4.5 Rail Patronage

Independent Review of Cross River Rail Table of contents

1 Executive Summary ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 The Problem ...... 5 1.3 Options ...... 6 1.4 Interim solutions ...... 6 1.5 Longer term solutions ...... 8 1 .5.1 Cross River Rail as a solution ...... 8 1.5.2 Other long-term solutions ...... 8 1.6 Conclusions ...... 9 1.7 Recommendations ...... 10

2 Introduction ...... 11 2.1 State Government priorities ...... 11 2.2 Scope of this review ...... 11 2.3 Review methodology ...... 11 2.4 Limitations of this review ...... 12 2.5 Acknowledgements ...... 12

3 Planning Context for Cross River Rail ...... 13 3.1 South east Queensland land use and transport plans ...... 13 3.2 Planning for Brisbane's Inner City ...... 15

4 Transport Demand ...... 16 4.1 Travel Modal Considerations ...... 16 4.2 Travel Demand ...... 16 4.3 Public Transport Demand ...... 17 4.4 Fares and Growth ...... 18 4.5 Rail Patronage ...... 19 4.6 Population and employment forecasts ...... 24 4.7 Transport modelling (Cross River Rail) ...... 26 4.8 Summary ...... 27

5 Capacity ...... 28 5.1 Bus System Capacity ...... 28 5.1.1 Vehicle capacity and operations ...... 28 5.1.2 Road and busway capacity ...... 29 5.1.3 Platform capacity ...... 32 5.1.4 Summary ...... 33 5.2 Rail System Capacity ...... 33 5.2.1 South east Queensland rail network ...... 33 5.2.2 Vehicle Capacity and Operations ...... 34 5.2.3 Track capacity ...... 35 5.2.4 Sectorisation of the Citytrain network ...... 39

13 June 2012 Page 2 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5.2.5 Platform Capacity ...... 40 5.2.6 Reliability ...... 40 5.2.7 Summary ...... 41

6 Confirmation of the problem ...... 42

7 Consideration of Interim Rail Capacity Options ...... 43 7.1 Assessment of Interim Options ...... 43 7 .1.1 Rei iabi lity and Safety Context ...... 43 7.2 Queensland Rail reliability performance ...... 46 7.3 Growth forecast assumptions and historical context ...... 46

8 Assessment of initiatives ...... 49 8.1 More shoulder-peak rail services and more express services outside the peak ...... 49 8.1.1 Impact of this initiative ...... 49 8.1.2 Capacity opportunity ...... 50 8.1.3 Assessment of peak spreading trends on the current network ...... 51 8.2 Revising seating arrangements on trains to increase capacity ...... 52 8.2.1 Capacity benefit ...... 55 8.3 Minor signalling upgrades to improve safety, reliability and reduce headways ·····················································································································56 8.4 Short starter turn back ...... 56 8.5 Real time information to advise passengers of crowding and influence them to change to a different service ...... 57 8.6 Removal of XPT paths from the peak period ...... 57 8.7 Improve station and platform management to increase throughput ...... 58 8.8 Extra bus services on the highest demand north-south routes ...... 58 8.9 Off peak pricing incentives ...... 59 8.1 0 Staggered work times ...... 59 8.11 Summary of review: Short to Medium term initiatives ...... 59

9 Consideration of Alternative Options to Cross River Rail ...... 62 9.1 Strategic transport options ...... 62 9.2 Strategic heavy rail options ...... 64 9.2.1 Inner City Rail Capacity Study ...... 64 9.2.2 Cross River Rail detailed feasibility ...... 64 9.2.3 The Cleveland Solution ...... 72

10 Cross River Rail ...... 75 10.1 General overview ...... 75 10.2 Business Case Analysis ...... 75 10.2.1 The Alternative Option ...... 75 10.2.2 The North-South Option (Cross River Rail) ...... 76

11 Conclusions ...... 80

12 Recommendations ...... 81

13June2012 Page 3 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

13 Appendix one - References ...... 82

14 Appendix two- Acronyms ...... 83

13 June 2012 Page 4 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

The State Government commissioned an expert panel to review the Cross River Rail project.

The expert panel consists of: • Mr Michael Scanlan, Independent Consultant • Mr Scott Lennon, Partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Economics and Policy Group • Mr Barry Broe, Queensland Coordinator-General.

The panel was requested to draft a report which covered the following points in the terms of reference: • Analysis and confirmation of the problem facing the public transport system, including rail. • Consideration and testing of the options to overcome the problems are practical and affordable in the current fiscal environment. • Analysis of the Cross River Rail solution within the framework of all options considered. • Assessment and reporting on the business case prepared for the Cross River Rail project. • Final recommendation for consideration by the State Government.

The Panel's approach to reporting against the Terms of Reference, including consideration of alternatives to Cross River Rail, was limited by budget, the four week reporting timeframe and the use of only existing studies and information made available.

