Connecting SEQ 2031 - The rail revolution ...

[Fares_Fair]

It is interesting, always, to see what other levels of government think about strategy documents such as the Queensland Government's Connecting SEQ 2031.  The Sunshine Coast Regional Council made a submission in respect of the draft document, but many of the issues it raised then remain relevant to the final document.
http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/planning/submission_scc_seq_2031.pdf

A quick read through this SCRC response to the draft SEQ 2031 document and it is quite damning in its assessment.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Arnz]

For the first time, the government has announced that CoastConnect will operate not just from Maroochydore and Nambour to Brisbane but from Gympie North to Brisbane: "CoastLink rail services will operate from Gympie North and Maroochydore."  Does this entail duplication and track upgrades not just to Nambour, but a further distance to Gympie North.  Cost?  Timeline?

What I'd interpret that as is.

-GYN Services will operate under 'Coastlink' (3rd) Tier rather than Expresslink or Urbanlink.
-GYN Services will most likely use those proposed tilting sets that were mooted for Coastlink (Id imagine the ICEs would need replacing before 2031 anyway)

I could be wrong here, but I've interpreted it as Gympie North and Maroochydore services will be "CoastLink", whilst Nambour in 2031 gets downgraded to "Urbanlink" (assumably shuttles to Beerwah).
I wonder how the GYN services would work with Anna's "tilting" sets.  All to Nambour then express to Bowen Hills via the Northgate corridor stopping only at Beerwah, Caboolture and Eagle Junction?  I'll assume the CAMCOS CoastLink services would use the Trouts Rd corridor

[#Metro]

Personally I'd rather see additional capacity built at Cultural Centre and Queen St Bus Station rather than converting to a metro or LRT.  Most people really do not want to change modes even if it might be better for them to do so, so while I can see what you are saying TramTrain, I don't think it will ever become a reality.  For one thing, on top of the cost/benefit which would be minimal as others have pointed out, imagine the disruption to convert the busway to light rail, it'd be enough to drive people off the system completely!

Disagree. http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/project-plan/fast-facts

The transfer will be offset by the time saved from higher frequency services in the suburbs. If a city like Toronto can operate this model I can't see why Brisbane cannot. As for disruption, buses are flexible are they not? Re-route them. Capacity can be doubled on the busway with a metro-- with the busway filling up, you are going to hit a ceiling 18 000 pphd.

There was an idea a while back of converting the existing Victoria Bridge into a fully working busway, but if that happens I'd suspect that the South Brisbane section might need some adjustments to allow this to happen.  There is still some capacity on the busway (not much), so will see how it copes with the additional 100 and 180 BUZ routes when they kick in.  I think when the Northern Busway opens and the 330 gets upgraded, we might see some changes to where the northern routes terminate at which might help relieve Cultural Centre a bit perhaps?  I am speculating a bit here though.

Little point in doing it IMHO as you still have the disruptions on the city streets/captain cook bridge.

One question for you though TramTrain, if LRT is the answer, what happens when that is at capacity, or if a tram breaks down and has to be moved?  That is one clear problem with rail, once you've got something stuck on it, nothing can move, at least buses can move out of the way of the obstacle if there is room to move, like there is at Cultural Centre station.  I'd hate to see an LRT vehicle break down in the middle of peak hour there, it'd be hell on Earth! In terms of additional capacity beyond LRT, there's certainly no room for additional heavy rail into the city from this section.  I know there's CRR but that services a different market, among clearing up paths on the Merivale Bridge.

Disagree. Want to see what happens when a someone gets run over at CC--->> exactly the same thing with buses.
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34427

Given that train breakdowns are such a rare event, it doesn't make sense to reject the operation of a metro system "just because maybe one day a train *might* break down. How to the systems of other places cope???

[#Metro]

You can remove route duplication without going to a metro though. Improve trunk and feeder operations on the busway. Comparing a single BUZ frequency to a possible metro frequency of 5-10 minutes is a crappy comparison.

Missing the point. A metro every 2-3 minutes is fine in peak. A metro every 3-5 minutes out of peak is decent enough frequency and trip times might actually be shorter because the feeder services in the suburbs (5-10 minutes all day) would be more frequent as they don't need to go into the CBD.

The SE busway has severl BUZ or equivalent routes. They can increase the frequency in the suburbs by improving trunk and feeder, without going to metro.

Yes, but there isn't a purpose in getting 100 people off a bus to transfer into another bus with 100 seats is there? So you need a bigger vehicle and extreme frequency on the trunk.

3. Terminal capacity There is limited space in the CBD for buses to layover. Queen St tunnel is slow (20 km/hour speed limit) and the stations KGS and QSBS couldn't possibly handle all the additional buses if they were taken off the streets.
I don't think they could either, but one or two additional bus stations in the city would be less expensive than the metro. Or other options that would be available such as making Adelaide St bus only and changing the bus stop operations.

