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

[HappyTrainGuy]

I thought GHD made hair straightners?

[aldonius]

Maybe we'll get lucky and a follow up report will come regarding steam ironing of bus routes! 

[#Metro]

The SE Busway 2031...

High Capacity
High Frequency - look at the video - train departs, train arrives opposite platform and then turn - next train is already there.
Single, unbranched line

[BrizCommuter]

Tramtrain - are you aware that the GHD paper is about discussing low cost options? Converting a busway to heavy rail (plus adding bus interchanges at each station) is not a low cost option, and would probably have extremely poor cost/benefit ratio.

[BrizCommuter]

Me being a super foamer, but if the Cleveland solution got done, then the SEB metro could hook into it at Park Rd, and the inner city stretch would be a common segment. Eg a train every 3 minutes on the each main line, with 90 second moving block headways on the core through to Roma St.

Im not sure how it would work beyond that, eg whether Roma St would have a platform pair for terminating SEB services as an interim, with a view to sextuplicate Bowen hills to EJ, and then have light Metro running out to Doomben/North Shore.

90 second headways is foaming.

[#Metro]

Tramtrain - are you aware that the GHD paper is about discussing low cost options? Converting a busway to heavy rail (plus adding bus interchanges at each station) is not a low cost option, and would probably have extremely poor cost/benefit ratio.

I disagree.

* Conversion is cheaper because the ROW is already acquired, certainly cheaper than the other ridiculous metros proposed from Portside to Indooroopilly or Portside to West End and Indro.

* It would *FINALLY* convert the 'all buses via the CBD' to a feeder and trunk model

* It would release huge numbers of buses (300+ per hour) from entering the CBD and replace it with ONE line

* It would massively cut fuel costs and labour costs

* It would expel huge amounts of air from the system

* It has the potential to double the capacity of the SE Busway

* It would save time by not running on city streets and also by having every service as your service rather than waiting around for a specific bus.

* It has precedent in Ottawa, incedentally by the same team that did Brisbane's busways.

* Solve stop problems in the CBD

* Automatic so can run at high frequency all day and even during strikes!

There has been a lot of shadow boxing with regards to busway capacity and hand-waving a la Bogota- the current approach is to pretend that problems do not exist and simply not talk about it. Running everything to the centre and having one suburb-one bus-all to the CBD is a failing strategy that results in expensive upgrades in the core, frequency exactly where it is NOT required and horrible low frequency in the suburbs.

[HappyTrainGuy]

* It would *FINALLY* convert the 'all buses via the CBD' to a feeder and trunk model

* It would release huge numbers of buses (300+ per hour) from entering the CBD and replace it with ONE line

I think I have a crush  

There would be slight modifications required but as TT said, the majority of the infrastructure/corridor is already there as opposed to starting from scratch.

[#Metro]

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/faq/ottawa-lrt-costs

Ottawa will spend something like $2.5 bullion to release the core, and this includes a tunnel -- how much are we spending on the Eastern Busway again? Oh that's right $2 billion for 3-5 km???

There would be slight modifications required but as TT said, the majority of the infrastructure/corridor is already there as opposed to starting from scratch.

PRIDE ISSUES are the main obstacle, followed by orderly conversion. Conversion of the busway to rail after its massive success, international parading around and hyperbole would look like an implicit acknowledgement that busways, at least in the Brisbane context, can't handle that capacity. Of course, much easier to ignore... what is the point of spending billions on a busway to Carindale when the buses that flow off it will flow into bus congestion?

This whole model of one bus for every suburb PLUS a rocket for every suburb all going to the CBD isn't the model for a large city, which is what Brisbane is becoming.

[ozbob]

Media release 15 January 2012

SEQ: Public transport is firmly on the election agenda

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the release of the GHD report ' Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure ' coincides neatly with the build up for the Queensland State and Local Government elections (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes the GHD Report (2). This report examines the cost of public transport projects, not the benefits though, and suggests a number of  approaches.  The corner stone is the conversion of the Ferny Grove - Cleveland lines to a light metro system - the Cleveland Solution.  The cost estimate of this project is estimated to be $2.5 billion, less than the cost of the Cross River Rail Project at $8 billion."

