Draft Connecting SEQ 2031

[#Metro]

I'm disappointed to read this. Why doesn't the LNP, or any other political party release their own draft reports and plans?

Let's see:

BUZ buses, which were funded through a leaseback agreement with the Brisbane City Council
Extension to Varsity Lakes
Rollout of the Busway System (I have my gripes, but credit where credit is due)
Multiple rail duplications and upgrades (I have my gripes, but again, credit where credit is due)
Railway to Richlands
Airtrain
New Trains
Cross River Rail project (still coming)
Gold Coast Light Rail (coming along, advanced stage)

The centrepiece of the plan, the Cross River Rail, with no business case, despite looming gridlock and Beattie's announcement it was a priority six years ago;

I have issue with this. Cost benefit analysis was performed on multiple scenarios and published in the Inner City Rail Capacity study. The CBA showed a positive Net Present Value (NPV) IIRC, many times greater than the capital cost of the project itself.

[Stillwater]

It is interesting to compare Connecting SEQ 2031 promises with previous promises.  Here is what PAUL LUCAS, then Transport Minister, said in August 2005:

A $480 million project to boost northern rail services and provide the vital first link in the CAMCOS high speed service to the Sunshine Coast was launched today by Transport and main Roads Minister, Paul Lucas.  The Minister said the project would give the green light to the Beattie Government's commitment of a high speed rail service between Brisbane, Caloundra and Maroochydore.

The rail line between Caboolture will undergo a major upgrade, cutting travel times by 30 percent for all travellers using the line.  Funding of $262.4 million has been provided for a new rail corridor for that 14km section.  It will be completed by mid 2009.  Mr Lucas also released for public comment the government's preferred rail corridor -- an upgrade of a further 17km from Beerburrum to Landsborough.

To deliver both these important projects, the Beattie Government has MADE A TOTAL COMMITMENT OF $480 MILLION (my emphasis).

The upgrade of the entire section between Caboolture and Landsborough sees the Beattie Government's promise to build a $1 billion fast passenger fail service along the CAMCOS corridor.  We will establish the line from Beerwah to Caloundra by 2015 and up the coast to Maroochydore by 2020, bringing rail to the Sunshine Coast.....

[#Metro]

It will be completed by mid 2009.  Mr Lucas also released for public comment the government's preferred rail corridor -- an upgrade of a further 17km from Beerburrum to Landsborough.

To deliver both these important projects, the Beattie Government has MADE A TOTAL COMMITMENT OF $480 MILLION (my emphasis).

It could have been done so cheaply then. Groan... 

[Stillwater]

Unfortunately, major infrastructure never comes cheap, so the fool's paradise approach to government is to defer in the belief that it will be more affordable some time in the future.  Imagine if we had to build the Snowy Mountains Scheme today?

The $3 billion figure used for CAMCOS comes from a 2007 report, so it will be over $4 billion easily now .... and how many billion in 2031 -- prohibitive?  And, in 2031, when the plans get dusted off, there probably will be more cost-effective projects (in the dollar values of those days) to build.

Queenslanders must consider that Connecting SEQ 2031 is the prospectus, similar to a private sector investment float, designed to entice possible Public Private Partnerships (shopping centres and housing units at major stations etc) and also to bid for money the next time the Federal Government opens the purse strings for urban renewal.

Let's hope the government has gone deeper and done the planning and business case investigations and not just stopped at producing a glitzy booklet of ideas and good intentions.

[Jonno]

We have congestion because both major parties both still belive a fundamental component of the transport plan is motorways and highways which we now know will create more congestion not fix it.  It both parties truely want to reduce congestion the both need to commit to no new motorways or freeways on SEQ!!!!

[#Metro]

The plan is good (I have my gripes about a few things, but overall it was a complete surprise, and great I think).
(for example, on section seems to suggest that there are no electric buses, actually there are).

Turning it into action will be the challenge. There is so much of a backlog, it will take a sustained effort over many years to clear it. But some things can be done now, or in the near term.

What can be done sooner:
- get feeder buses to rail stations, can be done quickly and cheaply
- get more bus routes BUZzed - 100 and 450
- increase off peak frequency where possible (the trains are sitting idle in the yard, crews are being trained AIUI)
- complete Richlands, extend to Springfield
- better bicycle racks at stations, the report states that cycling to stations is limited by a lack of bike racks!
That is a problem that can be fixed in 6 months!


Things that I thought were not so good:
- Eastern Busway, it might be better and cheaper to just build a rail spur line out to Carindale and use feeder buses.
Perth has something similar with the Thornlie spur.
- The metro- duplicates Ipswich-Bowen Hills line, if a green bridge went over to Toowong, you could get buses, walk, cycle across. The metro is separate, I would rather a light rail network.

Feeder buses- the idea of feeder buses are good, but curiously, a section suggests that ONLY new services will be feeders. So the old bus routes will still run mostly as is, all the way to the CBD.  But the bus network needs a complete overhaul and re-organisation to feeders. Only 3 buses should be running down Coronation Drive, for example- BUZ 450, BUZ 444 and BUZ 412.