Just one or two? KGS was 333 million, you'd need another bus tunnel in the city, and any tunnel is going to cost say 100-300 million/km anyway regardless of what mode ran inside it. Making Adelaide St bus only isn't going to work and you'd still have disruptions with surface traffic (bicylces/pedestrians/cars/traffic lights).

[#Metro]

Actually, the figures we were told IIRC were that the busway is currently in the middle of a metro capacity. Upgrading to a metro could (on the figures given) at most only double capacity, or a little better than that. That metro you find fault with would most likely remove the 199 and Cityglider, allowing for those buses to be spread elsewhere across the network. It would also provide an invaluable link across the river at West End, which could also allow for a change in Citycat stopping patterns. You can't say that those two bus routes aren't showing current considerable demand?

Disagree. If you want a cross-river link simply build a bridge over the river to Toowong and run the 199 / CityGlider there.
There is demand 4-5 million/year but nowhere like the SE busway which is somwhere in the vicinity of 30 million trips per year, which is almost an order of magnitude more than what 199 brings in

[Stillwater]

Hello FF and Arnz

Yes, the SCRC submission poked many holes in the draft document and they remain in the final version.  As to the promise that CoastConnect will involve travel between the Sunshine Coast (where on the SC?  Nambour? Landsborough? Maroochydore?) and Brisbane in 'about an hour', the favoured thinking is that the near-hour trip would have to involve SCL express tilt trains operating in the Trouts Road Corridor.  The Trouts Road Corridor is not listed in any document relating to the 2031 'conceptual timeframe' for Connecting SEQ 2031, so must be planned for 2041 or 2051.  I note Anna Bligh is running around Brisbane today in a big silly hat, accompanying the Queen on her royal visit.  The irony is that Anna Bligh is making transport promises today that won't be fulfilled until she is as old as Her Majesty.

[Golliwog]

I'm not missing the point. I understand your point about being able to fit many more people on 1 metro service compared to 1 bus service, however if you can do it capacity wise by running more buses, I don't see the problem. I don't think BUZ is the final solution. I actually think that only critically important BUZ routes should continue to the CBD, while others should be structured to provide an important link but encourage users to transfer to another service to reach the CBD. Your light rail project also claims that a bus every 18 seconds is impossible, but isn't that what we already do?

You reject a new bus station in the city due to the price of KGSBS at $333M, yet then link to a light rail project costing $2.1B for 12.5km of track as if thats a much better investment. The busway is already giving us huge benefits in terms of mobility etc, and the only thing that light rail would really give on top of that is a bit of extra capacity. I hardly see that as worth the investment when the busway capacity can be increased by encouraging transfers to fill up buses rather than running them in half full.

You also make the assumption that all the feeder buses would be running full. I very much doubt that, and also of course you would be running the higher capacity buses on the trunk route, leaving normal size buses for the feeders.

Actually, the figures we were told IIRC were that the busway is currently in the middle of a metro capacity. Upgrading to a metro could (on the figures given) at most only double capacity, or a little better than that. That metro you find fault with would most likely remove the 199 and Cityglider, allowing for those buses to be spread elsewhere across the network. It would also provide an invaluable link across the river at West End, which could also allow for a change in Citycat stopping patterns. You can’t say that those two bus routes aren’t showing current considerable demand?

Disagree. If you want a cross-river link simply build a bridge over the river to Toowong and run the 199 / CityGlider there.
There is demand 4-5 million/year but nowhere like the SE busway which is somwhere in the vicinity of 30 million trips per year, which is almost an order of magnitude more than what 199 brings in

But that is with current development. IIRC the government and council are planning for the development of West End into a much higher density location, not the current situation with houses for most of it.

[STB]

Disagree. Want to see what happens when a someone gets run over at CC--->> exactly the same thing with buses.
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34427

Given that train breakdowns are such a rare event, it doesn't make sense to reject the operation of a metro system "just because maybe one day a train *might* break down. How to the systems of other places cope???

Erm, where did I mention about someone getting run over at Cultural Centre??  I know it's happened in the past, but it'd be no different with Light Rail unless you had some sort of segregation between passengers and the vehicles, still no different with buses at this stage.  If the traffic lights were removed and some modifications were done at that intersection, that would help bus jams heaps!  I've always wondered if they would've had something a bit more workable if they had the money when they built the SE Busway back in the day and tunnelled their way through to QSBS.  Who knows?  We might not even be talking about bus jams now.

