Jonno, I hear you but we do not need to make our role harder than it is by trying to cup the entire ocean in our hands. We are always going to have this tension or nexus between what is ideal and what is practical (e.g. making compromises).
If the $10b, two station tunneled Heavy Rail option is knocked out, what is our Plan B? Right now that Plan B is the Gympie Road Toll Tunnel.
I have no issue with a heavy rail proposal being put forward, provided that an alternative or alternatives for BRT and LRT are also put forward. Can you at least support that?
I donât understand the purpose of this busway though. If it ends at Everton Park does it run to major destinations along existing roads. That is not going to provide a fast and reliable surface.
You could imagine a busway just terminating at Enoggera Station or similar, but I doubt that would be sufficiently attractive to drive really big patronage.
One of the benefits of a train line is that it can join to the existing Ferny Grove line around Alderley and have a direct path through the city and to Southbank and beyond, which after CRR will have a path all to itself and so lots and lots of capacity. You could imagine both Ferny Grove and the Trouts Road trains running four or even six trains per hour each, providing true metro-like frequency from Alderley inward.
Current bus services use surface streets, bus proposal will take them out of traffic.
A rail option would require buses to transfer passengers at train stations as well.
As per the policy platform with bus and T2 lanes, services would run into bus or T2 lanes on Ennoggera Road and Kelvin Grove Road servicing QUT (a major destination).
A rail proposal will likely go via Chermside particularly if itâs tunnelled.
I think using the current rail patronage with poor service levels and a lack of bus integration is unfair. Also many trips are cross region/city compared to the CBD terminators on the busway. Transfers in rail are a single trip.
I also think we need to accept that having busway like setups with large number of routes and buses (275 buses per hour) to keep capacity high is just not a sustainable solution! The busway might move lots of people but itâs absolutely going hammer and tongs to do it Plus itâs congested, confusing, late running and chaotic. Might work for direct CBD to home trips but thatâs not how the vast majority of our cities works.
Well, the Ferny Grove line has had 15 min all day trains since 2014 I believe.
The mode share around FG line stations doesnât seem to be all that different to the rest of Brisbane (certainly not approaching 25-30%) and the patronage I believe (donât have the exact figures to hand) is less than say ~ 5 million per year (about 8x lower than the SE Busway).
While we are not on the same page that a rail line in this corridor will cause the dramatic mode shift or patronage you outline (as these effects are not observed for the Ferny Grove line which does have 15 min all day trains since 2014 and decent bus interchanges at Ferny Grove, Mitchelton and Enoggera), I am willing to revisit your point about a local surface rail route that minimises tunnel and cost.
FWIW I think itâs probably a false economy in building a busway just for the sake of using the NWTC.
In particular the core of the NWTC is incredibly hilly and covered in forest reserve so a chunk of it wonât be surface busway anyway. I note that the Eastern Busway around Stones Corner was $100m/km in 2011 dollars. Thatâs more complex than this but we have had inflation since, especially in construction costs.
To me it seems way better to instate T2 lanes on Beckett Rd and Old Northern Rd and spend the big bucks on something else. We donât exactly have a shortage of projects.
Thanks for the comment. Would placing the route (rail or bus) closest to the east parallel to Trouts Rd avoid this core section though?
You could imagine a short tunnel 1.5km under Chermside Hills Reserve. The rail option lite would require level crossing removal at Alderley, station rebuild at Alderley, possible underground station and tunnel at Enoggera. Grade separated rail junction at Bald Hills.
The Eastern Busway was expensive as it had to transition from a tunnel to a viaduct over the creek there and it is an area subject to flooding.
If the answer is another busway, then somebodyâs asking the wrong questions.
Any NWTC option will have to entirely tunnelled. The reserved corridor was a relic of its time and will never be used today.
Agreed⌠either via or terminate at Chermside.
Iâd support a light rail compromise however without a foundation line or an established network operating, its not going to work in isolation.
That is why BTQ exists. Why doesnât it get into the business of providing âvisionâ where none exists.
We should be proposing the solution with vision, not a vision for a solution.
Maybe its time to move away from âpeakâ and âoff-peakâ mindset. 50c doesnât care what time of day of is, only the frequency matters.
Another issue that BTQ should try to address. The apathy towards road projects and the bipolar nature of PT planning. Need to re-invent the wheel every time a PT project is proposed, but not so for roads. Because no matter what BCA score (even if its 0.2), it gets interpreted as a BCA of +1,000,000!
Well, we could share initial concept ideas for a few options with TMR and decision makers. We might get some feedback about what decision makers are or are not prepared to support⌠that might be helpful.
Highest peak-hour capacity with Priority A exclusive run into the via the FG line, potential alternative route for trains going north of Bald Hills.