Consequently, the panel has only been able to make a strategic assessment of the suitability of alternatives without the benefit of more detailed new engineering, patronage or operational studies. Furthermore, the Panel has not had the time to fully verify key aspects of Cross River Rail such as confirming the accuracy or completeness of the forecasts for patronage, capital costs or operating costs. However, offsetting this was the extra work done on a specific area of focus, the short term action plan.

A summary of the panel's findings and recommendations is outlined below. 1.2 The Problem

South east Queensland's ongoing population and CBD employment growth is driving increasing demand for public transport and in particular for rail transport to the CBD in weekday peak periods. The residential growth areas are further from the CBD leading to longer than average trips that are best suited to rail transport.

The current rail network has evolved incrementally. Like all transport modes, growth requires more services to be operated per hour and new bottlenecks appear if investment does not keep pace with demand. The inner city from Park Road to Bowen Hills is the most capacity constrained area of the network as a number of rail lines converge on the approaches to the CBD. These constraints limit the maximum number of trains that can be reliably operated per hour. As service frequency increases towards the theoretical maximum, the reliability of services can deteriorate rapidly.

13 June 2012 Page 5 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The most imminent bottleneck is associated and the convergence of train services from the south side of the city via the Merivale Bridge which provides train services to the high-growth new residential land release areas around Loganlea, Beenleigh and Coomera. For rail, like all transport modes, river crossing capacity is the fundamental constraint to moving more people to the CBD. Depending on growth in patronage, peak train paths could be fully allocated by as early as 2017. But in the two-hour AM peak, some trains would continue to have available seats and most trains would also have available standing space.

Whilst we have an estimated 5-8 years (assuming growth in the range of 2.8% to 4.9%) before all capacity is fully utilised, options involving new corridors have a long lead-time. This means it is important determine the best long term solution well in advance, so it can be ready to be delivered. 1.3 Options

Over the last five years a range of studies has considered a wide variety of bus and rail options. While some very detailed business case analysis has been undertaken on a few projects such as Cross River Rail, some of the analysis of alternative options naturally have been less developed because those options were considered less desirable or too expensive to progress. Inner city bus and rail capacity options have been reviewed by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and there is scope to increase capacity in the short to medium term by altering the operating philosophy and with some relatively minor capital investments.

In the longer term (indicatively 5-8 years), a more substantial new rail capacity option is needed to add additional tracks and platforms between the southern parts of inner Brisbane and the CBD. The panel considered a number of other options to also have merit, such as a new signalling and train protection system which improves both capacity and train safety. However, the capacity improvements would be less significant compared to Cross River Rail. 1.4 Interim solutions

Given the long lead time for major rail infrastructure such as Cross River Rail, a number of shorter term initiatives have been considered and endorsed by the panel to increase peak capacity. These initiatives should be implemented as a priority taking into account the growth in capacity required: • Seat reconfiguration to increase capacity by approximately 5% • Real time information to encourage passengers to choose less crowded services • Station platform management to control station dwell times in order to maintain a maximum number of trains per hour in association with seating reconfiguration • Demand management using targeted off-peak discounts to encourage passengers shift to the off-peak and shoulder peak services • Turning back around 7% of trains to achieve another trip in the 2 hour peak period without increasing the fleet of trains • Timetabling the XPT away from the morning peak to create two extra train paths for Gold Coast or Beenleigh services • Increasing the shoulder services around the AM peak one-hour and encouraging a reduction from 65% of trips in the peak one hour to approximately 60% of peak trips in the peak one hour noting there is likely to be a negative impact on freight capacity • Adding more peak period services up to the limit of the infrastructure which will add capacity but negatively impact reliability • Undertaking targeted signalling system enhancements to improve the reliability of increased peak services • Constructing targeted stabling facilities for additional trains at locations that reduce junction conflicts and improve capacity • Sufficient new trains to support peak spreading and additional peak services.

13 June 2012 Page 6 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The combined impact of the above initiatives could increase the capacity into the CBD by up to 40%. The initiatives are considered to be both practical and affordable. The first six initiatives are expected to be relatively low cost in both capital and recurrent cost terms. The remaining initiatives are considered by the panel to provide good value but involve moderate levels of capital and recurrent expenditure. These initiatives need to be further defined and tested to implement the optimal combination.

As track capacity is more heavily utilised with growth in train services and passengers, there will be an increased risk that reliability (on-time running) and number of train services per hour will not be achieved.

In summary, these initiatives provide more capacity in the peak and shoulder peak periods but increase the risk of more unreliable rail service delivery. Queensland Rail and the Department of Transport and Main Roads will need to focus on both the implementation of initiatives and management of service reliability over the next few years.

The graph below shows the panel's notional estimate of each package of initiatives.

Proposed Peak Capacity Improvements (2012- 2020)

•Additional peak services ·Signalling upgrades •Stabling •Remove XPT paths 40% Peak spreading & Extra real-time information Short starter turn-backs Seat reconfiguration & station Require new platform management rolling stock

Can be achieved using current rolling stock

...... ~ Current peak New peak capacity capacity

The above diagram indicates that approximately 12% increase in capacity can be achieved at relatively low cost. The remaining 20% involves additional fleet, signalling upgrades and additional stabling. As such, the package needs to be designed in detail and the optimal combination implemented in stages.

