Suburbs 2 City Bus Tunnel Proposal

[SurfRail]

"Cross River Rail represents a public transport revolution for the south-east.

"It has the capacity to move up to 120,000 people into the inner city in the two-hour morning peak period – that's the equivalent of a 30-lane motorway.

Cross River Rail will have one track in and one track out. That means at 30 tph, the max capacity is around 60 000 pphd MAX, therefore someone has been double counting and is counting the trains going over the merivale bridge currently!!!

Emphasis added (ie 30,000 per track per hour). 

[SurfRail]

Here's my favourite comment from the CM:

Michael O'Connor of Burleigh Heads Posted at 9:44 AM Today
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why Brisbane City Council run the buses, but the State Government run the trains? Until we get a single, co-ordinated vision for public transport: we'll keep on getting these weird, politically-motivated "solutions".. It's ridiculous!

Comment 51 of 71

[colinw]

"Cross River Rail represents a public transport revolution for the south-east.

"It has the capacity to move up to 120,000 people into the inner city in the two-hour morning peak period – that's the equivalent of a 30-lane motorway.

Cross River Rail will have one track in and one track out. That means at 30 tph, the max capacity is around 60 000 pphd MAX, therefore someone has been double counting and is counting the trains going over the merivale bridge currently!!!

Nothing in this media release will do anything much about buses congesting at CC or through the CBD. It also contains clear errors of fact.

No discrepancy.  30,000 people per hour, per direction by 2 hour morning peak period = 120,000 people.

Edit: oops, doubled up on SurfRail's response.

[Gazza]

Yeah I don't really accept that heavy rail down the SE coridoor was a no no.
Then move CRR foward, or just build a 2nd merivale, which would have been easier, because the busway wasn't there.

Agree with Colin...When, in any time period, has transport planning in Aus actually been nailing it?
We say "oh but at the time they could never have guessed".
Well, when are they gonna start getting it right?!

[somebody]

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the council had today rehashed a fanciful bus plan it first mooted in mid-2007 because in the four years since it had not built a single kilometre of Brisbane's bus network.

This is quite unfair on BCC actually. Not only does BCC fund the buses on a scale unlike any other council in Australia (saving the state government huge amounts of money over the decades, compare this to what councils do in Sydney and Melbourne- nothing!),

How much of that money goes to BT merely being inefficient, with their insistence on bad practices, mostly funnelling PT users onto their high profile services?

$500 million worth currently under construction

That's right, half a BILLION on two bus stations at Stones Corner and Langlands which BTW is totally and shamefully underutilised!

For all we know this could be due to BCC blocking logical outcomes.

it's not a replacement for feasible solutions like the Cross River Rail

Its not meant to be a replacement anyway! Different part of the network!!!

Oh yeah?  I'd refer you to this comment:

I think most people recognise that Cross River Rail is not going to fly in its current format. At $8 billion it's just not affordable. Also it will not address Brisbane's bus needs

Yeah I don't really accept that heavy rail down the SE coridoor was a no no.
Then move CRR foward, or just build a 2nd merivale, which would have been easier, because the busway wasn't there.

Agree with Colin...When, in any time period, has transport planning in Aus actually been nailing it?
We say "oh but at the time they could never have guessed".
Well, when are they gonna start getting it right?!

Mandurah line went pretty well, as did BUZ.  I also think the upgraded bus services to the NW in Sydney have been an enormous success.  Melbourne's train system and RFR have also been quite successful.  The Gold Coast line is successful, but less spectacularly.

[#Metro]

No discrepancy.  30,000 people per hour, per direction by 2 hour morning peak period = 120,000 people.

Edit: oops, doubled up on SurfRail's response.

Dubious. Peak load IMHO should be reported as peak direction (unless there are two) for one way in one hour.

Using the same style of reporting I could claim that Cultural Centre has 36 000 pphd capacity, which is does not. (9000 pphd x 2 lanes x 2 hours).

[colinw]

Agree with Colin...When, in any time period, has transport planning in Aus actually been nailing it?
We say "oh but at the time they could never have guessed".
Well, when are they gonna start getting it right?!

Its been known to happen, although not north of the Banana line.

Sydney in the 1920s & 1930s (Bradfield's plan for the city electric railways, sadly stuffed up by the pollies & depression era funding problems).