More expensive - would require rebuilds of train stations such as Enoggera or Alderley, Alderley level crossing removal, tunnelling, grade-separated rail junctions at Bald Hills, signalling, ongoing maintenance of rail and OHLE
Is this the right or optimal corridor for providing relief capacity for rail lines north of Brisbane? (Yes/No)
Increased frequency at stations downstream of Enoggera or Alderley
The NWTC might not be the right corridor - a different corridor passing through Chermside might be better
Does a rail line absolutely have to be tunnelled due to Environmental Impacts, or is a surface option using minimal or no tunnelling a possibility? (Yes/No)
Option to through-route services to Sunshine Coast or south of the Brisbane River
Bus transfer to rail required for residents who live outside the walk zone from the station; These connecting bus services may be poor in the off-peak.
What would the expected annual patronage be for the line, based on similar stations on the existing QR network? What cost are we looking at?
BRT Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Questions we could use to clarify
Lower cost proposal - Queensland Government may be more willing to support the proposal. Bus and Brisbane Metro operating costs could be split with BCC.
Cost advantage negated if the busway must be in a tunnel for much or all of its length along the NWTC
Does a busway have to be tunnelled due to Environmental Impacts, or is a surface option using minimal or no tunnelling a possibility? (Yes/No)
High all-day frequency (e.g. every 10 mins or better)
Mid-tier peak capacity (say ~ 10,000 pphd versus rail at ~ 20,000 pphd when allowing space for FG line trains in peak)
Is this the right or optimal corridor for providing service to suburbs north of Brisbane? (Yes/No)
Potential for more stations, as stations are less expensive to build and have smaller footprints
Cannot be used to provide relief capacity for train lines north of Brisbane
What would the expected annual patronage be for the corridor? What cost are we looking at?
Corridor can be used by emergency vehicles servicing Prince Charles Hospital
Direct trip to CBD for residents who live outside the walk zone from the BRT station
Comments
This comparison exercise reveals a critical question around environmental impact: Would decision makers support the construction a surface rapid transit option on the NWTC or not? (regardless of mode)
This is something we can find out by asking TMR and decision makers directly.
If a surface option is acceptable, a busway option would likely have a cost advantage over rail (potentially both in construction and ongoing operation as operating costs would be split with BCC and the costs of track maintenance etc would be avoided). This could have a minimal section of tunnel under Chermside Hills Reserve if desired.
If no surface option is acceptable, the corridor must be in a tunnel for the entire length regardless of mode. The cost advantage of a BRT option over the rail option will likely disappear in this scenario. Rail would also be better as after spending money on the corridor, trains would enter the FG Line (Priority A corridor), whereas for the bus it would enter a Priority B corridor (Enoggera and Kelvin Grove roads).
If the corridor must be in a tunnel, then the cost will be very high (say $10b) due to tunneling and the potential need for underground stations. At that level of cost the NWTC rail option comes into competition with a different rail proposal to send the corridor via a Gympie Road alignment so that it can stop at Chermside.
Potential Next Steps
Seek feedback on a rapid transit corridor in the NWTC (regardless of mode). Is a surface option acceptable? If no, then the busway option can probably be knocked out as an option.
This then leaves us with a rail versus rail option. It will become a question of whether $10b should be spent placing rail into the NWTC, or whether the competing option of placing rail under the Gympie Road corridor with a stop at Chermside is preferable.
My proposal for a nwtc line. Would be to tunnel branch off either at Albion or a new Bowen Hills station (located north from the existing one). Then to either Alderley or Enoggera station (above ground) to a new station at Everton Park. Then running along the corridor to near Chermside Hills where it would tunnel to a new station and housing located at Bridgeman Downs. Then onto Strathpine and the sunshine coast above ground.
a new Bowen Hills Station would allow for the network to be ideally sectorised.
Sector 1. Sunshine Coast, Caboolture, Ferny Grove, to Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Flagstone. (Via CRR)
Sector 2. Shorncliffe, Kippa Ring, Caboolture, to Indropilly, Ripley, Ipswich, Rosewood.
Sector 3. Airport, Northshore Hamilton, to Manly and Cleveland. (Via Southbank)
My ideal choice would be neither, honestly. Iâd want a tunnel thatâs entirely segregated from the rest of the system, from Chermside to Roma St via Stafford, the retail area of Newmarket and QUT KG/Victoria Park. Iâm aware that would cost several billion dollars and wouldnât happen before 2040, so until then Iâm happy to save money and go with bus lanes as you suggested above.
People talk about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good sometimes, but we usually only get one shot to build major infrastructure, and the costs are huge, so Iâd rather get it perfect even if that means waiting. To me, perfect involves bringing the gift of rail to district centres that donât have it. It doesnât involve the NWTC at all because that has no district centres adjoining it except maybe Everton Park. We donât have to use it just because itâs there.