Things missing:
Light rail in the inner city of Brisbane (why?)
Busway conversion to Light Rail
Justification for the metro with trip generation figures and mode selection (let's not have a repeat of Sydney!)
More detail on the metro- somewhere I read some of the busway might disappear for the metro.
Interchanges- Indooroopily?

Some things were a bit off, minor things that don't change the overall thrust:

"modern lifestyles" are cited as the reason why all day transport with improved frequency was introduced.
LOL!   Really?

The maximum vehicle capacity for an articulated LRT vehicle is too low.
Their maximum was about 300, well there are vehicles with up to to 500+ or so now made by Siemens IIRC.
The throughput is therefore also too low (10 000), it is much higher than this- over double actually because you can make trains out of multiple LRT vehicles joined together (up to 4). So the maximum is way off.
Although it is rare to do this as few street corridors have such demanding requirements (busway maybe)

Perhaps they are confusing trams and light rail; or confusing common agency practice with technical limitations?

Then there was something else about no buses having an electric power source- you can get electric buses (Trolleybuses) but you would have to string up the entire city with wires.

[david]

I can understand the cynicism, but a plan and recognition that rail is critical is an improvement on the past situation.  Remember all those grim years where State Budget after State Budget gave sweet F.A. for rail other than maintenance of the existing assets?  In comparison, the years since SEQIP have seen a consistent rate of projects rolling out, as I know every time I catch a train from Kuraby along the newly tripled line, or see photos of the construction underway between Darra & Richlands.

I therefore feel we should stay optimistic, support the Government when it proposes doing the right thing, criticise when it doesn't, and always be prepared to suggest improvements.

Just dismissing everything they say as spin, and getting a "yeah, right, that'll never happen" attitude, is a surrender which actually takes the pressure to deliver off them, a situation which the people of NSW find themselves in right now.

I wholeheartedly agree with these comments. QLD and NSW are completely different - I hate how people keep saying that QLD is becoming more like NSW everyday. The fact is that we're not. Everyday, I see signs of improvement - new trains, new stations, the Go Card system, more buses, and the list goes on. Sure, there may be some flaws, but its only human to make mistakes, and we should be positively encouraging governments, rather than taking cheap shots at them. Otherwise we end up with a government who thinks "Why bother doing anything - we'll end up being hated anyway". This is not constructive.

With regards to the plan - I think it's an excellent step forward. I look forward to the new emphasis on rail and I'm very optimistic about the future of SEQ. Just one comment though - would the CAMCOS corridor benefit from light rail rather than heavy rail, and then have a system set up like the Gold Coast, where the light rail feeds into one major station? Or is it more feasible to have heavy rail going up to Maroochydore?

[#Metro]

Just one comment though - would the CAMCOS corridor benefit from light rail rather than heavy rail, and then have a system set up like the Gold Coast, where the light rail feeds into one major station? Or is it more feasible to have heavy rail going up to Maroochydore?

Heavy rail. I had a look at the reports- it is a bit hazy now as it was a while ago. But they had a real problem deciding between bus, train and light rail because the cost/benefit was so similar IIRC. So then they spent much time thinking how to crack this nut in the report, the answer is of course trains.

If the cost/benefit for 3 modes are more or less the similar, pick the one that has the highest level of service.
Trains have the highest level of service. Light rail below that, and buses further below that.

I also think trains will have the greatest land use impact for TODs.

[#Metro]

Since the BCR's are not too dissimilar, the results of this evaluation are extremely close. On balance, the outcome of the economic evaluation indicates that a dedicated busway would be preferred over passenger rail, with light rail the next preferred and O-Bahn the least.

On the basis of the financial and economic evaluation, the busway is the preferred mode due principally to the lower capital outlay required for the civil infrastructure works. While the financial evaluation favours passenger rail, the net present value is greater (less negative) for the busway option for both the financial and economic evaluation. However, the road user benefits and the environmental benefits are greater for passenger rail.

but in multi-criteria evaluation, passenger rail was better

The result from the multicriteria evaluation indicates that the rail options are preferred over the bus options. This is largely due to the ability of rail to promote more environmental,   land   use/   socio-economic   and transportation benefits. These benefits are outlined in the two key planning strategies and initiatives: the Regional Framework for Growth Management (RFGM) and the Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP).

Although passenger rail is more expensive than dedicated busway and has more stringent engineering parameters controlling its design, these disbenefits are offset by its ability to promote all of the objectives listed above.

Further, examples throughout the world confirm that passenger rail is positively able to drive intensified land use and development within the corridor. Few busway examples can match this observation. Investment in such permanent infrastructure is able to encourage confidence in the private sector to invest capital in development projects adjacent to the corridor.

Mode choice assessment, ARUP engineers-

http://www.arup.com.au/camcos/docs/final/ch2.pdf

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

On your bike, government tells students

On your bike, government tells students
Daniel Hurst
September 2, 2010 - 5:00AM

The days of hordes of parents creating traffic snarls around schools could become a thing of the past if the state government has its way.