Perth from the early '90s. Brisbane logic would have had a busway to Joondalup, later Clarkson & Butler, or else just made do with buses on the Freeway. W.A. got it right, as they did again with Mandurah after a false start via Thornlie (which would have replicated the Gold Coast line errors, although not as badly).

Meanwhile in QLD we:

- permanently removed any chance of rail in the S.E. Freeway corridor (bar Metro conversion which is highly unlikely)
- serially stuffed up light rail projects from 1994 (Soorley) to 2000 (BrizTram & Brisbane Light Rail)
- built the Gold Coast line as predominantly single track, only discover we needed to duplicate it shortly thereafter.
- built the Gold Coast line off a long & poorly aligned suburban line, thereby dooming it to substandard average speed, cannibalising the track capacity needed for the suburban rail service in the process
- built busway for an inner core corridor where we now know metro like capacity is needed
- built rail for a lower density outer corridor (Springfield), then run it at only 2000 pphd capacity except for a little bit of peak
- built half a duplication on the Sunshine Coast, without actually managing to improve the capacity or services at all (in fact they are slower now).
- only electrified 3 of 4 tracks on the Darra quad, and the non-electrified track is on the pair of tracks the new branch comes off (so freight trains need a conflicting move while suburbans have to cross over & back again).

... add your own pet stuff-up here.

I'm going to take a chill pill & lie down before I start frothing from the mouth. 

[colinw]

No discrepancy.  30,000 people per hour, per direction by 2 hour morning peak period = 120,000 people.

Edit: oops, doubled up on SurfRail's response.

Dubious. Peak load IMHO should be reported as peak direction (unless there are two) for one way in one hour.

Using the same style of reporting I could claim that Cultural Centre has 36 000 pphd capacity, which is does not. (9000 pphd x 2 lanes x 2 hours).

But CRR is a through route in the centre of the system, and will take trains from the north as well as the south.

Are you saying the new station in the city centre will have more passengers from the south side & Gold Coast than the north?

[Golliwog]

No discrepancy.  30,000 people per hour, per direction by 2 hour morning peak period = 120,000 people.

Edit: oops, doubled up on SurfRail's response.

Dubious. Peak load IMHO should be reported as peak direction (unless there are two) for one way in one hour.

Using the same style of reporting I could claim that Cultural Centre has 36 000 pphd capacity, which is does not. (9000 pphd x 2 lanes x 2 hours).

Haha, no you couldn't. By it's definition, pphd mean passengers per hour and direction. You could say that the CC can take 36000 passengers in the 2 hour morning peak though.

[Jonas Jade]

No discrepancy.  30,000 people per hour, per direction by 2 hour morning peak period = 120,000 people.

Edit: oops, doubled up on SurfRail's response.

Dubious. Peak load IMHO should be reported as peak direction (unless there are two) for one way in one hour.

Using the same style of reporting I could claim that Cultural Centre has 36 000 pphd capacity, which is does not. (9000 pphd x 2 lanes x 2 hours).

Services will also come from the north, no?

[#Metro]

How much of that money goes to BT merely being inefficient, with their insistence on bad practices, mostly funnelling PT users onto their high profile services?

The fact that there is any council money whatsoever is something to be grateful for. What contribution does Melbourne or Sydney City Councils make towards PT- very little if any.

Mandurah line went pretty well, as did BUZ

Mandurah line was extremely contraversial and absolutely looked like lunacy when first proposed. Remember they were going to CLOSE the Perth Rail system because it has such low patronage (11 million/year). Totally different climate of thought in 1997.

Oh yeah?  I'd refer you to this comment:

Simon, the two projects serve different parts of the network. Now whether the mayor wants his project funded first or CRR first doesn't change this basic geographical fact. Did you know there are tunnels and other projects also vying for the same cash in Melbourne and Sydney, surely you must know. So if the people in Sydney and Melbourne come out and say "We think the Brisbane CRR is too expensive, please fund our project first" does that mean the tunnel in Sydney or Melbourne 1000s of km away is a substitute for Brisbane? Of course not!

