GHD: Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation ...

[somebody]

Well said there, ozbob.

[BrizCommuter]

Still haven't read the report but a couple of extra thoughts:

Seriously, this obsession with the level crossing grade seps. Not all of them will be needed front up. 3 minute frequency to Cleveland? Seriously even with lower capacity stock.... not needed! Overkill. You might get 5 min freq max in peak hour at the extremities. Chuck in a carefully selected couple to relieve the ones that might get congested in peak, the rest are fine - this is LIGHT rail. The timing could be tightened for some as well. As the service becomes more intense with demand then some can be done in the future to provide full grade separation.

600 capacity LRV have apparently been stated to replace 1000 capacity trains.
It is likely that in the 2012+ timetable that the Ferny Grove and Cleveland Lines will run approx. 8tph in the am peak. This means that even with no growth, and assuming similar crowding densities as at present, the Ferny Grove and inner Cleveland Lines would need to operate 13.3tph with LRV. This would be a LRV every 4.5 mins in each direction. So a level crossing would have to be closed on average every 2.25mins. This would cause traffic chaos at most level crossings, and significantly increase the risk of delays/accidents if grade separation does not occur.

[#Metro]

If it is a metro, by definition, it has to be Class A. 

[Jonas Jade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn

in our example basically the same effect can be achieved by giving in to a couple of level crossings for the sake of a few hundred million. Full metro operation can be done later and incrementally once funding becomes available.

[Jonas Jade]

600 capacity LRV have apparently been stated to replace 1000 capacity trains.
It is likely that in the 2012+ timetable that the Ferny Grove and Cleveland Lines will run approx. 8tph in the am peak. This means that even with no growth, and assuming similar crowding densities as at present, the Ferny Grove and inner Cleveland Lines would need to operate 13.3tph with LRV. This would be a LRV every 4.5 mins in each direction. So a level crossing would have to be closed on average every 2.25mins. This would cause traffic chaos at most level crossings, and significantly increase the risk of delays/accidents if grade separation does not occur.

Five grade seps to do upfront: Samford Road, South pine Road, Osbourne Road, Cavendish and Wynnum North Rd.

The rest can be retimed (except Queensport where freight still goes) based upon the lighter vehicles and looked at for separation later on - there are nearby options then for crossing via bridge/underpass.

$1bil saved.

I get the metro concept, and I understand why class A is important, but sometimes compromise is needed. I'm just suggesting where costs can be saved (not necessarily should...  :conf)

[SurfRail]

Having just come back from Perth and missed all this in the last few days, my observation is as follows.

This report is absolute bunk.

I think we should castigate them for producing something so childish and get back on with the job of pushing for CRR.

We are not going to be ending up with something like Joondalup station in lieu of what is currently at Upper Mt Gravatt in a hurry (much as I agree with TT's arguments, reinforced by my trip west), so we may as well emphasise the really big project the government has actually carried out substantial work on and which will actually fix the capacity problem.

[ozbob]

Having just come back from Perth and missed all this in the last few days, my observation is as follows.

This report is absolute bunk.

I think we should castigate them for producing something so childish and get back on with the job of pushing for CRR.

We are not going to be ending up with something like Joondalup station in lieu of what is currently at Upper Mt Gravatt in a hurry (much as I agree with TT's arguments, reinforced by my trip west), so we may as well emphasise the really big project the government has actually carried out substantial work on and which will actually fix the capacity problem.

Indeed SurfRail, absolute bunk is an understatement ....  CRR is go!

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Budget rail solution 'flawed'

Budget rail solution 'flawed'
Tony Moore
January 18, 2012 - 3:00AM

Claims a cut-price alternative to the $7.7 billion Cross River Rail project can be delivered for $2.5 billion are "simply flawed", according to Brisbane's main rail lobby group.

The Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors claims its light rail "Cleveland solution" could be up and running $5.2 billion cheaper than the state government's underground rail plan.

However, Rail: Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the Cleveland solution was "rushed" and would cost closer to $6 billion.

Mr Dow said the light rail project - which would divert Cleveland services from Merivale Bridge to a new bridge near gardens point and onto the Gabba - must be separated from road traffic by level crossings to let rail services run at five minute intervals.

"There are 17 level crossings and five pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first and the cost of that alone would approach $2 billion," he said.

However that was rejected last night by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, who is chairman of the Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors (COMSEQ).

The council of mayors last year commissioned research into a cheaper alternative to the Cross River Rail project.

Cr Quirk said existing budgets were steadily improving delays at level crossings.

"Any grade separation at current level crossings to eliminate high priority level crossings is funded separately through a budget allocation," Cr Quirk said.

"The $2.5 billion cost of the Cleveland solution includes an additional freight line passing loop at Norman Park.

"Therefore, no grade separation is required, as the light metro service at no time shares track with heavy rail passenger services or freight."

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Cleveland solution had already been tested by the Cross River Rail project team three years ago.

However Cr Quirk said that was misleading.

"The Cleveland solution prepared for COMSEQ is new, although it is based on an early proposal submitted to the Queensland Government two and a half years ago," he said.

