Draft Connecting SEQ 2031

[#Metro]

Hmm.
Interesting thing is the plan has these mode shares- what about car ownership targets of 1 car per household on average?

Is that going too far and being nanny state?

Should there be other targets?
Financial? Accessibility? (50% of rail stations will have a feeder bus that is least 5km in length) Service standard (90% of people have access to a PT service that is 15 minutes or below all day)

(Examples are made up for examples' purpose only)

[Golliwog]

I think thats going to far, but also (and more importantly) thats not the purpose of this document. While yes, this document has targets with regards to mode share what I see as more important about the document is it gives direction for the government to aim for when they are developing the network, and also as something to show to Infrastructure Australia next time they apply for money as a "We should get the money because if we can build this thing here, then we will be doing this, this, this and this with it afterwards" or something to that affect. Besides, such strict (and also broad brush) targets like you propose are quite possible unreachable. Why should the length of a feeder bus service matter? Also, having a car ownership target is pointless as what the state government does with transport has no DIRECT impact on car ownership. Yes, if they provide an awesome PT network and PT usage is high, then it is likely that car ownership will be low, but at the same time it doesn't have to be. High car ownership is more a symptom of high private vehicle mode share than a cause of it.

[Derwan]

Hmm.
Interesting thing is the plan has these mode shares- what about car ownership targets of 1 car per household on average?

One of the interesting things I found about Chris's presentation yesterday was that he said it's not about limiting the number of car spaces for people.  People can have a car and still prefer public transport for the majority of their trips.  The point is making public transport attractive enough!

Having a target of 1 car per household doesn't mean the government's plan is to introduce building codes to ban double garages.  It means that if public transport is made attractive and becomes popular enough, households might find they don't need a 2nd car and in some cases, they might find that they don't need car at all!

Another interesting comment yesterday came from Dr Nightingale in response to a question about the effect of increasing fuel costs on car ownership.  He simply responded, "they'll buy electric cars."  You can't force a change of mind-set.  You simply have to make something else more attractive.

[ozbob]

Our rail system can carry a lot more, clearly.  Increases in frequency particularly off peak with more incentive fares will drive that as elsewhere.

The train frequency has a direct correlation with its poor cost recovery.  Even driving more off peak travel for Seniors will turn more revenue.

The Perth network, half the size of Brisbane's is carrying more pax, and appropriate bus feeders.  A direct result of  trainfrequency.

Enough of the charade,  bring on the trains!!

[#Metro]

It would be interesting to see a response from Dr. Nightingale.

Just wanted to know if there were too many or too few targets. Apart from the plan of "we will build this and roll out that service" the only other target was mode share. Is that too few?

Again Perth has other targets, such as access to the system:

The proportion of property street addresses (PSAs) that were within walking distance (500 metres) of a Transperth stop providing an acceptable service level increased to 81.1% in 200 and represents an 8.1% increase over the target.

[somebody]

The train frequency has a direct correlation with its poor cost recovery.  Even driving more off peak travel for Seniors will turn more revenue.

A point apparently lost on both CityRail and CityTrain.

The Perth network, half the size of Brisbane's is carrying more pax, and appropriate bus feeders.  A direct result of  trainfrequency.

It's also a much newer network with far more appropriate distances between stations, better average speeds and no decidedly dodgy bits like the Merivale bridge that I know of.

Also, do you see Perth trains with timetabled dwells at stations like Roma St for example?

[#Metro]

I am not sure why there is resistance to the idea the the train system can handle the load. It can.

It's also a much newer network with far more appropriate distances between stations, better average speeds and no decidedly dodgy bits like the Merivale bridge that I know of.

The CRR tunnel will solve the Merivale Bridge problem.
Perth has a newer network, true, but we should expect lower patronage on that, because when you open a new line, it takes time for people to adjust their habits and use the new system. So that reason is actually an even bigger black mark for Brisbane, we have more stations, more lines, more people and been around for ages, run identical trains made by the same manufacturer, but Perth has more passengers!

While there are greater distances on the newer lines, I doubt that the older lines have distances too different from Brisbane. Both the Gold Coast line and Sunshine Coast lines have large distances between stations which should allow high speed operation. So Brisbane really doesn't have much excuse.

Secondly, the rollout of the CoastLink and ExpressLink services which run express all day and miss a huge number of stops will speed up services greatly. This will have an effect just like increased station spacing.

