The Doomben / Northshore Line

Queensland Greater Brisbane
41

(responding to a member’s post in another thread)

Whether members like it or loathe it, it is an official publicly released proposal subject to further investigation.

See Brisbane better connected: Plans for major Brisbane bus expansion unveiled - Ministerial Media Statements

Similar lines (e.g. Carlingford, Port Melbourne) around Australia have been closed and converted. So it’s not unheard of.

BCC doesn’t need to own it either. BCC just modified a number of busway stations that they don’t own (e.g. Buranda, UQ Lakes).

AIUI, there is no state funding for Brisbane metro project. These modifications have been paid for by BCC.

BCC also contributes to level crossing removal, even though they don’t have any ownership of QR.

42

I for one don’t think there is any merit what so ever in converting the Doomben line to anything. You need to consider the context of other state’s line conversions eg. Port Melbourne and St Kilda, there were already existing tram networks and it was just an expansion of those networks. Bi-articulated buses to BNE will be a fiasco. Luggage alone will sink it. SkyBus in Melbourne around half the bus capacity is given over to luggage.
Recent moves for improved service on the Doomben line are a clue to what the real thinking is for the line. It is a gold asset. Brisbane is slowly waking up to the fact that the so called ’ Brisbane Metro ’ is just larger capacity buses and really doesn’t solve the problems with what is messy BRT.

8 Likes
43

Totally! And there has to be a shift away from duplicating rail services with bus services. Save the bus services for areas that aren’t served by rail.

I really think with 15 minute frequencies and a short extension to Hamilton Northshore that line could achieve so much more.

7 Likes
44

They will just have to go head to head in an assessment. The heavy rail option will have to go up against BRT and potential LRT conversion.

Conversion of the Carlingford line is a new LRT network, as was the original Dulwich Hill line in Sydney.

It would be a different story if the Doomben line was double track and already extended to begin with. But it’s not, and this means competing alternative uses of those upgrade funds need to be considered too.

1 Like
45

They should just put the money and effort into options like Carindale and Chermside instead.

6 Likes
46

Far better to complete what was once started. Clayfield showing the unused platform face. There is plenty of room in the corridor to duplicate the line.

c2
c2800×600 66.6 KB

6 Likes
47

We dont have to do a business case for all of our decisions as an association. I think it’s reasonably clear that, at the present, there is not much support for a conversion of the Doomben line to Metro/LRT within the memberbase.

We should call BCC out on their stupid ideas rather than always saying well, it hasn’t gone to a business case. I remind you, this is all BCCs idea. They don’t give two flying shits about Queensland Rail or the freight that uses the line.

9 Likes
48

^ :+1:

c4
c4800×600 88.9 KB

This is the corridor around Clayfield.

7 Likes
49

We don’t. But we can ask the Queensland Government to do one, and consider all viable options.

Single-horse races have been a key and persistent problem within PT planning (e.g Gympie Road Tunnel, various road projects). Good planning considers all options, not just the popular one.

If a heavy rail upgrade really is the optimal solution, all things considered, then it would survive the stress test of an assessment easily.

1 Like
50

There are currently far bigger priorities for us to advocate about. The dream of BCC to send metro down the line is laughably bad not only for the capital investment (I doubt it’ll be cheaper than duplicating the line… afterall it was 2 billion for metro phase 1…) but also because freight uses the corridor.

Why waste our breath on something that obviously is political interference by a single level of Government which the Qld Gov then picked up during election season for an easy win. LRT has more merit, but that would only be as part of a much larger LRT system through the city to Hamilton Northshore which is also many moons away.

3 Likes
51

Yes, single horse races can be an issue, but also wasting time on a business case where the outcome is obvious based on the fact that freight uses the corridor is just as pervasive.

We are an advocacy group. We want the best possible outcome irregardless of cost. We are pushing the Government to be better with the hope that they will compromise in the middle. If we always take the approach of advocating for BRT because it’s more cost effective in the short term then we are going to be stuck in the past.

We also can’t say the Government should do a business case into this. It doesn’t get media interest and it doesn’t push the government to be better. The reality is, regardless of what we suggest and push for, a business case will occur. We don’t have to advocate for it.

3 Likes
52

There are many priorities, this is true. But it has come in a joint statement between Queensland Government and BCC. In contrast, a proposal to upgrade of the Doomben line with duplication and extension has not.

A quick way to tell is to propose such an upgrade to QR and the Transport Minister and see how they react to it. AIUI TMR has no plans to duplicate the Doomben line. They do have plans for potential conversion and want funding to study it, and this is public knowledge.

In other words, they want to consider a bus conversion (possibly without looking at a rail upgrade) and many members here want to look at a rail upgrade (possibly without looking at a bus conversion).

In general, good strategies consider all major options, and a good way to capture that is to consider applying the MECE framework to the problem solving approach:

image
image1920×1200 101 KB

Image Credit: StrategyU (2025) What is the MECE Principle? Understanding Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive - StrategyU

Perhaps the way forward here is to consider both, which would resolve the situation. That way we would know for sure.