"Since that time, the proposal has been refined and modified to take into account comments that were received."

What is planned under the Cleveland solution?

Under engineering firm GHD's Cleveland solution, Cleveland services would be shifted from South Brisbane's Merivale Bridge.

That rail bridge would be choked with trains by 2016, a 2008 state government study showed.

Fifteen of the 39 rail services across the Merivale Bridge (Monday to Friday) come from Cleveland, while in the afternoon 12 of the 33 services go to Cleveland across the bridge.

Under the proposal, these Cleveland services would run as light rail on a new tunnel from Park Road to Woolloongabba and across a bridge to QUT Gardens Point, then by tunnel under Herschel Street to a new underground rail at Roma Street.

It would then run up the Exhibition line - with new stations at Exhibition and at Bowen Hills - out to Ferny Grove.

The plan suggests light metro rail carriages carry 600 passengers in each three-car set.

But Mr Dow said important detail was lacking.

He believes GHD has underestimated the cost of the light rail trains.

GHD estimates the total cost of their alternative project at $2.5 billion, including a new fleet of rolling stock.

However, Mr Dow said the cost of 70 rail vehicles itself would be around $1.5 billion, while the cost of construction, track duplications and light metro signalling would be a further $1 billion.

Added to this would be the cost of the tunnels, bridges and stations.

Mr Dow said there would be "little change" from the $7.7 billion cost of the Cross River Rail project.

"This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge, created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time when he resigned as lord mayor," he said.

Mr Dow says between Monday and Friday, 38 per cent (15 of 39) of the inbound trains across the Merivale Bridge were from Cleveland. Outbound, it is 36 per cent (12 of 33).

In the morning there are eight services in from the Gold Coast line and 16 services in from the Beenleigh line, with a similar number in the afternoon.

"So, if you have 38 per cent of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38 per cent increase overall if you give that to the other lines," he said.

"By contrast Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114 per cent of train paths through the CBD."

These figures are disputed by GHD, according to Cr Quirk.

"Critically, the Cleveland solution releases the Cleveland line train paths (eight in peak hours) across the Merivale Bridge," he said.

"The capacity of the Merivale Bridge is 20 train paths per hour (at three minute headways), so the Cleveland solution provides an immediate capacity gain of over 70 per cent for growth on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines."

However Ms Palaszczuk said this extra capacity would be taken up by increasing demand from passengers.

"Passenger demand modelling shows that even with the Council of Mayors proposal, demand on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines would be at the capacity by 2020 and Cross River Rail would still be required as planned," she said.

Mr Dow welcomed the debate created by the Cleveland solution, but said extra demand on the rail services created by the Petrie to Kippa Ring project now underway would be too much for the Cleveland solution.

"So it would really be a false economy to go ahead with this and not proceed with Cross River Rail at this point," he said.

The plan also says opening up the Merivale Bridge rail lines as they are used today frees up 24 six-car train carriages to the Citytrain fleet at a value of $240 million.

Other issues raised by the Cleveland solution report

The report raises interesting issues including the possibility of a private operator running the flagged new service as already happens in Victoria.

brisbanetimes.com.au understands the concept has been already discussed in general with some private operators.

It includes a greater role for local governments, other than Brisbane, Sunshine and Gold coast councils, to contribute to public transport costs, though a public transport levy.

It also looks at the impact of re-prioritising public transport projects into two, five-year time frames, then for projects for 10 years and beyond.

Ms Palaszczuk said the proposal was unlikely to be completed until 2019 and passenger growth on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines would quickly use the rail lines over the Merivale Bridge made available by the model.

Cr Quirk said the problem was that there were real doubts that Cross River Rail would be financed, yet the Merivale Bridge would still be choked by 2016.

"The main point here is that the Cleveland solution would increase the number of rail services across the Merivale Bridge by 50 per cent," Cr Quirk said.

"The big issue is the capacity on the Merivale Bridge, building up the capacity on the Merivale Bridge."

"It is correct that the Cross River Rail proposal provides capacity for growth in the core beyond 2030.

"But the fact remains the current proposal is unaffordable at this time and better value for money options need to be considered prior to the point when Merivale Bridge reaches capacity in 2016."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/budget-rail-solution-flawed-20120117-1q4wk.html

[ozbob]

"Therefore, no grade separation is required, as the light metro service at no time shares track with heavy rail passenger services or freight."

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

18th January 2012

RE: Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings,

Cr Quirk has no idea apparently,

"Therefore, no grade separation is required, as the light metro service at no time shares track with heavy rail passenger services or freight."

Cr, grade separation means separating the road  and pedestrian traffic from the railway line.

There are 17 level crossings and 5 pedestrian crossing between Ferny Grove and Cleveland.

This means each of those crossings has to either go over or under the rail line.

Because

600 capacity LRV have apparently been stated to replace 1000 capacity trains.
It is likely that in the 2012+ timetable that the Ferny Grove and Cleveland Lines will run approx. 8tph in the am peak. This means that even with no growth, and assuming similar crowding densities as at present, the Ferny Grove and inner Cleveland Lines would need to operate 13.3tph with LRV. This would be a LRV every 4.5 mins in each direction. So a level crossing would have to be closed on average every 2.25mins. This would cause traffic chaos at most level crossings, and significantly increase the risk of delays/accidents if grade separation does not occur.

