Redcliffe Peninsula Line [was MBRL (Petrie to Kippa Ring)]

[HappyTrainGuy]

Anyone else think that the station spacing is too close to some of the other stations?

[Jonno]

I certainly think the park'n'rides are a waste of money and a failed policy as shown all over the world...

[#Metro]

I certainly think the park'n'rides are a waste of money and a failed policy as shown all over the world...

What? Like the Mandurah line in Perth which gets 50% patronage from park and ride?
Park and Ride has its place. It must be used judiciously though.

[Jonno]

I certainly think the park'n'rides are a waste of money and a failed policy as shown all over the world...

What? Like the Mandurah line in Perth which gets 50% patronage from park and ride?
Park and Ride has its place. It must be used judiciously though.

Yes.  50% Patronage from parK n ride is a wasted opportunity to develop a TOD and provide cross city connections.  It gets patronage up but at what cost and could a TOD have achieved greater patronage at no cost to Govt as TOD developed by private sector!!

[#Metro]

I disagree Jonno

The debate about what urban form "should" be needs to be separated from debates about mobility and transit.

Those car parks pull in 50% of the patronage and only cost 2% of the overall project cost. The WA PTA designers reasoned
that in a low density setting this strategy is appropriate, and it works. They even charge for the parking there at train stations.

Development in the wider catchment area has also been stimulated. This is well outside the 800m walking zone, but
its happened. See http://www.thevillageatwellard.com.au/Wellard/News%20Events.aspx

Sure we could have TODs around train stations, but that is a market driven process. Not everyone can get a bus either.

For the same reasons we don't ban any mode of transport with wheels because "walking is the best for everyone", and I am going to say something a
lot of people will really not want to hear here, people who drive cars need to be accommodated for too. They pay taxes and vote as well!!!

[Gazza]

The issue I take is that yes while car users should be accommodated in the outer burbs for instance (And To be fair, the Mandurah line has all its park and ride outside the magic 10km radius) its a really convoluted way to get patronage.

If spending $40,000 per pax is what it takes to get them on board, then I think its more effective to be going after less "picky" pax with the same money, and getting more.

I guess just do what is cost effective. Eg in the far flung suburbs where buses cant provide an effective service, it would be cheaper to just whack in a P&R or even just a patch of dirt, then to run air parcel feeder services all day every day.

[somebody]

It's really the subsidisation of the parking which is the offensive part. At least in WA the users of the parking contribute something, although the $2 doesn't really cover the cost of provision, I'm sure.

[Jonno]

The debate about what urban form "should" be needs to be separated from debates about mobility and transit.

I am sorry but every town and urban planner will disagree with that. The 2 are intricately linked a car oriented form creates high car use.  A transit/walkable urban form creates less car usage.

[#Metro]

So what if they don't agree.

I am sorry but every town and urban planner will disagree with that. The 2 are intricately linked a car oriented form creates high car use.  A transit/walkable urban form creates less car usage.

I disagree on the basis that it is possible to have high density/low transit mode share, high density/high transit mode share, low density/high transit mode share and low density/low transit mode share. The relationship is clearly more complex. Indeed LA is one of the most dense cities on Earth.

We have the cities we currently have. While urban planners have their ideas of what a city "should" look like, there are then the views of the people who buy houses and also the current situation. That isn't going to change quickly because the land available for infill at any one time is only a tiny fraction of the total. The other thing is that mobility is key here. You can have people live close to PT, but it will only be favorable if they have a mobility gain. Nobody will want to catch PT, no matter how much building you put around it, if the frequency is rotten apple.

Perth's Mandurah line fits this condition. Services run every 15 minutes, waiting time is kept down and speed is fast which means that people are falling over themselves to get to the train station. So here we have real world proof against the idea that compact development is the only or even major way in which to encourage PT use. We also have proof in the form of BUZ. Places like Inala, Sunnybank and Browns Plains are hardly walkable urban environments or TODs. The change in urban density over a decade is probably negligible, but patronage on those BUZ services has shot up 100% or so.

There is also a TOD at Nerang station. And it is easy to show that the people catching PT from say 100 person development, assuming 50% of people catch PT (a huge, unprecedented mode share I might add, only adds up to ONE full bus load. That's all.

Everything matters, but some things matter more than others. So on this front, I would agree with the PTA's choice to put in park and ride, despite how many people might hate cars and freeways and low density. This is why I think things like The Core Frequent Network are very important. CFN can be done quickly, cheaply, nobody has to move house, and the results are good.

