasy, that proposal has merit in that it retains the northside/southside balance of lines, and also serves to shorten the two most indirect lines on the CityTrain network.

[#Metro]

  Good discussion.

[Golliwog]

This is true, although personally given according to the timetable it takes 24 minutes for a train from Central to reach Cannon Hill (add a few minutes if you want to do whatever spur line you were talking of, personally I think this is a bit of a waste as it becomes too zig-zaggy and it would be easier to just catch a bus to Buranda or even just all the way to the city) and 29 minutes from Central to Ferny Grove I would have thought pairing these two together would work well as they would both be roughly equally long lines which I would have thought would make timetabling easier?

I don't think adding a spur line running to Carindale would be worth it if its going to be added to the end of the Cannon Hill stub. It would really only be worth it if these services were to run via the proposed Newstead/Bulimba link. IMO, the line would simply be too circuitous in a relatively small area.

[somebody]

So somebody, you're idea would be Cleveland line --> Cannon Hill --> Newstead/Bulimba --> FV+Central+Roma St --> Exhibition line --> QUT KG -->Newmarket --> Remainder of FG line?

I am thinking more like: Cleveland line -> Cannon Hill -> Hawthorne -> New Farm -> Central -> QUT KG -> Newmarket -> Rest of FG line.

i.e. a triple river crossing.  But if you are tunnelling deep enough to get under the river without an immersed tube, why not?

While probably a bit of a foaming fantasy, that proposal has merit in that it retains the northside/southside balance of lines, and also serves to shorten the two most indirect lines on the CityTrain network.

Not completely sure why it's a fantasy though.  It has better bang/buck (IMO) than the 2026 tunnel, although it is more expensive.

[stephenk]

Yes, that would close Windsor & Wilston stations but given that Windsor is served by the 333 BUZ & 370/375/379 buses, I do not see that as a deal breaker.  Wilston is a bit more problematic as that only has the 325/335/346/353, however I see that some sort of upgrade is completely doable. 

It seems odd that people on a rail forum are promoting the closure of two inner-suburb stations. 

I'm sure residents of Windsor and Wilston would not be happy with the removal of their train station. Also, have you considered people travelling to Windsor and Wilston from Ferny Grove Line destinations (quite a few people alight at Windsor on inbound am peak trains)? I would say closing two stations is a show stopper to this latest fantasy idea, that yet again is reducing the credibility of this forum.

[Golliwog]

For the record, I didn't like the plan of closing those stations, I don't think the benefit of shaving a few minutes off a journey from FG really outweights the cost of removing 2 stations. There is the argument the it will give a direct rail link to QUT KG, however this is really only a benefit for FG line commuters as all others would still have to change trains in the CBD, which can already be done by changing onto a bus. Yes rail has far higher capacity but I don't think the costs involved in constructing a whole new tunnel in the area would be beaten by this benefit.

[somebody]

Yes, that would close Windsor & Wilston stations but given that Windsor is served by the 333 BUZ & 370/375/379 buses, I do not see that as a deal breaker.  Wilston is a bit more problematic as that only has the 325/335/346/353, however I see that some sort of upgrade is completely doable. 

It seems odd that people on a rail forum are promoting the closure of two inner-suburb stations. 

I'm sure residents of Windsor and Wilston would not be happy with the removal of their train station. Also, have you considered people travelling to Windsor and Wilston from Ferny Grove Line destinations (quite a few people alight at Windsor on inbound am peak trains)? I would say closing two stations is a show stopper to this latest fantasy idea, that yet again is reducing the credibility of this forum.

I view it as a PT forum.

I would agree that it would not be popular among affected residents to close their station.  But regarding your point about AM peak inbound alightings (and vice versa): the 2009 Passenger load survey puts the AM peak figure at: Windsor, 61 and Wilston, 36.  In the PM peak, the outbound boardings are Windsor, 42 and Wilston, 26.

Hardly a big deal.  It is possible to have a peak time only service through Windsor and Wilston, although I cannot see the merit in a full time service in this proposed scenario.

[stephenk]

So somebody, you're idea would be Cleveland line --> Cannon Hill --> Newstead/Bulimba --> FV+Central+Roma St --> Exhibition line --> QUT KG -->Newmarket --> Remainder of FG line?