(LRV  = light rail vehicle)

It is a cost that cannot be dismissed.


Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Budget rail solution 'flawed'

Budget rail solution 'flawed'
Tony Moore
January 18, 2012 - 3:00AM

Claims a cut-price alternative to the $7.7 billion Cross River Rail project can be delivered for $2.5 billion are "simply flawed", according to Brisbane's main rail lobby group.

The Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors claims its light rail "Cleveland solution" could be up and running $5.2 billion cheaper than the state government's underground rail plan.

However, Rail: Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the Cleveland solution was "rushed" and would cost closer to $6 billion.

Mr Dow said the light rail project - which would divert Cleveland services from Merivale Bridge to a new bridge near gardens point and onto the Gabba - must be separated from road traffic by level crossings to let rail services run at five minute intervals.

"There are 17 level crossings and five pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first and the cost of that alone would approach $2 billion," he said.

However that was rejected last night by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, who is chairman of the Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors (COMSEQ).

The council of mayors last year commissioned research into a cheaper alternative to the Cross River Rail project.

Cr Quirk said existing budgets were steadily improving delays at level crossings.

"Any grade separation at current level crossings to eliminate high priority level crossings is funded separately through a budget allocation," Cr Quirk said.

"The $2.5 billion cost of the Cleveland solution includes an additional freight line passing loop at Norman Park.

"Therefore, no grade separation is required, as the light metro service at no time shares track with heavy rail passenger services or freight."

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Cleveland solution had already been tested by the Cross River Rail project team three years ago.

However Cr Quirk said that was misleading.

"The Cleveland solution prepared for COMSEQ is new, although it is based on an early proposal submitted to the Queensland Government two and a half years ago," he said.

"Since that time, the proposal has been refined and modified to take into account comments that were received."

What is planned under the Cleveland solution?

Under engineering firm GHD's Cleveland solution, Cleveland services would be shifted from South Brisbane's Merivale Bridge.

That rail bridge would be choked with trains by 2016, a 2008 state government study showed.

Fifteen of the 39 rail services across the Merivale Bridge (Monday to Friday) come from Cleveland, while in the afternoon 12 of the 33 services go to Cleveland across the bridge.

Under the proposal, these Cleveland services would run as light rail on a new tunnel from Park Road to Woolloongabba and across a bridge to QUT Gardens Point, then by tunnel under Herschel Street to a new underground rail at Roma Street.

It would then run up the Exhibition line - with new stations at Exhibition and at Bowen Hills - out to Ferny Grove.

The plan suggests light metro rail carriages carry 600 passengers in each three-car set.

But Mr Dow said important detail was lacking.

He believes GHD has underestimated the cost of the light rail trains.

GHD estimates the total cost of their alternative project at $2.5 billion, including a new fleet of rolling stock.

However, Mr Dow said the cost of 70 rail vehicles itself would be around $1.5 billion, while the cost of construction, track duplications and light metro signalling would be a further $1 billion.

Added to this would be the cost of the tunnels, bridges and stations.

Mr Dow said there would be "little change" from the $7.7 billion cost of the Cross River Rail project.

"This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge, created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time when he resigned as lord mayor," he said.

Mr Dow says between Monday and Friday, 38 per cent (15 of 39) of the inbound trains across the Merivale Bridge were from Cleveland. Outbound, it is 36 per cent (12 of 33).

In the morning there are eight services in from the Gold Coast line and 16 services in from the Beenleigh line, with a similar number in the afternoon.

"So, if you have 38 per cent of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38 per cent increase overall if you give that to the other lines," he said.

"By contrast Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114 per cent of train paths through the CBD."

These figures are disputed by GHD, according to Cr Quirk.

"Critically, the Cleveland solution releases the Cleveland line train paths (eight in peak hours) across the Merivale Bridge," he said.

"The capacity of the Merivale Bridge is 20 train paths per hour (at three minute headways), so the Cleveland solution provides an immediate capacity gain of over 70 per cent for growth on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines."

However Ms Palaszczuk said this extra capacity would be taken up by increasing demand from passengers.

"Passenger demand modelling shows that even with the Council of Mayors proposal, demand on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines would be at the capacity by 2020 and Cross River Rail would still be required as planned," she said.

Mr Dow welcomed the debate created by the Cleveland solution, but said extra demand on the rail services created by the Petrie to Kippa Ring project now underway would be too much for the Cleveland solution.

"So it would really be a false economy to go ahead with this and not proceed with Cross River Rail at this point," he said.

The plan also says opening up the Merivale Bridge rail lines as they are used today frees up 24 six-car train carriages to the Citytrain fleet at a value of $240 million.

Other issues raised by the Cleveland solution report

The report raises interesting issues including the possibility of a private operator running the flagged new service as already happens in Victoria.

brisbanetimes.com.au understands the concept has been already discussed in general with some private operators.

