They had NASA, we need a single state-wide public transport authority first.
The Australian version of NASA is ARSE.
1 Like
Well maybe we wonât have to do many major closures if we start building the station before CRR opens. Will mean we would have to start possibly sometime this year.
Iâm just very curious to know what modelling they have to work out the travel mode share at the conclusion of an event that justifies the doing basically nothing approach that they are going with. On the previous information related to CRR and the Gabba, I donât understand how this would actually work.
Woolloongabba station
Just to set a baseline, the 2011 Cross River Rail EIS (the latest version of the EIS that includes this detail publicly as far as I can tell) estimated that of a 42,000 full capacity crowd 69% would take the train (16,900 city/northbound and 11,900 southbound) with 11% taking the bus and 20% walking/riding/carshare/parking.
The EIS states that in event mode the largest constraint is the number of trains that can be loaded in the post event hour. The modelled platform capacity in that event hour is 15,600 pax per hour per direction, which is based on 1,300 persons per each nine car train departing every 5 minutes . The report doesnât explicitly state the reason for the loading constraint, but you can infer that the constraint is getting people physically boarding the train, because the tunnel has 24tph headways and the escalator capacity is stated as being 36,000 pax per hour in the peak direction (to/from platform, not per travel direction). For the 5 minute headway, anecdotally the loading time at Milton after Suncorp matches generally reflects this.
Given the loading restriction, the report provided that the northbound demand could be cleared in about 70 minutes (again, this required 9 car trains). Given we only have access to 6 car trains for 2032, which would be 850 pax on their method, you would need 1hr 40minutes to clear the 16,900 people assuming the mode share stayed the same (it wouldnât, people would choose another way home).
Up the stadium to 63,000 people and keep the mode share the same, moving 25,350 people would require 30 trains, which at 5 minute headway is 150 minutes (2.5 hours).
Exhibition station
The 2011 EIS doesnât have any statement about event capacity at Exhibition station to compare with. The delivered project is also a slightly different design to the 2011 design, but it remains a single island platform so we broadly compare with Woolloongabba.
Assuming that access to the platform is not an issue (Iâm not convinced, but lets go with it), you still have the same loading capacity issues that you have at Woolloongabba and theoretically arrive at the same throughput - 10,200 pax per direction in the post event hour (using the 5 minute headway and 850 pax per train above).
Olympic stadium demand
There is nothing public that I can see about estimated mode share for the Olympic stadium and its simply too different to the Gabba to make any translations.
The stadium is arguably in a better location than at the Gabba for pedestrian connectivity - because the river isnât in the way. I donât think we should rely on people walking to Roma Street, Central or Fortitude Valley to get on a train, but I do think we can expect a reasonable take up of people walking to these areas to accommodation or entertainment.
Thereâs also an argument that train may need to do less at Vic Park because the bus access is better, but its also unclear how the shuttle bus system would work. I have a bad feeling that the sideshow area at the showgrounds may end up as shuttle bus location..
My thoughts
I think we deserve a dedicated event scale station that is accessible to the stadium. It can be open outside events as well if required, but the design should be for managing the full loading of trains given we have only 2 doors per side per car. It is clear from the original CRR EIS and previous experiences with fully loading trains that headway on the through lines will be compromised, whether that is at Exhibition or a new station near the CRR Portal and the train wash.
As such, I would still suggest that to fully load a train on the Cross River Rail group, we should utilise two island platforms, with 2 platform faces on each through line to prevent significant delays. This is similar to Platforms 1-2 and 3-4 at Central or Platforms 4-5 and 6-7 at Roma Street. Additionally, Sydney Olympic Park station and Perth Stadium Station both use this method. I would suggest that you could increase the headway back to 3 minutes doing this (CRR is set for 24tph/2.5min headway), which gets you back to 17,000 pax per hour per direction.
Because the demand happens in peaks, I would suggest that it is not necessary to use Spanish solution platforms. I also donât think there is space for this at Exhibition, which really just leaves the train wash area near the land bridge and the CRR portal.
To avoid a similar delays with Roma Street for people transferring, it would be good to provide a surface option as well.
Ideally you would continue to use some form of the current Exhibition loop, however the hole in the wall at Bowen Hills joins onto the CRR up line (towards Roma Street) and the third track through Exhibition ends at the approach to Mayne Yard West. So you have this gap between the two that breaks the network segregation and has a flat cross over both CRR up and down lines.
This really only leaves the option of starting/ending at Mayne Yard West and through running somewhere (even if its just to Bowen Hills), and that requires using the flat junction at Roma Street.
7 Likes
Very detailed write up.
Exhibition station is designed for a different crowd - dispersed throughout the day. The peak would be the after fireworks exit each night of the Ekka, but this would be a smaller amount of people than 63k.
The crumbs of information in the article seem to suggest that a capacity of 63k is the minimum, and that we may be getting a slightly larger stadium.
Exhibition station wonât cope and is not ideally located. Fortitude Valley, Central and Roma Street stations are too far and the pedestrian access to them are not suitable for an Olympic stadium transport option (footpaths on busy built up streets).
Your suggestion is spot on and should be advocated for.
4 Likes
Anything less than a dedicated new stadium station is just another half baked Queensland solution.
We need to copy/paste what Perth Stadium has done (albeit with four platforms, not six). This along with Exhibition station, and the busway, will hopefully avoid embarrassing ourselves.
6 Likes
Thanks for the comprehensive post! Agree that a 4 platform events station is really needed.
3 Likes
Moving walkways between the stadium and exhibition station could work. Just build one long travelator
A bid to stop construction on Brisbaneâs Olympic stadium site in Victoria Park on Indigenous heritage grounds has been rejected by federal Environment Minister Murray Watt. âŚ
⌠Wattâs department was still assessing three applications to make declarations under the heritage protection act. âŚ
5 applications, one withdrawn, one rejected, three applications still being assessed.
We welcome the Federal Governmentâs decision, which supports the Crisafulli Government to implement the 2032 Delivery Plan while managing any cultural heritage matters.
This is another step towards delivering a 2032 Games Queenslanders can be proud of.
New planning legislation introduced last year incorporates engagement and consultation as part of a comprehensive cultural heritage management plan.
These laws are working well and enable GIICA to progress the Brisbane Stadium and the wider delivery plan on time and on budget, with appropriate safeguards in place.
The Brisbane Stadium will deliver benefits long after the Games and along with other generational infrastructure across the state, will secure a winning legacy for Queensland.
ENDS