It can be done. Rail must be upgraded, it is performing quite poorly an needs to be fixed.

[somebody]

I am not sure why there is resistance to the idea the the train system can handle the load. It can.

That's BS, and I would refer you to my previous posts.

*A* rail system could handle the loads, but not the current one without significant upgrades.  2/3 of CRR1's capacity would be used up by forcing everyone on the SE busway onto rail, and that is ignoring growth and the Storey Bridge routes.

There has been a lot of reluctance to have express trains running at appropriate speeds and frequencies up until now, but perhaps ExpressLink changes that.  It remains to be seen.  Also, express trains still need to slow down for tight curves, which is one of the problems with the Gold Coast line.

Why don't you count up the 425/426/430/431/433/435/436/443/444/445/446/453/454/455/456/457/458/459/460/461 peak frequencies to see how many extra trains would be needed on the Ipswich Line if all the western buses were truncated at Indooroopilly?  That is actually one of the most achievable and attractive interchanges.  I'm guessing >30bph, which needs at least 3 extra trains/hour, which doesn't leave much room for growth or the incorporation of the Springfield line.  Interchange at Enoggera is somewhat less attractive from a pax perspective, and I would want to know how many pax would drive if this were forced on commuters.

[#Metro]

*A* rail system could handle the loads, but not the current one without significant upgrades.  2/3 of CRR1's capacity would be used up by forcing everyone on the SE busway onto rail, and that is ignoring growth and the Storey Bridge routes.

But nobody has said that everyone on the SE Busway would be forced onto rail (and tumbleweeds running down it).

There has been a lot of reluctance to have express trains running at appropriate speeds and frequencies up until now, but perhaps ExpressLink changes that.  It remains to be seen.  Also, express trains still need to slow down for tight curves, which is one of the problems with the Gold Coast line.

Yes, but what is the alternative? A BUZ route extending from Adelaide St to Coolangatta Beach?  

[somebody]

But nobody has said that everyone on the SE Busway would be forced onto rail.

I think you were pretty much suggesting such a thing.

It is the logical conclusion of those who say that buses shouldn't be heading from Browns Plains to the CBD, but there should be interchange.

Are you now saying that you do not, in fact, support:
351, 357, 359 terminating at Enoggera
390 shorter at Enoggera
345 BUZ, 343 Rocket terminating at Alderley
Western bus routes interchanging at Indro.

[#Metro]

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. If there were a rail station at Johnstone road and it was faster on the train, then why not.
What I have said that there should be a review into all these routes to see which ones can become feeders and which ones should not.
That is why TL liason with TransPerth and the Toronto Transit Commission is so important.

* Why do you have an issue with improving the frequency of existing feeder bus routes, outlined in the attachment?
* Why do you have an issue with bus-rail interchange at stations where CoastLink and ExpressLink express trains stop?
* Why do you have an issue with reviewing bus routes?

Are you now saying that you do not, in fact, support:
351, 357, 359 terminating at Enoggera
390 shorter at Enoggera
345 BUZ, 343 Rocket terminating at Alderley
Western bus routes interchanging at Indro.

none of these buses are in the feeder bus attachment.

I do support most, but not all western bus routes interchanging at Indooroopilly IF there were rail upgrades to support that.
And I think that those upgrades are possible.

My opinion is that 444 BUZ and 412 BUZ should continue down Coronation Drive.
45X routes are confusing in the morning with so many routes and patterns- it is a dog's breakfast.
These should be combined into a single, simple 450 BUZ that would run down Coronation Drive. All three should be considered for upgrades to permanent articulated bendy bus.

[#Metro]

Now, for the rest of these routes, specifically 425/426/430/431/433/445/435/436/456/455/457/458 I think an interchange at Indro would be suitable. Not sure about 460 and 461 as they appear to be running near or past darra is it? If there is an express from Darra (ExpressLink?) then interchange at that station should be considered (note the word "considered", not the same as "must do").

I did count the peak bus runs. Take out 444 BUZ as that should stay as is, Take out 45X bus routes that run down Coro Drive as they should all be incorporated into a 450 BUZ. Remove the remaining 45X rockets off the Western Freeway and instead feed them to rail. This is the reason why North Link tunnel is NOT required to speed up travel times.



