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

[petey3801]

I'd really like to see how they plan to do the following with only $2.5B:
- Tunnel/Bridge Park Road to Exhibition with new stations at Park Road, 'Gabba, Gardens Point, Queen Street, Roma Street and Exhibition
- Duplicate the line from Manly to Cleveland
- Buy an entire new fleet of metro trains, enough to run 3-5min intervals between Cleveland and Ferny Grove, plus spares for maintenence/contingency etc (thats a LOT of trains.. at a guess, minimum of 70 full-size trains)
- Extend the Eastern Busway to Capalaba
- Grade seperate the Ferny Grove (9 LX plus 4 PedX) and Cleveland (8LX plus 1PX) lines (can't really have level crossings with 3-5min frequencies in both directions...)
- New signalling systems (current signalling simply can't handle those frequencies) - New system will most likely be in-cab with those frequencies.
- Anything I have missed??

That's a lot of things to do with $2.5B...

[ozbob]

I'd really like to see how they plan to do the following with only $2.5B:
- Tunnel/Bridge Park Road to Exhibition with new stations at Park Road, 'Gabba, Gardens Point, Queen Street, Roma Street and Exhibition
- Duplicate the line from Manly to Cleveland
- Buy an entire new fleet of metro trains, enough to run 3-5min intervals between Cleveland and Ferny Grove, plus spares for maintenence/contingency etc (thats a LOT of trains.. at a guess, minimum of 70 full-size trains)
- Extend the Eastern Busway to Capalaba
- Grade seperate the Ferny Grove (9 LX plus 4 PedX) and Cleveland (8LX plus 1PX) lines (can't really have level crossings with 3-5min frequencies in both directions...)
- New signalling systems (current signalling simply can't handle those frequencies) - New system will most likely be in-cab with those frequencies.
- Anything I have missed??

That's a lot of things to do with $2.5B...

Yes, definitely agree petey3801 ... the costings are fantasy in the report ...

[STB]

I reckon it might be pushing more $5-6b personally, and I think that might be rather conservative.

[somebody]

I'd really like to see how they plan to do the following with only $2.5B:
- Tunnel/Bridge Park Road to Exhibition with new stations at Park Road, 'Gabba, Gardens Point, Queen Street, Roma Street and Exhibition
- Duplicate the line from Manly to Cleveland
- Buy an entire new fleet of metro trains, enough to run 3-5min intervals between Cleveland and Ferny Grove, plus spares for maintenence/contingency etc (thats a LOT of trains.. at a guess, minimum of 70 full-size trains)
- Extend the Eastern Busway to Capalaba
- Grade seperate the Ferny Grove (9 LX plus 4 PedX) and Cleveland (8LX plus 1PX) lines (can't really have level crossings with 3-5min frequencies in both directions...)
- New signalling systems (current signalling simply can't handle those frequencies) - New system will most likely be in-cab with those frequencies.
- Anything I have missed??

That's a lot of things to do with $2.5B...

I thought there was no new station at Park Rd.  To reach Park Rd or South Bank you'd get off at Buranda.  Similarly with Exhibition.

I also thought the Manly-Cleveland duplication and Eastern Busway was with the change from $7.7bn - $2.5bn.

Good points on the rolling stock, grade sep and signalling.  I don't think any of that was mentioned.

But I agree with you.  This is a pretty laughable plan.

[Mr X]

I am pretty sure a breakdown of costings included in the report included new vehicles. Nothing about level crossings from what I could see. Expecting to run a tram every 3mins on level crossings during peak hour is a bit daft IMHO.

If we assume 70 vehicles are required, at around $15-20m a tram, you've got $1.4bn gone off the bat...

[Gazza]

Its 53km of route length.
The Victoria line is 21km long and has 47 units for a 30tph peak.

Would that imply 117 trains if a 2 min headway was wanted?

Or say 60 trains for a 4 min headway.

