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

[STB]

Oh dear lord goodness. 'NEWMAN GOVERNMENT CUTS CUTS CUTS SHAME SHAME SHAME'

OMG, somebody stop these lunatics from destroying PT even more with their good intentions but bad results! Aren't they content with destroying the connected bus network proposals? Is that not enough? How much poo do we have to put up with just so politicians (Milton Dick, Jackie Trad) can get their face in the newspaper?

There must be a reason for this. I reckon she is going to try to replace Annastacia P. as leader of the opposition and this is why she's searching for hi-visibility public crusades to rally at.

It's political.  If they feel that they can gain votes for saving the station, then they will try to do so, even though there's no reason for the station to remain.

[Gazza]

So, out of curiousity, does anyone here really miss Tennyson station?

I mean, I'd rather have the money spent frequent cross town bus running where pax actually live compared to a dumb crosstown line with one stop.

Point is, Labour and Jackie Trad can hardly take the moral high ground on this.

I don't really care about either station, truth be told, both have their own reasons for going.

[ozbob]

So, out of curiousity, does anyone here really miss Tennyson station?

I mean, I'd rather have the money spent frequent cross town bus running where pax actually live compared to a dumb crosstown line with one stop.

Point is, Labour and Jackie Trad can hardly take the moral high ground on this.

I don't really care about either station, truth be told, both have their own reasons for going.

Correct!  But I do miss Tennyson trains ...  <-- shoot him ... ;-)

[Gazza]

I think Tennyson largley became irrelevant once GC Trains moved from Yeeronpilly to Coopers, and then became even more irrelevant when the express stop moved to Darra.
But now, the shifting of GC trains to Altandi basically makes the line an absolute relic now, apart from freight and a backup route.

Someone should do a review of the bus routes and propose some new more relevant cross town routes or something...Oh wait 

[James]

I think Tennyson largley became irrelevant once GC Trains moved from Yeeronpilly to Coopers, and then became even more irrelevant when the express stop moved to Darra.
But now, the shifting of GC trains to Altandi basically makes the line an absolute relic now, apart from freight and a backup route.

Someone should do a review of the bus routes and propose some new more relevant cross town routes or something...Oh wait 

Interestingly enough, the only cross-town route between the Ipswich and Beenleigh lines proposed in the SEQ Bus Network review was a GCL replacement from Indooroopilly to Yeerongpilly. I think generally in Brisbane, cross-town links haven't been given a fair shake of the sauce bottle (especially with a direct services network, it is generally faster just to go all the way in to the CBD and all the way out).

If GC trains still stopped at Coopers Plains, I believe there would be use in a Corinda - Coopers Plains 'shortcut' type link (so much so I included it in my own review, albeit did not cost it as it would be part of a remodelled GCL). Now, I'm not quite sure.

It will be over 20 years minimum before Brisbane can afford/justify to build a Metro on the south side as after the CRR project there are other priorities in PT for another 10-15 years beyond opening.

Both pre-Metro and Post Metro Buses will still be needed and justified. Even European cities run large fleets of buses. A Metro will reduce the number of buses but not eliminate them and if anything just bring us back to numbers similar to today. When the day comes to build the Metro, let them do the whole thing green field without the incumbances of something that was believed to be what we needed 20-30 years previous including porthole sizes etc. It will probably be similar cost and cause far less disruption and also remember after you kick the buses out, you need to find a new home for them.

You will also find the likes of Bectel/Transfield etc will probably work very hard to convince the govt to give them Greenfield as well and over a lower price as its far lower risk on what are already often very unpredictable projects to accurately forecast in costs.

Imagine converting the SE busway to LR now, all those buses stopped and put onto other roads or restricted to single lane for extensive distances for 2 years as the road bed is dug up and rebuilt as en embedded track surface. This is why it will probably never happen and likewise the buses will stay in the tunnel.

Of course we will still need buses, but we can't just keep buying buses. My metro idea is similar to the one Lapdog discussed - if the stupid bus tunnel has to be built, I'd much rather see it in a state which would make it easy to convert to metro. During construction, simply add bus lanes to roadways/SE Freeway. Not that difficult.

If you insist on keeping UBAT bus-and-train forever, you further lock in BCC's mentality of 'bus rockets all over Brisbane' and their attitude of having buses compete with the rail network.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I think generally in Brisbane, cross-town links haven't been given a fair shake of the sauce bottle (especially with a direct services network, it is generally faster just to go all the way in to the CBD and all the way out).

What a load of rubbish.