You would need about 2 extra trains to do this and 4 train staff. I'm not sure how long the signalling upgrade to allow 24 trains/hour to run can be rolled out.

That's roughly 21 bus services that can be turned around at Indooroopilly and go back and collect another load of passengers, increasing the frequency and slashing bus stop waiting times. Many routes will also be taken off Coronation Drive, so this "caught in 15 minute delays due to accident X" will be a thing of the past. And if people really really want to travel down Coro, then they can by interchanging to a bendy bus BUZ 450 or BUZ 444 at Indooroopilly.



Let me know if there are errors, lots of timetables to read through.

[#Metro]

Just floating the idea, but 444/450 as light rail down Coro might be something to look at in the future.
And because light rail is inflexible and it would look crazy to have a 300+ pax vehicle battling mixed traffic chaos, it would probably also get its own, separate lane too.

[somebody]

But why are you excepting the 444?  If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.  Same with 411+417 vs 412. Also, you are omitting the 443, 453 & 454, I think it's another 10/hour from them combined.  Also, where's Johnstone Rd?

It remains to be seen that people would be willing to interchange even if it results in a faster journey.  I've got no beef with increased frequency, but I fear what you are proposing would likely result in lower patronage, which would then result in lower service levels.

[#Metro]

But why are you excepting the 444?  If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Well could you tell me why 444 and 412 should be turned into a feeder then?
I thought it would be useful to have at least something run down Coro.  

IIRC 433 is already in there. 453 and 454 run down Coronation Drive so these might be better being rolled into a redesigned BUZ 450.

411 and 417 were not included as you were talking about an interchange at Indooroopilly.
I think 411 and 417 are rather infrequent, and so would make good feeders to Toowong Station as it would increase their frequency.



Again, all subject to professional review by TL informed by liaison with the TTC or TPerth.
The TTC has advised other cities on how do design such systems IIRC.

[#Metro]

It remains to be seen that people would be willing to interchange even if it results in a faster journey.  I've got no beef with increased frequency, but I fear what you are proposing would likely result in lower patronage, which would then result in lower service levels.

Perth. Lots of people doing interchange there. Gold Coast, interchanges at stations.
Park Road. Toowong. Cultural Centre. West End Ferry, Buranda, Very popular with interchange.

If you Increase the frequency, you increase the passengers. Improve journey times (ExpressLink trains stopping at Indro, Toowong only), you improve patronage. Improve reliability (cut out Coro) and delays, improve service level.

By not running these buses all the way into the city, many many bus-route km can be saved, which can be fed back into the bus system to boost the frequency and perhaps put more trains on as well.

Trial it! Perhaps route 411 and a few other routes can be used as a trial. It might take a bit to get used to. If people think that there is some reason why people might not like interchange then run a trial to find out. Though it would work best when taken with train improvements though.

[somebody]

If we did go down the interchange path, buses running parallel to the train line, should be the all stops ones rather than the limited stops ones.

Yes, it would work at Indro, but the rail network wouldn't have that much room for growth.  That one is an arguable point.  Do the same calculation for Altandi and see what you'd come up with - something which has no merit.

[somebody]

One option for bus/rail is having the peak time rockets extend into the city, but the full time bus services becoming feeders.  Just putting the option out there.

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Big dollars needed to turn a visionary regional transport plan into reality

[WTN]

Saw a "Have your say" ad placement in the local weekly paper. Comments close 26 November 2010.

[ozbob]

Ad in Brisbane press

[Stillwater]

Is there a role for RailBOT to put in a coordinated, written submission?

[ozbob]

Individuals are encouraged to make a direct submission. 

Our point of view collectively is clear, and I will be putting in a summary. 

[#Metro]

Frequency
Frequency
Frequency

Frequency x 1000

[Jonno]

No new freeways!!!!!!

[#Metro]

Muffins x 100 000  


We will need a few while we wait for implementation...

[ozbob]

I have decided that the my only personal response to this document will be

"The mode share targets in the Draft  Connecting SEQ 2031 are not visionary or reflect the actual reality of the harsh economic climate, the looming impact of peak oil and environmental, planning and population pressures.

The trip transport mode share for car needs to be set < 50%,  similarly active transport > 20%, bus rail and ferry >30% of transport trips.  

Electric rail is the sustainable transport solution for bulk freight and passengers."

[ozbob]

Please have your say on this document.  Please post your comments here if you wish, I will send in the whole thread as well.