The implementation of these measures is not without some risk. The management of over crowding and dwell time are critical.

The following graph shows the capacity gains from the short to medium term initiatives against various rates of rail patronage demand growth. It also highlights the range of years in which the new peak capacity may be reached and when a major step-change in capacity such as Cross River Rail would be needed.

13 June 2012 Page 7 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Inner City Rail Network- Estimated timing for 'step' increase in capacity Est1mated AM Peak Passenger Demand Earliest timing for 'step' Latest timing for step· increase in capacity increase in capacity

100,000

90,000

80.000 f•lew peak capacity (all lines at capacity)

70.000

60 000

50,000

40.000 Track capacity at Merivale Bridge could be reached - - "Trend lines are based on With new trams between 2017 and 2020 historical train patronage growth

2011-12 2012-13 2013-U 2014-15 2015-1€ 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25

The high and low growth rates reflect high and low compound growth rates experienced from 2005/06 and 2010/12 respectively. 1.5 Longer term solutions

1.5.1 Cross River Rail as a solution

Cross River Rail is a large-scale multifaceted solution with significant public transport and freight capacity benefits as well as wider 'city building' benefits. It provides a direct route and the use of tunnels for 60% of the distance reduces surface impacts. It also involves less interference with the existing network during construction.

Cross River Rail would initially result in modest increases in operating cost. If significant additional services were added, operating costs would increase further.

The scope of the Cross River Rail project is beyond the minimum scope required to address the immediate rail capacity problem from the southern side of the river. As such, if it were to proceed, it is considered prudent to stage the project with an initial focus on a north-south core.

In addition to the north-south inner city capacity constraint, there are other bottlenecks (eg junction conflicts) which need to be addressed to obtain the full benefit of a project such as Cross River Rail.

1.5.2 Other long-term solutions

After reviewing the broad range of options (heavy and/or light rail, bus and metro) to address existing and emerging public transport needs in south east Queensland, the panel noted the following: • wide variability in depth of analysis across the options • differences in scope and objectives • focus on new asset solutions irrespective of funding and affordability issues • generally insufficient safety emphasis of solutions.

13June2012 Page 8 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

A rapid economic appraisal (REA) and qualitative assessment of the alternative transport options identified that a heavy rail option would deliver the greatest benefits when compared with the alternatives.

The panel noted the clear need for a second river crossing when existing capacity is exceeded. This should only occur once all short to medium term initiatives have been implemented to make better use out of existing assets.

Overall, Cross River Rail provides a comprehensive solution to both passenger and freight problems. 1.6 Conclusions

1. The rail system is becoming increasingly constrained by inner city track and platform capacity because of the continuing growth in travel to the CBD in peak periods. The first lines to reach capacity are expected to be the southern lines via the Merivale Bridge within the next 5-8 years. There is a significant lead time of around 7 years to build another river crossing and increase inner city capacity.

2. The Department of Transport and Main Roads has considered a range of public transport solutions to either take pressure off or strengthen the rail system. The panel supports the Environmental Impact Statement conclusion that the Cross River Rail project provides a comprehensive solution to the core inner city passenger and freight capacity issues. The Department of Transport and Main Roads should conclude the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement and seek Federal funding.

3. The work done on the Cross River Rail proposal has been comprehensive over a period of time and exhibits no obvious major flaws. The route and station locations have been optimised through the planning and Environmental Impact Statement stages. Value engineering has refined the project to its current configuration.

The cost estimates and business case appear robust. The project would deliver significant benefits and a step-change in public transport capacity to support future growth.

4. Leading up to 2020, which is the earliest date Cross River Rail could be completed, there is a clear need to maximise capacity from the existing infrastructure.

This approach is consistent with the overall approach that the State Government is taking to manage the state's finances, namely making best use of existing resources, robust prioritisation and sensible investment within affordable means.

The immediate focus should be on implementing a package of lower cost management and operational initiatives to get more capacity out of the existing system. A package of lower cost operational measures has been identified by the panel in partnership with the Translink Transit Authority (Translink), Queensland Rail, and the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

The cost of this package is estimated to be in the order of $200-$300 million (excluding new trains and stabling), subject to more detailed operational and engineering feasibility assessment. Getting better use from existing infrastructure and improving the reliability of the rail system should be the focus of the next 5-8 years.

It is estimated that these measures increase peak capacity by up to 40%. This means for example, that the number of trains crossing the Merivale Bridge could rise from 18 per hour to a maximum of 23 per hour in the peak one hour and each train could carry more people.

13 June 2012 Page 9 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5. The state is currently undergoing a Commission of Audit of state finances. The panel understands that there are significant affordability issues associated with the cost of the Cross River Rail proposal. 1 Recommendations

After consideration of all the information made available, the panel recommends the following:

1. Implement as a priority the short to medium term initiatives proposed to increase rail capacity and optimise the use of existing infrastructure and services. The Director General of the Department of Transport and Main Roads should Chair an Implementation Steering Group which will oversee the development of more accurate capital castings, confirm the extent of capacity enhancement by initiative and develop a detailed implementation plan including funding arrangements.

