BaT - Bus and Train project (was UBAT, was no CRR)

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/11/30/a-new-transit-centre-and-more-jobs-for-brisbane?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

JOINT STATEMENT
Premier
The Honourable Campbell Newman

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Sunday, November 30, 2014

A new Transit Centre and more jobs for Brisbane

Brisbane's much-maligned Transit Centre is to be demolished and completely rebuilt as part of a huge CBD infrastructure development to meet the city's future transport needs.

The proposed underground Roma St Station for the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel will now be constructed beneath the rebuilt Transit Centre – instead of next to Roma St Parklands.

Premier Campbell Newman said the revised plan would deliver better bus and train services for families, create construction jobs and make Brisbane a more attractive city.

"Realigning the BaT tunnel after listening to local people has given us a great opportunity to build a new, modern Transit Centre," Mr Newman said.

"We're seizing that opportunity to create a major public transport hub in Roma St that will make travel easier for bus and train passengers.

"The BaT project was already set to create 1600 construction jobs and now the redevelopment of the Transit Centre will create further jobs and economic opportunities for Queenslanders.

"This exciting project proves that only the LNP Government has a strong plan to build better infrastructure and create jobs for Queensland families."

Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said families would be glad to see the Transit Centre demolished.

"The Transit Centre is frequently voted one of Brisbane's ugliest buildings, but now we have the chance to build an iconic gateway to this city," Mr Emerson said.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said the turnaround facility on Gilchrist Avenue and separate on-ramp connection to the westbound lane of the Inner City Bypass would remain as part of the revised design.

The proposed BaT tunnel was realigned following more than 560 public submissions. A revised reference design assessment report is available for public comment until Friday, 19 December.

The revised BaT tunnel will be 4km long and run from Dutton Park in the south to Spring Hill in the north, with three new underground stations at Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

The tunnel, which is due to open in 2021, will double rail and bus capacity across the Brisbane River, allowing faster, more frequent, more direct and more reliable travel across the south east.

Mr Emerson said the Department of Transport and Main Roads will work with coach operators to investigate temporary relocation options for the long-distance bus facility, while access to Roma Street Station for rail passengers will be maintained via a temporary access point.

To view the revised route and have your say, go to www.qld.gov.au/batproject.

[ozbob]

Revised Reference Design

--> http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/design/objectives/index.html

Revisions have been made to the project alignment from just south of Roma Street Station, to the northern portal, including the location of Roma Street Station and the northern busway and rail connections.

The BaT tunnel would now run as a combined tunnel from Dutton Park in the south to Roma Street Station. At Countess Street, the tunnel would split, with buses exiting at the Inner Northern Busway (INB) and trains exiting further north at Normanby Rail Yard.

>> http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/news/#revised

[ozbob]

BaT project newsletter—November and December 2014 (PDF)

--> http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/U/UBAT/Batnewsletternovemberdecember14.pdf

[ozbob]

I suspect that the BaT really depends on who wins the next state election. 

The changes flagged are improvements, but still does not address the big problems with it.

I see that they are forecasting that rail will have the most passenger journeys to the CBD in the years to come.   Northern lack of capacity is going to have to be addressed.

[newbris]

Revised Reference Design

--> http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/design/objectives/index.html

...

Great, thanks bob. Thought it wasn't coming out until Nov 1st...off to have a read.

[SurfRail]

It seems if you wanted a Trouts Rd tunnel stub (which you definitely would), it would be going in at Petrie Terrace.  Possible station underneath Musk Avenue for the KG Urban Village and QUT, then bear north-west to Alderley.  This actually seems to be much more of a logical routing than before which involved a big S-bend.

Of course they won't put stubs in, will they?   :conf

[Gazza]

It seems if you wanted a Trouts Rd tunnel stub (which you definitely would), it would be going in at Petrie Terrace.  Possible station underneath Musk Avenue for the KG Urban Village and QUT, then bear north-west to Alderley.  This actually seems to be much more of a logical routing than before which involved a big S-bend.

Of course they won't put stubs in, will they?   :conf

Most likely a west Perth type arrangement....out of a tunnel, emergency crossovers to connect with the ekka loop then straight back down again.

FWIW I wanted a shallow level station under RS all along with tracks surfacing next to the countess st bus layover... Was always bound to be cheaper.

[newbris]

So some of the time time savings for the Kenmore area buses are gone as they must now loop around the inner northern busway past QUT Kelvin Grove before entering the city...

[newbris]

I left extensive feedback last time letting them know they have totally missed the fact that the Herschel St lane configuration was overhauled a year ago and that they were working off old maps.