[petey3801]

I'm just going by the news article, haven't had much time to read the actual report as yet, but:

I thought there was no new station at Park Rd.  To reach Park Rd or South Bank you'd get off at Buranda.  Similarly with Exhibition.

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.

So I actually forgot one station, the new Bowen Hills West...

I also thought the Manly-Cleveland duplication and Eastern Busway was with the change from $7.7bn - $2.5bn.

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.

Like I said, just going by the news article, so if they're wrong, then I am on those points

If we assume 70 vehicles are required, at around $15-20m a tram, you've got $1.4bn gone off the bat...

By memory, I think I was told the 160/260s were $11m each 3-car, so for a, say, 6-car metro style set, i'd say it'd probably be roughly the same amount (nowhere near as many seats, metro not full heavy rail vehicle etc.). But even then, $11mx70= $770m, that's a fair whack of the budget gone already! And as Gazza said:

Its 53km of route length.
The Victoria line is 21km long and has 47 units for a 30tph peak.

Would that imply 117 trains if a 2 min headway was wanted?

Or say 60 trains for a 4 min headway.

70 trains could be quite a way on the lower end of the scale.

Expecting to run a tram every 3mins on level crossings during peak hour is a bit daft IMHO

And that's only the peak direction, it's more like 1.5-2min with both directions included... The boom gates would barely have risen before they start lowering again!!

[#Metro]

There are so many things wrong and weird with this report.

Gun for hire?

[Fares_Fair]

I'm just going by the news article, haven't had much time to read the actual report as yet, but:

I thought there was no new station at Park Rd.  To reach Park Rd or South Bank you'd get off at Buranda.  Similarly with Exhibition.

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.

So I actually forgot one station, the new Bowen Hills West...

I also thought the Manly-Cleveland duplication and Eastern Busway was with the change from $7.7bn - $2.5bn.

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.

Like I said, just going by the news article, so if they're wrong, then I am on those points

If we assume 70 vehicles are required, at around $15-20m a tram, you've got $1.4bn gone off the bat...

By memory, I think I was told the 160/260s were $11m each 3-car, so for a, say, 6-car metro style set, i'd say it'd probably be roughly the same amount (nowhere near as many seats, metro not full heavy rail vehicle etc.). But even then, $11mx70= $770m, that's a fair whack of the budget gone already! And as Gazza said:

Its 53km of route length.
The Victoria line is 21km long and has 47 units for a 30tph peak.

Would that imply 117 trains if a 2 min headway was wanted?

Or say 60 trains for a 4 min headway.

70 trains could be quite a way on the lower end of the scale.

Expecting to run a tram every 3mins on level crossings during peak hour is a bit daft IMHO

And that's only the peak direction, it's more like 1.5-2min with both directions included... The boom gates would barely have risen before they start lowering again!!

When we won the new train service for the Sunshine Coast, a 6 car set, I was told it was a $15 million fix by the then COO of QR.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[BrizCommuter]

Its 53km of route length.
The Victoria line is 21km long and has 47 units for a 30tph peak.

Would that imply 117 trains if a 2 min headway was wanted?

Or say 60 trains for a 4 min headway.

28.5tph to be precise. 

It is likely that not all services would reach the end of the lines, some would probably be turned short.

[Otto]

Here's another idea....
Instead of building a new tunnel for the Metro from the Gabba to the river, Why don't we just use the one that's already there...
It's been there for donkeys years ( steam era )..  

[somebody]

Here's another idea....
Instead of building a new tunnel for the Metro from the Gabba to the river, Why don't we just use the one that's already there...
It's been there for donkeys years ( steam era )..  

Never heard of that.  I presume there's a reason.

[Stillwater]

Interesting .....