2. Conclude the supplementary Environmental Impact Statement and then seek Federal funding for the capital costs of the Cross River Rail project. In the event that a high level of Federal funding is available, consider staging the project with an initial focus on a north-south core.

3. If the Cross River Rail proposal is unable to be funded, continue to consider other more affordable options that could further increase the capacity beyond the initial short to medium term initiatives.

13June2012 Page 10 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

2 Introduction

2.1 State Government priorities

The State Government is committed through its five point plan to grow a four pillar economy based on tourism, agriculture, resources and construction; lower the cost of living by cutting waste; revitalise front line services; deliver better infrastructure and planning; and restore accountability to government.

In the current fiscal environment, the State Government recognises the importance of improvements to planning, prioritisation and delivery of cost-effective infrastructure and services to drive growth and support a four pillar economy.

The provision of quality public transport is an important part of responding to, and more importantly, driving economic growth, particularly in south east Queensland. South east Queensland is continuing to see strong population growth and this is putting ongoing pressure on public transport and road systems.

The Cross River Rail project represents a substantial capital investment and the new government has sought independent expert advice to ensure the project is the right solution for future public transport capacity and reliability problems and is a priority investment at this point in time. 2.2 Scope of this review

To assess whether the investment is the best solution for the task and offers value for money, the State Government commissioned an expert panel to review the Cross River Rail project prior to making recommendations for funding to the Federal Government as part of the Infrastructure Australia process.

The expert panel consists of: • Mr Michael Scanlan, Independent Consultant • Mr Scott Lennon, Partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Economics and Policy Group • Mr Barry Brae, Queensland Coordinator-General.

The panel has been requested to draft a report which covers the following areas: • analysis and confirmation of the problem facing the public transport system, including rail • consideration and testing of the options proposed to overcome the problems to ensure they are practical and affordable in the current fiscal environment • analysis of the Cross River Rail solution within the framework of all options considered • assessment of the business case prepared for the Cross River Rail project • final recommendation for consideration by the State Government. 2.3 Review methodology

The review panel was provided with access to Cross River Rail and relevant passenger transport information by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Rail and Translink. Presentations were arranged to provide an overview of the planning context and frameworks for planning public transport in south east Queensland.

13 June 2012 Page 11 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

A further round of more detailed meetings and workshops enabled the panel to consider these complex issues and focus heavily on confirming the problem and testing solutions. Any further modelling outlined in this report was undertaken by departmental officers either previous to this review or at the request of the panel.

The panel noted that the optimum timing and quantum for expanding the public transport system peak capacity depended on future demand growth rates. Future demand and patronage could not be assumed to be a replication of the past. The panel considered a number of factors that would drive growth in demand for services with a focus on peak periods to and from the CBD.

The panel reviewed and considered previous peak demand forecasts, scenarios and planning to understand the context for the Cross River Rail proposal.

In parallel, the panel considered the current peak capacity of the public transport network will focus on key pinch points and its ability to expand with a variety of different investment. This was considered necessary to "buy time" to relieve crowding for the period up to the earliest feasible potential completion of Cross River Rail in 2020.

The review looked distinctly at short term verses long term options i.e. to 2020 and beyond 2020.

The panel firmly focused on CBD peak and shoulder peak capacity as this is considered to drive the level of current and future investment.

A long term strategic view of the public transport system based on the advantages of each modal choice was considered, to enable high level comparative analysis of Cross River Rail and other options as effective building blocks for improving public transport in the region.

The Cross River Rail business case was reviewed, and conclusions and recommendations made. 2.4 Limitations of this review

The Panel would like to acknowledge the extensive efforts of a team of staff from the Department of Transport and Main Road's, assembled to support this review, including Ryan Huelin, Peter Rose, Suzanne Rose, Davina Suttie, Frances Adams, Pepijn Thijsse, Gavin Nicholls and Greg Fahey (Department of Infrastructure and Planning).

13June2012 Page 12 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

3 Planning Context for Cross River Rail

Cross River Rail was identified as part of a broader integrated transport and land use strategy for south east Queensland to address the challenges of growth and promote economic activity.

This section aims to highlight the assumptions of the planning framework within which Cross River Rail had been identified as a key element of the transport solution for south east Queensland. It should be noted that the planning framework described reflects the policy position of the previous government, which emphasises the role of Cross River Rail. At the time of writing, the new government's policy position was not yet known. However, the data and analysis in these planning documents remain useful to understand the transport challenges and demographic trend in south east Queensland.

South east Queensland has a number of unique characteristics which create transport challenges and problems including low density development continuing to progress in outer Brisbane areas, growth on the Sunshine and Gold Coasts, and a strong employment base in the CBD and frame.

The integrated transport and land use planning framework in south east Queensland was intended to manage future growth and respond to the transport challenges that are associated with this growth.