Look to Melbourne and find out about what happens when one of their trams breaks down.  I saw it once when I was in the city and there's was a bit of a back up of other trams while that tram was being loaded on the back of a special looking truck.

By the tone of your post though, it seems that you are passionate about it but I highly doubt it'll ever happen.  Like others have said all you would get out of it is just a little bit of extra capacity.  What the busway is carrying now in terms of patronage is already at LRT status as one poster has pointed out, which is pretty damn impressive when you step back and think about it.

[dwb]

Soo much to respond to here but it's good to see the discussion as lively as ever

[somebody]

Which loop is that?

The one from between the W'Gabba intersection and Mater Hill towards the Captain Cook Bridge.  It needs a name.

Disagree. http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/project-plan/fast-facts

The transfer will be offset by the time saved from higher frequency services in the suburbs. If a city like Toronto can operate this model I can't see why Brisbane cannot. As for disruption, buses are flexible are they not? Re-route them. Capacity can be doubled on the busway with a metro-- with the busway filling up, you are going to hit a ceiling 18 000 pphd.

Are you talking about Ottawa or Toronto?  They are very different situations.

[colinw]

I really can't see the busway omlette being unscrambled, much as it is regrettable that it wasn't built as something else.

One question I would ask 'though - is it desirable to try to match Metro capacity with a busway service that is bordering on the frantic & chaotic?  A metro manages vast passenger numbers with order & ease, whereas to even approach that level of capacity with the busway seems to resemble a game of musical chairs with buses, and if the music stops (a bus breaks down or things clag up), lots of people get caught without a seat.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello FF and Arnz

Yes, the SCRC submission poked many holes in the draft document and they remain in the final version.  As to the promise that CoastConnect will involve travel between the Sunshine Coast (where on the SC?  Nambour? Landsborough? Maroochydore?) and Brisbane in 'about an hour', the favoured thinking is that the near-hour trip would have to involve SCL express tilt trains operating in the Trouts Road Corridor.  The Trouts Road Corridor is not listed in any document relating to the 2031 'conceptual timeframe' for Connecting SEQ 2031, so must be planned for 2041 or 2051.  I note Anna Bligh is running around Brisbane today in a big silly hat, accompanying the Queen on her royal visit.  The irony is that Anna Bligh is making transport promises today that won't be fulfilled until she is as old as Her Majesty.

The Connecting SEQ 2031 document only discusses the option of Sunshine Coast express trains from Caboolture to the inner city and no further north !!!
Absolutely incredible, what we once had in 2010 prior to to the timetable changes will not return until 2031 ?

Source: Connecting SEQ 2031

CoastLink
CoastLink rail services will operate
from Gympie North and Maroochydore.
CoastLink services will stop all stations
on the Sunshine Coast to Caboolture,
then run express to inner Brisbane.
These services will provide for fast,
reliable travel between the Sunshine
Coast and Brisbane, supporting economic
activity between the two major centres
and improved access to the Sunshine
Coast for tourists and day trippers.[i]

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

I really can't see the busway omlette being unscrambled, much as it is regrettable that it wasn't built as something else.

One question I would ask 'though - is it desirable to try to match Metro capacity with a busway service that is bordering on the frantic & chaotic?  A metro manages vast passenger numbers with order & ease, whereas to even approach that level of capacity with the busway seems to resemble a game of musical chairs with buses, and if the music stops (a bus breaks down or things clag up), lots of people get caught without a seat.

It depends where the bus breaks down, if it's in a platform then the other buses can easily go around, where as for a metro no matter where it breaks, it blocks everything until it is fixed or shifted.

Yes the busway services can be a bit chaotic at times, but I'm of the opinion that it is not that hard to use, and could be simplified by reducing the number of routes that use it but increasing those routes frequency while the routes that are removed are made into feeders (or expresses via CC Bridge).

[colinw]

FYI - the PDF file on http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/ has been fixed and now works.

http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/Libraries/Publications_split/connecting_seq2031_3.pdf

[Arnz]

I'd be interested to see the Gold Coast commuters reactions when extra stops are likely to be put on their peak hour runs to maximise capacity with Beenleigh line commuters.

Whereas the Sunshine Coast in the 2009 loading report had roughly 1000 commuters (including Yandina-Gympie commuters which was not included in the report)  x 5 services (with a combination of 3 car suburban units, 5x car ICEs and 6-car IMUs), Gold Coast had a tick over 3k over 7x 6-car services in the 2009 loading report.

The complaints are likely to be 3x times louder than up here as their patronage are 3x times larger than the Sunshine Coast.

[colinw]

I really can't see the busway omlette being unscrambled, much as it is regrettable that it wasn't built as something else.

