Sunnybank-Browns Plains Line

[STB]

Guess it would lose it's 'Bullet' status then.  

I'm currently trawling through the TOPTA (Transport Operations - Passenger Transport Act), and some other Transport Acts to see if I can find the exact wording on it.

If that fails, I know someone who can confirm it for me.

[Golliwog]

So maybe it might not be called a bullet, but adding one stop is hardly going to up the time it takes to get to the city by anything more than 1 or 2 minutes. I would much rather that and being able to stand on the bus than be told I'm not allowed on.

[somebody]

Griffith Uni gets queues up too sometimes, and that can't be routed around. It may not be stretched yet, but you can see the limit approaching.

Ok, that one could be extended fairly easily though.  Then split up the routes between 2 lead stops.

I believe it is still no standing on the 142.
The "next one" is tomorrow. That's a long time to wait.

Only if you are talking about the last service, and then you can still use some 140/141s.

[#Metro]

I don't know how this area is going to cope in the future- 2016, 2026.

[somebody]

That's not a rule, it's law.  Standees aren't allowed to remain standing on any bus service beyond 25km from first stop to the next stop (as I understand it).

Eg: If the eastern peak hour Veolia bus routes had their next stop after Buranda at Capalaba then no standees would be allowed (or at least very close to being that), from the road distance involved between those two locations.

Perhaps it's a good thing that doesn't apply to rail, apparently, as the peak Gold Coast trains would have to leave people behind.

[somebody]

Do they still have the stupid rule that the 142 isn't allowed to accept standee passengers?  If you don't want to stand, nothing is stopping you from waiting until the next one.  I would agree that more artics are required.

It makes one wonder why the 112 seat superbuses aren't used here as a stop-gap measure.

They don't have 112 seats.  They have less seats to allow more standing room.  May they be shot.

[STB]

That's not a rule, it's law.  Standees aren't allowed to remain standing on any bus service beyond 25km from first stop to the next stop (as I understand it).

Eg: If the eastern peak hour Veolia bus routes had their next stop after Buranda at Capalaba then no standees would be allowed (or at least very close to being that), from the road distance involved between those two locations.

Ok, I have the exact answer on this.

It falls under the Tranport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2000 where it states:

Under Section 12: Operational Safety of Vehicles

((c)if the vehicle is a bus that carries standing passengers—
(ii)no passenger stands for more than 20km; and

And...

Under Section 21: Ensuring Operational Safety of Vehicles

(c)if the vehicle is a bus, that carries standing passengers—
(ii)no passenger stands for more than 20km; and

The relevent document can be found at: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstOpPasTS00.pdf

[Golliwog]

I've never heard of that until this thread. So even if they did have an extra stop, they still wouldn't be allowed to stand because its over 20km to the city.

[mufreight]

The rules are quite clear, passengers are not allowed to stand for a distance of more that 20 klm

[Golliwog]

The rules are quite clear, passengers are not allowed to stand for a distance of more that 20 klm

Ok, I get that its a rule. But whats the justification for it? I mean, yes its a long distance to stand for, but so is 20km on a train, but theres nothing against that. If its because of the risk of a crash, shouldn't this not be just 20km? I mean, it could be 20km in peak traffic so the bus never gets to any high speeds. Or it could be 20km on the busway where its far safer as its buses only.

[#Metro]

A train is overcrowded if passengers stand for more than 20 minutes.
In about 20 minutes, a train would have traveled about 20km 

Standing on a bus is more uncomfortable than standing on the train. On a train you have grab bars and grab handles, more room and a much smoother ride. On buses its much more jerky, you have to deal with traffic lights and drivers on the road and people who run after the bus and bang on the door (sudden stops etc).

[Jon Bryant]

The intent of the law may have been to stop people standing on long haul (ie.e Greyhound like) bus trips to improve saftey.  Honestly, long dstances should be by rail for a whole range of reasons including passenger saftey. 

[#Metro]

This poll will close tonight. Vote if you haven't already 

[Golliwog]

I would support it, but not as it is currently proposed. If it to be built along the proposed alignment I do not think heavy rail is the solution. If something were to go in along this alignment I would support some form of bus priority (bus lanes or a mini busway - they don't need to be anywhere near as bulky as the SE busway) or as a light rail line in the road corridor. For either of these options obviously, it wouldn't end at Altandi, but continue on to at least the existing busway.