Infrastructure Australia requires all projects to outline in detail how a project fits into state wide and regional planning frameworks. A significant effort was made in the Cross River Rail Business Case to meet this requirement. 3.1 South east Queensland land use and transport plans

A statutory land use strategy for south east Queensland (the Regional Plan) was released in 2004 and subsequently reviewed and updated in 2009. The Regional Plan was the preeminent plan for south east Queensland that took precedence over all other planning instruments. The purpose of the Regional Plan was to manage regional growth and change in the most sustainable way to protect and enhance the liveability of life in the region.

The key elements of the Regional Plan which most heavily influence transport demand include: • designation of the urban footprint boundary and identified growth areas • indicative planning populations and dwelling demand (infill and broad hectare development) by local government area • the location and designation of key activity centres • the location and designation of key employment centres.

The Regional Plan was based on an indicative planning population estimate of 4.4 million people living in south east Queensland by 2031 and an additional754,000 dwellings between 2006 and 2031. To 2009, south east Queensland was home to about 2.8 million people and recognised as one of the fastest growing regions in Australia adding another 80,000 people per year.

In 2007, the Queensland Government released the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy. The goal of the strategy was to bring State land to market more quickly, and to help the market to respond more effectively to providing housing. The outcomes of this study were taken into account for the development of the Regional Plan further exacerbated the transport task by promoting urban development on many fronts.

13 June 2012 Page 13 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

In October 2011, an updated transport strategy for south east Queensland was released, Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan tor South East Queensland (Connecting SEQ 2031 ). Connecting SEQ 2031 establishes a long-term plan to develop a sustainable transport system and reinforces the south east Queensland Regional Plan's planning framework by seeking to optimise the location of activities in relation to the transport network.

Connecting SEQ 2031 developed a vision for the transport system that built on the Regional Plan's vision, namely that "south-east Queensland's transport system supports the lifestyle enjoyed by residents and visitors, enhances the state's economic vitality, is resilient and protects the natural environment". To deliver the transport vision, nine key policy goals were used to ensure the transport strategy accounted for a broad range of outcomes, including: 1. Protecting amenity and liveability 2. Ensuring equity and accessibility 3. Supporting economic prosperity and employment growth 4. Delivering transport efficiently 5. Managing congestion 6. Creating a low carbon and environmentally responsible transport system 7. Encouraging individual physical activity as a part of daily travel 8. Developing a resilient system 9. Delivering safety and security.

Through its analysis and testing of various future scenarios, Connecting SEQ 2031 found that south east Queensland will continue to have a complex set of travel behaviours and concluded that all modes of transport will be required to accommodate elements of the future transport task to which they are suited. It therefore included a multimodal plan and policy response for public transport, active transport, private vehicles and freight. This plan was to guide the prioritisation of available funds to deliver maximum benefits across the transport system.

Connecting SEQ 2031 used the vision and transport policy goals to frame core features of the transport strategy, which included: • coordinating land use and transport decisions • expanding and modernising the rail network • continuing to transform bus networks • completing and better managing a network of motorways and highways • completing and managing a network of strategic active transport corridors • targeting freight investment to support the economy • encouraging voluntary travel behaviour change.

A core principle underpinning the plan for moving people focused on a shift in investment toward public transport with a strong focus on the rail network for a number of reasons, including: • support a compact and connected urban form • supports long distance commute trips and the continued growth of the Brisbane CBD as the preeminent employment node for south east Queensland • provides fast and reliable connectivity across the region • promotes a sustainable and resilient transport system • provides a step change in capacity in the transport system and supports future growth across the region.

The transport trends and challenges showed that the problem to which Cross River Rail has been identified as the preferred solution was a regional problem, not just an inner city capacity problem. The plan placed Cross River Rail at the core of its strategy to facilitate enhancement and substantial expansion of the rail network to support growth as outlined in the Regional Plan.

13 June 2012 Page 14 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

3.2 Planning for Brisbane's Inner City

Planning for Brisbane's inner city has been evolving and there are several documents that help set the future direction of the inner city.

The Brisbane City Council is currently developing their new City Plan to replace the current Brisbane City Plan 2000. As part of the development of the new City Plan, Council has undertaken a neighbourhood planning process which, when adopted, has statutory effect. For key inner city and fringe areas, these neighbourhood plans have resulted in an increase for CBO contestable commercial, retail and entertainment developments, with the potential to off-set the concentrated transport demand from the core CBO precinct. It is understood that Brisbane City Council is also seeking to commence a review of the Brisbane City Centre Master Plan, which will further inform land use and transport decision for the inner city.

There is strong sentiment from major economic assessments of Brisbane that suggest Brisbane is well positioned to grow significantly in the next 1 0 years.

The World Winning Cities report prepared by Jones Lang Lasalle in 2012 identified Brisbane as the fastest growing mature city in the world based on Gross Domestic Product (GOP) change between 2012 and 2020 ahead of major Asian centres Singapore and Hong Kong.

