QLD Transport talk from: Article: Transportation Jetsons-style

[#Metro]

Any case passenger trips is a bit meaningless without consideration of passenger kilometres. Both valid metrics.

And I agree, here (so no bam for you Gazza) because as I keep saying, heavy rail is what you would use for longer distances to places like Ipswich, to places like Gold Coast, to places like Caboolture or the Sunshine Coast. Indeed, it is what Perth uses to get to Mandurah and Joondalup. It is what Sydney uses to get to Newcastle and the Blue Mountains... And as I have already shown, heavy rail down the SEB to 8MP wouldn't really have advantaged over the bus (different story if it were Vancouver metro or similar).

And like I keep saying, we have the opportunity for rail when the bus tunnel study comes up (there is even a MR for this).

[Gazza]

The middle zone between 8mp and Beenleigh would have had the advantage though.

[#Metro]

The middle zone between 8mp and Beenleigh would have had the advantage though.

I actually agree with you here. If you want to go to Logan, Daisy Hill, Shailer Park, Beenleigh, I wouldn't use a busway for that.
It's also one of the reasons why I also think that the Nth busway shouldn't really extend much beyond Chermside.

If you want to serve that mid section, what you would do is put a regional train in the M1 alignment with stops at Beenleigh, Shailer Park, Mt Gravatt then into CRR. That way you'd achieve similar stop spacing to Mandurah/Joondalup and very high speeds to the Gold Coast. And you would have the benefit of being able to plug into CRR as well, rather than a dodge alignment on the Merivale Bridge or Merivale Bridge II. Because you aren't carrying local trips on it, the peak volumes will be much smaller.

Coming to think of this, this is exactly what Toronto does. You use the TTC Subway for travel out to a maximum of 20 - 30 km out of the CBD. They have a separate network of trains called GO Train which then exit Toronto's CBD and then run express to the edge of the CBD on an entirely separate network where they then begin stopping. This separation of tasks means that the TTC doesn't have to run different patterns on the TTC Subway and they can get high patronage on the local inner sections, fed by bus.

The SEB would be better off as subway with 90 sec headways in peak IMHO. This is incompatible with QR heavy rail rollingstock, tracks and signalling.

[somebody]

Any case passenger trips is a bit meaningless without consideration of passenger kilometres. Both valid metrics.

I think 10 people travelling 5km is much more valuable than 1 person travelling 50km.  If nothing else, you have improved land use due to less parking required in the former.

Trips is the main metric used by most planners AIUI.  Looking at passenger-km tends to bias too much towards longer trips.  No metric is perfect.

[#Metro]

I think 10 people travelling 5km is much more valuable than 1 person travelling 50km.  If nothing else, you have improved land use due to less parking required in the former.

Trips is the main metric used by most planners AIUI.  Looking at passenger-km tends to bias too much towards longer trips.  No metric is perfect.

A few people coming on the XPT from Sydney would make the XPT look amazing under that metric! 1 person travelling 2000 km would have the
same weight as 2 train loads travelling from Roma Street to Bowen Hills.

I keep saying, they metropolitan goals and regional goals are separate transport tasks. We can fairly judge the performance of the SEB
against the Ferny Grove Line, Shorncliffe Lines, Ipswich Line etc which are doing a metropolitan transport task, or even the shorter lines in Perth - Armadale, Fremantle, etc. These shorter lines *also* run at 15 minute frequency all day in Perth.

What's holding back these shorter lines - geometry, frequency, merges, 2 staff per train, legacy routing, not fed by buses, awful service. These can be changed (geometry is a bit harder).

[ozbob]

Both metrics need to be taken into account to appreciate the real dynamic.

Planners look at both.  If they don't, they are mediocre planners ...

The corollary is looking at passenger trips only biases towards shorter trips ...   

[#Metro]

Toronto

Toronto doesn't attempt to run GO Trains on the TTC Subway.

This leaves the TTC Subway to operate at 2-3 minute frequencies all day, fed by buses in the metro area.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/TTCsubwayRTmap-2007.svg

It also leaves GO Train to run express to the very edge of the metro area before making it's first stops. Why? Because it is a regional service.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/GoTransitTrainMap.png/800px-GoTransitTrainMap.png

[somebody]

Would QR run higher frequency services even if it was up to them?  They had decades (before TransLink) to do so, and never chose to.

Sorry Colin, barking up wrong tree here. QR has operated under QT for years before Translink but the funding fundamental is the same. QRCT don't run one regular scheduled train unless funded by QT.

Salisbury - Kuraby can have 8 trains per hour, 4 BL and 4 GC in each direction if you build the 4th track between Kuraby and Salisbury so CRR will be fine which of course will also enable Greenbank line traffic.  No need to extend a 3rd track beyond Kuraby for this purpose although in peak it may help run more trains than the 4th track would. Agree on the slow haul though. The 3rd/4th track project should have been upgraded to better alignment. Fantastic option blown.