It includes a greater role for local governments, other than Brisbane, Sunshine and Gold coast councils, to contribute to public transport costs, though a public transport levy.

It also looks at the impact of re-prioritising public transport projects into two, five-year time frames, then for projects for 10 years and beyond.

Ms Palaszczuk said the proposal was unlikely to be completed until 2019 and passenger growth on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines would quickly use the rail lines over the Merivale Bridge made available by the model.

Cr Quirk said the problem was that there were real doubts that Cross River Rail would be financed, yet the Merivale Bridge would still be choked by 2016.

"The main point here is that the Cleveland solution would increase the number of rail services across the Merivale Bridge by 50 per cent," Cr Quirk said.

"The big issue is the capacity on the Merivale Bridge, building up the capacity on the Merivale Bridge."

"It is correct that the Cross River Rail proposal provides capacity for growth in the core beyond 2030.

"But the fact remains the current proposal is unaffordable at this time and better value for money options need to be considered prior to the point when Merivale Bridge reaches capacity in 2016."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/budget-rail-solution-flawed-20120117-1q4wk.html

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Back to the future for Brisbane transport planning

Back to the future for Brisbane transport planning
Tony Moore
January 18, 2012 - 3:00AM

It seems the more Brisbane pitches futuristic transport plans, the more it borrows from a 1965 plan put together by US traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith and Associates.

The company, headed by Mr Smith, was hired by then-lord mayor Clem Jones to produce the 1965 Brisbane Transportation Study.

Among some of its more controversial recommendations was to close down Brisbane's tram network, which in hindsight have been replaced by its network of busways since the 1990s.

However, as plans obtained by brisbanetimes.com.au show, the Wilbur Smith study recommended several freeways and public transport projects that are firmly part of modern planning schemes.

The first is an underground rail project similar to Cross River Rail across from Woolloongabba.

The second proposal is to run an underground rail network under Queen Street, similar to a concept put forward late last year by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.

In December, Cr Quirk put forward plans for a $2 million study into an underground bus line under Adelaide Street, similar to Mr Smith's 1965 underground rail line.

The Queensland Council of Mayors' recent concept of a light rail package, the "Cleveland solution", also includes a new train station in Queen Street, again part of the Wilbur Smith plan.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said much of the public transport side of Mr Smith's 1965 and 1970 transportation plans for Brisbane still made sense.

In 1970, Mr Smith envisaged a rail line from the then-existing Woolloongabba train station across a bridge to Gardens Point by 2000.

"He actually designed the early version of Cross River Rail," Mr Dow said.

"In those days we still did have a rail line existing through into Woolloongabba."

In the 1970 plan, a road tunnel would have been drilled through the Kangaroo Point cliffs and a bridge constructed to where Queensland University of Technology sits today.

Mr Dow said a bridge concept would still work and it formed part of the Council of Mayor's concept for a Cleveland line solution.

"The bridge would come out with the same clearance as the Go Between Bridge, then back down to the QUT/Gardens Point area," he said.

Mr Dow said the Cross River Rail team had looked at the idea and rejected it.

"The best thing about a bridge is that it is a lot cheaper than it is to tunnel under [the river]," Mr Dow said.

"The second thing is that it can be used as a bus bridge as well and that was an advantage of that and I am sure that that was considered in the early design feasibility work for Cross River Rail.

"But they decided they would go tunnel all the way through."

Mr Dow said the main advantage of a bridge was reduced cost and the ability to carry both rail and buses.

"The bridge idea (across from Woolloongabba to QUT's Gardens Point) has always appealed to me since Wilbur Smith first proposed it in 1970," Mr Dow said.

"Because I think it could always be dual purpose and take the buses off the nightmare called the Captain Cook Bridge and the Story Bridge."

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Council of Mayors' proposal was not an alternative to the Cross River Rail project and was "simply not viable".

"In fact, it is a scenario that was assessed by our Cross River Rail team almost three years ago and rejected," she said.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/back-to-the-future-for-brisbane-transport-planning-20120117-1q4il.html

[Stillwater]

Cr Quirk also says that money for grade separation of level crossings comes 'from another budget'.  If it is a cost incurred as a consequence of the Cleveland Solution, it is a cost that can, and should, be attributed to the Cleveland Solution price tag.  The Lord Mayor would be the first to point the finger if the government announced that CRR would cost $5 billion, not $8 billion, with the price of the rail tunnel beneath the Brisbane River coming from a mythical 'other' budget.

[Gazza]

The thing with CRR is that is an all inclusive costing, and factors in everything needed to make it work, including enabling works that do not relate directly to the running of trains, but are still critical due to the lines presence.

I think it very unfair to accuse CRR of being expensive, when the alternatives' costs are only looked at in isolation, and ignore other critical works necessary for it to function in the real world.

The fact is under either option the money would need to be spent over a 3-4 year construction period, so it is pointless to say other parts would be funded by other budget areas, unless they are large enough to absorb the full costs.
For instance, can the level crossing removal budget cope with 2 Billion all at once?

This is the line we need to give to the media.