Over this period, the report suggests that Brisbane has the potential to grow GOP as much as 5% per annum underpinned largely by the mining sector. This growth is higher on average than what was realised during the preceding ten year period from 2001 to 2011 taking in to account the effects of the Global Financial Crisis.

The Brisbane City Council recently released the Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031, which clearly aimed to position Brisbane to capitalise on the 'unique window of opportunity' being presented by the resource sector. The major targets of the plan are to support an additional 343,000 workers across Brisbane by 2021 and an additional 130,000 jobs in the CBO by 2031.

The plan acknowledges the importance of transport and efficient infrastructure in facilitating a productive Brisbane and achieving the growth targets and retaining liveability. Specifically, it identifies the need for large and continuing infrastructure investment and continual improvement to public transport connectivity between economic precincts. It set a Key Performance Indicator for the achievement of a productive economy of "more than 90% of Brisbane local government area residents can get to work within 45 minutes".

13 June 2012 Page 15 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

4 Transport Demand

4.1 Travel Modal Considerations

Travel demand analysis and forecasting is a complex and multi-faceted area. As such, the following assessment of travel demand provides just a snapshot of travel behaviour characteristics and growth trends relevant to this review. In parts, the assessment focuses more strongly on rail.

The transport network is an important mechanism to facilitate economic growth allowing businesses to access markets and people to access jobs and activities. As overall demand for travel to inner Brisbane grows, competition for limited supply of road space inevitably leads to congestion and rising travel costs. Urban congestion was reported to cost Brisbane in the order of $1.8 billion in 2011 and was expected to rise to $3 billion in 2020 (Brisbane Economic Series- Issue 2: Infrastructure).

The share of public transport trips to the CBD tends to increase with increasing city size as private car solutions become incrementally more expensive and slower in travel time for many peak journeys. European studies have suggested that the cost to society is lowest per passenger kilometre for passenger rail, followed by bus. This logical given the significant scale economies available from an efficient rail system. Consistent with this premise, Connecting SEQ 2031 proposed heavy rail as the primary mode to do the bulk of the future transport task to the CBD, especially for long-distance trips. Bus would continue to play a strong role for shorter and middle distance trips that are not well serviced by rail and dispersed trips to other destinations.

Strong historical and forecast population growth was expected to continue to put significant demands on the transport networks in south east Queensland to move freight and move people efficiently.

All of the planning and modelling that has been done to date strongly supports the need for a 'step change' in public transport capacity to the inner Brisbane CBD area sometime in the next 5-8 years (assuming growth rates 4.9% to 2.8%). For the rail network, previous studies had indicated that growth in demand on the Gold Coast, Beenleigh and Cleveland rail lines would result in this rail sector being the first to be constrained by capacity limits at the Merivale Bridge. This would be shortly after followed by constraints on the north coast main line.

The Cross River Rail project had been planned and identified as the preferred project by the previous government to provide that step change, and support the desired regional land use and economic outcomes. 4.2 Travel Demand

Prior to the development of the 2009 south east Queensland Regional Plan and Connecting SEQ 2031, south east Queensland experienced significant population growth, public transport growth and a change in land use. Since 2009 there has been a general easing in these travel demand indicators across the region, however this is not reflective across all local government areas.

13 June 2012 Page 16 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The following are some key observations related to recent travel demand characteristics and trends: • In 2006 south east Queensland had a population of 2.7 million residents. By 2009, this had increased to over 2.9 million with annual growth across the region steady at around 2.7- 2.8%. • In 2006, there were approximately 1.3 million jobs in the region with 692,000 of these being in the Brisbane City area, of which 128,500 in the CBD core. • The south east Queensland urban area expanded by 64% between 1991 and 2006, compared to population growth of 46%, indicating a spread in the region's residential footprint. This shift has also seen approximately 36% of residents in greater Brisbane living further than 25 kilometres from the CBD where 29% of the jobs in greater Brisbane are located. This has resulted in increased trip distances and a complex network of travel patterns. • Of the estimated 9.2 million trips per day (or 3.4 trips per person per day) made in south east Queensland in 2006; 10% were undertaken by walking or cycling, 7% by public transport (rail, bus, ferry) and 83% were undertaken in private vehicle. 4.3 Public Transport Demand

Since 2004 public transport patronage has grown around 6.3% per annum increasing from nearly 123.8 million boardings to nearly 180 million boardings (201 0-11 ). Factors supporting that growth have included integrated ticketing, removal of penalties to change services, new busways, strong population growth, initial one-off bus fare reductions of up to 30% and increased services. Increases in petrol prices and increasing levels of congestion on the road network may also have contributed.

Growth in both bus and rail during this period has been consistent with bus continuing to cater for more trips but a lower total passenger kilometres than rail. In 2010-11, 119.2 million boardings were recorded on the bus network compared to 55 million boardings on the rail network. Rail however is understood to dominate weekday peak travel to the CBD with an estimated 40 000 passengers exiting the CBD in the AM peak compared to 28,000 by bus. When also considering journey distances, the CBD peak rail task is of the order of four to five times that of bus network measured in passenger kilometre terms.