They have totally ignored this and still insist the road looks nothing like it does with spoil trucks turning from lanes that no longer exist on top of green painted bicycle lanes they do not even acknowledge exist.

Sigh. I will try again.

[SurfRail]

Most likely a west Perth type arrangement....out of a tunnel, emergency crossovers to connect with the ekka loop then straight back down again.

FWIW I wanted a shallow level station under RS all along with tracks surfacing next to the countess st bus layover... Was always bound to be cheaper.

That's basically what they were planning before except it was at the Victoria Park land bridge, so it would have been a big inverted "S".  Now all you would need to do would be to put in a stub adjacent to Petrie Tce and otherwise just go with what they are planning to get to Ekka.

It looks like it would be harder to do a rubber tired metro with this new version as you would wipe out the INB.  You would only have buses entering at Skew St in that environment.

Also LOLed at the reference to the 680 still going via Roma St.  It looks like they sent somebody out to read the bus stop signs and found the ancient timetable which hasn't been removed!

[newbris]

Note Roma St busway station is to close during construction.

Buses on the INB will exit at the little entry/exit near the intersection of Countess/Roma. For outbound buses they are building a new right turn bus lane on Roma St so they can turn into that entry and onto the INB. They will reconfigure the entry to allow this as currently I think the only (closed) access is left turn off Countess.

[dancingmongoose]

Well if the BaT goes ahead HSR will need to be reassessed, the transit centre is where the HSR station is planned to go. Though I do like that new alignment.

Still no Park Road. Not sure if they are deaf, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Will be attending the 8th December community info session at the library on my lunch break.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane Transit Centre could be demolished as BaT Tunnel route changed

... In what is set to be one of its drawcards ahead of next year's state election, the government wants to knock down the Transit Centre building in 2016 and complete the entire BaT project by 2021.

However it is yet to ink a deal with the Transit Centre owners, which include Lend Lease and other associates. On Sunday, Premier Campbell Newman said it would cost at least $100 million to acquire the site.

"They've been trying to sell it for a while so we hope they've got a sharp pencil. We've got a sharp pencil too," Mr Newman said.

Despite the large outlay the Premier said the new design of the BaT Tunnel would save "hundreds of millions of dollars" due to reduced tunnelling and re-engineering.

"The current overall cost of this is $5 billion. We've got to pull a lot of money out of that because we've got to make it more affordable for this state," he said.

The government has already set aside $1 billion from asset sales and leases, however it plans on splitting the rest of the cost with the private sector.

Opposition leader Annastacia Palaszczuk criticised the government for not releasing the full business case for the BaT project.

"We know that it is unfunded and uncosted. We need to make sure Queenslanders see the full cost here. They need to release the business plan," she said.

"We are back to the drawing board with this BaT Tunnel, and once again regional Queensland is missing out."

Ms Palaszczuk said a Labor government would create an independent body named Building Queensland to best decide on future state infrastructure projects ...

[aldonius]

Can the sort of vehicle you'd want to use for a rubber tyre metro even really handle the intersections they're proposing?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

30th November 2014

BaT - more changes

Greetings,

More changes for the proposed BaT tunnel.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg149767#msg149767

Still does not alter the basic issue with the BaT.  It is not a proper long term transport solution - it is another half baked project that Queensland seems to specialise in.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

26th November 2014

All quiet on the BaT front ....

Good Morning,

All quiet on the BaT front ....

Frankly, billions of $ are planned on being wasted on the bus component and the less than optimal rail component for this tunnel.  Hopefully it might be scrapped.

We have clearly demonstrated with our Brisbane bus network proposal that better results can be achieved for a lot lot less in cost.  Just takes the courage to implement proper bus network reform.

Proceeding with a flawed rail solution is also just wasting money. Hold off and get it right is the proper and smart thing to do.

The BaT project will no doubt be a casualty of the looming financial crisis within the Newman Government Queensland, as money is redirected to new coal projects (which is rather pointless eg.  World Bank to ditch coal for clean energy http://grist.org/climate-energy/world-bank-to-ditch-coal-for-clean-energy/ ).

Just pray there are no significant adverse weather events for the next 20 years or so hey?

Have a great day!

Best wishes
Robert

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


On 23/11/2014 3:59 AM, RAIL Back On Track Admin wrote:

Greetings,

Excellent turn up and response to our bus reform proposals for Brisbane.  The community wants better, affordable, connected public transport.