I am thinking more like: Cleveland line -> Cannon Hill -> Hawthorne -> New Farm -> Central -> QUT KG -> Newmarket -> Rest of FG line.

i.e. a triple river crossing.  But if you are tunnelling deep enough to get under the river without an immersed tube, why not?

While probably a bit of a foaming fantasy, that proposal has merit in that it retains the northside/southside balance of lines, and also serves to shorten the two most indirect lines on the CityTrain network.

Not completely sure why it's a fantasy though.  It has better bang/buck (IMO) than the 2026 tunnel, although it is more expensive.

Bang for buck? You are having a laugh?

How does this line allow for as much increase in services from Springfield/Ipswich Lines as the 2nd ICRCS tunnel?
How does this line allow for the provision of extra services from Greater Flagstone, Ripley Valley areas?
How does this line allow for the provision of extra services from Kippa-Ring and Sunshine Coast?
Then you suggest closing two stations.

I'm sure that any professional public transport planners are having a good laugh at the foaming in thread!

[colinw]

While probably a bit of a foaming fantasy, that proposal has merit in that it retains the northside/southside balance of lines, and also serves to shorten the two most indirect lines on the CityTrain network.

Not completely sure why it's a fantasy though.  It has better bang/buck (IMO) than the 2026 tunnel, although it is more expensive.

Its a fantasy, because while it is nice to dream about shortening the journey times on these two indirect lines, both are terminating branch lines with no through connection to anywhere else. FG has sufficient capacity as is, and while indirect the journey time isn't that bad. Thus this proposal would be way down the list compared to links that boosted the capacity of the main lines (Caboolture / Sunshine Coast, Ipswich & beyond, Gold Coast).  You would not justify building an underground connection to either the Cleveland or FG lines based on the traffic on offering from those lines alone.  Additional spurs off the Cleveland (e.g. Capalaba, but we know that will be busway), or the "Trouts Road" corridor providing an alternative route to the north of the FG line, would be necessary to justify such an investment.  That alone, I believe, means that such an underground route is highly unlikely ever to be built, and I do not believe that either Capalaba or the Trouts Road corridor will ever see rail.

Therefore my position is that while such an underground would greatly improve two of my favourite lines, its way down the list of priorities and probably nothing more than an idle fantasy.

I also am dismayed to see this discussion suggest closing Windsor & Wilston.  Not particularly busy stations, either of them, but any closure that dilutes the connections & "network effect" of the rail system would be DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!!

For the record, I also object to stephenk's attempt to censor discussion on this topic, while at the same time agreeing with parts of his assessment of this proposal.  This is a discussion forum, and does need to allow free ranging discussion.  I think people are intelligent enough to know the difference between "blue sky" discussion and the official position of Rail - Back On Track.

OzBob - what is your position on discussions like this?  If you would prefer to see them toned down a bit I'm happy to pull my head in.

[ozbob]

Discussion is welcome.  Folks know the difference between the broad 'what if' and actuality.  A members posts are their views and that is fine.  General discussions on 'thought expirements' can lead to an outcome that without that discussion may not have been apparent. 

[#Metro]

I would agree that it would not be popular among affected residents to close their station.  But regarding your point about AM peak inbound alightings (and vice versa): the 2009 Passenger load survey puts the AM peak figure at: Windsor, 61 and Wilston, 36.  In the PM peak, the outbound boardings are Windsor, 42 and Wilston, 26.

It would be interesting to see what these numbers are after the northern busway opens...

or the "Trouts Road" corridor providing an alternative route to the north of the FG line, would be necessary to justify such an investment.  That alone, I believe, means that such an underground route is highly unlikely ever to be built, and I do not believe that either Capalaba or the Trouts Road corridor will ever see rail.

This is a shame because Trouts road is a good place for the feeder + rail idea. As the corridor is preserved, and the land is already government-owned, the construction of a railway would be relatively cheap cost-wise and open the whole northern section to bus-rail transport.