"The cost estimate of the Cleveland Solution we believe is an underestimate, and no mention is made of the necessary level crossing grade separations that would be needed if a true 3 minute frequency was to be achieved."

"Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be improved sufficiently by taking out Cleveland services to allow for the growth in the other lines such as Gold Coast, Beenleigh and future improvements such as Flagstone (3), and network wide improvements to the Sunshine Coast line, Moreton Bay Rail Link, and CAMCOS."

"Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have future significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland."

"The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years such as wasteful busway construction including tunneling when simple bus priority on roads would achieve much the same,  and the need to fix the Cultural Centre Bus station bus-jam."

"The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the essential capacity needed for all lines and ease the bus capacity crisis.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future."

"The Cleveland solution is only a short term fix at best, and will lead to further massive catch up infrastructure expenditure if Cross River Rail is further delayed."

"The section in the report that details what commuters want though is spot on (4).  What commuters want is frequency, integration, affordability and reliability!"

References:

1. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83366#msg83366

4. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf page 8

Contact:

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

[BrizCommuter]

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/faq/ottawa-lrt-costs

Ottawa will spend something like $2.5 bullion to release the core, and this includes a tunnel -- how much are we spending on the Eastern Busway again? Oh that's right $2 billion for 3-5 km???

There would be slight modifications required but as TT said, the majority of the infrastructure/corridor is already there as opposed to starting from scratch.

PRIDE ISSUES are the main obstacle, followed by orderly conversion. Conversion of the busway to rail after its massive success, international parading around and hyperbole would look like an implicit acknowledgement that busways, at least in the Brisbane context, can't handle that capacity. Of course, much easier to ignore... what is the point of spending billions on a busway to Carindale when the buses that flow off it will flow into bus congestion?

This whole model of one bus for every suburb PLUS a rocket for every suburb all going to the CBD isn't the model for a large city, which is what Brisbane is becoming.

Brisbane is a whole different kettle of fish than Ottawa. The peak busway capacity is split between via South Bank and via Captain Cook Bridge routes. To convert to metro, all ex-busway passengers would have to be routed via South Bank. For a metro to have a capacity considerably higher than the total bus capacity you would have to lengthen platforms at very constrained locations such as Mater Hill. At this time of limited funds, and ever expanding urban sprawl (another mistake), it would be better to spend $$$ on new projects rather than fixing past mistakes*

* Not really a mistake. If it had been LRT or heavy rail from the start, it would never had even happened.

Anyway, SE busway conversion isn't on either parties agenda at this election. So lets get back on topic.

[aldonius]

you would have to lengthen platforms at very constrained locations such as Mater Hill.

Not under TT's North-South Subway plan - it diverges somewhat before Mater Hill (presumably the 'Gabba junction) and heads straight for the CBD. Though I will question the amount of corridor space in the Buranda-Gabba stretch.

[#Metro]

Brisbane is a whole different kettle of fish than Ottawa. The peak busway capacity is split between via South Bank and via Captain Cook Bridge routes. To convert to metro, all ex-busway passengers would have to be routed via South Bank. For a metro to have a capacity considerably higher than the total bus capacity you would have to lengthen platforms at very constrained locations such as Mater Hill. At this time of limited funds, and ever expanding urban sprawl (another mistake), it would be better to spend $$$ on new projects rather than fixing past mistakes*

* Not really a mistake. If it had been LRT or heavy rail from the start, it would never had even happened.

Anyway, SE busway conversion isn't on either parties agenda at this election. So lets get back on topic.

I'm not saying that Brisbane is the same as Ottawa, so your assertion that Brisbane "is a different kettle of fish" has no weight. What I am saying is that there is a precedent for busway conversion and CBD tunnelling for same reasons - too many buses all converging through a congested core.