53

Have you considered though the possibility that BCC and the Queensland Government could launch a business case into Doomben line conversion only contemplating the conversion option? This is what has been done with the Gympie Road tunnel for example.

It is a ‘single horse race’. This would be undesirable. If they do such a thing we will have to comment on it.

54

We are not the government though. Strategically, as an advocacy group, if we think that the current path of the QLD and Local government is not great (i.e. doing a business case on conversion only) then we must push for the alternative which is duplication.

Our way to solve single horse races isn’t to say it must be a MECE business case which considers all options… it’s to advocate hard on the alternatives, get media interest, and get public support for the alternatives so that the Government can not politically get away with a one horse race.

This is also coming from the perspective that we should just keep our mouths shut if they have a balanced business case… why? We are an advocacy group. We don’t have to be neutral and look at BCRs to make our decisions. We can be bold and look long term to the future rather than being stuck in the rutt of the now.

1 Like
55

Fyi I’ll move these posts to a different thread shortly since we are getting sidetracked from Doomben.

56

Well, perhaps we can put a proposal for Doomben line duplication and extension in the near future and place this in front of TMR and the minister to have their opinion on it. Where do they stand on all of this?

Are they going to do a single-horse race or will they consider the LRT and Heavy Rail upgrade options as part of the ~ $50 million study that they are seeking? It would be critical for us to know IMO.

Doomben line is pretty contentious, and BCC’s influence is pretty strong, particularly if BCC will agree to partially fund the conversion (like they have funded Brisbane Metro project works on TMR owned busway stations, the Eleanor Schonell Bridge and level crossing upgrades), so it would be good to see where they stand.

57

I’ve maintained through this thread that I’m certainly not opposed to a review, per se (but like many other contributors, see no need for us to have to advocate for it). But a review needs to be fair and potentially look at opportunities lost/unable to be paid for by pursuing this option, such as impact of freight in the area moving off rail, and perhaps most importantly from a BRT/Metro perspective, corridors that likely won’t be pursued instead, like Kingsford Smith Drive, and associated impacts.

I really do struggle with the concept that redeveloping this corridor will generate more benefits than, say, a major upgrade to an alternative and probably higher patronage potential one in the same area, like KSD to Hamilton (even if the costs are lower). But I am open-minded if any such a review is fair and considers the PT situation in the entire area.

My understanding is a rail museum is also moving into the Pinkenba area, and as a heritage advocate, I would have serious objections to cutting them out of the network as well in principle (although this is not related to cost/benefit analysis, I have strong views about the importance of preserving our heritage).

9 Likes
58

Freight represents past land uses

Freight is from the past though. In general, increasing freight use of a line will act to reduce the quality of passenger service on the line because increases in freight tends to interfere with passenger services (e.g. reserving free slots in the timetable so that freight can get through). There are also other issues such as noise etc. Residents probably do not want more freight running past their house as it is a LULU. Particularly if an alternative at Port of Brisbane could be developed and all freight currently using the line moved there entirely.

Lower Service Frequency

All day service frequencies for LRT and BRT are generally around 5-7.5 minutes, double that of a potential 15 minute Doomben train service. These two conversion options would also correct the indirectness of the line, as they could travel along Kingsford Smith Drive into the area. BCC’s Eagle Farm Bus Depot is also in the area, which could house either BRT or LRT vehicles. Connection with the rail network at Eagle Junction would be retained, and probably be enhanced (due to the increased all day frequency).

Heavy Rail specific costs

The other thing is the extension into Northshore/Portside. This would require some sort of elevated structure over KSD and/or elevated station ($$$). In contrast, A BRT or LRT could simply cross Kingsford Smith Drive on the surface with traffic signals, a substantial cost saving. Also, BRT or LRT options also allow multiple stations or stops in the Portside precinct, whereas due to the cost of a rail station (longer platforms, lifts and escalators) possibly only one would be built.

The cost of signalling (e.g. ETCS) has also not been factored.

Information Gap

I guess what is being outlined here is that it is by no means beyond reasonable doubt that the Heavy Rail option gives the best mix either from a cost perspective OR a service quality perspective (e.g. frequency, walk-up accessibility).

We have a major information gap here. A good decision needs to have solid info going into it. Ideally, the Queensland Government should produce a table with each option, outline the pros and cons of each mode (including service frequency, BCR, capacity, demanded capacity etc) so we can have an informed judgement.

The next step for BTQ could be placing a proposal for Doomben line duplication and extension in front of TMR and the minister to have their opinion on it, and ask for its inclusion in any study for the line.

59

As per their vision they are likely to move all freight operations to the Manly side of the Port and keep an expanded cruise operation on the airport side.

So with that in mind an extensive review of the Doomben line is likely, with all options on the table including conversion to LRT/BRT

1 Like
60

The Doomben line is here to stay. Too much time wasted on pie-in-the-sky when the basic bus network and rail network are not performing satisfactorily. Need to focus on what we have got, not what is issue from the pipe of dreams.

6 Likes