Of course, it will probably be used for a giant freeway, probably a bypass linking the Gateway Motorway in the north to the Western Freeway and the North Link tunnel. The justification? Single direct car trip, no transfer and low density (three things we know are not actually barriers to good PT when a proper network is put in place)

[mufreight]

or the "Trouts Road" corridor providing an alternative route to the north of the FG line, would be necessary to justify such an investment.  That alone, I believe, means that such an underground route is highly unlikely ever to be built, and I do not believe that either Capalaba or the Trouts Road corridor will ever see rail.

This is a shame because Trouts road is a good place for the feeder + rail idea. As the corridor is preserved, and the land is already government-owned, the construction of a railway would be relatively cheap cost-wise and open the whole northern section to bus-rail transport.

Of course, it will probably be used for a giant freeway, probably a bypass linking the Gateway Motorway in the north to the Western Freeway and the North Link tunnel. The justification? Single direct car trip, no transfer and low density (three things we know are not actually barriers to good PT when a proper network is put in place)

Is this relevant to this thread? Unless there has been a major geological upheaval recently that has relocated Trouts Road into the area it is nowhere near Newstead or the Cleveland - Bulimba corridor.

[somebody]

How does this line allow for as much increase in services from Springfield/Ipswich Lines as the 2nd ICRCS tunnel?
How does this line allow for the provision of extra services from Greater Flagstone, Ripley Valley areas?

We have already been through this one.  Freeing up capacity on the suburbans allows them to be used for these lines.  A conflicting move west of Roma St, but not a killer.

How does this line allow for the provision of extra services from Kippa-Ring and Sunshine Coast?

Are you sure this is relevant?  The 2026 tunnel has never been needed for these lines to be built.  There is enough capacity from the north now to run a large increase in services.  Only the Merivale bridge is approaching capacity.

In answer to your question though, it would free up the suburbans for these lines or other lines from the north.

Is this relevant to this thread? Unless there has been a major geological upheaval recently that has relocated Trouts Road into the area it is nowhere near Newstead or the Cleveland - Bulimba corridor.

It is because it has been proposed that the "Bulimba line" continues to Trouts Rd.

Its a fantasy, because while it is nice to dream about shortening the journey times on these two indirect lines, both are terminating branch lines with no through connection to anywhere else. FG has sufficient capacity as is, and while indirect the journey time isn't that bad.

Thanks for your post.

Yes, the FG line isn't too bad.  It's the Cleveland line which is the real problem.  The FG line going along for the ride is probably the only way it can be made to work without making the "more lines from the north" problem worse.  In theory, a deviation to the north from Central to RBH, an underground station at Windsor then a connection to Wilston would solve these problems while improving the FG line by a lesser amount.

Additional spurs off the Cleveland (e.g. Capalaba, but we know that will be busway), or the "Trouts Road" corridor providing an alternative route to the north of the FG line, would be necessary to justify such an investment.  That alone, I believe, means that such an underground route is highly unlikely ever to be built, and I do not believe that either Capalaba or the Trouts Road corridor will ever see rail.

I believe you are probably correct here.

I also am dismayed to see this discussion suggest closing Windsor & Wilston.  Not particularly busy stations, either of them, but any closure that dilutes the connections & "network effect" of the rail system would be DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!!

I would suggest this is outweighed by providing a rail service to a massive trip generator such as QUT KG outweighs these stations combined.  Although the politics of that is certainly going to be problematic.  And for that reason it may be a problem.

[stephenk]

For the record, I also object to stephenk's attempt to censor discussion on this topic, while at the same time agreeing with parts of his assessment of this proposal.  This is a discussion forum, and does need to allow free ranging discussion.  I think people are intelligent enough to know the difference between "blue sky" discussion and the official position of Rail - Back On Track.

The problem is the mix of fantasy ideas and sensible ideas on the same forum can make a mockery of what should be fairly serious discussion. I've got nothing against a dedicated fantasy thread forum, I know of a well moderated London Underground forum that does exactly that - fantasy ideas can either be started, or get moved to the dedicated fantasy forum. However, the current mix (and at times it seems that fantasy outweighs reality) is really not going to do RBoT any favours in the long run. It's up to the admin and moderators to decide if they want to allow as free as discussion as possible, and risk heading the way of PTUA who barely get taken seriously anymore. The alternative is to make changes so as to continue a high standard of discussion in the land of reality, made separate from the continuing onslaught of fantasy, ill-thought out, and unjustifiable ideas (which mainly seems to come from one person).

