I’m sorry, but I don’t think an Olympics travel option requiring an interchange at Helidon is something that’s going to be realistically considered. It’s almost certainly going to be via long distance buses direct from major centres like Brisbane (and maybe Ipswich) straight up to Toowoomba.
The Westlander takes 2hr 15mins on a Tuesday, or 2hr 35 mins on a Thursday, to get to Helidon. Then you have however much longer the bus connection to Toowoomba will takes (including wait and travel time)
A Greyhound takes 1hr 45mins from Brisbane to Toowoomba.
I’m not against introducing/extending regular train services to Helidon, but it’s not going to cut it as an Olympics transit option.
I completely agree, but am simply supportive of both options being explored. Members around during the Rail Back on Track era may recall we asked Translink straight up a few years ago about a bus, and we simply got a response to the effect of ‘we don’t do that’. A pretty poor response, to be sure - hence my previous comment that an attitude adjustment is required. Buses could be rolled out (preferably comfortable ones designed for longer runs) in a relatively short period and at little comparative expense.
The Main Line is not electrified past Rosewood. There is currently no rollingstock to do the work; the closest existing thing not otherwise fully committed (i.e. the Westy is fully committed) are a couple of operational railmotors at North Ipswich (QR) and Drayton (DownsSteam). The line has a significant impediment through the Little Liverpool Range with both 120m radius curves and tunnels unsuitable for electrification. The line makes a significant deviation through Grantham, but there is no longer a station there.
To be honest, you really want the Inland Rail alignment through the Lockyer Valley for a rail-based mass transit solution to be competitive between Ipswich and Helidon. It addresses both the aforementioned track limitations. Issues that make the trip between Rosewood and the city longer than driving (Westlander is timetabled for 1 hr 17 mins) would be beyond the scope of any such upgrades anyway. To compete with a bus, you essentially give yourself 30 mins to get to Toowoomba based on that impediment. To be blunt, heavy rail will almost certainly never compete with the highway while city to Ipswich is set up the way it is.
Furthermore, we’re only talking about equestrian events for the Olympics on top of the range. It’s not really a good reason to do more than commit the absolute minimum resources if transport for the event is the sole objective.
But, like the Mayor of Toowoomba has been up talking about this week, sometimes it’s just nice to have a discussion about legacy.
Government Statement: Procurement commences for Gabba Entertainment Precinct
A Request for Expression of Interest and Information Memorandum have been released today for the development of the Gabba Entertainment Precinct, marking a major milestone in the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy and urban transformation.
This signals the start of the competitive market process and invites the private sector to submit proposals for the delivery of a globally recognised destination for entertainment, sport and new housing for Queenslanders.
Imma just come out of the blue and say what I think will happen (sorry for the essay).
Brisbane will only make some real transport improvements after the 2032 Olympics where transport would be in absolute carnage. In fact, transport crises are the main motive for Australian cities to seriously get their game up on PT instead of anticipation of major legacy events.
The main catalyst for Perth’s massive rail network upgrade is the 1979 suspension of Fremantle line passenger services with plans to convert into a busway. Traffic worsened on the road of Perth since many residents did not have any other alternative form of transport. After severe backlash from the public, and the line was reopened and upgraded. Patronage was boosted and traffic has reduced significantly. After the success of the upgrade of the Fremantle line, the Joondalup line was built, followed by the Mandurah line. WA Government went on to construct Metronet following the massive success of reopening the Fremantle line and constructing the Joondalup and Mandurah lines.
Melbourne and Sydney both had and Olympics in 1956 and 2000 respectively. I don’t know what Melbourne did to accomplish their Olympic transport legacy, but it seemed that PT in Melbourne only went into decline after the Olympics to the point there the train and tram network was split into multiple competing private companies which only worsened the quality of PT throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Sydney’s Olympic transport legacy was quite non existent apart from the T7 Olympic Park branch and the Airport line. It took at least a good decade for Sydney to start planning to upgrade their PT with a metro (a real one) and light rail.
I understand the Olympic Park site was chosen in part because of how the T7 could be made to work. It’s not too late for us to have a Barrambin (Vic Pk) station on the surface.
My point is that we are only going to see a dramatic improvement in Brisbane’s PT as a whole after our transport goes into chaos like other Australian cities (especially Perth), since there is so much talk about the wasted transport makeover opportunity for the 2032 Olympics.
A new station branch line for Barrambin would be nice, but definitely won’t be enough for the Olympic transport legacy, much like how Sydney didn’t make much improvements to PT as a whole for the 2000 Olympics apart from the T7 and Airport line.
There are things I admire Sriranganathan for. His opinions on light rail and stadiums, though, are not among them. Nathan would have had zero ongoing use outside of high school athletics carnivals, which are useful, but not necessary to spend billions on facilities for. And light rail is both hard to get off the ground, and extremely expensive to build in Queensland, given the price of GCRL stage 3.
I find he’s best when he sticks to talking about small scale infrastructure like buses or local parks, because then his ideas can be implemented for a reasonable price, and it isn’t a disaster if the numbers don’t actually add up. Because I don’t trust his vibes-based attitude to bigger projects. It is no substitute for actual research and cost-benefit analyses when the monetary stakes are high.
Melbourne used their existing tram and rail networks, with dedicated buses for athlete transport. They expanded the tram network prior to the 1956 Olympics.
Melbourne maintained the tram network when other cities shut them down in part because the streets were laid out with greater width in the gold rush on flat land. In the 1950s public transport patronage was going into decline but the infrastructure from the 1940s was still running. We are not in the same situation as we are coming off decades of underinvestment with a growing city.
This is the biggest issue Brisbane has by comparison - the narrow streets! When the city was originally laid out, the locals had to fight hard to get Queen Street to be as wide as it is. New South Wales Governor Gipps didn’t see Brisbane as a future capital city, but as a backwater northern outpost of no great significance. He personally intervened in the planning of Brisbane to reduce the width of the city’s streets to one chain (66ft, ~20m), except for Queen Street, which was allowed a width of 80ft, ~24m.
As a fun fact, after the creation of the Greater Brisbane City Council in 1925, one large scale urban improvement project the new council inherited was the widening of Adelaide Street from 66ft to a Queen Street-rivalling 80ft. All buildings on the western side of Adelaide Street between George Street to the cliff below St John’s, were either demolished or rebuilt to the new alignment. Apparently the cost of this was funded by a £750,000 loan from the State Government.
.