If park and ride is what is needed, then let them have it.

[SurfRail]

Thanks SurfRail.  Not so bad then.  For some reason I thought that project page had been static since about February, and I had managed to miss the October newsletter update entirely.

Still seems odd that the MBRL is absent from the QueenslandRail site, other than one mention in the master project map.

TMR appears to be the lead agency for this project rather than QR, based on my discussions with them around a year ago at the public meetings.  Why I do not know, but it no doubt opens up the possibility for more stupid outcomes a la Darra to Corinda.

[Set in train]

Anyone else think that the station spacing is too close to some of the other stations?

I agree, it resembles a limited stops/express bus service. Almost as if the line is attempting to acheive so much.

Clearly the intention is for maximum walk-up catchment and travel between stations on the line as well as the wider network.

6 stations on this spur may not be a problem if trains to town run express to the city with only stops at the line branches? Perhaps the off-peak travel time would be better than car?

[#Metro]

I am sorry but every town and urban planner will disagree with that. The 2 are intricately linked a car oriented form creates high car use.  A transit/walkable urban form creates less car usage.

http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/do-more-density-and-more-transit-mean-less-car-use/

It's a truism that denser, more concentrated cities tend to have higher public transport use. Various studies have confirmed this intuition but what is usually left unexamined is the implicit assumption that such cities consequently have lower car use.

This study of 31 of the largest cities in the US found that assumption is not correct. Higher public transport mode share does not translate on average to lower kilometres of travel by car, shorter commutes by car, or lower levels of traffic congestion.

The primary finding "is that land use, at least at the aggregate level studied here, is not a major leverage point in the determination of overall population travel choices".

[Mr X]

The debate about what urban form "should" be needs to be separated from debates about mobility and transit.

I am sorry but every town and urban planner will disagree with that. The 2 are intricately linked a car oriented form creates high car use.  A transit/walkable urban form creates less car usage.

Agreed. You design your urban settlements with permeability and accessibility in mind. It would be unwise not to.

But I might say one thing- just because there is a train station doesn't necessarily mean you should go gung ho and build high density there. Real people will need to want to live there.

[Jonno]

But I might say one thing- just because there is a train station doesn't necessarily mean you should go gung ho and build high density there. Real people will need to want to live there.

Wow!  Non-real people only live in dense urban neighborhoods?  Probably what makes Cophenyaye, Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, ... so "unreal" and why we flock to them as tourists and marvel at their walkability, sense if community, beauty and easy of getting around!

[Mr X]

But I might say one thing- just because there is a train station doesn't necessarily mean you should go gung ho and build high density there. Real people will need to want to live there.

Wow!  Non-real people only live in dense urban neighborhoods?  Probably what makes Cophenyaye, Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, ... so "unreal" and why we flock to them as tourists and marvel at their walkability, sense if community, beauty and easy of getting around!

You can zone and plan for high density as much as you like but unless there is real market interest driven by demand, nothings gonna happen.

[#Metro]

Wow!  Non-real people only live in dense urban neighborhoods?  Probably what makes Cophenyaye, Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, ... so "unreal" and why we flock to them as tourists and marvel at their walkability, sense if community, beauty and easy of getting around!

People move towards consuming benefits. They move away from things that eat their benefits- waiting time, unreliable services, infrequent services, slow services, services that cut out at 6pm. This is why mobility is so important in established suburbs (i.e. most of Brisbane). It would take herculean effort and time to convert existing 150+ years of settlement in Brisbane and fit that into "what planners/urbanists want the city to be."

This is why I am so gung ho about network integration and frequency.

Simply putting in a train station or a busway doesn't do anything if people don't benefit from it (due to low frequency etc).

In new suburbs (i.e. on the fringe, large plots of land near the CBD such as New Farm prior to gentrification, West End) then by all means you can go ahead and do higher density (up to a limit-- there is always NIMBY pressure).

I think what Gazza is trying to say is that it has to be favorable to live there. Nobody is going to build high density on top of Tennyson, Doomben or Rosewood stations, for example, the frequency is just too low.

I DO have a bad word to say about developments such as Springfield Lakes etc. Try and draw a decent bus route through there, it is almost impossible.

[Mr X]

Simply putting in a train station or a busway doesn't do anything if people don't benefit from it (due to low frequency etc).

I DO have a bad word to say about developments such as Springfield Lakes etc. Try and draw a decent bus route through there, it is almost impossible.

Too true! Springfield will have more success in being transit oriented if there are better than 2tph on the line, with the motorway going through it would be quicker for people just to get into their cars and drive. I think this is also a major factor for any success of development at Richlands as well.