The government's new south-east Queensland transport blueprint outlines plans to slash the number of children being dropped off at school in cars over the next 20 years.

Students will be urged to switch to trains, buses, walking or cycling.

But parents have already warned the plan needs to be backed up with firm action to reduce public transport overcrowding and address safety concerns.

The draft Connecting SEQ 2031 document, released on Monday, sets out journey-to-school targets as part of a broader push to increase public transport use.

It outlines a long-term target of cutting the proportion of primary students driven to school from the current rate of 74 per cent to 52 per cent by 2031.

The target for secondary schools is to cut car trips from 44 per cent to 18.5 per cent over the same period.

The document spruiks the health and traffic benefits of switching shorter trips in cars for walking or cycling.

However, Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Associations president Margaret Black said last night the government would need to tackle parents' safety fears if it wanted to increase the uptake of public transport.

"Whilst we welcome initiatives to increase activities for children, parents are obviously concerned for the safety of their children travelling on public transport," she said.

"The issues that would need to be looked at are costs, safety, overcrowding, and if children are encouraged to walk or ride to school, there would need to be shower facilities in summer and safe bike racks."

Ms Black said the government needed to consult extensively with parents on the issue.

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said research showed walking or cycling was one of the safest ways to travel to school, second only to taking the bus.

"The draft Connecting SEQ 2031 aims to build quality walking and cycling paths within two kilometres of local schools throughout the region," she said.

"If you give cyclists a network of connected bike and walking paths, separated from busy roads, it will be easier and more appealing for people to cycle and walk more often."

The transport blueprint notes that concerns about safety and security are among a range of factors that influence the ways students travel to and from school.

It acknowledges many parents travel directly to work after dropping off their kids, or send their students to private schools further away from home, while an increasing number of before- and after-school extracurricular activities are incompatible with school bus services.

But the document warns more children are being driven to school now than ever before.

The percentage of primary school children being driven to school increased from 55 per cent in 1992 to 74 per cent in 2007, when the latest household travel survey was completed.

The plan suggests programs could be run to raise awareness of other transport options and school travel plans could be developed.

The school transport goals are part of a broader state government target to increase the share of trips taken on public transport - compared with cars - from 7 per cent to 14 per cent by 2031.

However, there is no guarantee the targets will be met.

Ms Nolan conceded on Tuesday the government had failed to achieve the target set down in its 1997 transport plan to increase the overall share of trips taken on public transport from 7 per cent to 10.5 per cent by 2011.

But she insisted there was now sufficient "energy" around public transport in south-east Queensland to make real inroads.

Opposition transport spokeswoman Fiona Simpson seized on the failed target as evidence the government's new transport plan could not be trusted.

[ozbob]

Like many I suspect, I regularly road my bike to school.  The alternate on wet days (fairly frequent in Melbourne town) was the tram! 

History repeating of course, but a focus on active transport is very welcome.  Improved health outcomes and the school road congestion nightmare might be turned around in time ...

:bi

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Bligh draws $225 billion worth of transport battle lines

Bligh draws $225 billion worth of transport battle lines

   * Anna Caldwell
   * From: The Courier-Mail
   * September 02, 2010 12:35AM

TRANSPORT strategies first flagged 13 years ago have been rolled out again in the latest long-term planning arsenal, amid accusations the State Government left the 1997 blueprint to ''gather dust''.

The State Opposition said Queenslanders should not believe the Government's stunning 20-year, $225 billion Integrated Transport Plan would come to fruition, with some of the proposed projects more than a decade old.

But Premier Anna Bligh was already on the offensive yesterday, announcing a study for the promised Salisbury to Beaudesert rail corridor.

She said the Government had already started planning the new double-track passenger rail line from Salisbury to Beaudesert to service the southwest growth corridor.

The dedicated passenger rail line can't be built until after 2026 when population will support the service, but Ms Bligh said the planning was crucial to preserve the rail corridor that could feature stations at Acacia Ridge, Algester, Hillcrest, Greenbank and Beaudesert.

Opposition transport spokeswoman Fiona Simpson said the plan was one of many that had been flagged earlier and not properly developed.

She also cited the extension of the rail line to Coolangatta, the upgrade of rail between Beenleigh and Robina, the Redcliffe rail line and a western Ipswich bypass as projects first flagged 13 years ago and rehashed in the Government's new plan.

But Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the 1997 plan - introduced then by a Coalition government - revolutionised the way Queenslanders move about the southeast and that the Government had runs on the board in terms of building the projects.

''It introduced the then-radical concept of the busway and 13 years later there are 24 kilometres of dedicated busway,'' Ms Nolan said.

The plan also introduced transit lanes for buses and cars that now weave through the city.

Ms Bligh said the integrated transport plans were meant to pave a way for the future, not pin down funding and dates immediately.

Commuter advocacy group Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the 1997 plan had centred on buses and he expected the new plan to create a ''rail revolution'' just as the 1997 plan paved the way for a bus revolution.