The Newman Government seems to be not hearing the call.  They failed with the 2013 bus review process for Brisbane, and have also failed to address proper fare reform for SEQ.  A simple fare cut is not reform - it is lazy politics with a measure of contempt for the community.

RBoT Survey Flyer --http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/RBOTSurveyPromo.pdf

Centenary Glider Flyer  --http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/CentenaryGliderFlyer.pdf

Centenary Glider Flyer concept map --http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/hf400.pdf

The bus component of the BaT tunnel is not needed.  Proper network reform as we have shown will deliver a better outcome for bus, saving many billions of dollars.

We are very concerned that government would put politics before sound transport planning processes, and not put Brisbane forward on a proper sustainable transport future.

14 Sep 2014: SEQ: Will the BaT fly? --http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=10955.0

Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Media release 14th September

SEQ: Will the BaT fly?

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 there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1)."

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7


Contact:

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

Further more:

Interesting table  - It's not JUST a tunnel under the river!

Comparing the BaT tunnel to the original Cross River Rail plan shows some pretty significant differences - and that's BEFORE we consider the inefficiency of running buses through the same tunnel.

Are we just wasting funds by not considering future public transport needs?

[dancingmongoose]

I'll go on record now that ALP will not change the BAT back to CRR, there will be some window dressing to give it their flavor and say look we improved it, but not a full CRR>

They cannot be that stupid. Surely?

[ozbob]

I am not so sure.

There is an issue though, the property that had been acquired for CRR, has been sold off.

The Labor option could  largely drop the bus component (do proper network reform with improved priority), and push the rail BaT through further and do the improvements to garner the increased train capacity through and from the north, as well as south.  They would probably re-expand station cavities for 9 nine car train capability. 

IA did validate rigorously CRR. BaT has had no such evaluation.

Without a change of policy (or Government) at the Federal level I think $$$ will be a major issue for BaT.  The Transit Centre 'upgrade' is another indication that they too feel nervous about the funding (or lack there of). 

[ozbob]

I respect your point of view.  But lets just see how the proposed coal project unfolds ... already some indications that venture capital may be drying up, there are reasons for this.

Sydney Morning Herald --> National Stock Exchange of India quizzes Adani on loan for Galilee Basin coal project

Sydney Morning Herald --> Adani's Galilee Basin project 'not commercially viable'

ABC Lateline --> Doubts about Galilee Basin

[Old Northern Road]

If Labor were smart they would keep the best aspects of both projects

• Keep the double-deck tunnel
• Ensure there can be a connection to the future Trouts Rd line (most important)
• Ensure that the top level can be converted to a Metro (second most important)
• Move the southern portal further south to enable a station at Park Rd

I prefered the allignment of CRR through the CBD however I am willing to accept the inferior allignment of BAT if the other issues are addressed

[SurfRail]

^ Why not?  Tunnel and station cavity construction would be the largest cost and are already being front-loaded.  All they would need to do is close it for a few months to fit it out for its new role.

[#Metro]

The changes are looking more realistic.

* I would like to see a station at Park Road for proper connection to UQ; If that means Dutton Park station is removed, so be it.

* I am NOT opposed to a bus component. The mode neutral interpretation of this component is 'twin rapid transit tunnel'. It is more efficient to do the tunnel once with two parts than it is to do two tunnels separately at different times. This will permit the busway to be upgraded to metro in the future, which would radically simplify the network to full 'Toronto-style' network plan where buses cross or terminate at train stations. Remember, the Hi Quality Bus Network is designed to be a transition towards this ultimate end-goal. I do not believe there would be a large saving from removing the bus component.

The busway will also be far more reliable to operate with two class A ROW entry portals into the Brisbane CBD which are protected from delays and weather on Captain Cook Bridge.

There are a number of cases of stacked Rail over Rail tunnels such as Melbourne's City Loop. Nobody seems to think this is invalid, so why does it suddenly become invalid when the infrastructure is the same but the vehicle uses a rubber tyre?

The private sector is unlikely to fund this project given its extreme cost and unprofitability.

[#Metro]

The bus component could be automated, which would mean far better service at lower cost.

RBOT Hi Quality Bus Network
(refer to http://tiny.cc/busreform)

With a bus component converted to rail, the following services in the proposal would no longer need to run to the CBD:

RBOT  Hi 120 Garden City via Coopers Plains station
RBOT  114 Garden City
RBOT  Hi 140 Browns Plains RSL
RBOT  Hi 130 Sunnybank Hills
RBOT  Hi 150 Browns Plains
RBOT  Hi 185 Mansfield
RBOT 205 UQ Lakes
RBOT Hi 222 Carindale Heights (Superbus) [Now running direct to UQ <---> Carindale, not CBD, amalgamate 209]
RBOT Hi 111 Eight Mile Plains (or 160) (a service would be required between CBD and W'Gabba via SEB, 66 could possibly do this.
* A whole heap of rockets that are not mentioned above, would also be rail terminated.