[somebody]

I would support it, but not as it is currently proposed. If it to be built along the proposed alignment I do not think heavy rail is the solution. If something were to go in along this alignment I would support some form of bus priority (bus lanes or a mini busway - they don't need to be anywhere near as bulky as the SE busway) or as a light rail line in the road corridor. For either of these options obviously, it wouldn't end at Altandi, but continue on to at least the existing busway.

I would echo this.

[#Metro]

I'm thinking longer term: 2016 and 2026.

[Golliwog]

Even so, adding another spur line is just going to complicate the timetable on the Beenleigh line further, by reducing the number of tph that come from stations past Altandi. I don't see a way of feasably integrating it with other services. I'm not saying that the new line would not be well patronised. It certainly would, but it just doesn't make sense to me to complicate the running of these other trains. That was my issue with the Trouts Rd line being just an add-on the the Ferny Grove line.

As either a light rail line, or bus prioritisation of some form, you get increased public transport capacity on this corridor, whilst no complicating the timetable of the Beenleigh. Yes it will mean increased patronage on the Beenleigh line, but its a lot simpler to increase the frequency on that whole line (or of the Kuraby starters) to meet the demand than to try and balance trains between the two lines. Add into that the GC express services and its hectic.

A light rail line would have further benefits as its frequency would not be restricted by other factors such as the ultimate capacity of the rail network through central Brisbane (yes, its being expanded, but theres still an upper limit). Increasing the number of buses could be harder to do with the current busway capacity constraints, but as has been pointed out frequently on thie forum, there is ample capacity for buses to cross the river via the Captain Cook bridge, or to access a different part of the city (if demand warrants it) buses could be run via Woolongabba busway station and then across the Storey bridge.

[stephenk]

The intent of the law may have been to stop people standing on long haul (ie.e Greyhound like) bus trips to improve saftey.  Honestly, long dstances should be by rail for a whole range of reasons including passenger saftey. 

You may realise that rail cannot serve all outer low density suburbs, it's simply not cost effective. If you think of rail lines as spokes from a wheel hub, by the time you get to the wheel there are large gaps between the spokes. Thus some outer suburbs can only realistically be served by bus, which will result in 20km+ bus journeys.

If your comment was referring to longer distance intercity services, then rail can be justified if there is a reasonably large number of people travelling on that route. If you have potential for just 20 people travelling daily from point A to point B, there is little point in having a rail line between them. Your point about safety is irrelevant if rail is not suitable.

[#Metro]

For guidance I looked at the ICRCS pre-feasability report, pages 36 (detailing 2016 options).
I will preface this section saying that "i'm not an expert", and anyone who wants that professional advice- Systemwide is for advice like that.
http://www.systemwide.com.au/

Lets say a maximum of 21 trains per hour may make it through the ICRCS tunnel. The maximum may be higher.
In 2016, 14 gold coast/beenleigh trains are using the what appears to be the ICRCS tunnel. Now, I don't know if it was 4 tracks in the ICRCS tunnel, or two (I think it is four, but will clarify with project team) but lets say that the maximum number of trains through that section is 21 trains/hour.

This leaves at least 7 slots available from this line in peak hour to run a train.

IMHO there is space for this line.  

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eba5524986096ec/Pdf_inner_city_rail_capacity_study_pre_feasibility_report.pdf

[#Metro]

You may realise that rail cannot serve all outer low density suburbs, it's simply not cost effective. If you think of rail lines as spokes from a wheel hub, by the time you get to the wheel there are large gaps between the spokes. Thus some outer suburbs can only realistically be served by bus, which will result in 20km+ bus journeys.

What is the minimum density in persons/km2 or dwellings per km2 does a suburb need to be in order to justify a railway line?

[somebody]

Lets say a maximum of 21 trains per hour may make it through the ICRCS tunnel. The maximum may be higher.
In 2016, 14 gold coast/beenleigh trains are using the what appears to be the ICRCS tunnel. Now, I don't know if it was 4 tracks in the ICRCS tunnel, or two (I think it is four, but will clarify with project team) but lets say that the maximum number of trains through that section is 21 trains/hour.

This leaves at least 7 slots available from this line in peak hour to run a train.

2 tracks in the tunnels, but they recommended 4 tracks at stations.

Besides, why get so concerned with what is happenning in 2016?  You would expect there to be unused capacity on the openning of the new tunnel.

[#Metro]

Two tracks? Is that all?
One track out and one track in? Is that right?
I was expecting more for $8 billion!