The ferry network continues to perform an important, but minor inner urban distributor function. In 201 0-11, 4.3 million passenger trips occurred on ferries in south east Queensland.

While public transport demand grew consistently between 2003-04 and 2008-09 at between 7.9 and 15.5 million trips per annum, three successive years of very high fare increases of 15% per annum and other contributing factors appear to have slowed growth since 2008-09. This trend in annual public transport patronage is highlighted in figure 4.1.

13 June 2012 Page 17 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Annual Public Transport Patronage in South East Queensland 200

180

160

140

~ 120 e~ ';;' 100 g> "0 :. 80

£0

0 2003104 2004/05 2005106 2006107 20071'08 2008109 2009/10 2010/11

Figure 4.1 -Annual Public Transport Patronage in south east Queensland

Patronage growth has been relatively flat over the last few years for a number of reasons including: • Fare increases and less favourable economic conditions • Slower population and employment growth • Fewer service improvements particularly compared with the high growth period between 2004 and 2008 • General competiveness of alternative modes • Patronage growth has also been less in the off-peak than in the peak • Shortage of park and ride spaces. 4.4 Fares and Growth

Typical peak fare elasticity is -0.25 and typical off-peak fare elasticity is -0.5. This differential reflects that public transport has greater market power during peak periods due to greater concentration of demand, higher service levels and frequencies, more competitive travel times due to congestion and more restrained parking.

Recent fare increases of 15% nominal (about 12.5% real) would have reduced patronage by about 3% during peak periods and 6% during off-peak periods. This was offset by population growth and service improvements (mainly Brisbane Transport and Queensland Rail). This appears to explain why most regions have experienced flat or negative patronage growth, particularly during the off-peak. Brisbane Transport is relatively stable and Queensland Rail has had patronage growth during peak periods.

The new State Government's initiative to reduce fare increases from 15% to 7.5% could be expected to halve the negative impact on patronage growth to about 1.25% during peak periods and 2.5% during off-peak periods. When taking into account the population growth the net effect is expected to be positive without service improvements being considered.

13 June 2012 Page 18 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Between 2006 and 2011, population grew at levels up to 2.8% per annum. Population growth in 2010 and 2011 had softened to 1.9% and 1.7% per annum respectively. While population and employment growth has slowed recently, the long-term forecast is for continued strong population growth across the region, particularly in the regions served by rail such as the Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast as new land releases facilitate housing construction. Sustained growth in these local government areas will continue to see trip demand grow to the Brisbane CBD. The slowing in growth was mainly in Brisbane, Logan and Redland. 4.5 Rail Patronage

Since 2006, AM peak train patronage across the region has grown faster than population growth (3.4% vs. 2.4% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)), even allowing for the suppression in patronage growth caused by fare increases and economic factors (relatively lower fuel and parking prices). This is shown in figure 4.2.

South East Queensland

100.000 ~~~-----,-----~-~---r-~~--~~---,----~--~-- ~~~~5.000.000

90 ooo '·:--~-----+------+-----~~--+------~-~l mooo

:: ::: ------+------+----~------+---;r-•.,_.=____ --_-_-r-- -- J :::

I::::: c--~--~--_~__----~------;;/---~flf---~~----~-~~~~-----+ ----~-----+---~---~ ---_~_--_--_- ----+· -----j ::::: I

I 30,000 --- l 1.500 000 I 20 000 f----~------+------+----~-~~--+-----~--f------1 1 000 000 I 10.000 1------+------+------~---t------+---- =I ,. ....

~-----~------~~--~------~----~-~~--- 0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

-AM Peak Patronage -Estimated Resident Papulation Forecast Population Linear (AM Peak Patronage)

Figure 4.2- Train patronage and population growth (south east Queensland}

13 June 2012 Page 19 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The following series of graphs compares patronage growth to population growth for the various rail lines and their catchments, since 2006.

Over the same period AM peak train patronage on the Gold Coast line has grown significantly faster than population growth for its catchment (9.3% vs. 2.8% CAGR). This is shown in figure 4.3.

Gold Coast Line 20,!):]0

18,000

16,000 14,000 -- ~ 11,000 ce ~ ll. 10,000 "".. 0.." ~ S,OOO

6,000

4,000

2,000

2011 2016 2021 2026 20~1

Peak Patronage -Estimated Res1dent Populatton '""""Forec:as.t Population · · Linear (AI~ Peak Patronage!

Figure 4.3- Train patronage and population growth (Gold Coast line catchment)

Patronage on the Gold Coast line has also grown faster than service growth as shown in figure 4.4. This shows passenger load survey (PLS) data for various arrival times at Central Station. This suggests that underlying demand may have been suppressed.