It is also false that all busway passengers have to be via South Bank, services could go via Wooloongabba into a tunnel or bridge or via tunnel between South Bank and Mater Hill. In any case a metro service would have more capacity to handle this pooling of passengers anyway. The alternative is the busway clogs up and we continue to use Captain Cook Bridge (which is Class C and has disruptions) or we have a bus tunnel at Cultural Centre (still not good as we STILL need to run everything to the centre).

For example, with a subway, Northern Busway services could simply flow through KGS and QSBS over the Victoria Bridge serving South Bank Busway and Mater Hill Busway and terminating at Woolooongabba Subway/Busway/CRR Interchange. Subway services would flow from Buranda to Wooloongabba and then directly to the CBD. The good thing is that there IS SPACE at woolongabba for this as it is government land to be redeveloped.

So this statement (below) is false:

For a metro to have a capacity considerably higher than the total bus capacity you would have to lengthen platforms at very constrained locations such as Mater Hill.

And I disagree with this statement too:

At this time of limited funds, and ever expanding urban sprawl (another mistake), it would be better to spend $$$ on new projects rather than fixing past mistakes*

* Not really a mistake. If it had been LRT or heavy rail from the start, it would never had even happened.

This is pure issue avoidance. Completely new projects will only further entrench the everywhere-to-one radial problem we have in Brisbane. Why spend money on making the problem worse? Cross River Rail is to free up CORE RAIL CAPACITY a metro is to free up CORE BUS CAPACITY.

Was it a mistake to build the busway as busway? No it wasn't. But the city grows and needs change. It is for this reason we do not run horse and cart or trams in Brisbane anymore. The busway has its purpose but that said, failture to deal or acknowlege the problem and take action will not avert the inevitable capacity issues that will arise, undoubtedly as they have in Ottawa.

The South East Busway is the only logical place that has high enough demand to justify a subway. In peak hour the busway pushes the lower bound of subway systems. Either the problem is dealt with and action is taken or we choose to take no action, live in denial a bit more and then oooops - why is the busway jamming up. It was only a few days ago that I got caught at Griffith Uni Busway station in a bus queue six or seven buses deep. And I see the same things happening at Buranda and Mater Hill etc.

[Fares_Fair]

I note that Keperra is missing an 'r' in 3 locations, in its' spelling throughout the report.
They got it right on p25.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Converting a busway to heavy rail (plus adding bus interchanges at each station) is not a low cost option, and would probably have extremely poor cost/benefit ratio.

Consider the alternative though.

Buslink is supposed to be $2 Bil.

Essentially a metro would be laying 11km track on an existing ROW. That bit should be dirt cheap. Think of it as being an exact equivalent to the track laying on the Mandurah line down an old busway/freeway median.
$15 Million a km, so $165 Million to get to 8MP

Bus interchanges would be cheap in the context of the project too. $11 Mil each if Browns Plains or Noosa is a benchmark.
Upper Mt Gravatt has one, Buranda doesnt need one, Holland Park has one underneath,  Griffith will need one, Greenslopes will need one, 8mp will need a major upgrade.

$33 Million all up for Interchanges.
Ill allow an extra $30 Million for new concourses with escalators at 8MP, Upper Mt Gravatt and Griffth.
Allow $5 mil per station to modify platforms to train height.

Wev'e spent just over a quarter of a bil so far, with 1.75 Bil left over to get the line under Boggo Rd and the Gabba and into the CBD.

[#Metro]

Buslink is supposed to be $2 Bil.

Thank you for your insight Gazza- I had not thought of that. That would be $2 BILLION at least on *entrenching* the current FAILING paradigm just so we can have every suburb send its own personal bus and rocket to the CBD along the busway. This is not change at all- its more of the same.