A railway tunnel was built in about 1884 under Vulture Street, Brisbane between the Woolloongabba Goods Yard and the coal wharves on the Brisbane River. This facilitated the transport of coal from the Ipswich coal mines to the railway sidings at the South Brisbane coal wharves. The old tunnel lies beneath the approaches to the Captain Cook Bridge.

http://www.ozatwar.com/bunkers/woolloongabbatunnel.htm

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/chims/placeDetail.html?siteId=15068

Wooloongabba Branch

In 1884 a line which was authorised by Parliament on 11 OCtober 1881 was built from Corinda to Wooloongabba and passed beneath a ridge between Wooloongabba Goods Yard and the wharves. A report of H C Stanley of 25 May 1882 indicated that "the tunnel, of 91.33 yards, was through hard argillaceous rock". In the early years, there was a considerable traffic over the Wooloongabba wharves.

On 11 March 1942, QR wrote to the Brisbane City Council advising "it is considered it would be too dangerious to permit the public to make use of any tunnel for (air-raid) sheltering purposes".

The line through the tunnel was closed on 19 December 1969. THe tunnel is believed to be covered by the South-East Freeway where it passes between the Brisbane River and Stanley Street. A photograph of the north portal appears in TUNNELS OF AUSTRALIA RAILWAYS page 44 and DESTINATION SOUTH BRISBANE page 11.

The tunnel was filled in. This is confirmed by the contract for the freeway construction which included backfilling the tunnel. Hence, it is still there, just full of dirt.

[BrizCommuter]

From the Bayside Bulletin click here!

Call for new Cleveland rail link

The cost effective Light Metro has a capacity of 600 passengers per train

[/quote]

Interesting. BrizCommuter wonders what type of light rail vehicles were investigated - probably approx. 75-80m long? Presumably high floor due to existing platform heights?

*Foaming alert*
Sufficent enough capacity to add Alderley to Strathpine Line without exceeding 30tph on inner-Ferny Grove Line?  

[HappyTrainGuy]

Wasn't a long tunnel.

1946


Present


Click for larger image.

[petey3801]

When we won the new train service for the Sunshine Coast, a 6 car set, I was told it was a $15 million fix by the then COO of QR.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Yeah, but that would also include the cost of crewing, maintenance, electricity etc. for the year in that price too.

[frereOP]

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,

A metro line from Portside to Indoroopilly only further cements the radial everything 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.

I agree TT.  I do support the Metro from Indooroopilly to the city via UQ though and keep the buses out in the burbs. 

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Cross river plan puts Queensland Rail off track as only provider

Cross river plan puts Queensland Rail off track as only provider

    by: Sarah Vogler
    From: The Courier-Mail
    January 17, 2012 12:00AM

OPENING the State's rail network up to greater competition could help fast-track major infrastructure projects, the proponents behind an ambitious Cross River Rail alternative say.

A report into public transport in Queensland, commissioned by the Council of Mayors (Southeast Queensland), has suggested introducing another operator to the rail network to avoid Queensland Rail's monopoly "stifling" innovation.

"A number of the great urban public transport systems have more than one operator on their network," the report states.

"Empirical research and practical experience show multiple operators within an integrated system introduces 'competitive tension' to the network, drives innovation (and) can reduce the cost per passenger journey."

Engineering consultants GHD have developed a $2.5 billion Cross River Rail alternative, the Cleveland Solution, which proposes removing the Cleveland line from the Merivale Bridge in order to free up capacity to avoid the vital cross-river rail link reaching choke-point by 2016.

Council of Mayors (SEQ) chair Cr Graham Quirk said the organisation commissioned the report in an attempt to find out if there was a cheaper way to fix the problem which would allow scope for other vital projects to be completed as well.

The State Government's $8 billion Cross River Rail project is still without major funding.

"We have to work at solutions that are going to give the outcome but at an affordable level, so we cannot just put all our eggs in the one basket but rather look at the menu of needs for public transport in southeast Queensland," Cr Quirk said.

The report will be given to both Premier Anna Bligh and LNP leader Campbell Newman with mayors to vote on the plan after the March local government elections.

It also floats the possibility of local government contributing to the cost of building public transport through a levy.