I don't know.  Every suggestion of improved services has been and still is strongly opposed by QR.  30 minute frequency beyond Northgate, or at Richlands?  Anyone who thinks it a joke will never get the punch line.

[Gazza]

Toronto doesn't attempt to run GO Trains on the TTC Subway.

This leaves the TTC Subway to operate at 2-3 minute frequencies all day, fed by buses in the metro area

Thats why I reckon you'd have a triple/quad (or a combo of the two in parts)

Share the same coridoor, but not the same tracks, until the CBD.

[#Metro]

Yes, but even under this unlikely scenario, you've still either had to do CRR or dump pax at Roma Street - suboptimal location. Or done more tunnels through the CBD.

The busway is sufficient for the inner section, a regional service would be better pursued separately.
Heavy rail would have also precluded upgrade to Light Metro...

[Golliwog]

Out all day, hence the lack of response.

TT: I won't try and tell you that the SEB isn't doing a damn good job, because it is. However, having one driver for ~50-100 people is wasteful when you could have 1 driver + 1 guard for ~800-1000 pax (or more if you shift to 9 car trains). Thats the labour cost side of things which you will keep on paying.

You seem to set up a number of arguments against rail being used in the SEB corridor. Yet you seem to miss the bigger picture. If you connected the GC to Brisbane via the SEB corridor and then along the M1 or where ever, this instantly takes ~4tph out of the morning peak from the GC, meaning about 4000 more pax (in 1 hour) being able to be carried by trains on the Beenleigh line, if not more seeing as you could reduce the number of operating patterns using the Beenleigh line tracks. To take advantage of this you would re-route routes that currently use the SEB to feed the Beenleigh line (or the GC line on the SEB alignment). As for the GC trains running in the SEB corridor, I very much doubt you would put in anywhere near as many rail stations as they have busway stations. Thats what the bus network is for: bringing the pax to the stations. As for where in the CBD this would run to, I'd opt for something similar to the proposed CRR alignment (or even the old Wilbur Smith one). The reduced number of station 8MP-CBD would mean less slowing down and stopping time, so a faster trip along there. Even with a mixture of all stoppers and express services, you should still easily be able to get more than 14,000 pax an hour through on that. The Ferny Grove line manages just under 8000 pax an hour in the AM peak (http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2011-q3-passenger-load-survey.pdf) and it's only one of 4 lines sharing the suburban track pair through Bowen Hills-Roma St. As for anything about cutting out on the number of stations between 8MP and the CBD, as someone has pointed out, those aren't really where the SEB gets all its patronage from, so for starters, it's not a massive loss, and you can still have decent local routes connecting through to the next station.

[Gazza]

Heavy rail would have also precluded upgrade to Light Metro...

Different variations on the same thing.
Installing moving block signalling on a heavy rail line is cheaper than going in and installing a metro, and you'd get the same number of pax.
Skytrain is cool, but its still not as higher a capacity system as a conventional heavy rail metro.

this instantly takes ~4tph out of the morning peak from the GC, meaning about 4000 more pax (in 1 hour) being able to be carried by trains on the Beenleigh line

it would also take all those pax off the current Merivale bridge.
You could almost imagine the market being shared between the two lines...Some of the SEB pax would be transferring to the Beenleigh line, other would be onto the SE line, depending on where the bus route was originating from.

a regional service would be better pursued separately.

Incorrect.
Building a quad railway would be cheaper than doing a busway for one task and a regional rail line next to it, no denying that.
At the very least, the SE line could have been dual track at the start with space in the middle for the express tracks.

....I think QR have begun to discover that doing the full job is actually only a tiny percent more than half a job....Springfield was once only going to be single line, and it was going to be triple darra rather than the quad that got done (well, that was almost perfect)
I think BRL might have had some single track in it too?


This is why they are getting it right with the Trouts Rd line.

Roma Street - suboptimal location.

I feel like refuting this too, but no CBD rail network in Aus has a perfect cbd station location.

Its like saying RRL will 'dump' pax at Southern Cross...Well, so what? Change trains, or take a tram/bus to your final destination.

In Adelaide the train station is right at the top corner at North Terrace, and the CBD is spread out so you might need a tram or bus.

At Sydney terminal you might have to use a loop train.

In Perth to you might need to use a CAT  bus, or change trains to get to Esplanade station.

A non argument.

[#Metro]

But even under this unlikely scenario, you've still either had to do CRR or dump pax at Roma Street - suboptimal location. Or done more tunnels through the CBD. It would also be at capacity now.