Springfield's streets are also too thin for buses to fit through.

[SurfRail]

Simply putting in a train station or a busway doesn't do anything if people don't benefit from it (due to low frequency etc).

I DO have a bad word to say about developments such as Springfield Lakes etc. Try and draw a decent bus route through there, it is almost impossible.

Too true! Springfield will have more success in being transit oriented if there are better than 2tph on the line, with the motorway going through it would be quicker for people just to get into their cars and drive. I think this is also a major factor for any success of development at Richlands as well.

Springfield's streets are also too thin for buses to fit through.

I call this problem "Delfinitis".  Same at other places that reek of their handiwork, for instance Varsity Lakes.

Fortunately the pendulum has now swung the other way.  TransLink is a concurrence/advice agency for IDAS purposes now and can object to narrow street designs etc.  I don't expect anything like the problems Springfield has with road layout to be repeated at Ripley, Flagstone, Yarrabilba or Caloundra South (although at least Springfield will have rail pretty soon...)

[Jonno]

People move towards consuming benefits. They move away from things that eat their benefits- waiting time, unreliable services, infrequent services, slow services, services that cut out at 6pm. This is why mobility is so important in established suburbs (i.e. most of Brisbane). It would take herculean effort and time to convert existing 150+ years of settlement in Brisbane and fit that into "what planners/urbanists want the city to be."...I think what Gazza is trying to say is that it has to be favorable to live there. Nobody is going to build high density on top of Tennyson, Doomben or Rosewood stations, for example, the frequency is just too low.

It is not herculean and in-fill development/redevelop around commercial centres is occuring all over our city.  Just need good urban design controls to allow it to happen around/in "all" commercial centres and transit stops.  You know full well that I support high to very high frequency (so when I talk about a TOD it is supported by high frequency) and an integrated/networked system.  I am also passonate about not building more road and car parking capacity as it just costs tax payers more and more every year with absolute no benefit.  Might as well just burn the money.

The assumption that all suiburbs cannot have higher densities/urban forms around transit stops/cpommeercial centres is just plain false.  Each and every week people are falling over themselves to visit good urban/dense environment right here in Brisbane.  Unfortunately, there are some/too many very poor examples of higher desnity developments that have damaged the image.  In addition because of the "only 15% of trips will be by PT" assumption these development do mean increased traffic as we are forcing many residents onto the roads due to poor public/active transport alternatives. 

[#Metro]

Some things I agree, others I don't.

The proportion of free land available for higher density is only ever a very very small fraction of the total land that has been settled for the last 150 years. The houses that most people are living in today were built in the 60's 70's and 80's etc. I'm not actually arguing against higher density development, but I am pointing out that higher density itself does not guarantee high transit mode share. LA is one of the most dense cities in the world...

Increasing density is also a SLOW process, because of the above. Jarrett Walker had a nice post on this http://www.humantransit.org/2011/01/basics-conceptual-triangles.html

We are in different parts of the same page. I actually don't mind if park and rides and carparks and even freeways need to be used and built. Each mode has their purpose and role in the overall scheme of things. Sometimes I think anti-car / anti-freeway / anti-carparks is a bit too much, like as if we just make it law that all cars be fitted with half hour ignition delays just to make public transport attractive because "catching PT is good", or we make all the houses high density because "that is good". In a democratic society where people choose things to their liking, it is going to be hard to get everyone to do what "is good".

This is why I don't see it necessary to demonize, for want of a better word cars, carparks, freeways, park and rides, low density houses etc. For decent PT to work, people need decent access. If that means 500 car park spaces a la Mandurah, then that's what's needed. If people want decent arterial roads, then I think that is ok, after all, it is not an accident that trunk PT routes such as BUZ work best when they run down straight, fast arterial roads. And I think it is OK to have car parks, provided that people are willing to pay that cost via charge.

The reason why PT mode share is so low isn't because there is some conspiracy, but because the speed and frequency of PT is not a match for the car, at least under un congested conditions. That's why people pay $20 000 to get a car- because it is worth it. People move to consume benefits.

[#Metro]

And just to demonstrate my point:

500 car park spaces x 0.8 load factor x 1.2 passengers per car = 480 people.

How much do we have to build in a TOD to get 480 people to the train station? Assuming three people per house and 50% PT mode share (unprecedented I might add)

480 / 3 x 2 = 320 dwellings within say 500 m of the station. Maybe you need skyscraper towers for that.