- built busway for an inner core corridor where we now know metro like capacity is needed
- built rail for a lower density outer corridor (Springfield), then run it at only 2000 pphd capacity except for a little bit of peak

This is very unfair. Needs change, as shown in Ottawa and the world over. You know, Springfield could have been built as an entirely new line and run at high frequency, with its own tunnel blah blah. It wasn't. Had the SE busway been built as heavy rail, they would have probably connected it to the Cleveland line at Buranda or connected it to the Beenleigh line, then they would have run a measly 2 tph on it.

With the retrospectroscope we could have put metro down the busway (funny that, was being batted over the head by Brizcommuter et al for launching that idea as crazy) but we could not have known at the time we would need that capacity.

[#Metro]

Haha, no you couldn't. By it's definition, pphd mean passengers per hour and direction. You could say that the CC can take 36000 passengers in the 2 hour morning peak though.

Correct. That's it.

[colinw]

- built busway for an inner core corridor where we now know metro like capacity is needed
- built rail for a lower density outer corridor (Springfield), then run it at only 2000 pphd capacity except for a little bit of peak

This is very unfair. Needs change, as shown in Ottawa and the world over. You know, Springfield could have been built as an entirely new line and run at high frequency, with its own tunnel blah blah. It wasn't.

In what way have the needs changed?  The need in 1997 was a core line-haul transit route to the south east.  The need in 2011 is the same. We backed the wrong horse then, and are continuing to do it now.  Simple.

Meanwhile places that have managed to put the right thing in to start with reap the benefits, and don't have to go back and rebuild stuff 10 or 15 years later.

Had the SE busway been built as heavy rail, they would have probably connected it to the Cleveland line at Buranda or connected it to the Beenleigh line, then they would have run a measly 2 tph on it.

Ah, now we get to the core of the argument.  We couldn't have built the SE busway as rail, because we always run rail in Brisbane at crap frequency.  And that makes spending the best part of a billion dollars for a 2tph railway ok how exactly?

I don't care if the Springfield line, or the MBRL, are dedicated lines to the city or branches off the end of an existing line.  Spending the sort of money we are on infrastructure for a 2tph service is simply not good value for money, and I can see no way it can be justified.

Monumental failure of planning.  If the best we can do is make a wild assed guess and then 10 years later go "oops, better spend another 2 billion fixing this", then I give up, we aren't ever going to get sensible planning of public transport here.  Just bandaid fixes on top of fixes on top of bad decisions.

[#Metro]

In what way have the needs changed?  The need in 1997 was a core line-haul transit route to the south east.  The need in 2011 is the same. We backed the wrong horse then, and are continuing to do it now.  Simple.

No it's not that simple. They made the right choice at the time given all the circumstances, now patronage went through the roof. We should be happy about that.
I'm not sure of *any* QR rail line that carries as much as the busway, even in peak hour. You know, they could have chosen light rail off the bat, then we really really would be stuffed because we would have the tram struggling trying to get 20 000 pphd over the Victoria Bridge in Class B and Class C ROW (which handles 9000 pphd currently).

The decision to choose busway was sound at the time, but I think it will be time to move on in the coming decade.

We couldn't have built the SE busway as rail, because we always run rail in Brisbane at crap frequency.  And that makes spending the best part of a billion dollars for a 2tph railway ok how exactly?

My thoughts exactly. And even if it was a la Mandurah, that is only 4tph, STILL not anywhere near as frequent as what I got this morning (one bus every minute, one bus every 2-3 minutes off peak).

[#Metro]

Ah, now we get to the core of the argument.  We couldn't have built the SE busway as rail, because we always run rail in Brisbane at crap frequency.  And that makes spending the best part of a billion dollars for a 2tph railway ok how exactly?

Comment of the week!

[colinw]

We couldn't have built the SE busway as rail, because we always run rail in Brisbane at crap frequency.  And that makes spending the best part of a billion dollars for a 2tph railway ok how exactly?

My thoughts exactly. And even if it was a la Mandurah, that is only 4tph, STILL not anywhere near as frequent as what I got this morning (one bus every minute, one bus every 2-3 minutes off peak).

Mandurah line is more like 8tph to Cockburn Central at least in peak, and 6 tph to/from Mandurah for a lot of the day now.  Not bad for a distance comparable to about Helensvale or Nerang.