[Stillwater]

Establishing accurate costings is critical to the roll-out of such a plan.  If the project cost is not accurate, when the amount being sought is allocated, it won't achieve the target result.  A $10 million project in 'concept phase', with a construction start date 10 years hence is likely to cost $25 million in 10 year's time.  Therefore, it should be listed from the outset as a $25 million project, because that is what it will cost the taxpayer eventually.  Use of 'present day' prices for projects is misleading when those projects won't be built for some time into the future.

[Barbar]

I started to read my personally delivered copy of the governments Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 latest glossy....but couldn't get past "2031"....

[ozbob]

From the Gold Coast Bulletin 17th November 2010 page 11

Hold the bus doubts on population

Hold the bus doubts on population

MATTHEW KILLORAN

GOLD Coasters could be crammed even more tightly into buses and trains because the State Government has underestimated the city's population growth.

Gold Coast City Council will tell the Government its projections are out by 100,000 people, a discrepancy which could leave the city short by 20 trains or 176 buses.

The discrepancy was revealed as a council committee yesterday discussed the city's submission to the Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 Integrated Regional Transport Plan.

The council submission stated the city's population by 2031 would be 40,000 people higher than the 749,000 the State Government's planning anticipated.

The submission also stated the figures did not take into account the average of 60,000 tourists in the city each day.

Rail Back on Track and public transport advocate Robert Dow said if the IRTP was not changed, people would be crushed on to trains and buses in a system that would struggle to cope.

According to the IRTP, about 15 per cent of the population will use public transport by 2031. Based on the council's population projections, that would be an extra 15,000 people catching public transport each day, or the equivalent of 20 six-carriage trains or 176 buses. But Mr Dow said the problem could be twice as bad, as peak oil pushed up petrol prices and traffic congestion worsened.

He estimated up to be 30 per cent of the population could be using public transport by 2031. "We'll see people try to leave home earlier and later (to avoid peak hours)," he said.

"We'll have an economic and social crisis. It is imperative we get this right now."

Sustainable city future committee boss Cr Peter Young said the Government's population estimate shortfalls needed to be addressed.

"The population estimates they are relying on are considerably out of touch with reality," he said. That will place additional demand on services."

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the department would consider the council's submission.

[#Metro]

Light Rail, Light Rail... 

[Jonno]

"All Hail the completely unsubstantiated, totally unsustainable 15% maximum PT usage assumption the world biggest urban myth.  All Hail and bow in it's presence!!!!!!!!"

[#Metro]

"All Hail the completely unsubstantiated, totally unsustainable 15% maximum PT usage assumption the world biggest urban myth.  All Hail and bow in it's presence!!!!!!!!"

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Where are these thresholds coming from? If the thresholds were extracted from cities which had bad PT, then they will be calibrated to predict bad PT outcomes.

[Stillwater]

The Gold Coast Council makes a valid point.  It is a major tourist destination, so there always is a permanent layer of visitor numbers that sits over and above the permanent population number, so calculations of PT needs based on the resident, permanent population are always going to fall short of the mark.

The situation is similar on the Sunshine Coast.  In the year ended June 2010, the Sunshine Coast welcomed more than 2.7 million international and domestic visitors to the region.  The travel needs of these visitors need to be factored into the region's transport planning.

The Sunshine Coast has worst PT services than even the Gold Coast.

[ozbob]

Submissions close 26th November.

Herewith my comment:

Submitted 23rd November 2010

Dear Project Team,

Congratulations on the recognition of the role rail is to play in future sustainable transport for south-east Queensland.

The mode share targets in the Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 are not visionary or reflect the actual reality of the harsh economic climate, the looming impact of peak oil and environmental, planning and population pressures however.

The trip transport mode share for car needs to be set < 50%,  similarly active transport > 20%, bus rail and ferry >30% of transport trips.  

Electric rail is the sustainable transport solution for bulk freight and passengers.

The bulk of road funding in south-east Queensland needs to be immediately redirected into sustainable transport for a sustainable future.