One question I would ask 'though - is it desirable to try to match Metro capacity with a busway service that is bordering on the frantic & chaotic?  A metro manages vast passenger numbers with order & ease, whereas to even approach that level of capacity with the busway seems to resemble a game of musical chairs with buses, and if the music stops (a bus breaks down or things clag up), lots of people get caught without a seat.

It depends where the bus breaks down, if it's in a platform then the other buses can easily go around, where as for a metro no matter where it breaks, it blocks everything until it is fixed or shifted.

Yes the busway services can be a bit chaotic at times, but I'm of the opinion that it is not that hard to use, and could be simplified by reducing the number of routes that use it but increasing those routes frequency while the routes that are removed are made into feeders (or expresses via CC Bridge).

I find the busway quite stressful, particularly given the lack of effective PIDs at some stations.  You have to be constantly alert and ready for the right service to pop up, and it is quite hard to predict where on the platform it might actually pull up. Just not as friendly as a rail system, but still agree that it does a good job.

I really do not buy "a train might break down" as an argument against metro or high capacity rail.  The relative reliability of trains vs. buses makes that a much lower frequency event. I also consider rail a far better investment in terms of the service life of the rollingstock, quality of ride & passenger comfort, and ratio of passengers to each driver/staff member.  Trying to do the job of a metro with buses means you have a huge fleet, with a huge number of drivers and a lot of equipment to maintain - it is trying to perform the linehaul task with a mode that inherently better suited to secondary services & feeders.

But then I don't like buses much!

[#Metro]

I'm not missing the point. I understand your point about being able to fit many more people on 1 metro service compared to 1 bus service, however if you can do it capacity wise by running more buses, I don't see the problem.

That is a big if- requiring a tunnel and grade separation of CC which will never happen!

I don't think BUZ is the final solution. I actually think that only critically important BUZ routes should continue to the CBD, while others should be structured to provide an important link but encourage users to transfer to another service to reach the CBD. Your light rail project also claims that a bus every 18 seconds is impossible, but isn't that what we already do?

Yes but it doesn't make sense to use a 100 seat bus to offload passengers at a busway station only to get them to jump on a 100 seat bus again... the point I am getting at is the vehicle where passengers get into needs to have larger capacity.... we are talking the capacity of trains here 1000 seats etc.

You reject a new bus station in the city due to the price of KGSBS at $333M, yet then link to a light rail project costing $2.1B for 12.5km of track as if thats a much better investment.

The point has been missed. ANY TUNNEL is going to cost a lot NO MATTER WHAT YOU RUN IN IT. Eastern busway, almost half a billion for 1 km... why... because it was tunnel and bridge, not because it was intrinsically "busway". So the question isn't which is cheaper, but which mode would be better-- and I think metro train would be.

The busway is already giving us huge benefits in terms of mobility etc

,
Irrelevant. Future capacity?

and the only thing that light rail would really give on top of that is a bit of extra capacity.

I didn't say LRT I said metro.

I hardly see that as worth the investment when the busway capacity can be increased by encouraging transfers to fill up buses rather than running them in half full.

Yes, but you could do that with a train and it would be much easier as you don't have all these different stopping patterns bundled up.

You also make the assumption that all the feeder buses would be running full. I very much doubt that, and also of course you would be running the higher capacity buses on the trunk route, leaving normal size buses for the feeders.

During peak hour they would, and transport systems need to be designed for *peak* load.

[SteelPan]

'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'
I think we've all been here, once or twice, already!   

[Golliwog]

The benefit we're currently getting from the busway isn't irrelevant. It means the only real benefit to be derived from upgrading to a metro is the increase in capacity and comfort. I don't think it would outweight the cost. But the capacity of the bus trunk can be great by either using the artics/triaxles (or something bigger) and or running at a higher frequency/intentional bunching (ie: so there are 2 buses on the trunk route to meet the feeder).

Yes any tunnel is going to have roughly the same cost. However, a metro tunnel needs extra infrastructure in terms of signalling, track and wiring. That scenario also requires the metro to be extended down the busway and would also require CC to be grade seperated (you can't do it otherwise). You also say that will never happen, yet your metro relies on it.

If we were starting from scratch, I would support the metro option because of it's increased comfort and the higher capacity per vehicle. However, as things are now, I cannot see it ever happening.

Saying the feeder buses would be full is a big assumption. How many buses are full these days and by what stage along the route are they full?

[somebody]

I find the busway quite stressful, particularly given the lack of effective PIDs at some stations.  You have to be constantly alert and ready for the right service to pop up, and it is quite hard to predict where on the platform it might actually pull up. Just not as friendly as a rail system, but still agree that it does a good job.

I think the main problem is that there is far too much reliance on the cultural centre.  And it's because of the issue I always bang on about: City Stop locations!