[#Metro]

In 1997, engineers would have needed a crystal ball to build a triple or quad track all the way to the Gold Coast, not connect it to the current QR system (Richlands, Kippa Ring, etc will all be connected to the current system), have perfect knowledge of the order of projects and funding levels over ~ 2 decades, install metro moving block signalling on it (since it would be at or near lineside signalling capacity), build a second merivale bridge, predict the annual patronage for the line was to be an unprecedented in Australia 44 million for a single line and significantly higher than any of the single rail lines in the entire region, run services every 10 minutes on it (in low density too) all day when everything else was running at 30 or even 60 min frequencies, perform patronage modelling ignoring the fact that transfers incurred an extra cash fare, pretend that BCC/State Gov integration didn't exist...., cut out more stations on the line and decide it would be a regional service, not a local one, ignore community consultation for the number and placement of stations...

And not only that, they would have had to be happy with dumping ~ 22 000 pphd at Roma Street, one station short of Central, and approve this suboptimal location as the terminus!

Doesn't seem likely to me!!

[Gazza]

I made an earlier post about the supposed "sub optimal" station issue.

engineers would have needed a crystal ball to build a triple or quad track all the way to the Gold Coast

The way it would work would be like this, and this isn't crystal ball stuff......Perth/Europeans has been doing it for years.

-Open GC line, but connect it to Beenleigh initially, this is a given, and have no problem with this part.
-Identify the M1 as the strategic coridoor for transport to the GC, common sense because its the fastest way...a dotted line on a map at this stage, much like the CONSEQ
-Build a twin track line from the CBD to 8MP
-Monitor the GC and Beeneligh line patronage levels
-In the planning, set a patronage level on the GC/Beenleigh line. When that 'ceiling' gets breached, that becomes the trigger to move forward and build from 8mp to beeneligh, as a dual track.
-This move takes the noose off beenleigh and GC simultaneously, since they both gain capacity.
-Monitor GC line patronage levels.
-Again, when a particular level of patronage is breached, this is the trigger to quad the SE line as much as operationally necessary.

[Gazza]

In 1997, engineers would have needed a crystal ball to build a triple or quad track all the way to the Gold Coast, not connect it to the current QR system (Richlands, Kippa Ring, etc will all be connected to the current system), have perfect knowledge of the order of projects and funding levels over ~ 2 decades, install metro moving block signalling on it (since it would be at or near lineside signalling capacity), build a second merivale bridge, predict the annual patronage for the line was to be an unprecedented in Australia 44 million for a single line and significantly higher than any of the single rail lines in the entire region, run services every 10 minutes on it (in low density too) all day when everything else was running at 30 or even 60 min frequencies, perform patronage modelling ignoring the fact that transfers incurred an extra cash fare, pretend that BCC/State Gov integration didn't exist...., cut out more stations on the line and decide it would be a regional service, not a local one, ignore community consultation for the number and placement of stations...

I accept that these factors contributed to us getting the busway, but that doesn't make the busway the right choice in itself.

QT get stuff wrong today, and they get stuff wrong back then? What's the difference, they're still wrong?

[#Metro]

I accept that these factors contributed to us getting the busway, but that doesn't make the busway the right choice in itself.

QT get stuff wrong today, and they get stuff wrong back then? What's the difference, they're still wrong?

Define "right". You'll suddenly notice that there is no technical answer to this question. It's a values question... which brings me neatly to the community consultation...

I made an earlier post about the supposed "sub optimal" station issue.

And this is where i'd disagree Gazza.

I could make an argument that, for the distances involved, that the "right" choice is some form of medium or high speed rail for this corridor, given the distance. I could say, "we'll let's just have three stations - one at Park Road, one at Holland Pk West and one at Mt Gravatt and that's it until Logan and Beenleigh".

Or I could have said, build something like Bogota, capable of 30 - 40 000 pphd... would seem a bit odd in Brisbane...

I'm thinking "what did the community say what they wanted in the consultation phase" - and specifically, this would deal with the number of stations, mode and so forth. This is a values thing. You, the plumber can't be going in there labelling it a "mistake" but I wonder if the community wanted it like that. The role of engineers and planners is that of, as Jarret Walker puts it, a plumber - to assist implementing their values. Did they want more local stations? Did they want it to be fast and cheap to do? Did they want the direct trip (yes they did).

I can appreciate wanting to do a local/express service on the SEB with rail so you would connect to the GC, trouble is this would have been best done with CRR, something that has been continuously been trying to be done since 1970 without luck. And this CRR would be at capacity, you'd have to have 3 tracks in it IMHO to handle the volumes if you wanted a local/express service. Roma Street is not an option, and I think this is true also for Campbell Newman and any 2nd Merivale bridge proposal. Even in 1970, Wilbur Smith identified the Roma Street Bridge into the CBD as sub-optimal.

A lot of very extreme assumptions, special advanced knowledge and improbable sequencing would have to occur all perfectly together (unlikely) would have had to be made for them to arrive at your conclusion IMHO. And not only that, they didn't have the benefit of the Perth model to look at back in 1997 and the community may have simply opted for a metropolitan service, with more local stops.