I think people are intelligent enough to know the difference between "blue sky" discussion and the official position of Rail - Back On Track.

I would like to think that, but sometimes just a quick skim read of the forum will come across more fantasy than reality. It could be likened to "the boy who cried wolf". If someone keeps crying wolf, then people will stop listening. I'm the sure the village was full of intelligent people!

As I've mentioned before, I have spoken to a planner involved in a PT project in Brisbane who said that they, and colleagues read this message board for amusement. Is this the way we want RBoT to be perceived?

[#Metro]

Additional spurs off the Cleveland (e.g. Capalaba, but we know that will be busway), or the "Trouts Road" corridor providing an alternative route to the north of the FG line, would be necessary to justify such an investment.

It's relevant mufreight, it was a response to this ^^^

It's up to the admin and moderators to decide if they want to allow as free as discussion as possible, and risk heading the way of PTUA who barely get taken seriously anymore.

The once head of the PTUA and Department of Transport don't like each other because there was some fairly harsh criticisms re Privatisation of Melbourne railways, claims that the system had a capacity crisis, which was then shown to be more to do with the way they had mis-operated the system, particularly the loop, then there is the bunbry street tunnel and another tunnel under the Melbourne CBD etc etc.

As I've mentioned before, I have spoken to a planner involved in a PT project in Brisbane who said that they, and colleagues read this message board for amusement. Is this the way we want RBoT to be perceived?

That's pretty sad and unprofessional. We could lock the entire forum (members only) and only issue sanitised media releases to the outside world, but I think that would be a bad, bad idea and would be a huge drop in access for ordinary commuters.

[ozbob]

As I've mentioned before, I have spoken to a planner involved in a PT project in Brisbane who said that they, and colleagues read this message board for amusement. Is this the way we want RBoT to be perceived?

Folks are entitled to their point of view. Just because some transport planners might find it amusing is no reason to not allow different points of view.  Some people may well find transport planners in Brisbane equally amusing too!  It is a two way street ...

The terms of service for this forum are clear.  Providing posts are within those terms I don't see the need to stiffle ideas.  Ideas can be countered with fact.  Commuters are entitled to have their view, even if it seems ill informed or 'amusing' to others.  I don't agree with everything put forward, nor does anyone else I suspect, but I support their right to have their view.

Cheers
Bob

[#Metro]

As I've mentioned before, I have spoken to a planner involved in a PT project in Brisbane who said that they, and colleagues read this message board for amusement. Is this the way we want RBoT to be perceived?

The difference between my posts and a planner's opinion, is that I'm a commuter, not a professional, and they are.
Its a different standard. They have all the tools, training, information and consultants and make the decisions.
As a commuter, I'm very low in the food chain, so to speak, but their decisions affect my commute, the level of rates and taxes that I pay and the built form of the suburbs I live in and the quality of transport that I and my children will get.

[somebody]

Regarding the professional planners, I find it appalling that they can't see the stupidity of dividing the city stop locations.  They are continuing to make this problem worse.

In Sydney, it is equally stupid that they (apparently) don't want to integrate the ticketting system.

[#Metro]

Regarding the professional planners, I find it appalling that they can't see the stupidity of dividing the city stop locations.  They are continuing to make this problem worse.

In Sydney, it is equally stupid that they (apparently) don't want to integrate the ticketting system

And the Sydney metro?! I liked the metro until info got out that it was not needed!

[stephenk]

OK, I've realised that arguing against stupidity is futile.

Admin: edited post

[mufreight]

In most libraries there is a section for fantasy and another for fiction and frequently there is one author who gains distinction or prominence because of the standard of their fantasy.  Regarding this forum as being the equivalent of a library we have our own writer of fantasy and in recognition of that writers efforts the award goes to.......(your nomination) for his efforts to degrade the credibility of this forum.

[somebody]

I've got nothing against a dedicated fantasy thread forum, I know of a well moderated London Underground forum that does exactly that - fantasy ideas can either be started, or get moved to the dedicated fantasy forum.

To be honest, my view is that this already exists.  "Rail Infrastructure Projects" is for things which will probably happen.  "New lines" is for things which are a bit more speculative.  Although by that definition, the CRR thread should be moved.