Do I dare extend it further east?

[James]

What a load of rubbish.

Do I dare extend it further east?

HTG, I am very aware of the crap which occurs out your way, but I'm referring to routes like the 77 and 369, where pax coming from urban safari routes are better off simply going into the CBD due to infrequent cross-town routes (there may be a time saving of 5-10 minutes for some - but by then you might as well just stay on to the CBD).

A direct services network has awful feeder and cross-town routes, hence why it is generally faster just to simply sit on the one route all the way to the CBD. Sad but true. Back when the 475 was half-hourly, it was sometimes quicker to go in to the CBD then come out again than go to Toowong and use the GCL in many cases - this is especially the case on weekends, or on Sundays when crosstowns simply don't exist.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yeah I know what you were getting at. Never get tired of bagging out the network design up here When you go further east up here the transfers just blow out like crazy. You don't have to wait for the weekends for that up here. Albany Creek to Sandgate requires 3 interchanges in the same zone with each of the routes operating hourly (and that's only if you are traveling when the 327 links Bracken Ridge/Bald Hills to Strathpine as it bypasses that section at certain time). You can venture through more zones with a higher frequency but you end up spending the same amount of time in doing that because you travel through more zones covering a longer distance. The Translink review really put in a lot more cross town routes (at least across the Northside utilizing the Ferny Grove, Caboolture and Shorncliffe Railway lines and the northern busway) that all hooked into frequent corridors or interchanges be it railways, busways or bus interchanges. I'm pretty sure the 375, 353, 354, 369, 599/598 were all cut up into 1-3 cross town routes. The Pinkenba/Doomben/Ascot services were spit between frequent corridors and cross town routes. That was followed by a few others coming from Mitchelton with the Chermside north loop route being the best of them. The outer burbs of Brisbane was cut up into a series of routes that fed each other via interchanges ie Albany Creek to Sandgate with an interchange at Strathpine (currently Albany Creek transfer at Strathpine to Bracken Ridge/Zillmere/Virginia/Northgate transfer to Sandgate). The network in Brisbane is really set up for more cross town services but the nature of the network requires a fundamental change to support it. Otherwise we have the crap that we have now which is a real shame.

[verbatim9]

The Ubat design is good but has to be reviewed. Would be good if the Stations were designed to take 9 car sets future proofing the line to take more passengers in the future. Have made my views known here on the Ubat's face book page www.facebook.com/UBATBrisbane But I do like the CRR design better and the station positioning.

[Jonno]

We need to back CCR Lite, highlight the significant failings of UBAT and point out the bus congestion can be solved with Translink Route redesign!!!  2 wrongs are never going to make a right in anyone's books!

[James]

We need to back CCR Lite, highlight the significant failings of UBAT and point out the bus congestion can be solved with Translink Route redesign!!!  2 wrongs are never going to make a right in anyone's books!

While I agree with you on the bus congestion note (there is no reason at all we need to stick buses up the BUM), I think it is already set in stone, and we now just have to focus on ensuring the alignment of UBAT isn't totally and completely awful (that is, having it as a road which comes off the eastern busway and spits out just before RBWH - an alignment which is useful for nobody).

CRR and CRR Lite, at this point, are simply off the drawing board. It's a shame, yes, but it also shows how dumb the pollies are.

[paulg]

If Dutton Park station is to be removed then it is even more vital that a Park Road interchange is built on the UBAT.

There is plenty of room for a station on the UBAT adjacent to the existing rail junction, can be constructed as a cut-and-cover.
An example layout might be:

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Casino may sweeten pot for planned underground public transport network

THE NEWMAN Government is exploring ways a new casino owner in Brisbane could contribute to the $5 billion underground public transport network.

One of the options being considered is the construction of a new train station 35m under the proposed site for a second casino at 100 George St.

Plans drawn up by Transport and Main Roads have a seven-storey underground carpark beneath the casino, leading to the station.

Although the plans are in the draft stages, Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the proposal was being considered.

"The two options for the station are opposite the corner of George and Mary streets, and near the corner of George and Alice streets," he said. "This project is separate from the Queen's Wharf development and how that station is incorporated in that development is yet to be decided."

Mr Emerson said feedback would be sought from industry regarding the proposed location of an underground train station in George St ....

More --> CM

[minbrisbane]

Couriermail --> Casino may sweeten pot for planned underground public transport network

THE NEWMAN Government is exploring ways a new casino owner in Brisbane could contribute to the $5 billion underground public transport network.

One of the options being considered is the construction of a new train station 35m under the proposed site for a second casino at 100 George St.