With the subway you don't need to do anything about Cultural Centre or Melbourne Street portal - most of the volumes for that would simply be diverted. If the Eastern Busway was, ahem, turned into Class B ROW what's that 4-5 billion to play with , a metro would not cost that much- you just need the tunnel between W/Gabba and interchanges.

Extending platforms at Griffith, Holland Park and Greenslopes should not be a big issue at all. Plenty of space. Buranda might be tricky but we could get around that by diving underneath it.

[#Metro]

Buranda doesnt need one,

Buranda would need some kind of interchange for Eastern Busway Services. However, if the subway were to dive into a tunnel underneath the existing station(s) services could flow from the Eastern Busway to the current Buranda Busway, then flow to PA Hospital and Park Road Interchange and then turnaround using the turnaround or head to UQ. The current rail works depot behind PA is also space that could be used to turn buses around.

[Gazza]

It's an axiom that Burandas Busway platforms would need to remain so Eastern Busway services could still make it in. UQ Lakes branch comes in immediately after, and its not as if you could dive the metro underground in the space between Buranda and this intersection.

Again, the key thing to consider is that you'd do something like this instead of Buslink. Buslinks CBD tunnel is slated to be 1.5 Bil, but bear in mind:
-Tunnels have to be larger to fit a bus
-Station tunnels are wider due to the passing lanes.
-Station platforms have to be wider because its not a case of just clearing the platform every 2-3 minutes. You have to account for the space being ouccupied by people queueing and waiting for buses and peak hour rockets.

A huge cost to build this buslink tunnel, for what still remains the lowest capacity mode.

This all pushes up the cost.

Route it Like this basically:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[aldonius]

What sort of time improvements do you think would occur for the Eastern services due to the Mater Hill-City section being relieved? How does this compare to dedicated ROW for the Coorparoo-out stretch? I get the feeling that the decongestion of the inner section + T3 lanes along Old Cleveland Rd would pretty much make up the dedicated busway's time saving.

@Gazza: I wouldn't bother with Boggo Rd as a subway station -  both CRR and the GHD proposal go to both that and the Gabba. Keep the alignment straight and save a heap of tunneling!

[Gazza]

I suppose I was concerned about allowing interchange, but yeah, once these lines are all in then the option is there to go straight.

[frereOP]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.0

we know you are against the metro idea tramtrain but look at the facts.  A metro (aka light rail) from Indooroopilly to Portside would cost $4 billion.  The tunnel from Mount Cootha roundabout to Kedron is about the same (a bit less).  If I was Lord Mayor, I'd know where I'd be putting my money and it wouldn't be into asphalt, busways or bikes.

[somebody]

90 second headways is foaming.

For QR it probably is, but it should be noted that the Moscow Metro can achieve it, and the RER can get 120 seconds.

If something new is done right, it could achieve the 90s.

[BrizCommuter]

90 second headways is foaming.

For QR it probably is, but it should be noted that the Moscow Metro can achieve it, and the RER can get 120 seconds.

If something new is done right, it could achieve the 90s.

A few notable frequencies from around the world:

Moscow Metro is actually 95secs, on selected lines, with 155m trains (impressive), and no lengthy door closing spiel.

Paris Metro manages 95secs on Line 13, with 75m trains, and new signalling. Driverless Line 14 runs 105secs with 90m trains.

Paris RER A manages 120secs in one direction in am peak, with 180m ish trains, and SACEM in-cab signalling. This is impressive in that the line has multiple branches, and long dwell times due to high patronage (circa 50secs).

Hong Kong Island Line manages 120secs in both directions in am peak, with 182m trains, and automatic SACEM signalling, and automated door closing. Turnarounds are pretty slick at one 2 platform terminus!

Tokyo JR Chuo Line manages 120secs in the am peak, with 200m ish trains, on an outer suburban rail line. Turned around in just 2 platforms at Tokyo.

Sao Paulo Line 3 - 101secs, with 130m ish trains, automated with driver.