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/timetablePDFs/Mandurah%20Line%2020111106.pdf

Joondalup is equally impressive.  Big chunks of 6 tph operation, and with the 2 tier service some stations like Whitfords get sustained bursts of 12 tph service including at shoulder of peak:

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/timetablePDFs/Joondalup%20Line%2020111106.pdf

Perth may not realise it, but they almost have a Metro now. Wouldn't take much to get it to full Metro standard.

[Golliwog]

Haha, no you couldn't. By it's definition, pphd mean passengers per hour and direction. You could say that the CC can take 36000 passengers in the 2 hour morning peak though.

Correct. That's it.

So what was your problem with the 120,000 figure given in the release then? She said CRR could move 120,000 people during the morning two hour peak period. She didn't given it as a pphd figure, but she did quantify it.

[somebody]

- built the Gold Coast line as predominantly single track, only discover we needed to duplicate it shortly thereafter.
- built the Gold Coast line off a long & poorly aligned suburban line, thereby dooming it to substandard average speed, cannibalising the track capacity needed for the suburban rail service in the process

I think these criticisms are unfair.  It was cheap enough to come back and duplicate the GC line, except for the Coomera River.  They created a new path through the CBD when they did the Gold Coast line did they not? 

Perth may not realise it, but they almost have a Metro now. Wouldn't take much to get it to full Metro standard.

Evening and Sunday services still fall short of the mark though.

[#Metro]

So what was your problem with the 120,000 figure given in the release then? She said CRR could move 120,000 people during the morning two hour peak period. She didn't given it as a pphd figure, but she did quantify it.

[colinw]

- built the Gold Coast line as predominantly single track, only discover we needed to duplicate it shortly thereafter.
- built the Gold Coast line off a long & poorly aligned suburban line, thereby dooming it to substandard average speed, cannibalising the track capacity needed for the suburban rail service in the process

I think these criticisms are unfair.  It was cheap enough to come back and duplicate the GC line, except for the Coomera River.  They created a new path through the CBD when they did the Gold Coast line did they not?  

Fair point re duplication: $20 million for the Ormeau to Coomera duplication & $72 million for Helensvale to Robina duplication.  Ormeau to Coomera, as you can see, was particularly cheap.

Makes you wonder why it wasn't done that way to start with, considering several bridges needed to be modified.

Regarding Beenleigh line capacity, I was primarily referring to Merivale Bridge capacity and the limited capacity we're still stuck with even with the 3rd line.  Although to be fair, they did duplicate the former single line from Kuraby to Beenleigh in the lead up to starting the new Gold Coast line.

But, overall, a remarkably half baked job compared to Mandurah.  I'm just glad that sense has now prevailed and both Springfield & MBRL will be double track (much as I have doubts about their merits unless run at decent frequency).

[Gazza]

Couple of points.

-No, SEB was not the right choice at the time, it was just what Qld transport could be arsed doing.
This was from an era where Kippa Ring line Mk1 came in with a positive cost benefit ratio, but the project was canned with the weak excuse that "The study hadn't factored in the cost of running services, and the cost of running services would be too much of a burden on Qld taxpayers". They were pretty anti rail back then, and I bet it made the people of Redcliffe feel real good inside being referred to as some sort of 'burden' (Also probably explains the state of rail frequency today ) But I digress.

The proper solution "for the time" would have been heavy rail to 8MP (Or shortened to say upper Mt Gravatt...Enough to divert the funds to a 2nd Merivale or something, or even just South Bank terminating for the time being) 2001 Dollars remember.
2nd stage would have extended it to Beenleigh, with stops at Springwood and Hyperdome, paid for, at least in part with the funds for the Kuraby triple.

You then basically have the equivalent of a Beenleigh line quad (Just across two corridors), GC trains would use the SE corridor, and even with all current stops, it would still be faster than via the Beenleigh corridor.
The Beenleigh line would be left as is, just double track, but as a consolation prize, at least it wouldn't be competing with GC trains for timetable paths, so frequency would be better.

-Yes, the busway offers better frequency than heavy rail, but that isn't inherent to the mode. Also, once frequency tips over a certain point, it becomes less about passenger convenience, and more about just keeping up with demand, which is why some systems resort to extremes like moving block signalling to squeeze every last drop.....Is a train every 5 minutes that much better than one every 7.5 minutes for instance?
Also, once bus frequency tips over a certain point, it just becomes needlessly stressful for passengers, and increases dwell times as passengers try and guess where along the platform the bus will stop, and then hurry there.