Brisbane and Gold Coast city councils already pay such a levy.

"Over time I think that is something that mayors are going to have to consider," Cr Quirk said.

[Stillwater]

Isn't 'competitive tension' such an intriguing term and concept?  It will be interesting to see what Ms Bligh and Mr Newman do and say once the report is formally handed to each side of politics.

The pressure would be on Redlands Council to apply a transport levy to its rates in order to contribute to the cost of the Cleveland Solution or any variant.  Of course, having local government contribute in this way, substitutes for a state government congestion tax supporting PT infrastructure funding.  We won't hear word of a congestion tax in the forthcoming state election campaign.  The ALP is afraid to mention one for fear of being attacked over introduction of a 'great big tax that will affect the price of everything' or 'making Brisbane uncompetitive'.  The LNP is campaigning on the theme of reducing the cost of living for Queenslanders, so it would not want to introduce such a tax and, indeed, has ruled it out.

[#Metro]

Privatise state and local gov't pollies I say. A bit of 'competitive tension' wouldn't go astray there at all, ROFL.  /sarcasm

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th January 2012

Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings,

It is time to point out the serious flaws in the ' GHD report Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure, http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  ' .  It is an important tenet in journalism that balance be sought, rather than peddle a particular political line.  This report is nothing but a very poor attempt to de-rail Cross River Rail for political ends.  An outcome should it occur that would be devastating for the future of south-east Queensland.

Lets consider a couple of aspects of the so called 'Cleveland Solution '  a light metro proposal from Ferny Grove to Cleveland.

Cleveland line trains represent only 38% of the train paths through South  Brisbane.  Consider this:

Reference http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/trains

Services

Inbound at South Brisbane  6am to 9am Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 15 services

Gold Coast line  8 services

Beenleigh line 16 services

Cleveland trains represent only 38% of normal timetabled services, and with sector 2 timetable revision this will probably fall as well as more Gold Coast services are added.

Outbound at South Brisbane 4pm to 7pm Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 12 services

Gold Coast line 9 services

Beenleigh line 12 services

Cleveland line trains represent only 36% of normal timetable services.

=====================

The study claims that capacity will be increased by over 70% are misleading, those are relative figures. This is what they are playing on .. that people won't realise the difference.

If you have 38% of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38% increase overall if you give that to the other lines.

Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114%  of train paths through the CBD.
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

It is a consultants report, GHD ( http://www.ghd.com/australia/ ).  It has none of the rigour of the CRR project work up.   Infrastructure Australia I think is a good judge of a particular projects merit or otherwise.

Quote
Mr Alchin gave Infrastructure Australia's assessment of Cross River Rail, explaining that the "project is nationally significant" and provides "significant impact on improving transport options for a large proportion of people in SE Queensland."

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=5010


Cross River Rail tops Queensland's infrastructure priority list  --> http://www.urbanalyst.com/in-the-news/queensland/889-cross-river-rail-tops-queenslands-infrastructure-priority-list.html

Costings:

The consultants have suggested the cost of the Cleveland solution would be $2.5 billion.  Rubbish!

For a start a light metro would need to be grade separated.  There 17 level crossings and 5 pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first.  The cost of that alone would approach $2 billion.

The cost of 70 rail vehicles would be in the order of $1.5 billion.

Works, track duplications, upgrade to light metro signaling would cost around $1 billion dollars.

Then add the cost of tunnels, bridges and stations.

There would be little change out of $8 billion dollars for the Cleveland solution, the actual cost of Cross River Rail.

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

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 he resigned as Lord Mayor.

The Council of South East Queensland Mayors should be held to task for wasting rate payers money on such a weak report in my opinion.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[paulg]

Hi all,

I agree that the report is deeply flawed. The costings appear to have been plucked out of nowhere, and grossly unrealistic. The alignment of the Cleveland "solution" is problematic for many reasons. For example, they appear to have completely ignored the presence of the Clem7 tunnel, and I can't really see how an elevated line (and stations) could be constructed parallel to the Riverside Expressway without being noisy, unsightly and difficult to access.