On another note, If you accepted a tiered service, with only every 2nd train going beyond say Hemmant (At this point the line goes through emptiness) then that is 3 level crossings needing to be removed (Stanley St E, Cavendish Rd, Barrack Rd, Queensport Rd South) on the Cleveland side.

[somebody]

The capacity points aren't too wide of the mark.

Based on the 38% figure, the increase in Gold Coast and Beenleigh services made possible:
=38/62
=61%

Based on the 8tph/20tph figure, the possible increase is:
=8/12
=66.7%

Saying 38% is wrong.

Similarly with Kippa-Ring, freeing Ferny Grove trains from the suburbans means that Kippa-Ring trains could use the suburbans, or more likely, send the Petrie trains to the suburbans.

Besides, the advantage of CRR isn't just MORE services, it's also faster services.

[somebody]

One other point, does anyone, anywhere in the world actually make narrow gauge LR?  Wouldn't it have to be a custom design?

[ozbob]

The capacity points aren't too wide of the mark.

Based on the 38% figure, the increase in Gold Coast and Beenleigh services made possible:
=38/62
=61%

Based on the 8tph/20tph figure, the possible increase is:
=8/12
=66.7%

Saying 38% is wrong.

Similarly with Kippa-Ring, freeing Ferny Grove trains from the suburbans means that Kippa-Ring trains could use the suburbans, or more likely, send the Petrie trains to the suburbans.

Besides, the advantage of CRR isn't just MORE services, it's also faster services.

sigh,  they are relative ....

In terms of absolute capacity if have 38% and spread it around you only gain 38% absolutely  No change in total number of paths.  CRR does change that by a factor greater than  2 times, huge difference.  ie absolute paths through CBD go from 45 to 96 or thereabouts.  With the Cleveland solution no increase in CBD total paths, and this is where it will break down. Particularly as more services are needed on all lines.  I thought you would have understood that.

And after sector 2 I expect that the total Cleveland paths will be further reduced relatively as more frequency added Beenleigh/Gold Coast, again highlighting the folly of the "Cleveland Solution's" basic premise.

[Jonas Jade]

Plenty of narrow (or metre gauge) networks in Europe and around the world.

Eg Zurich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_trams
Charleroi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi_Pre-metro

[SurfRail]

Plenty of narrow (or metre gauge) networks in Europe and around the world.

Eg Zurich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_trams
Charleroi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi_Pre-metro

Japan too.

[ozbob]

Light rail on the FG/Clevelands has been looked at before and not supported (as indicated by the Minister) for the reasons that are now very clear, simply the expenditure does not give the necessary gain for the network.

RAIL Back On Track supports Cross River Rail.  If anyone here doesn't maybe it is time you set up a 'Cleveland Solution Foam Group' and leave us to get on with what is actually going to give some real community benefit.

[Mr X]

I personally don't like the fact that with the Cleveland Solution (light rail on what is pretty much a random line in Brisbane), we're eventually going to have around 4 different "trunk" transport modes heading into the CBD -> bus (busway), train, light rail (Cleveland - FG), metro (TT's idea + anything else that pops up). Add in ferries as well (not trunk) and you've got 5 modes. Tacky!

I agree with doing it the proper way (CRR) and not continuing on this legacy of ugly half arsed shortcuts.

[ozbob]

Cr Quirk was interviewed on 612 ABC Radio yesterday afternoon, about this report and the Cleveland Solution. A caller after the interview from Ipswich destroyed his arguments rather completely.  Pointing out the issues particularly the costs.

[#Metro]

In terms of absolute capacity if have 38% and spread it around you only gain 38% absolutely  No change in total number of paths.  CRR does change that by a factor greater than  2 times, huge difference.  ie absolute paths through CBD go from 45 to 96 or thereabouts.  With the Cleveland solution no increase in CBD total paths, and this is where it will break down. Particularly as more services are needed on all lines.  I thought you would have understood that.

The Cleveland Solution works by recycling existing paths. The total number of paths doesn't change. There are no new slots for trains to travel in, only old 'released' slots.

CRR works by creating new paths. The total number of paths increases. There are new slots for GC and Beenleigh. This is important as there will be flagstone rail spur attached to the Beenleigh line in the future (as much as those new developments are not on the way- would be better out at Ips and beyond IMHO).

[Jonas Jade]

RAIL Back On Track supports Cross River Rail.  If anyone here doesn't maybe it is time you set up a 'Cleveland Solution Foam Group' and leave us to get on with what is actually going to give some real community benefit.

Can't help but feel partially aimed at me - I will clarify that I support CRR as the best solution.

CRR is clearly the best solution, and I support it fully and your efforts. I was just throwing out suggestions and thoughts on what people were saying about the Cleveland solution, which I thought was partially the point of the thread, not supporting it over CRR.

[ozbob]

Thanks for your comments Jonas, not at you at all.  Just feeling a bit p%ssed off with some of the media, and the fact that they troll through here and pull random bits out of context.

I felt the need to clarify for them where we actually stand on CRR so that they don't get the wrong message.  They sometimes cannot understand that debate doesn't mean support ..

