Interesting that the environmental impact of a freeway through the area would have just been countered by “progress” yet for public transport it is critical element to be costed and debated!!
3 Likes
Well, a freeway won’t be going through that area. It will be in a tunnel and tolled. That is what the Gympie Road Tunnel is.
As a general principle, all solutions - regardless of mode should be costed and debated.
Two wrongs also don’t make a right.
But there aren’t Where is the second option in the Gympie Tunnel and don’t give me “there will be surface improvements” or “buses use roads” That’s BS. There will be no major surface change Never has Never will be!
Reviewing a freeway or road tunnel option is like reviewing if smoking will cure cancer! It is the cause. End of story!
3 Likes
Well, by insisting on absolute perfection / no compromise you are supporting a scenario where nothing will get built.
I’m going to develop the BRT/LRT surface options a bit more. There are busways all over Brisbane already, and they’ve been there for 25 years.
Heavy rail isn’t the only option, and it shouldn’t be the only option taken forward for assessment.
The phrase “perfect is the enemy of good” means that striving for absolute perfection can prevent you from achieving something that is good enough.
Big fan of BaT design that was before current CrossRiverRail
I believe BaT design should be option NWTC should go for between Albion/Alderley end to Bald Hills then future consideration mixed methods of tunnel & overland north towards Dbay,Beachmere,Bribie with green bridges priority to improve cycling network
BaT design with PT one level, high volume road traffic the other
I also feel the excessive focus on peak capacity (so as to favour the rail mode option) is misguided.
The single corridor of the SE Busway carries about 40 million passengers per year. The majority of that is carried in the off-peak.
In contrast, the entire QR rail network in 2023-4 carried about 47 million passengers.
What this demonstrates is that the off-peak, rather than peak capacity, is vital for mode shift, and that Heavy Rail isn’t the only way to achieve that high patronage/mode shift.
Kind of tired of discussing it but when I talk capacity I mean “what capacity is need by both active/transport and regional/freight to get us to leading practice both peak/off-peak”.
This will require 10’s of million more trips in any of our existing corridors. Other corridors may need to be more like SEB (just will less/simpler routes) and others lower again but better frequency!
It’s not about maximising the most capacity in a corridor but what capacity is needed!!
Personally I believe we have had such a large amount of investment in roads now that the investment from now on should be bringing PT up to scratch.
While it’s also good to discuss ideas, I believe that idea you’ve suggested of the BaT style tunnel would be so incredibly expensive it would never happen.
5 Likes
Road proponents are just going to propose more and more expensive ‘solutions’. Rather than chase them, undercut them.
Jonno’s point about ‘capacity’ is more about service frequency in the off-peak I feel.
A bus or LRT option won’t prevent a rail option later, and even if a rail option was selected with just 2 stations for $10b doesn’t really strike me as going to generate the mass PT use we are all hoping for, at least within the Brisbane and MBRC LGAs. It seems more aimed at improving regional PT.
The # we should/need to be moving by public transport is well beyond increasing frequency of off-peak! It’s going from 6% of trips to well over 30% of trips.
If we take the predicted 14m trips (2031 estimate of 15 million trips) at 6% of trips is 840k trips/day to 30% is 4.20 million/day (5x today) or at 35% is 4.9 million (almost 6x)
If we take
^ This image shows PT mode share declining or flat between 1990 and 20XX in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Paris, London and Berlin.
Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, much of the gain is large shifts to walking and cycling, not PT.
The graph is also presented as if it is over equal time frames unless you look very carefully at the bottom right and see the terminal years vary quite a bit - 2010, 2011, 2014, etc.
In any case, only 3 of the 10 cities there show an uptick - Stockholm, Zurich and Vienna.
Although the focus is on placing Brisbane Metro into the NWTC, it would ideally come with a walking and bike path alongside it as well.
A rail line in a tunnel 20 m underground will probably not be offering that.
Your are conveniently missing the point.
Leading practice public transport mode share are well above 25% even above 30%.
Yes they have great active transport but their public transport is light years from 6% and declining!!
How much would a busway in the NWTC cost (ballpark estimate)?
An interesting question to answer would be figuring out a ballpark cost for a surface busway in the NWTC.
The section Everton Park Link Road to Bald Hills Station is about 12 km in length. Parts from Carseldine to Bald Hills overlap with an existing proposed busway corridor so the cost could be either attributed to this project or the existing one.
Let’s attribute the cost to this proposed NWTC Busway, to be conservative.
NWTC Busway Cost Estimate
Based on a NSW cost/km of $36.3 million/km, we arrive at a figure of ($36.3 million/km x 12km) = $435.6 million.
Personally, I think this is a bit low. There will be a lot of other major infrastructure constructions happening elsewhere in QLD at the same time, and the effect of this will be to push the price up.
Let’s 2x the estimate to provide some room for variation.
$435.6 million x 2 = $871.2 million based on NSW estimate.