I think a cheaper alternative to CRR does exist. It involves a bridge over the river instead of a tunnel (like the "Cleveland solution"), and would run in a shallower tunnel under Wooloongabba and down Albert St. The shallower tunnel would allow cut-and-cover construction (where possible) and much cheaper stations due to reduced excavation. The network operation and connectivity would be as per CRR. Staging could be achieved by first connecting directly to Park Road surface lines, and later constructing a tunnel south to Yeerongpilly (as per CRR). Something like the alignment of the green line on this map:



Cheers, Paul

[#Metro]

Hi Paul,

Yes, the alignment you propose is tricky because a) park road has a tunnel now for the busway and b) your solution has a bridge and tunnel landing in the city botanic gardens - that is very high impact to local amenity not to mention the historical and cultural significance of that part of the CBD. That said though, the wilbur smith plan 1970 did have a similar solution and the tunnel/bridge transition would be achieved by having a gradient set at around 2.5% (CRR I think had max gradient at 2%).

Yes, the GHD report has the red line go over the Clem 7 tunnel and near that exhaust stack..  
So many things awkward about that report.

[ozbob]

And they forgot about Kurilpa bridge as well .. lol

Oh dear ...

[Mr X]

Forgot the Goodwill bridge too. It's almost 11 years old, too  



It has quite a low clearance. Do they propose to go under or over this?

[Cam]

If a bridge was to be built over the river, then would it be possible to built the railway line 5-10 metres above street level along Albert St & have a station at Queen St? There would be a substantial monetary saving with such a proposal compared to costly tunnels. The piers would probably mean that Albert St was no longer trafficable but that would be no great loss. The Albert St mall could be extented from Elizabeth St to Alice St. There would probably need to be some modification to the level of Turbot St.

[Mr X]

You'd have to pull down the big shade structure in the QSM for that to be built and have it go right through King George Square

[somebody]

If a bridge was to be built over the river, then would it be possible to built the railway line 5-10 metres above street level along Albert St & have a station at Queen St? There would be a substantial monetary saving with such a proposal compared to costly tunnels. The piers would probably mean that Albert St was no longer trafficable but that would be no great loss. The Albert St mall could be extented from Elizabeth St to Alice St. There would probably need to be some modification to the level of Turbot St.

That would be a bit of a monstrosity.  Might be cheaper, but the aesthetics and the noise are two points I wouldn't like about that idea.

[Gazza]

I think if the costing PURELY looked at the Cleveland line duplication, and the cost of the bridge and tunnels, then indeed it would only be about 2.5 Bil, by virtue of the fact the new works are pretty short in the CBD. Think of it as being about as long as Clem7, but mostly not a tunnel except for a couple of small ones.

But, if the only way to make the Cleveland solution effective is to do all the grade seps (1.5 bil), and get an order of 70 trains together in 5 years (1 Bil), thereby pushing the price to a project cost of 5 bil, then that is still beyond what the state could fund.

The cost of signalling, or to do it properly to allow driverless operation, is a big unknown.

Arguably the trains released from Cleveland would defer the need for Next Gen Rolling stock (Apart from extra IMUs) for many years, so perhaps they are budgeting around that, and the grade separations would be bought forward which would have otherwise been funded in the longer term....But again, it still means a lot of money needs to be found and spent in 5 years to do it.

The argument is that CRR is putting all our eggs in one basket, because its 7 Bil in one hit, and it delays improvements to other areas as a result. But Cleveland still does the same thing, a big one hit spend that all has to be done, and for less proportional benefit. 5 bil for 34% increase versus 8 bil for 114% increase in train paths. If you included everything Cleveland needs suddenly we can't do that 5 year programme the document identifies as being able to be bought forward, and we're back to square one.