I know what you are saying about stressful, but if you aren't there for too long it doesn't worry me too much.  Roma St is a better experience than the Cultural Centre.

The busway is already giving us huge benefits in terms of mobility etc

,
Irrelevant.

Not at all!

Who says that a metro system would have a decent service?  I think we are talking too much about mode and not enough about services.  I'll bite though: It is unclear to me what the advantage of such a change would be.  Saving op-ex at the expense of cap-ex?  I am sure that wouldn't stack up on an economic analysis.

[#Metro]

The benefit we're currently getting from the busway isn't irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because this isn't a discussion about whether the SE busway is great now... it is a discussion about whether it will be great in 2031... and I think it won't be because it will be loaded up to the hilt and not have enough capacity. Arctics or triaxles I doubt would increase busway capacity as much as a metro (how much extra capacity are we talking about here) and would probably require modification to stations to accomodate the larger size of the vehicles anyway. And we still don't have the issues of traffic interaction on city streets resolved.

Yes any tunnel is going to have roughly the same cost. However, a metro tunnel needs extra infrastructure in terms of signalling, track and wiring. That scenario also requires the metro to be extended down the busway and would also require CC to be grade seperated (you can't do it otherwise). You also say that will never happen, yet your metro relies on it.

It does but as a % of the tunnel costs I think it would only be rather small. Secondly you get to DOUBLE the capacity of the busway- does your triaxle idea double the capacity of the busway? It might cost slightly more but it would have higher benefits anyway.

A metro does not require CC to be grade separated. CC can stay as it is. A metro service would deviate at Mater Hill run under stanley street and then under Adelaide or Queen Streets. CC is not going to become grade separated- there is no point in removing traffic lights and making it Class A (how is that going to happen?) and using Adelaide street or any surface street for that matter (what no traffic lights on that either?)

It is not a big assumption to say that feeder buses would be full... it is peak hour!

[Golliwog]

But as Simon pointed out explicitly, these things are done by an economic analysis which weights benefits against costs. If the busway is already giving say 75% of the benefits of a metro along the same alignment (that % was plucked out of thin air, no idea what it would actually be) then the massive cost outlay to disrupt busway services and put in metro tracks, etc would probably more than outweight that small additional benefit. The figures I've seen would suggest that a subway would be only roughly double the current passenger loads on the busway, which involves many buses that are not full. If we worked on improving the trunk bus routes so that these buses were fuller, I can see the capacity rising. Given that the busway stations are just a linear platform, I don't see how you can justify your comment that these would need to be modified for a bigger bus. There may be a few parts of the busway itself that don't lend themselves to a bigger vehicle (CC intersection, between KGSBS and QSBS) but with the amount of money you're talking about throwing at a metro along the same route these could be fixed up. And once these are done you could probably manage an even bigger bus along the busway (I'm thinking bi-artic, etc). Traffic interaction on city streets could be solved by bus priority measure, which you previously rejected out of hand as "it can't be done".

So now your metro is also throwing in a cross river tunnel? I have no idea what my triaxle idea would do in terms of capacity, and doubling the capacity with a metro assumes we're currently completely full on the busway (which we aren't) and that the metro manages to achieve the best possible capacity. Grade seperating CC would not be that hard to do. It just takes time money and effort, plus people willing to push it through.

Some might be full, but certainly not all, especially when both of our options involve increasing the frequency on these feeders.


I have absolutly nothing against metros, I just can not see how replacing the busway with one would get up. By all means, find a new corridor to do it in but the SE busway should stay as a busway.

[#Metro]

Traffic interaction on city streets could be solved by bus priority measure, which you previously rejected out of hand as "it can't be done".

So tell me, how do you give a bus "priority" when you have a bus coming every 20 seconds (or every 10 seconds) when the light cycle time to change from red to green and back again is around 60 seconds?

You can't give priority. And even if you could on surface streets that would still be class C with class C level of reliability.
Metro would be Class A. A busway in a tunnel would need more stations plus probably not able to handle the volume of buses (there is a reason 50% of buses in peak are diverted off the busway via CC - one of the reasons is because Mater Hill and CC could simply not handle that volume).

The SE busway should not stay as busway, I just don't think it has the capacity.

[somebody]

The SE busway should not stay as busway.

I view this as something of a fantasy file.

To answer your specific questions re: traffic lights: Increase cycle time or grade sep.

Getting rid of the busway isn't going to happen.  Even if you do think there should be more modal shift to rail, I think that should take the form of feeder buses at places like Altandi in a post-CRR world.  Definitely not a competing rail bureaucracy.

[SurfRail]

The Connecting SEQ 2031 document only discusses the option of Sunshine Coast express trains from Caboolture to the inner city and no further north !!!
Absolutely incredible, what we once had in 2010 prior to to the timetable changes will not return until 2031 ?