[stephenk]

You may realise that rail cannot serve all outer low density suburbs, it's simply not cost effective. If you think of rail lines as spokes from a wheel hub, by the time you get to the wheel there are large gaps between the spokes. Thus some outer suburbs can only realistically be served by bus, which will result in 20km+ bus journeys.

What is the minimum density in persons/km2 or dwellings per km2 does a suburb need to be in order to justify a railway line?

I cannot give you a figure as it is probably possible to write a dissertation on the answer! There are many variables which would affect which transport mode is most viable, the largest of which would probably be construction costs.

[#Metro]

I cannot give you a figure as it is probably possible to write a dissertation on the answer! There are many variables which would affect which transport mode is most viable, the largest of which would probably be construction costs.

I understand there is variation, but surely there is some kind of upper and lower ballpark for this. How low is low density?
Even for costs, which the mass transit report places at between $60 and $300 million per kilometre (though I suspect that it is skewed to the higher end by the overseas examples).

A short explaination on this would be an extremely valuable contribution to the forum.

I know TL has some ballpark for bus services.

[#Metro]

Wow, that is extremely close result. 

[stephenk]

Wow, that is extremely close result. 

Looks like there are 5 people who are yet to land back into the sea of reality then 

There is absolutely no justification for building an underground rail corridor when there is a nearby existing standard gauge rail corridor that could be converted for a fraction of the cost. Even this cannot be utilised until the 1st CRR tunnel is constructed.

[stephenk]

I cannot give you a figure as it is probably possible to write a dissertation on the answer! There are many variables which would affect which transport mode is most viable, the largest of which would probably be construction costs.

I understand there is variation, but surely there is some kind of upper and lower ballpark for this. How low is low density?
Even for costs, which the mass transit report places at between $60 and $300 million per kilometre (though I suspect that it is skewed to the higher end by the overseas examples).

A short explaination on this would be an extremely valuable contribution to the forum.

I know TL has some ballpark for bus services.

You may find the technical appendix in this article interesting http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density.shtml (although there may obviously be some pro PT bias given the website). Now find the cost of constructing a train line and operating a train line (from BCC document), compared to the cost of running a bus on existing roads, and you may get some figures for how justifiable or unjustifiable running trains would be in an area of population density as stated in the article.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support expanding rail from Springfield to Ipswich, Kippa-Ring, Sunshine Coast, Trouts Rd, Greater Flagstone, Coolangatta Airport. But it is not cost effective or practical for rail to cover the whole urban area, especially the outer edges. High frequency buses are required to fill the gaps.

Edit: forgot to put in website link.

[#Metro]

although there may obviously be some pro PT bias given the website

BCC has Pro-PT bias?

There is absolutely no justification for building an underground rail corridor when there is a nearby existing standard gauge rail corridor that could be converted for a fraction of the cost.

It could be above, below, at-grade, or a combination of all three.
Community benefits are completely ignored, and are sacrificed to least costs, and vote expediency, rather than benefit maximization. Also there is nothing in there giving figures about density. If density is being used as some indirect measure of potential patronage, it is difficult to believe the service will be poorly patronised given the extreme bus frequency and overloading that people on these buses experience (as others have posted here).

[stephenk]

If density is being used as some indirect measure of potential patronage, it is difficult to believe the service will be poorly patronised given the extreme bus frequency and overloading that people on these buses experience (as others have posted here).

I think you are getting your contexts confused.

A railway line in this area should be justifiable, but along the existing standard gauge corridor.

My comments on PT mode vs population density was in response to Jonno's comment "Honestly, long dstances should be by rail for a whole range of reasons including passenger saftey."

[#Metro]

Apologies, my bad. Thanks for the link, it is extremely helpful.

I think you are getting your contexts confused.

A rail service in this area is something I think is the best option, we disagree with the alignment.
IMHO, as I've maintained, I think that a rail service down the existing standard gauge (SG) corridor is a second-best solution.
The best solution is placing rail where the maximum number of people use it:
This means being as close to the axis line of shopping centres and suburban centres (list below). The SG line is too far away from these.

Unfortunately IMHO only seeing costs without regard for how this will damage the community benefits:
Why do people calculate the costs but don't think about the benefits? This isn't how people buy things or make decisions in real life- if this were applied to eating food it would be like everybody eating one meal a day consisting of the 50c home brand packet of noodles for life because "that's the cheapest".  