Santiago Metro Line 1 - 105secs, with 90m trains, automated with driver.

A few mini metros with very short trains such as Lille's VAL run less than timetabled 90sec frequencies.

Modern metros often cannot achieve the frequencies of yesteryear due to more safety regulations - e.g platform edge doors slow things down, door edge detector delays, less aggressive driving strategies, more safety optimised signalling overlaps. For example, some London Underground Lines now run 10tph less than 60 years ago!

[Gazza]

Well, 120 seconds would perhaps be a good target then.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The current rail works depot behind PA is also space that could be used to turn buses around.

Good luck at getting them to move/relocate that depot 

[#Metro]

we know you are against the metro idea tramtrain but look at the facts.  A metro (aka light rail) from Indooroopilly to Portside would cost $4 billion.  The tunnel from Mount Cootha roundabout to Kedron is about the same (a bit less).  If I was Lord Mayor, I'd know where I'd be putting my money and it wouldn't be into asphalt, busways or bikes.

I'm not against the metro per se. I think any metro should go down the busway first because that's where the capacity issues are, that's where the demand is and that's where you can stop all those buses from ever getting anywhere near the CBD. A metro from Portside to Indooroopilly is hardly a priority when there are more immediate problems and also when one considers that there is a perfectly good four track Ipswich line, which, for a fraction of the money, could operate decent high frequency services for a fraction of the cost.

A metro line from Portside to Indoroopilly only further cements the radial everthing via the CBD issue - I daresay they would still run buses, trains and now metros parallel to each other AND the ferry. That's how crazy this everything to the CBD, anti-transfer philosophy is.

[#Metro]

Nice image but that alignment made me seasick!

I would just send it straight down the busway and then over the captain cook bridge. People wanting to make connections at Park Road can just get a bus. Do minimum.

[Gazza]

More thinking out loud, but why bother tunnelling the Cleveland Solution under Hershel Street? It introduces 2 sharp curves and would hard to build.

What about going over Garrick street, fully above the road.
The point is that it is a bit of the CBD nobody cares about. Garrick St is between the Brisbane Watchouse on the western side, and Police HQ on the East.
Line then continues dead straight to an elevated set of platforms at Roma St. The kicker is that you would have to knock down the bus ramps up to the roof of the transit center to get through, and devise another solution for a CBD coach terminus.
Coach travel is being caniballised by budget airlines anyway, so in all likelihood a replacement could be smaller.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Garrick st on Streetview: http://g.co/maps/qgfzm

From the Roma St platforms the elevated line continues through to the ekka loop, on its own additional constructed track pair.

Im guessing stations would have to be built over the water. The one at Queen St would go under the Victoria Bridge. You could use the opportunity to do a ferry terminal on the bottom floor. Because it sits under the bridge, it becomes less of a visual intrusion.

The QUT stop would also have a ferry terminal on the bottom floor.

[#Metro]

What about going over Garrick street, fully above the road.

Gazza, that station and track appear to be suspended in the air. Is there space for the pylons to hold it up?

[Gazza]

On Garrick St you would build a median strip and narrow the footpaths to compensate. The pylons supporting the track would go in the median strip.

[Jonas Jade]

Still haven't had time to read through this report yet. 

I personally think it's a rather inspired idea, but, it does fall short of the gains that CRR provide.

I really don't like looping the Cleveland line round that S bend just so it can stop at Park Road. Although I see a lot of people throwing out driverless DLR style routes, I think since it's going to use existing alignment for a large portion that something more like a larger German Stadtbahn would be better, and keep some of the level crossings to save money. (this may have been addressed in the report though which I will read later on today maybe on the train home...  )

I'm a bit disappointed it's come up this week end / now when I don't have as much time to think/read about it more, but Gazza's plans are really interesting - agree with a lot of it.