Plans drawn up by Transport and Main Roads have a seven-storey underground carpark beneath the casino, leading to the station.

Although the plans are in the draft stages, Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the proposal was being considered.

"The two options for the station are opposite the corner of George and Mary streets, and near the corner of George and Alice streets," he said. "This project is separate from the Queen's Wharf development and how that station is incorporated in that development is yet to be decided."

Mr Emerson said feedback would be sought from industry regarding the proposed location of an underground train station in George St ....

More --> CM

George and Mary, or George and Alice.  I think I'd prefer the Mary street option...

[Cam]

If there isn't going to be a station near Queen Street then there should be at least two entrances for each CBD station so that commuters have the option of entering/exiting each station a significant distance towards Queen St. After taking long escalators upwards under George St towards Queen St then perhaps an underground travelator for the rest of the distance from one of the stations that ends under/near the Queen St mall.

[minbrisbane]

Couriermail --> Casino may sweeten pot for planned underground public transport network

THE NEWMAN Government is exploring ways a new casino owner in Brisbane could contribute to the $5 billion underground public transport network.

One of the options being considered is the construction of a new train station 35m under the proposed site for a second casino at 100 George St.

Plans drawn up by Transport and Main Roads have a seven-storey underground carpark beneath the casino, leading to the station.

Although the plans are in the draft stages, Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the proposal was being considered.

"The two options for the station are opposite the corner of George and Mary streets, and near the corner of George and Alice streets," he said. "This project is separate from the Queen's Wharf development and how that station is incorporated in that development is yet to be decided."

Mr Emerson said feedback would be sought from industry regarding the proposed location of an underground train station in George St ....

More --> CM

George and Mary, or George and Alice.  I think I'd prefer the Mary street option...

We are talking two city blocks spacings. Ever seen an underground station, the entrances are often spread out over a about 500m from each other. But yes, Mary would be more logical.

Yes, often the station itself spans that same distance, a warren of tunnels.  In my favourite city, HK some of the exit tunnels are 800 - 1000m long, and of course lined with shops.

[paulg]

I attended this presentation last night:
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/queenslands-infrastructure-future-neil-scales-director-general-transport-and-main-roads-and-r

It didn't contain any new information on UBAT.

The Port CEO's presentation was interesting - he is hoping to get the coal companies to pay for the massive western line upgrades required (dual gauge to NSW, Toowoomba range crossing, southern freight rail corridor, 24/7 connection from Acacia Ridge to Port of Brisbane). So far there is only the $300 million from the Federal Govt to start acquiring land and do the bankable studies required to get the financing in place for the rest of it. The Port's preferred option for Acacia Ridge to the Port is to connect to the north-south line at Greenbank and follow the Logan/Gateway Mwy alignment to the Port. Would require a lot of cut-and-cover tunnelling (mainly to preserve visual amenity and cut down on noise).

I asked a question to both speakers relating to the differences between UBAT and Cross River Rail. Specifically, I asked whether by moving the portal from Yeerongpilly to Park Road they were losing a lot of freight advantages by reducing the capacity (5 tracks to 3 between Yeerongpilly and Park Road). Also I pointed out the omission of the Park Road interchange and asked whether that will have bad implications for network connectivity. Russell Smith replied that he didn't see a lot of benefits for freight rail in the Cross River Rail proposal. This is because he thinks the current alignment of the third track from Park Road to the Port is substandard and should be relocated away from suburban areas anyway. Neil Scales responded to the query on Park Road by trying to talk up the connectivity of the other proposed stations. I certainly wasn't convinced.

Cheers, Paul

[ozbob]

Thanks for the updates Paul .. 

meanwhile ..

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

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Industry prepares for Underground project

About 250 engineering, construction and finance industry representatives were today briefed on the Underground Bus and Train project that will solve two of Brisbane's major congestion problems.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson told the gathering the city-defining project would rely on some of the best engineering minds in the country creating about 18,400 full time jobs.

"There is a high level of innovation and expertise required to deliver any underground project, in particular one as unique as this," Mr Emerson said.

"Transport and Main Roads is now working with industry and the community to prepare an environmental impact statement and reference design for the project.

"This initial industry briefing will raise awareness of the project allowing industry to prepare for the various pieces of work and procurement opportunities that lie ahead.

"Transport and Main Roads provided additional design detail for the project, including underground cross sections of the tunnel path and components within the tunnel, including fire and life safety.

"The briefing will provide industry with an update on the project status, key milestones and opportunities to be involved in the project."