Ms Simpson said the Government had failed to deliver on the early promises, including a goal listed in 1997 to increase the share of public transport from 7 per cent to 10.5 per cent of all trips.

While public transport patronage has doubled in the past five years, it has not shifted as a proportion of total trips  still sitting at 7 per cent.

[#Metro]

I am a bit nerved over the cost. That is 11 billion each year, every year, for the next 20 years.
Can the government keep up with the pace of that?

The report is excellent, a real shift decisively to PT and rail. But the risk is, all this money will go into all these new things and services will not be updraded to match. The situation that came about with the northern busway when it was extended to RCH, but the 66 service was not extended for a long time is one example.

announcing a study for the promised Salisbury to Beaudesert rail corridor.

Although welcome, I have learned that studies do not qualify as actions. Too many studies are done and then sat on. But to give credit- beenleigh line amplifications, line extensions, the light rail and busway are things that are advanced or done.

She also cited the extension of the rail line to Coolangatta, the upgrade of rail between Beenleigh and Robina, the Redcliffe rail line and a western Ipswich bypass as projects first flagged 13 years ago and rehashed in the Government's new plan.

Oh dear. Buses to trains can be delivered sooner rather than later, as can BUZ upgrades and bicycle upgrades.

Ms Simpson said the Government had failed to deliver on the early promises, including a goal listed in 1997 to increase the share of public transport from 7 per cent to 10.5 per cent of all trips.

While public transport patronage has doubled in the past five years, it has not shifted as a proportion of total trips  still sitting at 7 per cent.

I don't quite understand this. Mode share all day is about 10% for Brisbane, peak hour was something like 13% and latest has it at 18% for work trips (page 76, part 2 of the draft).

If mode share for the region is 7%, that is pretty low. Though I am not surprised- if your pursue a "balanced transport" strategy surprise, surprise, there will be no overall shift because any extra pax you get on to PT is cancelled out by the same amount of growth on new motorways... leading to no overall change.

[ozbob]

Media Release 2 September 2010

SEQ:  It is time for the transport paradigm change

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has welcomed the release of the Draft Integrated Regional Transport Plan Connecting SEQ 2031 particularly the refocus on rail as the backbone of a modern transport plan (1).

Robert Dow, spokesperson for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The draft Connecting SEQ 2031 draft plan highlights that over the last 20 years the percentage of trips to work by car has increased whilst the percentages of public transport and cycling/walking trips has generally declined (Page 17).  This is despite an increase in public transport patronage of over 50% since 1998. (Page 12).  The plan also shows that people are travelling further than ever before.  This clearly shows that the transport policies of the last 20 years have increased car usage when the intention was to reduce it."

"In the recent Federal Election campaign, the Greens highlighted that in the 30 years to 2004 the Federal Government spent $58 billion on roads, $2.2 billion on rail and only $1.5 billion on public transport and that the Government's failure to strike a balance between road and rail has resulted in more cars and trucks on the roads, peak hour traffic chaos, increased travel time and worsening air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions." (2)

"The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (3) in 2009 found that it is by now generally accepted, including by road authorities, that urban traffic congestion cannot be solved by building roads and that building roads encourages the growth of traffic and entrenches patterns of urban development that create high car use. They also noted that past transport studies and experience have shown that building freeways does not solve congestion and they in fact increase congestion in the long term"

"The recent Independent Public Inquiry into Sydney's Long Term Public Transport Plan (4) also found that around the world there is now a major resurgence in public transport within and between cities. This resurgence is being driven by, above all else, bare-faced pragmatism.  It responds to a now widespread recognition that:

    * The increasing levels of congestion caused by motor vehicles cannot be overcome by relying on further decentralisation and endless road building, and

    * Public transport offers tremendous advantages in providing essential accessibility in a world faced with global warming, local and regional environmental pollution, potentially serious future oil shortages and other environmental, energy and economic constraints."

"The Independent Inquiry went as far as recommending that the proposed regional transport authority have veto rights over new motorways and freeways."

"We have spent 50 years now trying to build enough road infrastructure to cater for traffic growth when it it is the road infrastructure itself that drives traffic growth. Growth that has less to do with population growing and a lot to do with the same population driving further more often".

"The proposed new and expanded motorways/highways will only result in more cars and trucks on the roads, peak hour traffic chaos, increased travel time and worsening air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The exact opposite of every goal stated in Connecting SEQ 2031. Despite all the exciting public and active transport proposals in the Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 plan, it still remains too road centric to achieve its desired outcomes.  We need to aiming for higher public transport targets and properly support the public transport network with high frequency services, particularly rail from tomorrow."

"The fundamental reason why the mode share of public transport did not match the 1997 projections of 10.5% (actual 7%) was due to the failure to improve train frequency, bus frequency was improved but rail was left to languish (5)."