When the SE Busway is converted to rail, all logan buses would terminate at Garden City, and pour all passengers into the SE Subway. I would expect this to be around ~ 3000 - 5000 pphd in peak hour currently and this would of course rise in the future. This would be a huge efficiency and permit massive frequency and service upgrades across the entire Logan City Council region. This gain cannot be captured if the bus component is missing from the BaT, as that bus component is required for future upgrade to metro operation.

[#Metro]

Future SE busway/subway operation?

TTC - Buses at Kipling Station (HD Test Video 2)

[#Metro]

And with regard to Long Distance buses, Wooloongabba, Kurilpa and Brisbane Airport are potential contenders. Both all are close to main freeways which are essential for high speed long distance coach travel.

[Mozz]

And with regard to Long Distance buses, Wooloongabba, Kurilpa and Brisbane Airport are potential contenders. Both all are close to main freeways which are essential for high speed long distance coach travel.

However pretty much every person travelling on short/medium/long distance buses want a CBD destination ... remembering the current Roma Street transit centre is also the hub for them to then transfer seamlessly to both the Rail at Roma Street Railway station and also the Roma Street Busway.... There are significant buses from north and south coast and northern NSW in addition to the medium and long distance buses...

[#Metro]

Ms Palaszczuk said a Labor government would create an independent body named Building Queensland to best decide on future state infrastructure projects ...

There is no such thing as 'Independent body'. What one parliament decides another can take away. Independent of what? Public Funding? Political Processes?

Flawed human beings run the state, not angels. We have seen what happens to this with IA, it becomes a 'commenting body' with all of its recommendations ignored anyway.

[SurfRail]

The only finicky bit would be fitting out the tunnel itself, which should only take a few months.  Bus lanes on the M1 and Gympie Rd to replace the busway(s) in places would sort out the rest of the disruption for the most part, to the extent possible, otherwise it would just be a few months of pain.

[STB]

Still no Park Road. Not sure if they are deaf, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Will be attending the 8th December community info session at the library on my lunch break.

Last time I spoke to them re: no Park Road, they basically said that there was hardly anyone doing transfers at that station and so didn't see the point in building platforms there. 

[#Metro]

Last time I spoke to them re: no Park Road, they basically said that there was hardly anyone doing transfers at that station and so didn't see the point in building platforms there.

Seems silly? Do they mean to say more transferring is happening at Dutton Pk???

The interchange without interchange = pub with no beer!

[dancingmongoose]

Still no Park Road. Not sure if they are deaf, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Will be attending the 8th December community info session at the library on my lunch break.

Last time I spoke to them re: no Park Road, they basically said that there was hardly anyone doing transfers at that station and so didn't see the point in building platforms there. 

Obviously they weren't there at lunch time, I went down there a week or so ago for lunch (read: to get some photos of the station) and about 70-80% of people getting off the train headed to the bus station. There'd also be a number who get off at Roma Street and onto a 66 (which I imagine would be scrapped in a post BaT/CRR environment) who may transfer at Boggo Road with a tunnel

[STB]

Still no Park Road. Not sure if they are deaf, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Will be attending the 8th December community info session at the library on my lunch break.

Last time I spoke to them re: no Park Road, they basically said that there was hardly anyone doing transfers at that station and so didn't see the point in building platforms there. 

Obviously they weren't there at lunch time, I went down there a week or so ago for lunch (read: to get some photos of the station) and about 70-80% of people getting off the train headed to the bus station. There'd also be a number who get off at Roma Street and onto a 66 (which I imagine would be scrapped in a post BaT/CRR environment) who may transfer at Boggo Road with a tunnel

They were talking about more train-train transfers between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.  I suppose their logic is that those transferring to the busway will just transfer at Woollongabba for route 29 rather than the current arrangement.

[Old Northern Road]

What about Gold Coast passengers travelling to South Bank or South Brisbane? Will they have to interchange at Dutton Park? If so then Dutton Park will have to be upgraded and a third platform built. I'm sure planners have taken all of that into consideration........

[STB]

Still no Park Road. Not sure if they are deaf, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Will be attending the 8th December community info session at the library on my lunch break.

Last time I spoke to them re: no Park Road, they basically said that there was hardly anyone doing transfers at that station and so didn't see the point in building platforms there. 