[O_128]

I don't really think anything can top the visual obstruction that is the REX, IF done properly the stations could  be a great architectural statement. I like the idea of it running next to the rex so that people stick in traffic can see a train zooming past

[Gazza]

JJ Thats my opinion too. Its a nice idea and certainly all that vacant land along the Cleveland line would go gangbusters with infill if it had a metro service, but it's at the wrong time right now.

The Cleveland Solution would be a lot easier to support if there was a firm commitment to build a CBD heavy rail solution down the track for when the 9 peak hour train paths run out (But I guess the argument then is that it's a 2.5 billion bandaid)
If that choice was made, the time to do it would be in the one project with Trouts Rd...A Continuous tunnel.

If the timeline in the GHD report is to be believed, then all current outstanding duplications and triplications would be done within 5 years.
For me, this is the thing I find attractive. The Gov't wasn't planning on doing any of this stuff for years right?

How intensively would CRR be used in its first years of operation? Would GC still be stuck at 4tph? Or was the Kingston triple happening before 2020?

A lot of this difficulty could have been avoided if the Gov't had put a Gardens Point bridge proposal on the table with the tunnelled option, and put it to a plebiscite or something.
Then the choice would be a 7 bil tunnel, a 2.5 Cleveland solution, or a 4 (?) bil bridge and shallow tunnel.

Then I'd just pick the 4bil option for sure!

[Gazza]

And Here is a very rough sketch of how a Queen St station would be configured. It is nestled under the victoria bridge, with direct lift and stair access off the footpaths on both sides the bridge (plus you'd have a bit of concourse built from these shafts to the northern bank, since the bridge footpaths are overcrowded as it is. From memory it makes it 200m to walk to QSBS and 500m to Cultual Center.
So the metro platforms are level with the riverside expressway. This is high enough to be safe in a flood.
Below the metro platforms is a citycat terminal building, but designed so that water flows straight through in a flood, so open air, concrete and steel etc.

The QUT stop would also combine in the citycat terminal, similar configuration basically.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[ozbob]

From the Bayside Bulletin click here!

Call for new Cleveland rail link

Call for new Cleveland rail link
JEFF FREAK
16 Jan, 2012 12:00 AM
A LESS costly alternative to the Cross River Rail proposal, designed to give relief to Brisbane's congested inner city train network, will deliver faster and more frequent public transport services for the Redlands.

The visionary concept, which has been costed at $2.5 billion coming in less than a third of the estimated $7.7 billion of the Cross River Rail, was released on Saturday in a comprehensive report - Public Transport In South East Queensland - by international engineering consulting group GHD for the SEQ Council of Mayors.

The new proposal will deliver more trains on the Cleveland route, the duplication of the line from Manly to Cleveland and the Capalaba busway all within five years.

Named the "Cleveland Solution", the report identifies the Merivale rail bridge in South Brisbane as central to resolving the inner city transport congestion.

The bridge is nearing its capacity with 19 services - four from the Gold Coast, seven from Beenleigh and eight from Cleveland - at peak hour.

The first step in the "Cleveland Solution" is to extract some lines from the core of the rail network, reintroducing them as independent lines, thus creating an integrated system.

To achieve this the report proposes that the Cleveland Line services would be removed from the Merivale Bridge by constructing a new rail line from the Park Road Station to Roma Street, via a tunnel to Woolloongabba.

The new link would proceed over a new bridge across the Brisbane River beside, and imitating, the Captain Cook Bridge and Riverside Expressway, and then via a tunnel under Herschel Street to a new underground platform beneath Roma Street Station.

New underground stations would be provided at Park Road, Woolloongabba and Roma Street, with two new elevated stations at Gardens Point (QUT) and Queen Street.

After Roma Street Station, the proposal would then run on surface up the Exhibition Line corridor, with a new

Exhibition Station and a new Bowen Hills (West) Station before joining into the Ferny Grove Line at Breakfast Creek.

Light Metro rolling stock, included in the cost of the project, would be introduced on the Cleveland Line to negotiate tighter corners and steeper grades of the alignment between Park Road and Roma Street stations.