Let’s use a different starting point for the estimate and see where that lands. In 2012, $36 million was set aside for the extension of the SEB from Eight Mile Plains to School Road Rochedale. In 2024 dollars this is about $50 million/km (RBA inflation calculator).
$50 million/km x 12 km = $600 million based on QLD estimate.
We can also use a NZ Estimate to again converge on a ballpark figure (Northwest Busway).
NZD $4.6 billion / 18 km = NZD $255 million/km (this project has to cross water or harbours, hence the higher cost).
$255 million/km x 12 km = NZD $3.06 billion. (About AUD $2.83 billion at May 2025).
Discussion
Coming back to the original question of How can we strip out the cost while also servicing the need for better PT?
-
From this it seems a surface option would come in at around $1-3 billion, or about 3-7x less than the tunneled rail options ($7-10b) or the Gympie Road Toll Tunnel ($10b).
-
Even if the figure is a bit off, the margin between these options and the tunnels (road or rail) is very large. The costs could be much more, and yet still be ahead.
-
There appears to be little need for tunneling if a surface BRT or LRT mode is chosen, as the corridor has already been preserved, and these modes can handle a gradient better than Heavy Rail can.
-
Even if you assume a worst-case scenario and must tunnel under Chermside Hills Reserve entirely for environmental reasons (~ 1.5 km) the short tunnel length plus the overall low cost of the project estimate - you could probably include it and still keep the overall project cost still comparatively low versus alternatives.
Notes
BRT Northwest T-Way
Gateway Upgrade South and South East Busway Extension, Transport and Main Roads
Newsletter February 2012
RBA Inflation Calculator
NZTA Northwest Busway (NZ)
Australasian Bus and Coach
Northwest Rapid Transit Busway construction start date revealed
You’re not addressing my point! We need to move up to 5-6 times as manly people by public transport! Buses are struggling with 6% and going backwards. Can lower cost bus solutions get us to 30% public transport mode share? I for one can’t see it! Even with the high number of trips on the busway we at 6% and the city chokes on buses in peak!
1 Like
Well, why don’t you provide an answer to your own question then, for this corridor like I have. I’ve set out my methodology, reasoning and linked it back to references so you can reproduce it.
Try provide a cost estimate for whatever you’re proposing if you can. What precisely is your alternative?
And to respond to your previous point, I already mentioned the SEB handles ~ 40 million trips per year, while the entire QR suburban rail network did 47 million (2023-4 figures). So the capacity is there.
What’s your response to that specific point?
Is a heavy rail line in this corridor in a tunnel with 2 stations costing $10b going to get us to 30% PT mode share in this specific corridor? If the answer is no, what is your point then?
So a busway into the city on the NWTC with 20-30 bus routes into the CBD + same on other major corridors will result in 1000’s of buses choking the city!!
I don’t need to do the calculations I can envisage the chaos more busways will create as the existing 1 only achieves those numbers by creating a chaotic, confusing and at time dangerous station experience…and it is the only one!
This is like trying to move water with teaspoons instead of a tanker. It’s just not efficient. Then add in the driver problems with a higher ratio of driver to passengers.
If we are mode neutral then we need to have the right mode for the job needed not the lowest cost!
2 Likes
Can you answer the above question please?
It has a better chance than a busway with 100’s of buses flooding the city and with a shortage of drivers.
They key point is we should NOT be assuming the solution on any single corridor. We should be campaigning for a Vision based on the analysis of trips and leading practice targets. This can then be analysed and debated as a whole rather than single project by single project…which got us where we are today.
The SEB does 40 million trips per year. The entire QR rail network does 47 million. I think the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. Don’t we have a shortage of trains and traincrew as well?
Ok. I’ll also set out some working.
You could run buses in peak every 45 seconds.
A busway would be able to handle say 12,000 pphd in peak. Given that Brisbane Metro BRT vehicles hold 150 pax, the number of buses per hour is 12,000 pphd / 150 = 80 buses per hour.
It’s not even 100 buses/hour and certainly not 1000’s of buses.
In contrast, Cultural centre handles something like ~ 300 buses per hour in peak.
Well, what’s wrong with also providing a worked up BRT or LRT corridor proposal? Why does it have to be a singular (heavy rail) proposal? I think you need to explain that. It can’t be 30% PT mode share because even the heavy rail proposal won’t achieve that (and it likely hasn’t in any part of SEQ, e.g. look at mode share surrounding the Redcliffe and Springfield line stations).
With a cost significantly lower than both the tunneled Heavy Rail option and the Gympie Road tunnel, and a consistent high off-peak service frequency, it seems like a viable alternative that can be put forward. Either by itself or with something else.
You will need more than 1 option anyway, as if your top option gets knocked out (say Government won’t agree to spend $10b) then you’re going to need a Plan B.
The reason Govt choose to not fund the right solution or worse implement a solution that precludes the right solution is that there is no Vision.
Lots of plans which are never implemented but no Vision nor an explanation of why we can’t afford to NOT build the right solution/move towards that solution.
10B looks like a big scary number but not against the 15B if we don’t!