If the data is true, then really this is a fair point, why spend $100m for something that is rarely used. Although yes deletes the option permanently. Must admit each time I have gone BL to CL or vice versa I change at Roma St due to the painfully long waits.

Why would you go to Roma Street to transfer?  Since the changes last year the transfer time between Cleveland and Beenleigh trains is no 17mins and between Cleveland/Gold Coast trains it's now 12mins.  In the old timetable you would've had to wait up to 30-60mins to transfer.

I remember being in meetings with the Planners years ago and they said that fixing the transfer times at Park Road was on their to do list with Sector II.  If the Planners didn't think it was worthwhile to have people transferring there, they could've justified it by not bothering to fix it, however they did.

The only real reasons why there aren't any platforms at Park Road is due to the location of where the tunnel now starts, much closer to Park Road than under Cross River Rail which allowed it ie: cost savings that the LNP wanted to do, and that the slope of the tunnel to get under the river prohibits building the platforms underground, which would be a non issue if the tunnel started around the Yeerongpilly area which is what Cross River Rail planned for, and was ticked off by IA.

[ozbob]

Comments are interesting ... seems more than a few are alert ...

Comments > http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-transit-centre-could-be-demolished-as-bat-tunnel-route-changed-20141130-11x0fx.html#comments

[nathandavid88]

What about Gold Coast passengers travelling to South Bank or South Brisbane? Will they have to interchange at Dutton Park? If so then Dutton Park will have to be upgraded and a third platform built. I'm sure planners have taken all of that into consideration........

Actually, they have. Under the plans Dutton Park would be substantially upgraded into a three platform station with additional bus platforms beside it.

[aldonius]

I can see the additional platform face at Dutton Park.

But the bus platform component seems to fairly minimal - there's what looks like a platform, but it's only on one side... Also, the access to that section is marked left-in left-out - the left-in from the on-ramps down to O'Keefe St. All in all, not what would be needed for a 29-equivalent service from UQ to Dutton Park via the existing Boggo Rd station

I'll try to get to an info session, but can someone ask pointy questions like 'there are rail-tunnel stubs at Park Rd, where would an extension utilising these go?' and 'you clearly see the value of stubs, so why nothing at Roma St?'

[Gazza]

I can see the additional platform face at Dutton Park.

But the bus platform component seems to fairly minimal - there's what looks like a platform, but it's only on one side... Also, the access to that section is marked left-in left-out - the left-in from the on-ramps down to O'Keefe St. All in all, not what would be needed for a 29-equivalent service from UQ to Dutton Park via the existing Boggo Rd station

I'll try to get to an info session, but can someone ask pointy questions like 'there are rail-tunnel stubs at Park Rd, where would an extension utilising these go?' and 'you clearly see the value of stubs, so why nothing at Roma St?'

It seems crazy not to do stubs at Roma St...Its a mined tunnel so that gives you the flexibility to do stuff like that.

As for the "29" equivalent service you'd run it as a one way loop going Dutton Park, Boggo Rd, over the bridge, back again  and then up onto Annerley Rd.

[dancingmongoose]

Wouldn't it just be easier to leave the 29 as is and force people to get off at the Gabba, meaning they transfer at Dutton Park if they don't go through the tunnel

[nathandavid88]

Wouldn't it just be easier to leave the 29 as is and force people to get off at the Gabba, meaning they transfer at Dutton Park if they don't go through the tunnel

That's what I was thinking as well. Being the same zone, there's no extra cost involved. I imagine the bus services at Dutton Park would largely be for the purpose of catering for those people who are wanting to get to Park/Boggo Road, and maybe less mobile people wanting to get to the PA? The left in/left out arrangement means that the bus would go from Dutton Park, Boggo Road, through the tunnel towards UQ and then turn back and out onto Annerley Road. If they are just connecting Dutton Park, then they'd just turn up the current Kent Street, if they want to include the PA in the loop, then they continue down Cornwall Street, up Ipswich Road and stop at the lower level PA stop. If they wanted to, they could extend it to service both UQ over the bridge and extend it around Buranda Village and make it a little community loop service – might make is seem a little less useless that way.

[SurfRail]

What about Gold Coast passengers travelling to South Bank or South Brisbane? Will they have to interchange at Dutton Park? If so then Dutton Park will have to be upgraded and a third platform built. I'm sure planners have taken all of that into consideration........

Actually they have, to their credit.  They can only work with what the polytishuns allow them to work on.

The plan is to add platform faces on the inner Beenleigh line to the dual-gauge track.