[somebody]

The capacity points aren't too wide of the mark.

Based on the 38% figure, the increase in Gold Coast and Beenleigh services made possible:
=38/62
=61%

Based on the 8tph/20tph figure, the possible increase is:
=8/12
=66.7%

Saying 38% is wrong.

Similarly with Kippa-Ring, freeing Ferny Grove trains from the suburbans means that Kippa-Ring trains could use the suburbans, or more likely, send the Petrie trains to the suburbans.

Besides, the advantage of CRR isn't just MORE services, it's also faster services.

sigh,  they are relative ....

In terms of absolute capacity if have 38% and spread it around you only gain 38% absolutely  No change in total number of paths.  CRR does change that by a factor greater than  2 times, huge difference.  ie absolute paths through CBD go from 45 to 96 or thereabouts.  With the Cleveland solution no increase in CBD total paths, and this is where it will break down. Particularly as more services are needed on all lines.  I thought you would have understood that.

And after sector 2 I expect that the total Cleveland paths will be further reduced relatively as more frequency added Beenleigh/Gold Coast, again highlighting the folly of the "Cleveland Solution's" basic premise.

There is also the increase possible on the former Cleveland and Ferny Grove lines by removing the CBD bottleneck.

45 to 96?  Not sure how you get that.  Surely CRR increases CBD paths by approximately 50%, and 100% if you ignore the mains, as all the above calcs do.

[#Metro]

Based on the 8tph/20tph figure, the possible increase is:
=8/12
=66.7%

Simon, it is 8 train slots (paths) which implies 8000 pphd.

8000 pphd is less than what Cultural Centre Busway handles at the moment in peak hour (9000 pphd) [180 buses x 0.8 load factor x 65 seats].

For $2.5 billion (or is that more like $6 billion for the cleveland solution). 8000 pphd is an unbelieveable low benefit from the QR network perspective (though I'm sure Cleveland line commuters would be happy with light metro frequency).

No wonder they only did cost-only analysis....

[ozbob]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

The benefits

Cross River Rail will address the inner city capacity constraints of the 300 kilometre South East Queensland rail network, meaning more people from the entire region can access the inner city and CBD by train.

Cross River Rail will:

   create more than $9 billion in significant transport, city-building and economic benefits for South East Queensland

   almost double the capacity of the rail network, enabling up to 96 more trains to come into the CBD in the two-hour morning peak

   provide the capacity to move 120 000 people in the two-hour morning peak from the north and south – equivalent of a 30-lane motorway

   provide a 'turn-up and go' level of service in the inner city

   connect people by rail to employment centres, hospitals, universities and sporting and event destinations
   support key inner city growth areas, such as Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills

   connect new cities and regional centres to the CBD by rail, such as Caloundra South, Flagstone and Coomera
   reduce train overcrowding by more than 50 per cent

   help manage congestion by reducing private vehicle travel by 275 million kilometres per year

   enable a dedicated dual gauge freight line from the Acacia Ridge intermodal freight terminal to the Port of Brisbane to be provided

   create about 5900 direct and indirect jobs during construction, helping to support the economy.

===========

Also see Gazza's calcs here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83384#msg83384

[Fares_Fair]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

The benefits

Cross River Rail will address the inner city capacity constraints of the 300 kilometre South East Queensland rail network, meaning more people from the entire region can access the inner city and CBD by train.

Cross River Rail will:

    create more than $9 billion in significant transport, city-building and economic benefits for South East Queensland

    almost double the capacity of the rail network, enabling up to 96 more trains to come into the CBD in the two-hour morning peak

    provide the capacity to move 120 000 people in the two-hour morning peak from the north and south – equivalent of a 30-lane motorway

    provide a 'turn-up and go' level of service in the inner city

    connect people by rail to employment centres, hospitals, universities and sporting and event destinations
    support key inner city growth areas, such as Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills

    connect new cities and regional centres to the CBD by rail, such as Caloundra South, Flagstone and Coomera
    reduce train overcrowding by more than 50 per cent

    help manage congestion by reducing private vehicle travel by 275 million kilometres per year

    enable a dedicated dual gauge freight line from the Acacia Ridge intermodal freight terminal to the Port of Brisbane to be provided

    create about 5900 direct and indirect jobs during construction, helping to support the economy.

Caloundra South ?
Is CAMCOS or duplication of Sunshine Coast line a part of CRR ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Mr X]

So for "$2.5bn" (prob $6bn) we can have 32,000 extra people being moved in their definition of a two hour peak window both directions, with an ugly overpass next to the riverside expressway, with no real ability to feed in MBRL, CAMCOS, Flagstone to the network anyway, with the added tracks across the river only usable by one mode of transport for one light metro/rail line. No costed benefit study done so far.
Or for $2bn more ($8bn), we can quadruple the benefits to 120,000 people being moved with a doubling of tracks across the river in the core, redevelopment opportunities of Yeerongpilly, Park Rd and the Gabba and the capacity for new train lines. $9bn in transport benefits.

We need to hammer that across. Cheap =/= better.