Source: Connecting SEQ 2031

CoastLink
CoastLink rail services will operate
from Gympie North and Maroochydore.
CoastLink services will stop all stations
on the Sunshine Coast to Caboolture,
then run express to inner Brisbane.
These services will provide for fast,
reliable travel between the Sunshine
Coast and Brisbane, supporting economic
activity between the two major centres
and improved access to the Sunshine
Coast for tourists and day trippers.[i]

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

FF, I'm not quite getting this.  If SC trains run non-stop Caboolture to Roma Street (even if it was say express to Brisbane stopping at Strathpine, Alderley and Kelvin Grove only but still using a brand new high-speed alignment), that still sounds like a good deal to me.

The Sunshine Coast probably does not have the loading factors that we do down here, so an all stations Maroochydore and all stations Gympie North/Cooroy/Nambour to Caboolture then express would probably suffice, especially once/if the alignment upgrades happen. 

As it is, it appears the Gold Coast line will be bi-sected at Helensvale, which is more or less necessary to cope with the additional stations planned and patronage expected.  A quick look at the IDAS mapping triggers still shows proposed infill stations at:

Ormeau North (Eggersdorf Road)
Pimpama (Yawalpah Road)
Hope Island (Hope Island Road in the reserve adjacent to the Coomera River)
Parkwood (Napper Road)
Merrimac (Gooding Drive)

Plus the proposed stations at Tallebudgera, Elanora, Tugun and Coolangatta
Plus the existing stations at Ormeau, Coomera, Helensvale, Nerang, Robina and Varsity Lakes

We can potentially end up with 15 stations south of Beenleigh, of which 10 (Coolangatta to Helensvale inclusive) would be on the CoastLink pattern and the balance would be an ExpressLink all stations to Loganlea then express to the city.  Existing patronage would no doubt split a bit, but the new stations will ultimately attract local growth (most of them have a reasonable amount of walk-up nearby either in existence or planned).

I expect both patterns would stop at Loganlea, Salisbury and Yeerongpilly.

I would in fact be much more supportive of a local Sunshine Coast pattern from Beerwah to Maroochydore than a local Gold Coast pattern.  The Gold Coast line could simply be a 15 minute off-peak frequency set up, through-routed alternately to Nambour and Maroochydore, with additional local services for CAMCOS.

[somebody]

I'd be perfectly happy for the Nambour trains to become shuttles in a post CAMCOS world, to be honest.

Not a fan of all those proposed stations.  Will the express trains be allowed to pass those stations at full speed (up to 140km/h)?  If not, then you are undermining what has made the service reasonably successful.

[colinw]

I don't see how a local ("UrbanLink") service would fit in on the Gold Coast line at all, unless we're talking about more than double track. The level of interurban service the Gold Coast is going to require will saturate the line south of Beenleigh, even with Coomera to Helensvale duplicated, and will probably require triple or quad to Loganlea or Beenleigh as well.

I think the "heavy lifting" for local trips on the Gold Coast is going to be done by the light rail system plus high frequency bus routes for the inland activity centres like Robina & Nerang.

[Stillwater]

If we are going to have a forward-looking Connecting SEQ 3021 plan, should it not make provision for a possible Sunshine Coast light rail system and explain how this will interact with CAMCOS, also how it might link back to Nambour.

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6502.0

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/08/25/sunshine-coast-council-light-rail-system-plan-push/
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/08/28/lnp-backing-light-rail-system-sunshine-coast/

[Golliwog]

Traffic interaction on city streets could be solved by bus priority measure, which you previously rejected out of hand as "it can't be done".

So tell me, how do you give a bus "priority" when you have a bus coming every 20 seconds (or every 10 seconds) when the light cycle time to change from red to green and back again is around 60 seconds?

You can't give priority. And even if you could on surface streets that would still be class C with class C level of reliability.
Metro would be Class A. A busway in a tunnel would need more stations plus probably not able to handle the volume of buses (there is a reason 50% of buses in peak are diverted off the busway via CC - one of the reasons is because Mater Hill and CC could simply not handle that volume).

The SE busway should not stay as busway, I just don't think it has the capacity.

Traffic light cycles can do whatever you want them to. No, you wouldn't be able to give it a green light 100% of the time, but you don't have to. Even trains get a red light sometimes! And as Simon says, you can make it grade seperated, though that would be a bit on the expensive side. But you can set them up to give buses say 90% of the green time.

I also still think that the peak buses that use the CC bridge should continue to do so. They should be well patronised and so similarly to the via CC routes, the CCB routes could have a reduction in the number of routes with a corresponding increase in frequency.