These are:

Centro Pinelands
Sunnybank Hills Shopping Town
Calamvale Shopping Centre
Kameruka Street Shopping Cluster
Woolworths Calamvale
Browns Plains Shopping Centre
Greenbank RSL
Boronia Heights

[somebody]

Two tracks? Is that all?
One track out and one track in? Is that right?
I was expecting more for $8 billion!

Does that help you see the problem with a rail tunnel along the Mains Rd corridor.

I don't think it would be $8bn for just the first tunnel though.  That might be for both tunnels, and some ancillary projects like Fairfield-Banoon quad.

Sydney's airport line was built for about $1bn 10 years ago, and it's probably about as long as the 2016 CRR tunnel.

[#Metro]

Does that help you see the problem with a rail tunnel along the Mains Rd corridor.

I don't think it would be $8bn for just the first tunnel though.  That might be for both tunnels, and some ancillary projects like Fairfield-Banoon quad.

Sydney's airport line was built for about $1bn 10 years ago, and it's probably about as long as the 2016 CRR tunnel.

I did not propose that it would be exclusively a rail tunnel. It could be a mix of elevated, on ground and tunneled sections.
Had a chat to the Cross River Rail Project team on 1800 462 730. It sounds like they are using the ICRCS report as a guide because it was pre-feasibility. They are doing the "real" feasibility study now. How many tracks will there be, the official answer is "its being looked at." There could be up to six tracks (so three each way).

For $8 billion you would expect far more bang than one track each way.

Its still not a set and solid thing yet. Things will change as the project progresses. Ring them yourself, they are good.

Quad tracking to Banoon? even better for a Sunnybank-Browns Plains line.

[Golliwog]

Something I'm not a big fan of (for either the SG or Mains Rd corridor) is how this is still focusing on providing links just from here to Brisbane CBD. Yes its where a lot of people work, but I think we need more of a grid network than a radial one.

[somebody]

Something I'm not a big fan of (for either the SG or Mains Rd corridor) is how this is still focusing on providing links just from here to Brisbane CBD. Yes its where a lot of people work, but I think we need more of a grid network than a radial one.

I'm afraid that I would think it is a necessary thing.

[Golliwog]

Oh, I'm not saying I dont think the line is necessary, just that it should also be looked at in the bigger picture. I don't think the line itself could be changed much to provide more of a grid network, but if this was put in, perhaps the buses in the area could be rearranged a bit to provide some east-west links, like between this line the the Beenleigh line.

[somebody]

I meant the idea of a radial rail network is necessary. I'm glad you said buses to provide cross town routes, because that's about all that is practical at present.

[#Metro]

Oh, I'm not saying I dont think the line is necessary, just that it should also be looked at in the bigger picture. I don't think the line itself could be changed much to provide more of a grid network, but if this was put in, perhaps the buses in the area could be rearranged a bit to provide some east-west links, like between this line the the Beenleigh line.

There are a few lines that do cross the suburb to get to Griffith, but most are connected to the CBD.
A rail line will allow buses to be freed up to do feeders and other services.

On the other hand, routes like 599/598 could get a frequency upgrade trial. Every 15 minutes off peak. The route itself could be looked at to see if the number of stops vs time to travel could be improved.
It does not even have to be the whole line, a section could have its frequency amplified to see what effect it has on patronage.

[stephenk]

Unfortunately IMHO only seeing costs without regard for how this will damage the community benefits:
Why do people calculate the costs but don't think about the benefits? This isn't how people buy things or make decisions in real life- if this were applied to eating food it would be like everybody eating one meal a day consisting of the 50c home brand packet of noodles for life because "that's the cheapest".  

I wouldn't compare the cost of building a train line to whether you buy expensive or cheap noodles. In personal finance terms, how about comparing it with buying a house. Would you buy a $500,000 house in a slightly less convenient location, or a $1,500,000 house in a more convenient location?

[longboi]

Oh, I'm not saying I dont think the line is necessary, just that it should also be looked at in the bigger picture. I don't think the line itself could be changed much to provide more of a grid network, but if this was put in, perhaps the buses in the area could be rearranged a bit to provide some east-west links, like between this line the the Beenleigh line.

It would be like a mirror of the Ipswich-Springfield link and perhaps eventually the two could be joined. With Logan City identifying Logan Central/Woodridge, Park Ridge and Browns Plains as activity centres, eventually I think there will be signficant demand to support rail as employment, education and commercial enterprise grows in those areas.

[mufreight]

It would not be practical (at this stage) to link these lines as it is intended to continue the Springfield line through the Ripley Valley and Yamanto into Ipswich.