References:

1.   Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/

2.   http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/public-transport-should-be-priority-greens/story-e6freonf-1225896391290

3.   http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/public_transport/report/report.pdf

4.   http://transportpublicinquiry.com.au/

5.   29 July 2010: SEQ: It's 'frequency' stupid ... http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4169.0


Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Golliwog]

The stated cost at this state for pretty much the entire plan is little more than a guess TT. Even when you have the initial plans for these types of projects, part of the contract that is signed with the engineering firm to build it is that it is accepted that the estimated costs is accurate to within 30% either way of what it will end up costing. The final plans before building are usually somewhere around 5-10% either way of the final overall cost. From my understanding of this, it means this plan could be a whole lot more expensive than that, but it could also be much cheaper.

[Derwan]

The alternate on wet days (fairly frequent in Melbourne town) was the tram! 

We just wore rain coats! 

[colinw]

Ok, some kite flying & speculation here ...

If this entire vision for 2031 is to be delivered, the Government is going to have to set a cracking pace for delivery from day 1.  I'd like to see a rolling program of upgrades & extensions in about 7 year long chunks - a series of "7 year plans"..

Therefore, I hope and expect to see some announcements as to which projects are proceeding in the first 7 year time frame (not including already committed work like Richlands to Springfield & the Ferny Grove duplication).

IMHO the ones that MUST be delivered in the first 7 years are :-

Phase 1 - 2010 - 2017.

1.  CRR.  If CRR fails to proceed you may as well scrap the rest bar Petrie to Kippa-Ring which could proceed anyway.
2.  Petrie to Kippa-Ring - no reason not to deliver by 2016. (Note - include Lawnton - Petrie triplication in scope of this)
3.  Landsborough re-alignment & duplication, then decent frequency services to Landsborough & less frequent clock face to Nambour.
4.  Coomera to Helensvale duplication (take the constraints of GC line so it can fully benefit from CRR).
5.  Varsity Lakes to Elanora extension.
6.  Gold Coast Light Rail phase 2 - Helensvale - Harbour Town - Griffith Uni / hospital.  The light rail needs to connect to QR.

Of these, it is CRR which is the deal maker or breaker if it fails to get up.  No CRR = no delivery of the grand rail vision, just incremental improvements like the last 20 years.

After that, for my money the ones to proceed in the 2016 to 2022 timeframe are :-

Phase 2 - 2017 - 2024

7. Trout's Road Corridor from Alderley to Strathpine.
8. Beerwah to Caloundra (free to proceed once dual track reaches Beerwah)
9. 3rd line to Loganlea (or Beenleigh?) - get that quarter hourly frequency happening, using the CRR capacity & paths freed via South Brisbane.
10. 3rd line Darra to Redbank (or further).
11. Elanora to Coolangatta extension.
12. Gold Coast Light Rail phase 3 - Broadbeach to Coolangatta.

Phase 3 - 2024 - 2031.

13. Ipswich & Springfield to Ripley. (Two sub-projects, Ipswich - Ripley & Springfield - Ripley)
14. Salisbury to Flagstone. (Two stage delivery, Salisbury - Greenbank first, then Greenbank to Flagstone)
15. Landsborough to Nambour realignment & duplication.
16. Caloundra - Maroochydore. (Go all the way, don't stop at Kawana!!!!!)
17. CRR2 / Metro tunnel / whatever ends up being built as the 2nd stage underground line.  This needs more thought.

I'm not including smaller scope & incremental projects, e.g. Shorncliffe duplication, Cleveland part duplications. Also expect to see a few other incremental add ons, e.g. electrifying the 4th line through Oxley, etc.

Also missing from this list are the freight specific projects - Acacia Ridge to the Port and Ebenezer - Kagaru.

cheers,
Colin

[#Metro]

The stated cost at this state for pretty much the entire plan is little more than a guess TT. Even when you have the initial plans for these types of projects, part of the contract that is signed with the engineering firm to build it is that it is accepted that the estimated costs is accurate to within 30% either way of what it will end up costing. The final plans before building are usually somewhere around 5-10% either way of the final overall cost. From my understanding of this, it means this plan could be a whole lot more expensive than that, but it could also be much cheaper.

Still, it is astronomically high even if you take 50% off, and unprecedented in cost and time for those costs. I am almost certain that things will have to be cut. The plan is great, but the capital costs of these projects are huge, my question is how will it be funded?
The Federal Government cannot be relied upon to be an ATM always. The Building Australia fund is only $20 billion at this time.

Its a serious question.

I don't like to say it  , but I think some things will need to be cut.
I prefer CRR over the metro and the Eastern Busway. CRR is crucial, no CRR, no rail revolution.

The plans also need to be costed and prioritised and timeframes developed. It took perth 10 years to go from planning to competion for rail lines, took the Gold Coast 10+ years to go from report to advanced planning (still no track laid). It could well be 2020 before a single piece of track gets laid anywhere on these newer projects.

That said, the plan is great, excellent work and foresight. Let's hope it happens on the ground!

[#Metro]

If this entire vision for 2031 is to be delivered, the Government is going to have to set a cracking pace for delivery from day 1.  I'd like to see a rolling program of upgrades & extensions in about 7 year long chunks - a series of "7 year plans"..