I'm not saying that TOD doesn't work or isn't useful, but that scale of development (and the huge 50% PT mode share assumption we have to make as well) just shows that the contribution from that is going to be slow and only show returns over a long long time.

[Golliwog]

320 dwellings within 500m is easy. Ferny Grove station has more than that I would say. I just did a quick count of maybe one 6th of a 500m radius circle around the current entrance to the platforms there and got just over 100 dwellings. There are a few little unit complexes close to the station, but AFAIK none of them are over 2 floors.

I do agree that PnR has it's place, which is certainly for places like FG where there's still an extensive catchment further out in many directions that cannot feasibly be served by PT, but do think that more work needs to be done to encourage higher density around PT infrastructure.

TT, but part of the problem why PT is so crap is that for a long time, it was poorly funded as car's were shiny and new and seen to remove the need for PT. The governments thinking being that if everyone has their own vehicle, all we need to do is provide roads, not buses or trains. Now look where we are, Brisbane's old tram network alone used to carry more people than our current bus, ferry and rail network does combined. Roads and highways have their place, but all to often, the solution to any and all congestion issue is seen to be either widen the road, or build a new one. Sometimes that's a good thing (eg: the idea of extending Archdale Rd around behind the FG train station to Samford Rd to allow for the removal of the Archdale Rd level crossing). Some projects these days do put in bus infrastructure (like the Mains/Kessels Rd intersection having bus lanes - even if just for that small section of Mains Rd). Others, like a new plan for the Stafford Rd/South Pine Rd intersection (I put a link in the Roads thread a few weeks ago or something) seem to miss them entirely. [/rant]

May have gotten a little off-topic in there, but my point is, PT and things that would help enable more PT (ie: a large concentration of potential pax, which are an easy revenue source) have for too long been ignored because the car was "new" and meant you didn't have to focus your new residential lot around a bus/tram stop or train station. No, it's not going to be an easy fix, but tough it needs to be done.

[#Metro]

TT, but part of the problem why PT is so crap is that for a long time, it was poorly funded as car's were shiny and new and seen to remove the need for PT. The governments thinking being that if everyone has their own vehicle, all we need to do is provide roads, not buses or trains. Now look where we are, Brisbane's old tram network alone used to carry more people than our current bus, ferry and rail network does combined. Roads and highways have their place, but all to often, the solution to any and all congestion issue is seen to be either widen the road, or build a new one. Sometimes that's a good thing (eg: the idea of extending Archdale Rd around behind the FG train station to Samford Rd to allow for the removal of the Archdale Rd level crossing). Some projects these days do put in bus infrastructure (like the Mains/Kessels Rd intersection having bus lanes - even if just for that small section of Mains Rd). Others, like a new plan for the Stafford Rd/South Pine Rd intersection (I put a link in the Roads thread a few weeks ago or something) seem to miss them entirely.

Yes, but to do that at every station... is going to take a very very long time. Furthermore, land around stations is in divided ownership, so that would have to be consolidated (bought out) and then meet market demand etc etc. If the benefit doesn't exist (i.e frequent services), then there isn't potential there/benefit to do it.

Public transport mode share is low for a reason. Poor services have something to do with it, but I also suspect that car are simply faster or better for a lot of trips. Cars run express, PT stops every 800m or more. With a car there is no waiting time component. With PT you can wait up to half an hour, which is similar in effect to adding, say, $12 to the ticket price/fares. That's the reality of it and a bitter pill to swallow. It took a long time for me to realise this...

This is why I think parking should be charged for and provided where appropriate and why I think TOD everywhere isn't going to be the pancea for PT patronage.

If PT were sooo good, we wouldn't have this 80:20 mode split. Not saying that it can't be changed, but I think there is a limit and getting the next increment of mode share becomes harder as the amount of effort needed to get the next increment needs to be much higher than the previous one.

[Jonno]

I am not anti-car. I am anti-spending taxes on road projects that just create an even bigger problem to fix later on and on a form of transport that is killsing well over 1500 people a year, inefficient, ruining our city, polluting our air, placing our economy at risk, adding to obesity levels and disadvantages huge section of our society.  On this basis I cannot accept that investing in more road capacity and parking capacity is a positive thing for anyone other than the contractors.

[somebody]

Sounds like we broadly agree.

With a car there is no waiting time component.

You have never taken over half an hour to leave the Sydney Entertainment Centre parking, or the Moore Park parking either.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No different than the QSBS exit portal 

[#Metro]

You have never taken over half an hour to leave the Sydney Entertainment Centre parking, or the Moore Park parking either.