Also, the SEB frequency is more by "Default"...Kind of like how the frequency Darra-Milton isn't because of the goodness of their hearts wanting to provide 4tph, it's just by default that two lines overlap. Except the busway is a lot of overlap.

But yeah, we backed the wrong horse with the Busway.

[somebody]

Regarding Beenleigh line capacity, I was primarily referring to Merivale Bridge capacity and the limited capacity we're still stuck with even with the 3rd line.  Although to be fair, they did duplicate the former single line from Kuraby to Beenleigh in the lead up to starting the new Gold Coast line.

But by opening up Central #5 & #6 they increased the Merivale bridge capacity as it would no longer compete with the Ipswich line for paths through the CBD.  That's what I was trying to say before.

[HappyTrainGuy]

To be fair at the time of the Gold Coast line being constructed there wasn't much money floating around for QR from the antirail government for a brand new line to Brisbane. There were the massive inner city works from Roma Street-Bowen Hills (Roma Street had every platform rebuilt, Central got some mods, Bowen Hills had platforms 3/4 installed, realignment via Normanby entries), quad to Northgate and triple to Petrie along with associated station upgrades, Beenleigh line upgrades, DDA was forced upon rollingstock and station modifications, NCL realignment/track and signal upgrades, TiltTrain projects CityTrain rollingstock projects, any money made from coal was invested again with more money from the Government in gigantic coal/freight expansion/new lines/rollingstock and along with other projects as well.

[#Metro]

Couple of points.

The proper solution "for the time" would have been heavy rail to 8MP (Or shortened to say upper Mt Gravatt...Enough to divert the funds to a 2nd Merivale or something, or even just South Bank terminating for the time being) 2001 Dollars remember.
2nd stage would have extended it to Beenleigh, with stops at Springwood and Hyperdome, paid for, at least in part with the funds for the Kuraby triple.

I don't agree with this at all. Terminate at South Brisbane? Feed 20 000 pphd into Roma Street via a new Merivale bridge (can't do that no space)? I am totally unconvinced. AND run it at more than 2 tph?

You then basically have the equivalent of a Beenleigh line quad (Just across two corridors), GC trains would use the SE corridor, and even with all current stops, it would still be faster than via the Beenleigh corridor.
The Beenleigh line would be left as is, just double track, but as a consolation prize, at least it wouldn't be competing with GC trains for timetable paths, so frequency would be better.

-Yes, the busway offers better frequency than heavy rail, but that isn't inherent to the mode. Also, once frequency tips over a certain point, it becomes less about passenger convenience, and more about just keeping up with demand, which is why some systems resort to extremes like moving block signalling to squeeze every last drop.....Is a train every 5 minutes that much better than one every 7.5 minutes for instance?
Also, once bus frequency tips over a certain point, it just becomes needlessly stressful for passengers, and increases dwell times as passengers try and guess where along the platform the bus will stop, and then hurry there.

We can talk all about it; Now that I moved next to a busway, ha! NO WAY gonna live next to a train station unless its on top of Central.

Also, the SEB frequency is more by "Default"...Kind of like how the frequency Darra-Milton isn't because of the goodness of their hearts wanting to provide 4tph, it's just by default that two lines overlap. Except the busway is a lot of overlap.

Justifying, minimalising, rationalising... and its already done anyway...

But yeah, we backed the wrong horse with the Busway.

Busway was the way to go. Like a kid that grows out of its shoes, time to get a bigger one. Doesn't mean that the smaller shoe was "wrong".

[Jonas Jade]

I agree that the busway was the right choice at the time.

A rail service, at what would've likely been 2tph, wouldn't have created the modal shift and increase in patronage so quickly that the Busway has provided, and let's face it, BUZ would not have happened.

[colinw]

Again we have that implicit assumption that because its rail, it will automatically be 2tph & crap.

I think that is quite possibly THE key problem with public transport in SEQ that needs to be fixed.  We've reached the point where we are practically afraid to suggest rail, because we just KNOW its going to be delivered in a half baked manner (where at least the quarter baked busway gives us a high frequency, even if it is buses).

I'm really starting to wonder why we bother building any rail at all.

[HappyTrainGuy]

With freight being the key issue as it interacts with basically every line. Clear it for the one sector, clash it with another sector.