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk also told the gathering the project achieved the outcomes identified in the Suburbs 2 City study.

"This is a great example of different levels of government working together to address the city's public transport capacity issues and, unlike previous plans, it is affordable and can be delivered by 2021," he said.

"When completed, the project will result in significant travel time savings across the suburbs of about five minutes from the north, 12 minutes from the west via Legacy Way and 10 minutes from the southern and eastern suburbs."

Mr Emerson said a number of procurement opportunities were already on the Queensland Government's e-tender site with more coming in the next few months.

The Newman Government and Brisbane City Council announced plans to deliver a 5.4km tunnel running from Dutton Park in the south to Victoria Park in the north, via new bus and train stations at Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

The 15-metre tunnel will include two train lines in the bottom section and two busway lanes in the top section.

This project will double the number of trains across the Merivale bridge, take up to 200 buses off CBD streets in the morning peak and reduce 100 buses per morning peak hour on the Captain Cook Bridge.

[ENDS] 5 December 2013

[paulg]

I'm strongly doubting the tracks will be reduced from 5 to 3. Actually I don't believe it at all and what we may have seen is just artist impression of quickly produced conception. It simply won't work, QR knows this, QT knows this and it won't happen. But I understand the concern without evidence

You think they are secretly planning track amplification on the surface alignment between Dutton Park and Yeerongpilly? I very much doubt it. There would certainly be resumptions necessary and one of the main things they are crowing about with the new UBAT proposal is that no resumptions are necessary.

[STB]

I attended this presentation last night:
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/queenslands-infrastructure-future-neil-scales-director-general-transport-and-main-roads-and-r

I asked a question to both speakers relating to the differences between UBAT and Cross River Rail. Specifically, I asked whether by moving the portal from Yeerongpilly to Park Road they were losing a lot of freight advantages by reducing the capacity (5 tracks to 3 between Yeerongpilly and Park Road). Also I pointed out the omission of the Park Road interchange and asked whether that will have bad implications for network connectivity. Russell Smith replied that he didn't see a lot of benefits for freight rail in the Cross River Rail proposal. This is because he thinks the current alignment of the third track from Park Road to the Port is substandard and should be relocated away from suburban areas anyway. Neil Scales responded to the query on Park Road by trying to talk up the connectivity of the other proposed stations. I certainly wasn't convinced.

This is one thing I don't get.  They say that in lieu of Dutton Park station being demolished, they will build an overpass from Park Road station to the PA Hospital and add additional buses on the Boggo Road busway to provide access to PA Hospital busway station, the only thing is there isn't an underground Park Road station planned for for the Beenleigh/Gold Coast line passengers in the first place, making the overpass pretty much pointless and a total waste of money!

Neil Scales sounds like he just dismissed your observation rather than taking your very solid point on board.  This has me worried.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Work on Brisbane's new underground to begin next month

Work on Brisbane's $5 billion Underground Bus and Train project will start on January 14, when geotechnical work begins on the river bed between Gardens Point and South Brisbane.

A 5.4 kilometre cross-river route has been chosen for the project, in which a single, two-level 15-metre diameter tunnel will carry buses on one level and trains below.

"New generation" train carriages, able to work on tighter grades and corners, will be used on the underground rail route.

Transport Department director-general Neil Scales told more than 250 business delegates he made no apology for the "fast and furious" pace the Queensland government would set to get the project finished by 2021.

"We have booked the barge, so the barge will be on site in mid-river in mid-January on the 14th of January," he said.

Excavated rock will be sold to the Port of Brisbane as fill.

The exact funding model, very likely to be similar to the way the Moreton Bay Rail Link is packaged, will be revealed by Treasurer Tim Nicholls by mid-2014.

Mr Scales said the Queensland government was still trying to convince Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss to fund part of the project.

"We keep trying to convince Warren Truss that the top part of our tunnel it's a road with a lid on it," he joked.

"Because he won't fund rail, with passengers on it."

The Queensland government will fund the project from Bruce Highway project savings.

Project director Arthur Stanatoudis, who was the deputy project director for the cancelled Cross River Rail, said the project had a "different, broader focus" than the previous underground project.

Mr Stanatoudis said as well as providing a rail alternative route to Merivale Bridge it also connected the Northern and Eastern busways.

Mr Stanatoudis said George Street alignment was a "better geotechnical alignment" than Cross River Rail's Albert Street proposal for two factors.

First was the Newman government's decision to push ahead with the redevelopment of the government precinct.