The cost effective Light Metro has a capacity of 600 passengers per train and would operate at three to five, minute intervals to service the Cleveland route, which would see the duplication of the line from Manly to Cleveland become a reality.

The "Cleveland Solution" will free up the Merivale Bridge for more services to be added to the Beenleigh and Gold Coast routes.

Cleveland trains would be taken off the existing inner city system, freeing up line space and current Citytrain rolling stock for use elsewhere on the wider network.

Under the proposal important freight movementms, particularly to the Port of Brisbane, would not be delayed at peak hour at the Merivale Bridge.

Redland Mayor Melva Hobson, who has been active in assisting formulate solutions for SEQ public transport as a member of the Council of Mayors, is ecstatic with the report's outcome.

"The 'Cleveland Solution' will mean better public transport for the Redlands, delivering the Capalaba Busway and the Manly-Cleveland rail duplication by 2016," she said.

"The dedicated Cleveland Line to the city will mean faster and more rail services through the new Light Metro rolling stock which already operates in many major cities in the world, including Paris .

"The upgraded bus and rail network will have enormous potential for the Redlands by not only offering much better options for commuters and QUT students, but vastly improved potential for tourists to visit the city, particularly North Stradbroke Island.

"The new network will also bring the surf beaches of North Stradbroke Island closer for families across the wider community of South East Queensland.

"As well the proposed station at Woolloongabba would be welcomed by sports fans from across Brisbane, particularly those in the Redlands who would have direct access to the iconic Gabba," she said.

Cr Hobson said the Cross River Rail had been proposed by the Queensland Government, but the massive $7.7 billion needed to fund the project would lead to its continual delay.

"The $2.5 billion cost of the alternative, which could be a catalyst for implementing the Redland City Council's Cleveland and Capalaba masterplans, would fit into current budgeting as the state government spends about $1.5 billion annually on public transport infrastructure in South East Queensland," she said.

With a state election pending, the report is being presented to both the government and opposition.

[#Metro]

"The 'Cleveland Solution' will mean better public transport for the Redlands, delivering the Capalaba Busway and the Manly-Cleveland rail duplication by 2016," she said.

"The dedicated Cleveland Line to the city will mean faster and more rail services through the new Light Metro rolling stock which already operates in many major cities in the world, including Paris .

Is everyone on some kind of fantasy crack? Is this all going to be delivered by 2016? Really?

The GHD report has some good point (busway too expensive etc) and some bad points, but it can be summed up simply as this: TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.

And..... this!

"The dedicated Cleveland Line to the city will mean faster and more rail services through the new Light Metro rolling stock which already operates in many major cities in the world, including Paris.

ugh!   

[Mr X]

If I had a dollar for every person who tried to compare Australia to Europe...

[STB]

I must admit, that is a really really dodgy alignment just so it can service Woolloongabba, the time taken just to do that would not be attractive for the gain in increase in frequency, and us Cleveland passengers already suffer a rather long journey already from an ordinary alignment due to historical reasons.  Personally, I'd rather combine this idea to the Gabba then straighten up the section to the city using the CRR alignment and just dig underneath the city to do so.  And what does this mean for the freight paths?  In particular that rather important link to the Port of Brisbane and then out west and south?

Extending the Busway to Capalaba is a nice idea, but then again I am biased since I live out this way.  I would like to see other areas get their upgrades a little sooner than out here, like up on the Sunshine Coast for example.

[O_128]

By cutting out park road you would get a good time saving, and if the new rolling stock can take the curves faster than that will cut time to.

[Fares_Fair]

If I had a dollar for every person who tried to compare Australia to Europe...

here's a dollar ... just kidding,
their populations are usually larger and geographic area is smaller.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[STB]

Actually, since we're sorta playing musical chairs with funding due to the impending election coming up next year, what would it cost if you decided to not build the busway to Capalaba and instead duplicate the Sunshine Coast railway with those funds?