If a Wilbur Smith style Gardens Point bridge and shallow level tunnel was put on the table, it would smash both options IMO.

SEQ Council of Mayors could have been better off spending some of the report money on a 3D rendering of a sexy Gardens Point bridge as a new city land mark, said that this could be done $X cheaper than CRR, and then you have a workable solution, which I would 100% support (And I think it would actually have a travel time advantage due to not having to drop 50m or whatever)

Another thought, but maybe they had no intention of grade sepping as part of the Cleveland solution, in which case we have a poo.
THAT, is one thing the report doesn't detail and needs clarification.

[Mr X]

Is the Wilbur Smith plan still possible?


Image from Tramtrain from this thread -> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3304.0
There's been a lot of development around Kangaroo Point since it was first proposed.
I very much prefer the alignment of that plan than the Cleveland Solution and even CRR. Simple and effective.

[Cam]

If a bridge was to be built over the river, then would it be possible to built the railway line 5-10 metres above street level along Albert St & have a station at Queen St? There would be a substantial monetary saving with such a proposal compared to costly tunnels. The piers would probably mean that Albert St was no longer trafficable but that would be no great loss. The Albert St mall could be extented from Elizabeth St to Alice St. There would probably need to be some modification to the level of Turbot St.

That would be a bit of a monstrosity.  Might be cheaper, but the aesthetics and the noise are two points I wouldn't like about that idea.

It could be painted to blend in with surroundings & a sound absorbing barrier on either side could be installed to reduce noise. The distance from the platforms to street level would be considerably less than that from platforms deep below the CBD where two escalators need to be taken to reach street level.

[#Metro]

There's been a lot of development around Kangaroo Point since it was first proposed.

Agreed that it can't be a surface line. It will have to be tunnel. Problem- Clem 7.

[paulg]

your solution has a bridge and tunnel landing in the city botanic gardens - that is very high impact to local amenity not to mention the historical and cultural significance of that part of the CBD.

Yes I agree there would be a lot of opposition to a bridge/tunnel transition in the Botanic Gardens. But if you want a cheaper alternative to CRR, I think the first place to look is to replace the tunnel river crossing with a bridge. I personally think a railway tunnel emerging from the face of the Kangaroo Point cliffs onto a bridge would look fantastic!

Cheers

[Jonas Jade]

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.

70 trains? Too many. How about 40, should be plenty to provide 10 min frequency most of the day and a couple of extra peak hour services.

Driverless? Not needed - pure foam and an extra burden to the cost that everyone's banging on about. This idea is coming about to save money not involve extra unnecessary costs (signalling, complete separation etc). If its really considered necessary then the system can be developed to allow this at a future stage but to cut costs for initial implementation - not straight up.

[Gazza]

Light Metro, not light rail.

[Jonas Jade]

Light Metro, not light rail.

I'm probably suggesting more pre-metro or Stadtbahn style.

ETA: It seems that a lot of this 'pre-metro' talk is just gold-plating a bronze solution. If you were to seriously go for this proposal, just call it what it is - a bronze solution to buy time and capacity - and go for bronze (pre-metro/Stadtbahn).

The rest can be done later if needed. The Beenleigh/GC problems will arise again fairly shortly after if this solution was completed anyway.

I'd still throw my support behind metrofication of the SEB along similar plans in the inner section.

[SteelPan]

Certainly cannot hurt to have some competition of thought.
I personally still lean toward CRR, but the "Cleveland" proposal could win people over.
It's critical for BOTH proposals that a double and triple checking of their respective proposed costs be done.

[mufreight]

Here's another idea....
Instead of building a new tunnel for the Metro from the Gabba to the river, Why don't we just use the one that's already there...
It's been there for donkeys years ( steam era )..  

Mainly because it is only single track and is buryied under the freeway.

[mufreight]

This GHD proposal simply proves that there are more fantasy foamers employed in local government than we have contributing to RBoT. 

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 17th January 2012

Toss the transport timetable