We are approaching a transport crisis and it essential that the right moves are made today.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow

[Jonno]

Here is my submission

Please find my comments below regarding the draft Transport Plan

1.       Transport Challenges

Population growth is not the number one challenge we face in SEQ.  This is what RACQ would have us believe.  It may well be the smallest challenge we face.  Car dependency, peak oil (or rising costs of fuel), road trauma/pollution related illness costs and social mobility are by far our biggest challenges and this section should lead with these.  Peak oil should be given a far greater explanation as a transport challenge rather than just the Energy section provided.  The Energy section almost suggests there is no real problem. The current price for oil ($US87) whilst the US economy is in stagnation is any indication then we are facing sever price rises in the near future.   Social immobility is not even covered nor is the impact from the costs of different mode of transport.  Nowhere is it shown the number of people who do not have access or cannot drive a car. There is also no mention of the annual cost of road trauma and pollution related illnesses nor the number of people killed on our roads.  There is also no discussion about the efficiency of different modes of transport (direct and indirect costs).

The vehicle travel times in the congestion section also gives a car only perspective and does not show the trip times for rail, ferry, bus, cycling and walking which are all part of the congestion storey.
 
Probably the biggest challenge that is missing is any commentary noting that since 1996 the IRTP aim was to reduce car usage, congestion, emissions, kilometre travelled, etc. yet all the statistics shown demonstrate that the exact opposite has occurred.  Thus the 1996 IRTP and its Implementation Plan have made our transport problems worse not better.  This should be highlighted as we have spent 15 years making things worse.

This reality was highlighted in the recent Federal Election by the Greens who noted 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." (1)

"The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (2) 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"

Finally, the recent Independent Public Inquiry into Sydney's Long Term Public Transport Plan (3) 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 failure to recognise or communicate this reality is evidenced by the road centric nature of the draft Connecting EQ 2031 document and the low active and public transport trip targets set.  To continue to build more and more motorways and tunnels is destined for economic, social and environmental ruin. The "completing and better managing a network of motorways and highways" goal is in direct contradiction to leading transport practices around the world and just plain reality.

2.       An overview of our plan for the future

The intent and outcome all read well but the plan to implement it will never deliver these especially the focus on a network of motorways and highways. 

To establish a target of only 34% of trips by active or public transport is to plan to fail and does not deliver anything even closely resembling a sustainable transport network.  These low targets will mean an additional 2.3 million trips on our roads each day and, a shown above, attempting to build for this planned increased plus out build today's congestion is physically impossible and economic suicide.  It is also clear from the failure of toll tunnels in Australia that the private sector will never invest in such roads again.  

Targets upward of 65-75% should be set for public and active transport.  This translates to a reduction in motor vehicle trips of 2.2 million which will allow valuable funds to be directed toward sustainable modes of transport (direct and indirect) plus improve the liveability of our region.  These higher public and active transport need to be translated into the targets for primary and secondary schools with primary schools being almost little or no journeys by car as travel behaviours start during these trips.  Such high targets have been achieved in many cities around the world with extremely vibrant economies and communities.

It is then within these targets that all priorities and policies should be set.  The volume of trips required to be moved by active and public transport, the number of car parking spaces, development around railway stations, the amount of road space, new transit lines, the size of freight terminals, freight rail lines required,  etc. can be defined.

3.       Detailed  Network Strategies

It is noted that the current Detailed Network Strategies are based on unsustainably low active and public transport targets and the false belief that it is possible to out-build congestion with motorways, tunnels and highways.  Many of the strategies are to be commended except those within the Strategic Road Network and the road components of the Freight Network sections.  It is noted that in the 'What it means to your Community' section the road projects are shown but the public transports are either future or preserved corridor.  This needs to be reversed.

References

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

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

3.   http://transportpublicinquiry.com.au/

[ozbob]

As indicated previously, I have forwarded the entire thread to team@connectingseq.qld.gov.au  as a further submission.
(submissions close tomorrow).

25 November 2010

Dear Project Team,

Herewith a complete discussion thread on the Draft Connecting SEQ 2031

URL  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4338.0

This is a submission on behalf of our group, RAIL Back On Track.

Thanks.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
RAIL Back On Track

================

[print version of this thread attached]

[Derwan]

Rail Revolution at centre of State's 20 year transport plan

Premier Anna Bligh has set out plans for a rail revolution in south east Queensland with the Cross River Rail project as the lynchpin of a world class network.

Rail Revolution!

Step 1:  Cross River Rail.

FAIL!!!

What hope do we have for the rest of this so-called "rail revolution"?

[#Metro]

Would you like another feasibility study with that?