I think a ramp-up will be required. The projects could be sorted into boxes:

Can be done now (5)
* BUZ
* Feeder buses
* Bike racks upgraded at all stations
* CRR
* Improve train frequency where possible
* Place order for new trains
* Planning for projects

Can be done within 10 years

Can be done later (15 years)

Pushing it (20 years)

[Golliwog]

RE: colinw. I understand why you're advocating for it, but if possible I would like to see as many of the upgrades done in one hit eg: from Varisty Lakes to Coolangatta in one hit, because as we've expressed (and the industry knows it too) breaking projects into stages just increases the overall cost. Still, a good break down.

RE: TT. I agree, new funding models need to be come up with. While railways generate some revenue through freight and passenger movements I doubt this is going to be enough to offset these costs. I know its an unpopular idea, but cordon tolling or some other form of tolling should be looked at. Doesn't the report say that 50% of travel to the CBD is conducted by PT anyway?

I dislike the oppositions criticism of this plan. All they really had to say was that it was un costed and pie in the sky, and that the previous plans target PT share wasn't met. They offer no alternative, no specific issues are mentioned just a broad brush attack. As has been pointed out the original 1997 plan was also uncosted yet it went fairly well, and that PT usage has increased just that car use has also increased. Honestly I just think the opposition is hitting themselves because this is a great plan and they didn't come up with it.

[colinw]

Hi Golliwog,

I can see where you're coming from about "big bang" projects vs. incremental extension, and to an extent I agree with you.  Certainly Perth to Mandurah shows what can be done by a committed Government.

The issue as I see it is that unlike Perth, where Mandurah was the only huge project occurring, in South East Queensland we have pressing needs to get rail into four areas - Cross River, further south on the Gold Coast, the Western corridor growth area, and the Sunshine Coast, maybe five areas if you include Redcliffe and the Trout's Road corridor. Add to that the need to do things network wide to get decent frequencies, and it becomes necessary to spread the projects over a wide area and a longer time frame.

I'd therefore prefer to see Coolangatta & Maroochydore done as two stage projects just so we can get SOME rail to both areas sooner, rather than one or the other having to wait a very long time indeed.  The only corridor where I think we can tolerate a delay to the 2024 time-frame is Flagstone, as it will take that long to get a big development off the ground down there.   Even then, rail to Browns Plains / Greenbank would be darn useful if implemented sooner, although I think it must wait for CRR.

There is one project where a "big bang" is the only option - that is of course the cross river rail.

I think this plan is a huge leap forward by the Government & bureaucracy, and am broadly supportive of it.  The need now is to ensure that it makes its way off the pages of a plan into concrete reality.  A South East Queensland that keeps growing fast but doesn't roll out something like this vision for rail is not somewhere I would like to live or do business.

cheers,
Colin

[Golliwog]

Yes I totally agree. I just hope that perhaps if the State gov. can afford say stage 1 of some of these projects by themselves that perhaps the local or federal, or hell, even private business could chip in some extra and get stage 2 done together. Even if the project is more than 2 stages it's still a saving to get mroe done in one go.

[Jonno]

The alternate on wet days (fairly frequent in Melbourne town) was the tram!  

We just wore rain coats!  

We just got wet!! It is Queensland.  You dried off!!! What is happening to the youth of today!!!

[ozbob]

   wet and cold is bit different from wet and warm ...  we managed to ride in the rain regularly ...   

[Jonno]

If this entire vision for 2031 is to be delivered, the Government is going to have to set a cracking pace for delivery from day 1.  I'd like to see a rolling program of upgrades & extensions in about 7 year long chunks - a series of "7 year plans"..

I think a ramp-up will be required. The projects could be sorted into boxes:

Can be done now (5)
* BUZ
* Feeder buses
* Bike racks upgraded at all stations
* CRR
* Improve train frequency where possible
* Place order for new trains
* Planning for projects

Can be done within 10 years

Can be done later (15 years)

Pushing it (20 years)

Add the following to the Can be Done Now list:

* Halt any new expenditure on Motorway/Highway expenditure.

This frees up funds for more Can Do Now and Can be done within 10 years.

[colinw]

The alternate on wet days (fairly frequent in Melbourne town) was the tram!  

We just wore rain coats!  

We just got wet!! It is Queensland.  You dried off!!! What is happening to the youth of today!!!

They are getting carted around in the the back of mum's 4WD (which has never seen a dirt road, let alone offroad), to endless after school activities & sports.

When I was a kid, the only time I didn't walk home was if I caught the bus.  After school activity meant taking my model planes down to the park for a fly, until the cranky old lady who lived over the road told us to buzz off because the engine noise was driving her mad.

[johnnigh]

Worries about funding are natural. But do not forget that from the point of view of society as a whole, for the SEQ community, Queensland and Australia in general, the relevant 'benefit-cost' or NPV has to be the 'social benefit-cost or NPV'. This has to include all the benefits that are created by the investment but not captured by the facility itself. So new lines generate some revenues, but these are the least important benefits. We are all well aware of the non-captured benefits, from reduced road trauma to cleaner air etc etc.