[ozbob]

@FF  CRR is an enabler for a V/Line type service on the Sunshine Coast line, as much as the track amplifications and branches are in a broad sense ...

That is why I am so intent on making my best effort to ensure CRR is not derailed by petty polyticks ...  it is a whole of network enabler and benefit ...   

[somebody]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121
...
   create more than $9 billion in significant transport, city-building and economic benefits for South East Queensland
...
Also see Gazza's calcs here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83384#msg83384

All these calculations seem to be ignoring the "mains", only counting the "suburbans".

Perhaps the words "across the Brisbane River" got lost in translation.

[BrizCommuter]

Plenty of narrow (or metre gauge) networks in Europe and around the world.

Eg Zurich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_trams
Charleroi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi_Pre-metro

Whilst there are plenty of narrow gauge LRVs and trams, there are few modern high floor narrow gauge LRVs suitable for the "The Cleveland Solution" plan. This could increase R&D costs if the LRV was not a completely off the shelf model.

Another thing that has not been considered, is that as short turners would be almost likely to be run, particularly on the Cleveland Line, then reversing sidings (or extra platforms) would have to be constructed at suitable locations. The peak frequencies would be too high for reversing at 2 track stations. Yet more $$$ required.

[Gazza]

Another thing that has not been considered, is that as short turners would be almost likely to be run, particularly on the Cleveland Line, then reversing sidings (or extra platforms) would have to be constructed at suitable locations. The peak frequencies would be too high for reversing at 2 track stations. Yet more $$$ required.

Brixton

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Cut-price rail plan 'thought bubble': Albanese

Cut-price rail plan 'thought bubble': Albanese
Tony Moore
January 19, 2012 - 3:00AM

A plan for a cut-price alternative to the underground Cross River Rail project has been described as a "thought bubble" by Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.

However, the plan received the backing of Redlands Mayor Melva Hobson, whose constituents would be well-served by the light rail "Cleveland solution" proposed by the Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/budget-rail-solution-flawed-20120117-1q4wk.html

But Mr Albanese had his reservations.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"I don't think it has necessarily been thought out and we need to work on more than just thought bubbles," he said.

In the concept by engineering firm GHD, Cleveland line services would come off the Merivale Bridge and run as light rail through the inner city to Roma Street and then out along the Ferny Grove line.

The capacity freed up on the rail bridge at South Brisbane allows for growth on the Beenleigh-Gold Coast line.

The federal government allocated $20 million to the Queensland government in 2009 to begin testing to the state's preferred option, the $7.7 billion Cross River Rail project.

It is also committed $770 million in the $1.5 billion Moreton Rail Link project to link Petrie to Kippa Ring in a new 12.3km rail line by 2016.

When asked if extra money could be found for southeast Queensland's Cross River Rail, as well as the Moreton Rail project, a cautious Mr Albanese yesterday said budget decisions were made between "competing priorities".

"We will make budget decisions when we make them, we don't speculate about those issues," he said.

"But what I would say is that the Cross River Rail project, the feedback I have had from Infrastructure Australia is extremely positive about the work that has been done by the Queensland government."

Infrastructure Australia next meets in February.

Cr Hobson said the Cleveland solution concept would deliver far better and faster public transport to her area and was more affordable for government.

She said it would deliver trains to Redlands before the area would receive buses under the state government's Eastern Busway project, which won't get to Capalaba until 2026.

"In Redlands, we want the best transport option as soon as possible," she said.

"And you know that if Cross River Rail gets delivered, Redlands doesn't get a look in until 2026."

Cr Hobson disputed criticism from lobby group Rail: Back on Track that the project would cost close to $6 billion, not the $2.5 billion that GHD estimates.

"GHD are internationally recognised transport engineers and economists, it is not as if they are a little country group," she said.

"These costs are estimates, but really the point is to put it on the table as a discussion point."

Cr Hobson said critics of the scheme should think as commuters.

She disputed Rail: Back on Track's criticism that level crossings would cause a major problem for road traffic.

"Look at the proposal and give it due consideration because it places the commuter as the most important person in this."

Meanwhile, a high-profile transport figure - who asked not to be named - raised a third alternative if light rail was being considered.

The person suggested faster results could be achieved by running a short rail tunnel from Morningside station to Roma Street, under New Farm and Eagle Street.

This plan works the same way as the Cleveland line, taking Cleveland line trains from the Merivale Bridge and running them as light rail to Roma Street.

A new busway connects commuters from Morningside to the Buranda busway.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cutprice-rail-plan-thought-bubble-albanese-20120118-1q6qs.html

[ozbob]

Years of detailed work up for Cross River Rail, compared to a Cleveland Non-solution thought bubble.

It would be a disgrace and a tragedy for Queensland, and indirectly for Australia, if petty politics by Mayors, clearly out of touch with reality jeopardise the important project which is Cross River Rail.  If you recall they were once soundly behind it, until Mr Newman left the fold.  

Queenslanders really do need to stand up on this.

Cr Hobson has no idea of how railways operate, clearly.  Or the actual costs involved.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

19th January 2012

Re: Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings

Years of detailed work up for Cross River Rail, compared to a Cleveland Non-solution thought bubble!