[Gazza]

Bs there was no room for a 2nd merivale...the apartments weren't in the way in 2001.

Kid growing out of their shoes analogy is crap too. Buying new shoes doesnt cost a billion and cause years of construction disruptions. Kids shoes are known to be expendable, and are $20 from Kmart.
Infrastructure should last 40-50 years plus.

The point about Buz not happening, and a heavy rail SEB being 2tph is crap too. Why pick modes based upon the weaknesses in the beauracracy, it's absurd!

[O_128]

I agree that the busway was the right choice at the time.

A rail service, at what would've likely been 2tph, wouldn't have created the modal shift and increase in patronage so quickly that the Busway has provided, and let's face it, BUZ would not have happened.

Over 100 years ago London and Paris built metros. 100 years later these lines are still not at capacity sure they have new rolling stock and signalling etc. But they are fundamentally the same. Yet your saying with all the population forecasts etc available when the busway was planned that this was the best they could do? Its absolutely pathetic on our planners and politicians  that they are unable to build infrastructure without it being overloaded in 10 years.

If the person who advocated single track for the GC line is still working within government departments then that person needs to be sacked immediately, honestly whatever idiot said lets build it single track should not be in that position

[colinw]

Bs there was no room for a 2nd merivale...the apartments weren't in the way in 2001.

Kid growing out of their shoes analogy is crap too. Buying new shoes doesnt cost a billion and cause years of construction disruptions. Kids shoes are known to be expendable, and are $20 from Kmart.
Infrastructure should last 40-50 years plus.

The point about Buz not happening, and a heavy rail SEB being 2tph is crap too. Why pick modes based upon the weaknesses in the beauracracy, it's absurd!

Indeed, we've now effectively seen the argument trotted out that "we shouldn't build rail, because rail frequency in SEQ is crap", i.e. don't pick the mode based on capacity needed, but on our ability to actually deliver it properly.

That argument will bring the entire rail edifice crumbling down given time.

If it had been applied in Perth, the network there would have closed. Looking at it today, it is hard to imagine that the Fremantle line WAS closed for several years, and they were actually down to a two line system with just Armadale & Midland still running.

I will insist until I am hoarse that building infrastructure because it is "right at the time" and finding it is overloaded in 10 years time is poor planning.

I am also deeply disturbed to find that the TMR culture of "rail is infrequent and crap, just whack in some buses" is becoming entrenched even on this forum. I wonder who is wearing whom down, exactly ...

[somebody]

Why pick modes based upon the weaknesses in the beauracracy, it's absurd!

Agree.

This is where we need to keep up the pressure to have a full time Ipswich express, even if it's on the same frequency as present, combined with 4tph Richlands.  We can also push for 4tph Ferny Grove, and PET/CAB but I feel these will get less traction in public.

[ozbob]

Today, I went to Richlands. Boarded the 1.18pm outbound ex Richlands, to make the connection at Darra for the Ippy.  There was no more than 10 pax on the train (I checked). On boarding at Darra (3 minute sprint platform 2 to one (bizarre I know, but that can wait for another day, I wanted to go to loo but couldn't), there was by my quick carriage count about 250 pax on board the Ippy flyer ...

I think that the corridor - Caboolture to Ipswich must be the priority now for increased frequency.

By the way, the car park at Richlands was full, with overflow hogging Progress Corner, Darra was parked out as well, with much illegal parking (by my judgement).  Wacol, full. Good old Gailes was taking up the slack,  I reckon around 350 cars ...

So?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Maybe Caboolture should be done via shuttles to Petrie with 15 min frequency on Kippa Ring line tapping into a larger market share with Nambour services providing an express thru service on the Caboolture line (Offpeak of course).

[somebody]

Maybe Caboolture should be done via shuttles to Petrie with 15 min frequency on Kippa Ring line tapping into a larger market share with Nambour services providing an express thru service on the Caboolture line (Offpeak of course).

Or maybe we shouldn't talk so much about things which are far off in the future when better services are easily achievable now.

Today, I went to Richlands. Boarded the 1.18pm outbound ex Richlands, to make the connection at Darra for the Ippy.  There was no more than 10 pax on the train (I checked). On boarding at Darra (3 minute sprint platform 2 to one (bizarre I know, but that can wait for another day, I wanted to go to loo but couldn't), there was by my quick carriage count about 250 pax on board the Ippy flyer ...