The big problem for govt is that all the costs, or virtually all, are directly incurred while the benefits are not captured. Betterment taxes have been used to gather the effects of improved land values, and land tax and LGA rates do their bit. But so much of the overall benefit cannot be captured, though can be measured with some problems. General taxation has to take up the difference. Because of the benefits, the community will be richer and able to pay the extra tax. But try telling the electorate before and election! 

[somebody]

The alternate on wet days (fairly frequent in Melbourne town) was the tram!  

We just wore rain coats!  

We just got wet!! It is Queensland.  You dried off!!! What is happening to the youth of today!!!

Many of us got wet in Sydney too, although there were a number of soft people who wouldn't ride in the rain.  A waterproof parka kept some of you dry.

IMHO the ones that MUST be delivered in the first 7 years are :-

Phase 1 - 2010 - 2017.

1.  CRR.  If CRR fails to proceed you may as well scrap the rest bar Petrie to Kippa-Ring which could proceed anyway.
2.  Petrie to Kippa-Ring - no reason not to deliver by 2016. (Note - include Lawnton - Petrie triplication in scope of this)
3.  Landsborough re-alignment & duplication, then decent frequency services to Landsborough & less frequent clock face to Nambour.
4.  Coomera to Helensvale duplication (take the constraints of GC line so it can fully benefit from CRR).
5.  Varsity Lakes to Elanora extension.
6.  Gold Coast Light Rail phase 2 - Helensvale - Harbour Town - Griffith Uni / hospital.  The light rail needs to connect to QR.

The must do project is CRR, as you point out. 

Coomera-Helensvale I can now see doesn't have bang/buck if you don't also extend the triplication to Kingston.  Both projects are required to achieve a 10 minute frequency on the Gold Coast, so just having one doesn't make sense. 

As for 5 & 6, I'd rather just have one of them and have the full project in one hit.

I can also live without Lawnton - Petrie.

With Trouts Rd, is the plan for all trains to terminate at Strathpine or for some/all to continue on?

9. 3rd line to Loganlea (or Beenleigh?) - get that quarter hourly frequency happening, using the CRR capacity & paths freed via South Brisbane.
10. 3rd line Darra to Redbank (or further).

On the Beenleigh line or Gold Coast?  Beenleigh is the priority for my money, but I am unsure that tripling will help with off peak frequencies.  Currently, the coasties only gain 8 minutes on the Beenleigh trains between Coopers Plains and Beenleigh from missing 12 stations.  Seems like the coast timetable is a bit fat, but it looks achievable to have a 15 minute Beenleigh service with just the Banoon quad.

I'm unsure about the need for the Redbank triple too.  Seems to only be required to prevent freights from being slowed by pax trains.  Do we need shiny new track for that?

[brad C]

I'm adding to the debate from the point of northside services as I belirve that there may be a false sense of complacency about the existing infrastructure coping with the proposed 2031 enhancements.

Here are some points in no particular order that should be addressed as a consequence to CRR and Kippa Ring before any further service improvements. Bear in mind also folks that by 2031 and after, SIGNIFICANT population growth will have occurred forcing additional services anyway, even before sunshine coast or caboolture expresses are even thought of.

- elimination of a good proportion of the open level crossings between Northgate and Caboolture with particular attention given to Newman Road, Telegraph Road and Beams Road and further out, Rowley Road and Station Roads. It is simply not feasible to increase frequencies without reducing the impact on Road transport (which will never decrease)
- extension of a 5th and possibly a 6th road from Bowen Hills to Northgate (or at least from the CRR portal to Northgate) and additional trackage between Petrie and Caboolture.
- triplication or quad from Lawnton to Petrie  (visit Petrie around 7:20am M-F when the bi- directional trackage is in use between Petrie and Lawnton and witness first hand the effect on down traffic!!)
- surely Petrie rather than Strathpine will be the preferred starter station for trains running via the trouts road line
- willl the Trouts Road line be suitable for freight when the main corridor is shut down for maintenance or breakdowns.
- will there be some realignment of the trackage (around Zillmere for example) to eliminate some 60kph curves, or between wooloowin and eagle where the curvature dictates 50kph in each direction or over the south pine river where the speed on the older bridges is limited to 60kph.
- one can already see the effect on the timetable from long distance travel train services that depart or arrive within Peak hours (for example the 1700hrs Bundaberg Tilt or the up service from Gympie North of a morning, not to mention the important role that freight has and will continue to play in the overall transport mode. Capacity must be considered if the levels of service configurations are to co-exist.

Some further food for thought.

[Stillwater]

As you read it, the Connecting SEQ 2031 document puts the flesh on the bones of what could be achieved if the CRR is built.  In that sense, it becomes a sales pitch document for the next round of Infrastructure Australia funding for capital city infrastructure.  There's nothing wrong with that, provided all the technical and business case investigations are squared away.  Infrastructure Australia was highly critical at some of the undercooked proposals it had to consider in the first round of funding.  Queensland was stung hard when serious money was directed at a rail bypass for Melbourne that would make train connections to Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo more efficient.  It must be considered that Queensland is in a big-boy's race for future national infrastructure funding, which may very well have a bigger pot if the Greens get into a more cosy coalition with Labor at a federal level.  Both these parties have an emphasis on better urban public transport.