If the busway were done as rail, it would also be at capacity right now anyway (because the overloading is due to high patronage not directly due to the vehicle having rubber tyres), I'm not sure if the standard QR rollingstock is capable of braking in time / accelerating so that sub-3-minute frequencies would be possible, particularly at very high speed (130 km/hour?) that would allow sub-3-minute headways.

-Open GC line, but connect it to Beenleigh initially, this is a given, and have no problem with this part.

No reason this technically can't be done today. So this is not lost.

-Identify the M1 as the strategic coridoor for transport to the GC, common sense because its the fastest way...a dotted line on a map at this stage, much like the CONSEQ

Again there is still space if you take away the T2 and median.

-Build a twin track line from the CBD to 8MP

Would be at capacity now plus requires a new Merivale Bridge, tunnels through the CBD for proper set-down of passengers at Central etc, plus building the entire line to 2% gradient and curves would be more expensive and more upfront cash at that time.

-Monitor the GC and Beeneligh line patronage levels
-In the planning, set a patronage level on the GC/Beenleigh line. When that 'ceiling' gets breached, that becomes the trigger to move forward and build from 8mp to beeneligh, as a dual track.

This trigger would have been reached about 7 years or so after construction.


Did they get it "wrong"? I don't think they did - it does the job nicely.
I'm not lost on your point, that if we had the funds, we'd have a metro/long distance service to the GC, but ultimately they had to decide on something with the knowledge and resources they had and move forward.

It would be very interesting to have Barry Gyte and Luke Franzmann on the forum about this, and the original documents for the SET project.

[#Metro]

I feel like refuting this too, but no CBD rail network in Aus has a perfect cbd station location.

So you justify the terrible location, but that's OK, because "it's rail". You make concessions for rail, but not bus?
This is minimising the problem. On a new alignment you'd seek to not entrench a problem like this. Why copy other cities' insanities?

Its like saying RRL will 'dump' pax at Southern Cross...Well, so what? Change trains, or take a tram/bus to your final destination.

No this is not possible. Why? RRL will have nowhere near 18 000 pphd or even 22 000 pphd being dumped in one hour. You dump 18 000 pphd at Roma Street and then expect them all to "just get a tram" to the CBD or change to a bus. ALL 18 000 people/hour doing that? You'd have chaos with those volumes. And you can't get people to do interchange, because in peak hour, all the other existing trains would be full in peak also - so you'd have a situation where Roma Street is overflowing with interchange pax, full trains already going past, leaving huge volumes of pax wanting Central stranded. Or you'd need a bus or tram capable of shuttling 18 000 pphd of interchange pax (gee whiz, can't see the Class B ROW Adelaide tram coping with this volume).

No, you would need a tunnel through the CBD to cope with volumes like this, like Perth. $$$$$$$$$

This leaves 2 options
1. Cement legacy alignment and new tunnel to Central-Valley-Bowen Hills (or at bare minimum, to Central which isn't positioned well still)
2. wipe the slate clean and go via W'Gabba for speed - CRR

Tunnels through the CBD are an expensive prospect, so you wouldn't spend that kind of money on legacy alignment in the core section. It would be faster to go via W'Gabba. You'd have to use the CRR-1970 alignment or similar, which would increase the cost because you need a 2% gradient PLUS you need to dive under the Brisbane River. The sheer expense of this would have meant a shorter line - so, in effect, no cash to make it reach the Gold Coast anyway. I highly suspect the engineers tacked the GC line to the Beenleigh line, not because it was the best, but because it was what they could afford, it got the job done sooner and was sufficient for the pax to be carried on it at the time.

Most of the rockets - so ~ 50% of the services in AM peak coming off the busway end up past the financial district - access to this is from Central. Top of Queen Street Mall also needs to be accessed from Central (and that is suboptimal).

[Gazza]

So you justify the terrible location, but that's OK, because "it's rail". You make concessions for rail, but not bus?
This is minimising the problem. On a new alignment you'd seek to not entrench a problem like this. Why copy other cities' insanities?

the busway ain't perfect either. Heaps of routes/pax that use it end up in dumb spots due to the city stop location issue. See simons posts on the matter.

Not modal specific.

[somebody]

Melbourne and Sydney seem to have reasonable station locations for CBD stations.  Both have loops, but that is neither here nor there.  CRR will achieve that here also.

Got to agree about the SEB stations.  Greenslopes in particular should not be where it is - hemmed in on 2.5 sides by the motorway and a park

[#Metro]

the busway ain't perfect either. Heaps of routes/pax that use it end up in dumb spots due to the city stop location issue. See simons posts on the matter.

Not modal specific.

Yes, but why are you avoiding the obvious? Unless the trains were put into a CRR alignment, or had new tunnels through the CBD like Perth they would all be spewing 18 000 pphd worth of pax out at Roma Street possibly even more, all at a terrible location that is an extremely far walk from where people actually want to be and one stop short of where most rail pax go currently - CENTRAL.