The second was potential flooding at Albert Street, as identified by Fairfax Media in April 2011.

"We required very large steel gates for that project at the Albert Street station and we required flood gates at Yeerongpilly," Mr Stanatoudis said.

"It was very expensive and during the January 2011 floods, we even had a vent in an egress building that was under four metres of flooding."

The rail track will be about 50 metres below the Brisbane River at its deepest point, with the George Street passenger platform about 44 metres below the street.

The Roma Street station will be about 35 metres under ground level.

By comparison, the Queen Street Bus Station is between five and 10 metres underground.

"This is serving a different purpose to that, we are trying to create a different corridor that complements that corridor," Mr Stanatoudis said.

The project will also have to go beneath a large sewer pipe which runs under Turbot Street.

Dutton Park train station will be removed because the location meant a new station would have to be built on a slope alignment under the new model.

However, a new connection for rail passenger will be built at Park Road, as reported last month by Fairfax Media.

"There is really only about 120 people a day use it Monday to Friday so we are just going to take that station out," Mr Scales said.

However Mr Stanatoudis said they would make changes to Park Road rail and buses.

"We want to build a direct pedestrian connection to the 19 services an hour, so people wanting to get to the hospital using rail from that location," he said.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/work-on-brisbanes-new-underground-to-begin-next-month-20131205-2ytwr.html

[paulg]

There are a couple of new maps in the gallery attached to that Brisbane Times article. Unfortunately too low resolution to be much use.

[paulg]

Here are the new design images:



The good news is that there really is no excuse for them not to add a Park Road interchange based on the vertical alignment (i.e. UBAT flattens out through Park Road area).

[ozbob]

The areas shown above where the tunnel is flat are actually for Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

Look carefully - the tunnel is on a slope through Park Road.  This is one of the reasons I have been told why a UBAT station at that vicinity is not planned.  To achieve the station at Park Road means they have to go further out for the portal and this in turn means resumptions, something they do not want to do.  So at the moment what we see is what they seem to be committed too.

Still intend to give feedback on this though.

[STB]

The areas shown above where the tunnel is flat are actually for Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

Look carefully - the tunnel is on a slope through Park Road.  This is one of the reasons I have been told why a UBAT station at that vicinity is not planned.  To achieve the station at Park Road means they have to go further out for the portal and this in turn means resumptions, something they do not want to do.  So at the moment what we see is what they seem to be committed too.

Still intend to give feedback on this though.

Couldn't they just flatten out the slope near Park Road station and put in platforms, before continuing downwards and adjust the tunnel slightly perhaps to get to the same level as intended through the city?

[paulg]

The areas shown above where the tunnel is flat are actually for Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

Look carefully - the tunnel is on a slope through Park Road.  This is one of the reasons I have been told why a UBAT station at that vicinity is not planned.  To achieve the station at Park Road means they have to go further out for the portal and this in turn means resumptions, something they do not want to do.  So at the moment what we see is what they seem to be committed too.

Still intend to give feedback on this though.

As suggested by STB, there is no need for the slight slope through the Park Road area. The grade could easily be adjusted to make a shorter flat area, with a slightly longer slope down to Wooloongabba.

[SurfRail]

The platforms don't need to be underground at Park Road.  Something akin to Esplanade or Joondalup.

Seriously, going from this being an interchange point to then not being one is completely demented, even for Queensland.

[aldonius]

Anyone trying to get from a tunnel train service who wishes to get to Cleveland line would have to change at Roma St.

UQ students on a line using the tunnel either need to: change to/from a via Park Rd service, or a 66 at Roma St, or a 'whatever' running Gabba-PA via tunnel then up & over for a UQ service, or else the 29 from the surface Gabba platforms and go around the 'long' way.

PA patients and staff have roughly the same options.


If the station is 350m and it's flat, replacing a grade of 1:40, then we need to make up 9 metres of vertical.

[Jonno]

The areas shown above where the tunnel is flat are actually for Woolloongabba, George St and Roma St.

Look carefully - the tunnel is on a slope through Park Road.  This is one of the reasons I have been told why a UBAT station at that vicinity is not planned.  To achieve the station at Park Road means they have to go further out for the portal and this in turn means resumptions, something they do not want to do.  So at the moment what we see is what they seem to be committed too.

Still intend to give feedback on this though.

I suppose we need to take a step back and review who would be negatively impacted by lack of a station at Park Rd. What % of users would that be, however un ideal the situation is.