Queensland must argue its case cogently and comprehensively for the CRR.  The Connecting SEQ 2031 document shouts 'this is what we can do to the entire system if you give us the CRR money'.  That is where I think the state government is coming from.  The case must be focussed on the logistics and value for money -- value in the sense of not just the financials, but the social, environmental and connectivity benefits.  I agree, the Opposition must lift its game above that of the political stoush.  Where is its plan/policy is a legitimate question to ask of the Opposition.

While the state government should be applauded for its vision, it must also demonstrate the staged, step-by-step way to get there, so I would support the five-year plan proposal.  The government would argue that the Connecting SEQ 2031 document informs the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program.  And it does.  It can't just rest there, however.  Separate from SEQIPP, we need the back-up staged plans for three, five, seven, 10 years.  It would be more constructive for the Opposition to call for those, and to be prepared to have an alternative three and five-year plan in its knapsack.

Yes, lets give the government its due, but it must show how it will put the vision into reality -- and that may include consideration of a Brisbane CBD congestion tax to fund it all.  Let's see which politician would be prepared to argue for that!

[somebody]

brad C, you are clearly focusing only on the Caboolture line there.  I could list some ones for other lines, but I'll just ask how you are thinking the 50km/h near Eagle Junction would be sorted?  Knocking over several houses?

Curves around Zillmere don't seem severe enough for 60km/h speeds.  Are you sure about that one?  If correct, that should be able to be raised on the current alignment.

I didn't know they went to two inbound tracks in the AM Petrie-Lawnton.  Seems weird as one track should easily cope with the 11tph (at last count) through there.

If the Trouts Rd trains extend past Strathpine as well as the via Northgate ones, then that is an un-sectorisation to the network.  We need to cut these out as much as possible as they reduce reliability.

And as for amplifications BH-Northgate, maybe, but if it works as the ICRCS suggests in that the Ferny Grove line gets the north side of the suburbans to themselves, then CRR connecting to the suburbans would be about right and amplifications would be sending good money after bad.

[#Metro]

There needs to be a translation from plan to action.
I can see that 5 year plans could be valuable, but I really don't like the idea of having the department's time just writing a mountain of plans. 

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter has spoken on the Connecting SEQ 2031 plan.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/
Lets hope we see UrbanLink services on all major lines in the belated 2011 timetables!

[somebody]

BrizCommuter has spoken on the Connecting SEQ 2031 plan.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/
Lets hope we see UrbanLink services on all major lines in the belated 2011 timetables!

You may have spoken, but why would Nambour trains go via Trouts Rd and Caboolture trains via Northgate.

I don't see via Windsor & Trouts Rd and beyond.  Either it's a new tunnel via Kelvin Grove and into Trouts Rd and beyond with more than 2 tracks, for at least some of it, or it's Strathpine/Bald Hills terminators not interfering with the current Caboolture line.

[Golliwog]

BrizCommuter has spoken on the Connecting SEQ 2031 plan.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/
Lets hope we see UrbanLink services on all major lines in the belated 2011 timetables!

You may have spoken, but why would Nambour trains go via Trouts Rd and Caboolture trains via Northgate.

I don't see via Windsor & Trouts Rd and beyond.  Either it's a new tunnel via Kelvin Grove and into Trouts Rd and beyond with more than 2 tracks, for at least some of it, or it's Strathpine/Bald Hills terminators not interfering with the current Caboolture line.

Because thats what the map (http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/MediaAttachments/2010/pdf/strategicmaps.pdf) shows the Nambour trains doing.

[somebody]

Ok.

Clearly drawn by someone without a good understanding of how a railway should be run.

[Golliwog]

Possibly. Although the map doesn't actually have the Coast Connect services running to Bowen Hills, it just has it going straight south to 'Inner City stations', but at the same time the all stations trains from the Alderley-Strathpine line and marked as seperate to the FG line trains until they get to Bowen Hills, so it could just be like that to signify that they are not stopping at Bowen Hills.

Personally, I see no problem with the trains running via the Trouts road line continuing past Strathpine. It can still be run as a seperate line as you can run them on two seperate tracks.

[somebody]

Personally, I see no problem with the trains running via the Trouts road line continuing past Strathpine. It can still be run as a seperate line as you can run them on two seperate tracks.

That would require a quad from Strathpine north.

It also means that the third road past Northgate is a stranded investment.

[Golliwog]

Not really. The map showed two sets of trains running via Northgate from Petrie-way. One set which were stopping all stations (from Petrie/Kippa Ring) and another set that were expresses (I would assume from Caboolture).

[somebody]

I suppose it could operate like the line north of Hornsby, but that's something which should be avoided.