With 18 000 pphd, you can't use a shuttle bus and you can't use a tram - it would be waaay overloaded and you'd have to transfer again. You can't transfer to services passing into Central because during the height of peak hour, these trains are already fully loaded with pax and you can't just shove another 18 000 pphd into those trains without major upgrades in the core section. This is physics - when you have a limited space and that space is full, you can't stuff more into it (unless you crush it in).

Just because some buses have cr%p stops in the CBD doesn't also justify cr%p location of this GC terminus at Roma Street. That's denial and minimisation of the massive problem this would cause. And had the tunnels had to be used, there wouldn't be enough cash left to reach the Gold Coast anyway, completely obliterating any supposed benefit of rail on the SEB anyhow. Either that or you'd have a stub line and have to wait many many years to extend it further. I can see why extension from Beenleigh was chosen - it would get mobility to the GC much faster and be sufficient for purpose. Perth didn't have an existing rail line to extend from, but we did.

In any case, it is much easier to re-locate city bus stops which consist of a simple pole and shelter than a ~ $100 million big station or new concourse which is set in concrete at Roma Street. City bus stops and stopping locations have been re-arranged many times - I remember catching 412 services from Albert street when they had the ramps there. There were also 412 services out on Adelaide street years ago. Stop locations for buses are easy to change - a rail terminus at Roma street isn't.

[Golliwog]

TT, saying the community consultation was what they should go off is a bit much. As I understand it, when they went to consult, they were offering Light Rail or Busway. They had already decided it was only going to be a local not regional thing.

In your not doing CRR scenario, you keep saying they'd all be spat out at RS. This is technically true, but how many already get off Ipswich/Cleveland/Beenleigh/GC trains at RS? Pretty sure you could still fit people on from RS to Central/FV/Bowen Hills. You'd also make it so some ran through so trains that terminate at RS from the south alternate through the southern lines so they all get some trains that continue through.

I'd also like to call shenanigans on your complaint about Roma Street being a dodgey stop location. Sure, it's not optimal, but the busway sure ain't perfect either. For various parts of the city, you still have to interchange at CC. If it's ok for bus, why is it such a problem for rail?

While I understand you like the busway because you live next to it and get a 2 minute frequency, I can't see how you can claim it would be so much better than a rail option with local and regional services on it. It would be just like the Trouts Rd corridor but on the southside.

If funding is your only complaint, then I don't see that as any real issue. As Gazza proposed it, it would be staged construction, and if it had actually existed to compete with some of the projects that did get funded between 1997 and now, I think it could have got more than it did. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have ended up with any busways at all. But that could be lived with if bus lanes were installed and the rail network was used properly.

[#Metro]

TT, saying the community consultation was what they should go off is a bit much.

When you get a plumber to your house, do you usually let them do whatever they want and then pay them whatever they ask and have them leave?

In your not doing CRR scenario, you keep saying they'd all be spat out at RS. This is technically true, but how many already get off Ipswich/Cleveland/Beenleigh/GC trains at RS? Pretty sure you could still fit people on from RS to Central/FV/Bowen Hills. You'd also make it so some ran through so trains that terminate at RS from the south alternate through the southern lines so they all get some trains that continue through.

This is minimization and justification. Not only is the Merivale bridge approach sub-optimal in itself, you need a new bridge, three tracks at least plus you need it to go to Central. 18 000 pphd plus more dumped at Roma Street when they actually want to be at Central or at Queen Street Mall - you'd have enormous amount of people trying to jump on to trains on the current system that are already packed at peak hour.

I'd also like to call shenanigans on your complaint about Roma Street being a dodgey stop location. Sure, it's not optimal, but the busway sure ain't perfect either. For various parts of the city, you still have to interchange at CC. If it's ok for bus, why is it such a problem for rail?

Er, because there is no capacity on existing trains at peak hour without a new tunnel into central, valley etc. Even if your argument is true (which I doubt it is - buses go right underneath Queen St Mall) you actually have to show that trains are not equal to, but significantly better than bus. Perth didn't have an existing line to connect rail to, we did.

While I understand you like the busway because you live next to it and get a 2 minute frequency, I can't see how you can claim it would be so much better than a rail option with local and regional services on it. It would be just like the Trouts Rd corridor but on the southside.

There would be no journey time advantages by rail on the SEB section, the corridor would require three tracks, would require advanced knowledge not to connect it to the existing QR system, would require CRR or tunnels to central, would require special advanced knowledge that the volumes carried on the busway would be unprecedented levels - Perth doesn't even achieve close to these volumes on Mandurah or Joondalup even with high frequency, would have significantly lower frequency, would require interchanges rather than direct trip, up until 2004 would require an extra fare for transfer or special (expensive) ticket, and due to the cost of extra staff during the night on the trains, night service span would also result in a frequency reduction. The service would cost more due to gradients and curves having to meet rail standards, and it would have taken longer to introduce as you'd have to build another merivale bridge, do wiring and buy more rollingstock. With a busway, you just use existing buses.