It would be a disgrace and a tragedy for Queensland, and indirectly for Australia, if petty politics by Mayors, clearly out of touch with reality jeopardise the important project which is Cross River Rail.  If you recall they were once soundly behind it, until Mr Newman left the fold. 

Queenslanders really do need to stand up on this.

Cr Hobson has no idea of how railways operate, clearly.  Or the actual costs involved.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Cut-price rail plan 'thought bubble': Albanese

Cut-price rail plan 'thought bubble': Albanese
Tony Moore
January 19, 2012 - 3:00AM

A plan for a cut-price alternative to the underground Cross River Rail project has been described as a "thought bubble" by Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.

However, the plan received the backing of Redlands Mayor Melva Hobson, whose constituents would be well-served by the light rail "Cleveland solution" proposed by the Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/budget-rail-solution-flawed-20120117-1q4wk.html

But Mr Albanese had his reservations.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"I don't think it has necessarily been thought out and we need to work on more than just thought bubbles," he said.

In the concept by engineering firm GHD, Cleveland line services would come off the Merivale Bridge and run as light rail through the inner city to Roma Street and then out along the Ferny Grove line.

The capacity freed up on the rail bridge at South Brisbane allows for growth on the Beenleigh-Gold Coast line.

The federal government allocated $20 million to the Queensland government in 2009 to begin testing to the state's preferred option, the $7.7 billion Cross River Rail project.

It is also committed $770 million in the $1.5 billion Moreton Rail Link project to link Petrie to Kippa Ring in a new 12.3km rail line by 2016.

When asked if extra money could be found for southeast Queensland's Cross River Rail, as well as the Moreton Rail project, a cautious Mr Albanese yesterday said budget decisions were made between "competing priorities".

"We will make budget decisions when we make them, we don't speculate about those issues," he said.

"But what I would say is that the Cross River Rail project, the feedback I have had from Infrastructure Australia is extremely positive about the work that has been done by the Queensland government."

Infrastructure Australia next meets in February.

Cr Hobson said the Cleveland solution concept would deliver far better and faster public transport to her area and was more affordable for government.

She said it would deliver trains to Redlands before the area would receive buses under the state government's Eastern Busway project, which won't get to Capalaba until 2026.

"In Redlands, we want the best transport option as soon as possible," she said.

"And you know that if Cross River Rail gets delivered, Redlands doesn't get a look in until 2026."

Cr Hobson disputed criticism from lobby group Rail: Back on Track that the project would cost close to $6 billion, not the $2.5 billion that GHD estimates.

"GHD are internationally recognised transport engineers and economists, it is not as if they are a little country group," she said.

"These costs are estimates, but really the point is to put it on the table as a discussion point."

Cr Hobson said critics of the scheme should think as commuters.

She disputed Rail: Back on Track's criticism that level crossings would cause a major problem for road traffic.

"Look at the proposal and give it due consideration because it places the commuter as the most important person in this."

Meanwhile, a high-profile transport figure - who asked not to be named - raised a third alternative if light rail was being considered.

The person suggested faster results could be achieved by running a short rail tunnel from Morningside station to Roma Street, under New Farm and Eagle Street.

This plan works the same way as the Cleveland line, taking Cleveland line trains from the Merivale Bridge and running them as light rail to Roma Street.

A new busway connects commuters from Morningside to the Buranda busway.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cutprice-rail-plan-thought-bubble-albanese-20120118-1q6qs.html

[Mr X]

What a farce. When will people realise that just because a company is 'big', doesn't mean that their estimates are accurate. Jeeze.

Of all the time we waste reinventing the wheel, we could have just got on with it and built the infrastructure. Everyone will end up benefiting, even if indirectly.

Look beyond the cost, look at the benefits.

[#Metro]

Foam everywhere!


It's really concerning all these councilors don't understand basic math (somehow get 70% increase when we are talking a measly 8 train slots/hour) and that if you have services every 5 mins in one direction, the vehicles have to go back as well so the boom gates will be down most of the time.

Scary!

[#Metro]

Meanwhile, a high-profile transport figure - who asked not to be named - raised a third alternative if light rail was being considered.

The person suggested faster results could be achieved by running a short rail tunnel from Morningside station to Roma Street, under New Farm and Eagle Street.

This plan works the same way as the Cleveland line, taking Cleveland line trains from the Merivale Bridge and running them as light rail to Roma Street.

A new busway connects commuters from Morningside to the Buranda busway.

And this, hmm, looks a lot like this (yes, I got blasted for this too):


http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3789.0

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4130.0

Simon's piece http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0

[#Metro]

What is clear from this debate (and the Mayors) is that people want FREQUENCY.
While we are spending huge amounts of time talking about INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure is NOT Frequency!

As I believe, frequent services are possible as far as Manly, now. BUZ 245 down manly/wynnum road is also possible.
No need to build anything and no new infrastructure.
Just put more trains on in the off peak! This is how the Core Frequent Network works.

Track duplication to Cleveland would also be much cheaper than this $2.5 billion (or about the same cost).