Holmview Station shouldn’t be closed, but relocated to the corner of Holmview & Grove Rds, where it can interchange with the 562.
The question then is: does Edens Landing become redundant. I think maybe.
2 Likes
If it were any other suburb, I would say yes to that station being redundant. But the issue with Edens Landing is that its extremely poor road network makes it rather difficult to easily get from pretty well anywhere in the suburb across to Grove Road to access a station there. It’s also a bit tedious to get out of the suburb over to Bethania as well, so retaining Edens Landing might be the best of a bad bunch of options.
An alternative, although one which I generally wouldn’t like the idea of, could be to extend Grove Road through the park/nature reserve to Clayton Drive and Castile Cresent. This would greatly improve the road network connectivity between Edens Landing and Holmview, and could make a relocated Holmview Station a much more accessible option, even compared to Edens Landing. This could make removing Edens Landing a more doable proposition.
3 Likes
That would make it easier for local feeder bus routes as well.
3 Likes
How about a green link between Grove Rd and Castille Cr? Bus/cycle/pedestrian only?
No, I think it does need to be full traffic in this case.
A large amount of Edens Landing’s population is simply too far away from Castile Cresent to access the bus routes, and the hilliness of particular areas throughout the suburb (eg. along Overland Drive) does affect the overall walkability of the suburb. This is going to be one of those situation where the popularity of local train stations is really going to be pretty dependent on private vehicle access and parking (which is why the Edens Landing Station upgrade does include an enlarged Park n Ride).
Damn, I could swear that this project started before the current government. Oh wait, it did! I know I’m yelling at the wind here but the spin in the media releases from this government is insane.
5 Likes
The spin from all Governments is BS. They are politicians.
3 Likes
Agreed. They’re all bad.
I mean obviously they’re all putting spin in their media releases, but just compare those two (or really any from a former qld state gov vs the current) and you’ll see that the current gov is much worse
1 Like
I don’t know, when the Palaszczuk Government first got in, their press releases consistently panned the prior Newman Government for at least the next 12-18 months…
1 Like
Disagree 100%, they are all cut from the same cloth, with the same smell.
Because in this case they were right. Lots of stupid decisions can be traced to the Newman days.
What the lnp does in their media releases is :
-
bash labor unnecessarily (most of the time)
-
while claiming that a project that was designed, funded and sometimes went into procurement under labor IS actually their idea
Look, I’m al in for continuity of projects, I just don’t like being lied to haha
6 Likes
Around the Logan region, a NEW corridor should be built and link up with the M1 and run “Perth style” (elevation might be necessary in parts ie, “Skyrail”) and come in at genuine higher-speeds along a new LIMITED stop corridor, linking up with the CRR corridor and into the CBD/Roma St that way! The GC line will never live up to its necessary potential using the old suburban corridor as it gets closer to the inner suburbs!
4 Likes
Or you could upgrade the entire SE Busway to light rail and extend it to terminate at Beenleigh station from Loganholme, all the way to Roma Street.
Yes there are people on the otherside of the Pacific Motorway that don’t have good rail access, but they can and have option to go to either Beenleigh or CBD.
Maybe a “Perth style” extension of the GC line to Coolangatta should take priority over the Sunshine Coast or Beaudesert extensions.
2 Likes
Interesting idea, but I think LR is too slow for this corridor, unless there are LRVs capable of 130+ km/h. I couldn’t find any.
3 Likes
Why 130km/h?
Light Rail is slow over long distances, like the Busway to Loganholme, so you would want a vehicle to at least match, if not exceed, the speed buses can achieve over this corridor. 130km/h would be a good speed, but I don’t think many light rail vehicles get over 100km/h - the G Link’s Flexity 2 trams top out at 70km/h, while the busway features large stretches of 90km/h.
2 Likes
To be competitive with motorways. People can drive at 100 km/h most of the way from Beenleigh to Greenslopes. Trains need a higher top speed, because they stop more.
The M1/M3 corridor really needs heavy rail, the question is where does it go? Resumptions, removing motorway lanes, elevated? At least part will need to be tunnelled.
Faster heavy rail between Beenleigh and Boggo Rd, with limited stops:
- Hyperdome
- Springwood (maybe)
- Upper Mount Gravatt
- Griffith
would be very competitive with private cars.
1 Like
God it was such a fucking stupid decision to cull the bike connections from this project. Remove Active Transport bikewashing from your website QR and TMR, you have zero interest in funding anything remotely connected to cycling or PMDs. It’s all getting pushed back to Councils who do not have the money or the heart.
2 Likes