Not only that, it would have reached maximum capacity already.

[Gazza]

When you get a plumber to your house, do you usually let them do whatever they want and then pay them whatever they ask and have them leave?

What's your point? There is none.
If City 2 Suburbs buslink is indeed just bus, and other options dont make it to the table as you have advocated, I'm presuming you'll be happy with that outcome?
Otherwhise you can stop writing media releases right now on the matter and accept bus only as the mode because that is what BCC wants and obviously nothing else can be considered. The plumber can only build a buslink.

you'd have enormous amount of people trying to jump on to trains on the current system that are already packed at peak hour.

No because people get off at Roma St. Change trains. This is what happens in Melbourne at FSS and SXS.

Not only is the Merivale bridge approach sub-optimal in itself,

I'd happily accept a sub optimal Merivale approach if it allows you to skip the whole sh%t Beenleigh line. Why do you keep glossing over this point? Do you enjoy taking 47 minutes to get from Roma St to Beenleigh on an express train when it could be done in 30 by following the M1?
Even if the line gets quadded, it still takes 47 minutes.

Perth doesn't even achieve close to these volumes on Mandurah or Joondalup even with high frequency,

We've said a few times now these lines don't get as high a patronage because the feeders aren't as good as the SEB.
But you've yet to write a post responding to this point despite the number of times we have made it.
...Funny that 
I bet you still wont address it.

There would be no journey time advantages by rail on the SEB section.

How is that even relevant to the main contention of the pro argument?
So we throw out the benefit to the massive number  people south of 8mp (Population approaching 800,000) who currently have cr%p PT options, which could have been drastically improved by this, just because there is no additional benefit to the people inbound from 8mp. Yeah good thinking TT !!

would require advanced knowledge not to connect it to the existing QR system, would require CRR or tunnels to central, would require special advanced knowledge that the volumes carried on the busway would be unprecedented levels

Sorry, but this "special advanced knowledge" like you keep espousing is pure cr%p, simple as that.
It's called strategic planning. When will you realise Qld is the odd one out when it comes to these matters, and the rest of the World is able to see this opportunities and plan for them.

and due to the cost of extra staff during the night on the trains

No all trains are guardian trains.

would require interchanges rather than direct trip

Not a relevant/good argument at all, and goes against a major driving factor of RBoT policy.
Silly to suggest one mode over another because one allows you to avoid transfers.

[somebody]

Not a relevant/good argument at all, and goes against a major driving factor of RBoT policy.

Which point of RBoT policy are you thinking of?

[Gazza]

The notion that there should be a single seat journey to everywhere.

[somebody]

The notion that there should be a single seat journey to everywhere.

I'm not aware there is a policy either way on that point.  But expecting a single seat from Brassal to Noosa is obviously absurd.  Similarly, and interchange on a trip from Darra to the CBD is absurd.

Horses for courses as far as I am concerned, and this makes it debateable.  Perhaps ozbob will have something to say.

[Gazza]

Perhaps policy is the wrong word, but our advocacy for better rail feeders, removal of deadwood routes, removal of routes that compete with rail, suggestions for possible trunk and feeders for some areas, and criticism of routes that seemingly are created to provide single seat journeys for some people (Eg Maroon Glider) suggests a general flavour of how we want things to be.

[ozbob]

Yes,  the entire network needs to be recast.  Transfers will be needed and will result in shorter journey times and improved frequencies.

I don't think anyone is too fussed over that ..

[Golliwog]

TT: I'm going to ignore your comment on night staffing costs. Mostly because it's an argument that defeats itself. Let not run trains with 4 people on a vehicle capable of carrying >600 people, and instead run buses with 1 person per 100 pax. Not sure how you can put that forward as a sensible argument. If the will to run the service is there, they wil do it.

I'll second Gazza's argument that pointing out the there would be no travel time advantage for people at 8MP and inbound along hte corridor, but ignoring the travel time savings for those further south is not a good argument either.

As for the plumber point, not sure how that relevant. They were asking the public, not a professional. And all they were asking (as far as I know) was "bus or light rail?" highly unlikely that said question would have any large number of people supporting heavy rail, that would in the future connect to the GC, as it wasn't an option presented!

[Gazza]

As for the plumber point, not sure how that relevant. They were asking the public, not a professional. And all they were asking (as far as I know) was "bus or light rail?" highly unlikely that said question would have any large number of people supporting heavy rail, that would in the future connect to the GC, as it wasn't an option presented!

What would people rather, Buslink or Cleveland Solution 

[#Metro]

TT: I'm going to ignore your comment on night staffing costs. Mostly because it's an argument that defeats itself. Let not run trains with 4 people on a vehicle capable of carrying >600 people, and instead run buses with 1 person per 100 pax. Not sure how you can put that forward as a sensible argument. If the will to run the service is there, they wil do it.