I think that the corridor - Caboolture to Ipswich must be the priority now for increased frequency.

By the way, the car park at Richlands was full, with overflow hogging Progress Corner, Darra was parked out as well, with much illegal parking (by my judgement).  Wacol, full. Good old Gailes was taking up the slack,  I reckon around 350 cars ...

So?

So you see a lower priority in establishing express to IPS trains then?

[colinw]

Today, I went to Richlands. Boarded the 1.18pm outbound ex Richlands, to make the connection at Darra for the Ippy.  There was no more than 10 pax on the train (I checked). On boarding at Darra (3 minute sprint platform 2 to one (bizarre I know, but that can wait for another day, I wanted to go to loo but couldn't), there was by my quick carriage count about 250 pax on board the Ippy flyer ...

I think that the corridor - Caboolture to Ipswich must be the priority now for increased frequency.

By the way, the car park at Richlands was full, with overflow hogging Progress Corner, Darra was parked out as well, with much illegal parking (by my judgement).  Wacol, full. Good old Gailes was taking up the slack,  I reckon around 350 cars ...

So?

Well that makes a fairly good case for 4TPH fulltime Ipswich service, but it should be an express dovetailing with a decent Richlands/Springfield service. I think the branch will pick up a lot more in the offpeak once the line goes right through to Springfield.

Do you think much of a culture of using the train has developed in Forest Lake yet?  With 2tph service I'm not sure it would, at least in the offpeak.

[HappyTrainGuy]

BRISBANE City Council is on its own if it wants to push ahead with a $2.5 billion underground busway, with the State Government ruling out contributing any funds.

There goes another 2 million down the drain

[ozbob]

BRISBANE City Council is on its own if it wants to push ahead with a $2.5 billion underground busway, with the State Government ruling out contributing any funds.

There goes another 2 million down the drain

Inclined to agree, but if they listen, they will widen the scope ..  we can only try, perhaps it is a quirk of history .. 

[somebody]

Do you think much of a culture of using the train has developed in Forest Lake yet?  With 2tph service I'm not sure it would, at least in the offpeak.

There is also the issue that only every second train is actually met by a bus.  I can't imagine much walk up patronage at Richlands.

[colinw]

At that frequency you'll only get people with no alternative.  Much like the bus service in my area, which falls to hourly in the offpeak.  Peak services are crowded, offpeak run around carrying air & tumbleweeds.  On more than one occasion I've caught an offpeak 554 and been the only passenger for the entire run, but in peak it can be hard getting a seat.

[#Metro]

The point about Buz not happening, and a heavy rail SEB being 2tph is crap too. Why pick modes based upon the weaknesses in the beauracracy, it's absurd!

There is just nooo way you are going to dump 20 000 pphd into the network either now or then.  You'd have to build CRR etc already.

Why the SE Busway was chosen as buses and why it was appropriate then:

* Allowed a mix of express and all stop services, not easy to do with rail
* Up to 18 000 pphd capacity, at the time was though to be plenty
* Decent frequency, even at low patronage levels
* Used existing infrastructure (Victoria Bridge and captain cook bridge)
* No need to transfer
* Suitable match with density of the area (at least philosophy at the time)
* could be built in stages, avoiding expensive sections

Why rail was not a good idea then

* Would have run at 2tph (yes really, Kippa Ring, Richlands almost all lines on the netowork are run at low frequency)
* It would have connected to Beenleigh, Cleveland or the current network, and then be handicapped at 2tph due to network
constraints/coal/freight/blah blah
* Connect to crapola system, causing all sorts of conflicts
* Big vehicle but Low frequency
* required a new merivale bridge, 20 000 pax/hour dumped into Roma Street is just not going to happen convention centre in the way
plus more conflicts or tunnel required
* freight run on rail network
* going via Roma street is also indirect

Why rail makes sense now:
* Increased passenger capacity, up to double that of busway
* we know we have the demand for this kind of service
* Simpler network, expels air from system
* can be automated- labour savings
* not much space for buses now in the CBD
* good frequency when automated

Ultimately we now have to move forward and see how busway capacity can be increased and how bottlenecks like CC can be removed. IMHO busways were the right choice