People from south can change further back to access services going via bridge or change (yes again) to CL trains. Which means you'd probably have a 3 tier service. BL and GC via tunnel, Kuraby via bridge. The double change for access to/from CL line would only impact on people therefore going from below the termination point for bridge trains to/from CL.

If the station needs to be 25m x 9 car set long to be flat, lets say 350m all up with a 1:40 grade the station would mean the port hole needs to be 9m or so further back. I'm missing something?

The current design breaks all interchange design principles!! Public transport moves less than 10% of trips and your suggesting it is ok to miss a major interchange!!!  We need to be targeting 40-50% of trips by public transport and accepting less than optimal network design due to cost only costs us more in the long-run!!

[#Metro]

I think the bus tunnel part should dive in at Wooloongabba. I don't see the reason for it starting at Park Road. Is the current busway section between Buranda and W'Gabba not going to be used or is the bus network going to be made even more complex than need be and bifurcate the services between the two sections??

I also want to add this tunnel will do little to solve the problems at BT with the wasteful network design.

[aldonius]

As far as I can tell, the bus dive happens immediately after the PA. So we'll have a heck of a lot of services turning left coming out of Buranda, through the PA, down into the tunnel, underground platform at Wooloongabba, etc etc.

Everything going to QSM and via the Cultural Centre, as well as anything going to the surface at Wooloongabba, will need to go via Buranda-Gabba.

[James]

As far as I can tell, the bus dive happens immediately after the PA. So we'll have a heck of a lot of services turning left coming out of Buranda, through the PA, down into the tunnel, underground platform at Wooloongabba, etc etc.

Everything going to QSM and via the Cultural Centre, as well as anything going to the surface at Wooloongabba, will need to go via Buranda-Gabba.

And herein lies the problem.

Buranda is at capacity too, and the way BUM is designed (i.e. bus conga lines in a tunnel), Buranda will be at capacity very quickly after BUM. Hence why the BUM is a non-solution to bus congestion.

And having 'via Bridge' services is just going to cause more woes. Pax should not be expected to double change to a destination where they can currently get there with one change!

[SurfRail]

Anyone trying to get from a tunnel train service who wishes to get to Cleveland line would have to change at Roma St.

UQ students on a line using the tunnel either need to: change to/from a via Park Rd service, or a 66 at Roma St, or a 'whatever' running Gabba-PA via tunnel then up & over for a UQ service, or else the 29 from the surface Gabba platforms and go around the 'long' way.

PA patients and staff have roughly the same options.


If the station is 350m and it's flat, replacing a grade of 1:40, then we need to make up 9 metres of vertical.

UQ student from say BL, catch train to Coppers Plains, change to Bridge train. 15min services shouldn't be an issue.
BL traveller to Manly, catch train to Coppers Plains, change, train to Park Rd, Change.

Not a huge drama

It is completely avoidable and therefore bordering on criminal.

[minbrisbane]

+1

If there's no connecting Park Road to UBAT, I can't support this project fully.

It's a waste of money without a connection.

[ozbob]

It does seem the authorities have made up their minds that UBAT will not connect at Park Road.  It makes no sense from a network perspective I agree.  The reason said to me (stated above) is that because of gradients etc. and need to avoid property resumptions they are unable to achieve the necessary space.

This is even more remarkable as there has not been any public consultation at all effectively.

I will work on a submission of sorts based on comments in this thread largely.  But it would be useful for individuals to tackle this as well.

[#Metro]

And having 'via Bridge' services is just going to cause more woes. Pax should not be expected to double change to a destination where they can currently get there with one change!

This project as it is currently designed has the potential to set in concrete a mess. The busway routes will likely be split (via BUM and via S'Bank, and scrutinising the numbers in the media articles, via Captain Cook Bridge looks to be retained for some services as well) as will the trains (via BUM, via S'Bank) which will split and dilute the frequency and make everything very confusing and inconvenient (split services = lower effective frequency).

Add to that the defeaning silence on what the net present value is, particularly of the bus component and the convenient skipping over (design by fiat) of a BUS mode without any kind of check to see if bus continues to be appropriate. This is BT!!

[Jonno]

The group need to formally "not support" the current proposal!

[ozbob]

The group need to formally "not support" the current proposal!

It is a matter of working constructively for better outcomes ...

[huddo45]

The group need to formally "not support" the current proposal!

It is a matter of working constructively for better outcomes ...

Might as well ask Colonel Klink to bring the bloody trams back, you'll have about the same hope of success. This half - baked project is going ahead with no public consultation whatever. Can we have a vote on whether we support it  or not?

[longboi]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.