I don't live in a house as large or with the capacity of the SEC. Although there is a busway outside my house now (halleluiah) but I still have to spend time walking to it (but when I get there it is almost like car!).

[Mr X]

The other way to do it is take a bus (or two or three) to Altandi, take Beenleigh train to Loganlea then change AGAIN to a train to the GC and depending on where you are going, another bus to your final destination

5 different segments  

edit: oops you removed it

An interesting fact about walking time. At my work, my car is parked 2 levels below and for people who take the bus, they actually get there quicker than me, even when I overtake said bus. For the time for me to drive into the centre, down two levels, find a spot (which can be hard as it's the only free parking in the whole of west end and people use it as a park n' ride to get to the city- grrr), lock the car, walk back up two levels, they can get off the bus, cross the street at a set of lights, walk up a flight of stairs and in.  

[#Metro]

edit: oops you removed it

Had to remove it, otherwise TransLink would know where I live!!! LOL

[Mr X]

By my posts they could figure out where I live (and work) = service cuts for me 

[O_128]

I agree with park and rides, especially at mango hill where it can be garunteed all translink will put on to north lakes is some rubbish service , add to it that this that the area feels like there is some sort of law that states you must drive a rav4 or similar car then anything to get these people off the roads will be an Improvement

[WTN]

An interesting fact about walking time. At my work, my car is parked 2 levels below and for people who take the bus, they actually get there quicker than me, even when I overtake said bus. For the time for me to drive into the centre, down two levels, find a spot (which can be hard as it's the only free parking in the whole of west end and people use it as a park n' ride to get to the city- grrr), lock the car, walk back up two levels, they can get off the bus, cross the street at a set of lights, walk up a flight of stairs and in.  

Time needed to find a place to park at the destination is often forgotten, yet it can lengthen the journey time considerably. In very full carparks, one can spend 10-20 minutes circling the carpark for a space, especially if one insists parking next to the entrance. That's why public transport can be quicker on shorter journeys.

[somebody]

If LNP get in is this line in jeopardy?  The state still needs to fund some of it.

[ozbob]

I am confident it will proceed.  The local council is also involved, heavily.  The LNP have supported it in the past.

[SurfRail]

If LNP get in is this line in jeopardy?  The state still needs to fund some of it.

Tony Abbott offered up $8m more than Julia Gillard did at the last election

I'm not concerned about anything in the South-East for which there is currently a project page, with the single (big) exception of CRR.

[somebody]

If LNP get in is this line in jeopardy?  The state still needs to fund some of it.

Tony Abbott offered up $8m more than Julia Gillard did at the last election

I'm not concerned about anything in the South-East for which there is currently a project page, with the single (big) exception of CRR.

I meant at the state level.

[SurfRail]

If LNP get in is this line in jeopardy?  The state still needs to fund some of it.

Tony Abbott offered up $8m more than Julia Gillard did at the last election

I'm not concerned about anything in the South-East for which there is currently a project page, with the single (big) exception of CRR.

I meant at the state level.

Likewise - it would be political suicide for either of the them to cancel it, and the masters in Canberra are happy to see it built.

[O_128]

Who is building the line? Any word on a construction date? I would love to see a EIS

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not sure if there will be an EIS.

Due to the potential for the project to impact upon Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the project was referred to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPC) in July 2010. The DSEWPC subsequently advised after provision of additional information that the project is not a 'controlled action' and an Environmental Impacts Statement (EIS) will not be required for the project. This decision does not remove the need to seek relevant state and local government approval for activities that will have an environmental impact. As the project includes development assessable under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, for example an environmentally relevant activity, an approval will be required. An application for a development permit must be made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

AIS have already been completed with 47 proposed properties selected for resumption in or along rail corridor IIRC. The final corridor was selected mid last year which gave the go head to resume any final properties. The spur line will be grade seperated. 14 bridges/overpasses will be constructed along the 13km route (Some of which are not finalised by local and future planning etc). A 8-10m tall bridge will be built over the Bruce Highway which will result in large earthworks to local residents (seeing a tall mountain from their backyard ). The corridor engineering tender was awarded late last year. Lawnton-Petrie bridge/station upgrades, station designs and consultant tenders have been sent out. A final detailed report will be released mid way though the year with construction to start in the last quarter this year (Assuming no delays).

[HappyTrainGuy]

Oh, forgot to add that AECOM was responsible for the survey works done on the planned MBRL. Whether they will be retained for the final engeneering/construction is anyones guess.