[SurfRail]

I'd be perfectly happy for the Nambour trains to become shuttles in a post CAMCOS world, to be honest.

I'm ambivalent as to how it is done, but I think the basic parameter should be 1/2 hourly Beerwah to Cooroy and 1/4 hourly Beerwah to Maroochydore.  I think it will be easier to sell this politically, and its really neither here nor there.  I would expect single-seat journeys in peak.

Not a fan of all those proposed stations.  Will the express trains be allowed to pass those stations at full speed (up to 140km/h)?  If not, then you are undermining what has made the service reasonably successful.

Not really.  The spacing is still quite good (generally about 4-5km or better), and you will have an uninterrupted run of well over 20km at max rated speed between Helensvale and the start of the 110kph section south of Beenleigh (so you could probably clear it in say 10-12 minutes - somebody may want to check my very rough maths).  I don't believe there is any restriction in the vicinity of stations, certainly not a significant one if there is, going from personal experience.

[somebody]

I don't believe there is any restriction in the vicinity of stations, certainly not a significant one if there is, going from personal experience.

No guarantee that one won't be instituted.  I'm not aware of anywhere on the network that trains pass stations in excess of 100km/h.

[SurfRail]

I don't believe there is any restriction in the vicinity of stations, certainly not a significant one if there is, going from personal experience.

No guarantee that one won't be instituted.  I'm not aware of anywhere on the network that trains pass stations in excess of 100km/h.

I expect that is more a function of service design than of safety.  There are no 100+ stretches on the suburban network, which is currently the only place where you have express running.  Where you do have 100kph+, you have hit the interurban all-stations stretches north of Caboolture and south of Beenleigh.

Evidence from overseas shows us 140kph trains through stations should not be an issue.  If you are doing 100kph, you are generally not going to be able to stop within sight of an obstruction anyway, and I doubt the noise/wind passage would be greatly different to anybody on the platform between the 2 speeds.  If anything, yellow lines might have to be pushed back a bit, but I would not expect anything much more significant.

[somebody]

I don't believe there is any restriction in the vicinity of stations, certainly not a significant one if there is, going from personal experience.

No guarantee that one won't be instituted.  I'm not aware of anywhere on the network that trains pass stations in excess of 100km/h.

I expect that is more a function of service design than of safety.  There are no 100+ stretches on the suburban network, which is currently the only place where you have express running.  Where you do have 100kph+, you have hit the interurban all-stations stretches north of Caboolture and south of Beenleigh.

Evidence from overseas shows us 140kph trains through stations should not be an issue.  If you are doing 100kph, you are generally not going to be able to stop within sight of an obstruction anyway, and I doubt the noise/wind passage would be greatly different to anybody on the platform between the 2 speeds.  If anything, yellow lines might have to be pushed back a bit, but I would not expect anything much more significant.

Effects like the pressure wave in front of the train generally rise with the square of the speed, so I'd say there is a fairly significant difference between 140 & 100 = x2.28 if my square of the speed proposition applies.

[#Metro]

Traffic light cycles can do whatever you want them to. No, you wouldn't be able to give it a green light 100% of the time, but you don't have to. Even trains get a red light sometimes!

I just don't see how you are going to get Class B Cultural Centre into Class A without a tunnel and multiple extra stations underground to take that load. If you are going to be transporting very large numbers of pax, class A gives the best reliability.

Bring on the metro, DOWN THE BUSWAY

[Arnz]

I'd be perfectly happy for the Nambour trains to become shuttles in a post CAMCOS world, to be honest.

I'm ambivalent as to how it is done, but I think the basic parameter should be 1/2 hourly Beerwah to Cooroy and 1/4 hourly Beerwah to Maroochydore.  I think it will be easier to sell this politically, and its really neither here nor there.  I would expect single-seat journeys in peak.

Would there be even enough slots for both to run through (in a post Trouts Rd scenario)?   I would also think patronage on the Sunshine Coast proper would be a lot higher than Beerwah-Nambour/Gympie post CAMCOS, one or the other is going to have to feed the more busier line.

If theres no Trouts Rd, then CAMCOS will likely be taking almost all of the current Nambour slots, with all Nambour trains shuttling to Beerwah (as there would be very little room on 'The Mains'  pair of tracks to fit both in)  The only through trains in that scenario will be the Gympielander ICEs and Tilt Train services.
Which in that case (no Trouts Rd), Nambour-Beerwah shuttles will be hourly in off-peak/weekends, and half-hourly in peak with all connecting to CAMCOS and Brisbane services at Beerwah.   At least with CAMCOS and the Landsborough duplication, there would be enough space for 15 min peak services to Beerwah (with all services continuing through to Caloundra and beyond).