Disagree. You don't need to argue with me - go look at any heavy rail timetable for services in any Australian city. Great frequency huh? Not. And why have you assumed the train would be full with 600 pax at night? Are you biasing rail-only solutions here? Anyone who has taken a late night train will attest that you could probably fit everyone on a bus - indeed half the carriages in a 6 car set are routinely shut down.

I'll second Gazza's argument that pointing out the there would be no travel time advantage for people at 8MP and inbound along hte corridor, but ignoring the travel time savings for those further south is not a good argument either.

Travel time would be worse, whole thing would be more expensive to construct and maintain (rail grinding etc), it would be noisier, and at capacity anyway and because that's where most pax would come from you have just inconvenienced the bulk of the people who use the SEB!! And yep, still dumping at Roma Street...

As for the plumber point, not sure how that relevant. They were asking the public, not a professional. And all they were asking (as far as I know) was "bus or light rail?" highly unlikely that said question would have any large number of people supporting heavy rail, that would in the future connect to the GC, as it wasn't an option presented!

Yes, but with your rail options, you wouldn't have even had cash to extend to the GC at that time anyway, so the whole thing would be self-defeating really. A stub line!

At the end of the day, if you really want to go argue, go ring up Barry Gyte or Luke Franzmann.

[#Metro]

This is the future of the SEB IMHO:
Had you built heavy rail, it would be incompatible! 90 second headways.

[Gazza]

you wouldn't have even had cash to extend to the GC at that time anyway,

Extension paid for with Beenleigh line triplication funds when the GC trains begin to saturate the Beenleigh line. Checkmate.

[Gazza]

Had you built heavy rail, it would be incompatible! 90 second headways.

Silly point, and you should know better.
Both heavy rail and light metro can run at 90 second headways.

See the RER, MTR. They use SACEM to acheive those headways, and if you trot out your stupid "Bhah rah I mindlessly hate Paris and everything about it" I will scream. Doesn't deny the fact its technically feasible if the capacity is needed.

The highest capacity systems are heavy rail metros, not light metros.

Yeah, the Skytrain can run at 90 second headways, but the trains are small so it wouldn't match the capacity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytrain_rolling_stock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Multiple_Unit_(Citytrain)

916 on an SMU fully loaded versus 580 ART Mark II (2009/2010)....Skytrain has 63% of the capacity.

[#Metro]

Extension paid for with Beenleigh line triplication funds when the GC trains begin to saturate the Beenleigh line. Checkmate.

Disagree. You're still dumping at Roma Street, you still have inconvenienced people on the inner section where most pax are carried, AND need a merivale bridge II and triple track (at least) and required special advance knowledge that the line was going to carry that much and had advanced knowledge of the funding sequence as well AND delayed the introduction of rail to the gold coast as well and also had special advanced knowledge NOT to connect the line to the existing rail network.

See the RER, MTR. They use SACEM to acheive those headways, and if you trot out your stupid "Bhah rah I mindlessly hate Paris and everything about it" I will scream. Doesn't deny the fact its technically feasible if the capacity is needed.

Yawn. I don't see SACEM being installed on Perth, Melbourne or Sydney anytime soon, so why would QR install SACEM on the SEB alignment in 1997? It would have had to rip out the signal system only a few years after it was built. Even then, are QR trains braking capabilities compatible with this system?  Can QR rollingstock even handle this? And we are still dumping 18 000 pphd + into Roma Street with no connection to the CBD proper.

[#Metro]

The highest capacity systems are heavy rail metros, not light metros.

Yeah, the Skytrain can run at 90 second headways, but the trains are small so it wouldn't match the capacity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytrain_rolling_stock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Multiple_Unit_(Citytrain)

916 on an SMU fully loaded versus 580 ART Mark II (2009/2010)....Skytrain has 63% of the capacity.

Disagree. First you would need special advanced knowledge that the patronage would be an unprecedented 44 million on the line. Because this information was not available at decision time, the system would not have been built with all these features to allow high throughput.

Secondly, a skytrain system being automatic allows high frequency for lower cost, unlike heavy rail which requires two staff on board, skytrain system requires zero. So that allows frequency and span all day, unlike heavy rail.

Also, you have used a specific example, overlooking the fact that the technology itself is capable of up to 30 000 pphd, around double current busway capacity.

. With an initial capacity of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd), the system was designed to accommodate up to 30,000 pphpd as the need arose. Recent orders for 140 INNOVIA ART 200 vehicles brings the total fleet to 210 vehicles.

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/transportation-systems/driverless-systems/advanced-rapid-transit--art-/kuala-lumpur--malaysia?docID=0901260d8000a63f

Like I keep saying, it was designed for a metropolitan function, not a regional one. You have to make a lot of improbable assumptions to get rail on the SEB.

[Gazza]

'Special advanced knowledge'. Yawn, how is planning for an allignment to be used by two tiers of service rocket science?