[HappyTrainGuy]

Rollingstock does play a part in the top speeds of the suburban area but the track layout of stations, passengers, level crossings and curves has much more of an impact. Really the only line that is capable of faster running is the Caboolture line (Northgate-Zillmere, Carseldine-Bald Hills approach, Strathpine-Lawnton, Dakabin-Caboolture) on express services but sections would need the wooden sleepers removed and the level crossings would all need to be upgraded and or replaced for the increased approach times and speeds. I'm not sure of the forces but the flat faced SMU/IMUs do make a more noticable air disturbance at platform level when running express past stations at 100kph than the EMUs and the newer 160/260 sets.

[O_128]

The SE busway should not stay as busway.

I view this as something of a fantasy file.

To answer your specific questions re: traffic lights: Increase cycle time or grade sep.

Getting rid of the busway isn't going to happen.  Even if you do think there should be more modal shift to rail, I think that should take the form of feeder buses at places like Altandi in a post-CRR world.  Definitely not a competing rail bureaucracy.

I'm really over this whole mode argument.
The benefits of a metro as said is that you can have automated trains etc etc. The only reason the SEB is at capacity is due to the useless services on it. Ideally you would have 2 routes each running every minute or so say a route 1 ( 111) and a route 2 (111 but via CCB) route 3 UQ (109) and Route 4 (Carindale) the rest of the buses would be rerouted into feeders at high frequencies.

When that is full you can move to LR though any LR line would need to also spur off to sunny bank as, as I've said before there is no point in a full bus being forced to empty and reload. Remember that LR cars can be quite long so effectively a metro anyway.
.......................
Other capacity busters is the current cultural centre fiasco - build the adelaide street bridge but design it to do something not visually obstructive to connect directly into the busway while using victoria bridge for terminators and the 19Xs

......................

My final thing is in relation to the stupid subway. I have no issue with it but rename it CRR2  connect it to cannon hill and move it to indro via UQ and you have a brilliant piece of infrastructure.

[Gazza]

With respect to the Busway capacity, I'm unconvinced it could even operate at its 'theoretical' capacity.

Indeed, many buses coming through are not full, I use C.C each day and walk across the Melbourne St portal, and you can see that quite a few do not fill up.
And I've seen the calculations that multiply the bus frequency (Every 20 secs?) By the capacity of each bus, and come up with a capacity higher than LRT.

But the thing is, I think it would be the same situation as the double decker trains in Sydney, in that once pax counts cross a certain threshold the capacity drops because of increased dwell times. I'm sure things could be improved a bit with all door boarding and 100% prepaid, but if all the buses going through were highly loaded and had standees, its still going to be very slow, and they just wont be able to push them through the stations quick enough.

[Stillwater]

HELP PLEASE

The labyrinthine nature of the various state government strategy / policy documents is confusing.  Supposedly, the SEQIPP plan talks to the Queensland Infrastructure Plan, to the Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan and the Integrated Regional Transport Plan and the Inner City Rail Capacity Study and the CRR EIS .... and so on.  All relate to the Shaping Queensland's Tomorrow document.

Connecting SEQ 2031 is supposed to back up, among other plans, the Wide Bay-Burnett Regional Plan 2011-2031.  http://www.dlgp.qld.gov.au/regional-planning/wide-bay-burnett-regional-plan.html  

When you look at that document, however, it says detailed public transport infrastructure is covered in a Department of Transport and Main Roads document titled a Passenger Network Plan.  It is separate from the Translink Network Plan.

Can anyone tell me where to find the Passenger Network Plan?

[Cam]

The draft "Connecting SEQ 2031" network map on page 7  http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/Libraries/Publications/Draft_Connecting_SEQ_2031.pdf shows UrbanLink services terminating at Redbank. The draft also shows limited stops for ExpressLink services between Darra and Redbank.

In contrast, the document released yesterday does not have UrbanLink services past Darra on the Ipswich Line & the network map on page 6 shows ExpressLink services stopping all stations between Darra & Redbank.

I would have thought that the stabling yard under construction at Redbank suggests that there will be services originating/terminating at Redbank in the future. Perhaps the trains to be stored at Redbank are going to run dead back to Ipswich or Richlands/Springfield Central.

The document released yesterday also states "ExpressLink rail services will provide fast travel times between Ipswich Central and central Brisbane of about 45 minutes, and to the Brisbane Airport in just over an hour". The current express running time between Ipswich & Brisbane Central is 50 minutes. What are RBOT members' thoughts on how the travel times are going to be reduced by about 5 minutes? Can you see the fat from the timetable being removed by 2031 or will there be significant track upgrades including straightening to allow faster speed limits? How will TransLink ever provide a travel time between Ipswich & Brisbane Airport of just over an hour?