Also, your argument about the possibility for metro going down the allignment, isn't that argument based around special advanced knowledge a metro would be needed in the future?

44 million on the line

Why would all be on the one line. Surely it would be some pax feeding into (now less constrained) Beenleigh line, and some feeding onto the SE line?
Could easily carry the load between them, but it would be horses for courses.

Also, you have used a specific example, overlooking the fact that the technology itself is capable of up to 30 000 pphd, around double current busway capacity.

And heavy rail can do 30,000 per hour too, so whats your point?

Like I keep saying, it was designed for a metropolitan function, not a regional one. You have to make a lot of improbable assumptions to get rail on the SEB.

And like I keep saying, designing for metropolian functions only is narrow minded when you could have at least allowed for both.

[Golliwog]

TT: you said the Skytrain like system would be the future of the SEB (in your opinion). Yet you jump on SACEM saying "why would they have put that in in 1997?" They wouldn't have. Current signalling would have been fine for then (and probably even now). SACEM would have been the future!

RE: "Special Knowledge"
It's called planning and forecasting. Might not be particularly accurate, but better than nothing. I don't think you would have gone for heavy rail based on patronage reasons though, it would have been based on it eventually serving the GC trains.

RE: "Dumping at Roma Street/Merivale II"
This has been said a number of times, but a number of people get off trains at Roma St. The IPS-CAB corridor through the CBD has trains every 3 minutes, this would be similar on the subs. What's the issue with transferring? Merivale bridge II could be paid for with Gobetween Bridge funds. Or INB funds. Or Gateway Bridge funds. Hell, even Richlands/Ferny Grove duplication funds would be better spent here. I can't see the bridge itself costing much more than the Gobetween Bridge anyway though. Yes it's to rail standard, but in terms of design and actually building it, theres really very little difference.

As for cementing in a poor alignment, not really. When CRR comes along (it probably would anyway), the inner Beenleigh line and Cleveland line still need somewhere to go. Sure when that happens it will probably be well under capacity in terms of use, but patronage will keep on growing. Especially if you actually use buses to feed rail. Like you should.

RE: "Night time Frequency/Capacity"
As I said, if the will is there. Do you really think BUZ routes would run as frequent as they do, as late as they do, if the 'rule' for BUZ routes wasn't 15 minutes off-peak? I also never said I expected the late night services to be full. However, given the day time off-peak trains at 30 minute frequency regularly pull into Park Rd with nearly all seats taken, I wouldn't be surprised if they go alright at night if you ran them frequently. And I've also caught late night trains where you certainly COULDN'T fit everyone on a bus.

RE: "Travel Time"
Not sure whats going on here. There is no doubt that travel would certainly be much faster for trips south of 8MP. As for trips 8MP-CBD, the travel time wouldn't be any worse, and could in fact be better if you had less stops. The only way I can see you saying travel time would be worse, would be something to do with wait time, but that isn't something about 'rail' versus 'bus' that is purely how frequently you run the service. If all the routes that currently run along the busway then peel off to various directions, instead terminated and fed rail at a station then there would be a much higher justification for <15minute frequency off-peak.

RE: "Stub Line/Funding"
So what? What is Richlands/Springfield? A stub line. You have to start somewhere. Trying to get the whole massive line built in one go wouldn't be feasible. But building and paying for it piece by piece would work. It might not be optimal in terms of initial benefits vs initial costs but once it's done it would certainly be worth it.

[#Metro]

'Special advanced knowledge'. Yawn, how is planning for an allignment to be used by two tiers of service rocket science?

What, so it can run 18 million per year like Perth? LOL.

Also, your argument about the possibility for metro going down the allignment, isn't that argument based around special advanced knowledge a metro would be needed in the future?

Well the metro isn't there Gazza, it was co-incidence, but nonetheless true.

Why would all be on the one line. Surely it would be some pax feeding into (now less constrained) Beenleigh line, and some feeding onto the SE line?
Could easily carry the load between them, but it would be horses for courses.

Er, the GC trains only eat up 4 tph in peak hour as I take it. You're still going to need a new Merivale Bridge, city tunnels (better as CRR) and have problems at Roma Street.

And heavy rail can do 30,000 per hour too, so whats your point?

Everything would be way more expensive and required larger up front costs if done as rail. The stations would also have to be larger and more expensive if done as rail to accommodate train lengths. Special signalling would have to be there from the start really, and I can't really see the engineers in 1997 looking at the SEB corridor saying 'Let's put Paris SACEM' on that!

And like I keep saying, designing for metropolian functions only is narrow minded when you could have at least allowed for both.

Still have the Roma Street issues. Still would be at capacity. Still would be worse frequency than currently in the off peak. Still need city tunnels and Merivale Bridge II, much larger, longer stations required, guideway aquisition and prep would be more expensive...

Using Beenleigh line isn't the best, but was sufficient.