Gold Coast Line AM Peak {PLS Data) .,... 1600 £ 1400 ~ 0 1200 "".!!' ., 1000 'E., w 300

'"""I:Q -:; 600 01)5!: B.,"' 400 ..., 1i 200 Q "'Q. 0 '0 06:30:00 07:00:00 07:30:00 OS:OMlO Cf!UO:OO (}9:{}():00 ...;:: :; Arrival Tim!! at Central (H<~If hour $larting) ....0

Figure 4.4- AM peak patronage growth (Gold Coast line)

13 June 2012 Page 20 ol83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

As shown in figure 4.5 and 4.6 respectively, the Caboolture and Ipswich-Richlands Rosewood lines have had strong patronage growth (7.3% and 4.4%, respectively) and have strong forecast population growth. These rail lines were the focus for the major timetable change on 6 June 2011 to increase capacity and reliability which appears to have played a role in generating above average patronage growth. The Richlands to Springfield extension is in an area of strong population growth. Caboolture Line 20.000 1.000.000

18 000 900.000

16 000 ------800,000

14.000 700,000

~ 12 000 ------l----c~~--'"--=j""_-_-____---_ 600.000 -- = ~ 0 - ~ ,f. 10,000 -- 500.000 ;; ~ a. ~ 0 Q. ll." :E <( 8.000 400 .. 000

6.000 300.000

4.000

2,000

2006 2.011 2016 2021 2026

~AM Peak Patronage -Estimated Resident Population Forecast Population Linear (Alii! Peak Patronage)

Figure 4.5- Train patronage and population growth (Caboolture line catchment)

Ipswich, Richlands and Rosewood lines 20,000 I,OW,OOO

900/100

lff_OOO 800,001)

14.000 wo,ono

~ 11,000 600,fJOl) c ~ 0 -5 i i 10,000 50D,tJOO :; 0. .. ..0 ~ 3,000 400,000

6.000 2-00,000

4,000 200,000

1,000 100,001)

1006 20ll 2016 2021 2026 20~1

Peak PatrMa9e - Estlm::ated RE-Sident Populatron - Forec21stPopulatron ·, line:~r (flJv1 Pe.ek Patrona•;J€)

Figure 4.6- Train patronage and population growth (Ipswich, Richlands and Rosewood lines catchment)

13 June 2012 Page 21 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

As shown below in figure 4.7 and 4.8 respectively, the Cleveland and Ferny Grove lines have had minimal patronage growth (1.0% and 0.4%, respectively) and have minimal forecast population growth.

Cleveland Line 1 ,OC(i.OOO

18.000 900,(100

16,000 800,Q(10

14,000 700,000

~ 11,000 ()00,000 :::<: c ... i" a.. 10,0[10 500,0JJO : 3g. Q. 0.. :fi 3,000 400,000

6,000 300,000

4,000 200,000

2,000 100,000

2011 1016 lOll lOZllo 20~1

Peak Patronage --EstlmatedRes~d!ent Popudation - ..,.. Fore-east Population linear (M1 Peak Patronage)

Figure 4.7- Train patronage and population growth (Cleveland line catchment)

Ferny Grove Line 20,000 1,000.fJI)(I

IS,OOO 900,000

16,000 SOO,OOO

14,00(1 700,01)0

g, 12,000 600,0(10 :::<: c ... i" a.. 10,000 500,000 3 ~ c. .. 0 0.. 0.. :fi 3,000 400,000

3(10,000

4,000 200,000

' 2,000 ----- 100,000

1006 lllll 101& 2011 1016 20,1

- ·, l1ne.~r {PJv! PE~ak F'atronage)

Figure 4.8- Train patronage and population growth (Ferny Grove line catchment)

13 June 2012 Page 22 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

As shown in figure 4.9, the Beenleigh line has continued to see patronage stagnation (- 1.6%), with a range of factors likely to be causing this decline. The Beenleigh line traverses catchments that have had significant bus service improvements over recent years to take advantage of the South East Busway. At least five BUZ (high-frequency) bus routes cover the area. Buses therefore offer competitive or faster travel times for much of the catchment. A number of rail stations on the Beenleigh line are also serviced by the faster (due to fewer stops) Gold Coast train services. Various road upgrades may also have impacted on rail patronage.

Beenleigh Line '1,000,001)

1B.fJOO gO(I,I]{]f)

113,0(1(1 i ?,iJQ,()(](;

14,000 700,8C{!

~ 12,000 S:OO,tJGO ::; !5 ~ ~ ;: 10,000 r:'·OO,CIGO '5g. ll. a. ~ :E~.iJOO 400.(1(]1)

6.000 .3DO,OCO

4,000 200,0DQ

2,000 IOO,OCO

(I 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 20H

PBak PatronagE- -Est1mate-dResrd'enl Populat1on Forec::lst Po~·ulatlon , ···, · • L1near [All~ Peak. Patronage) Figure 4.9- Train patronage and population growth (Been leigh line catchment}

As shown in figure 4.1 0, the Sunshine Coast line has in recent years reversed a period of declining patronage (annual growth over the last six years is 3.2%). There is relatively strong population growth forecast in this region however train services are relatively slow and infrequent.

Sunshine Coast Line 20,000 1.(<00.00(1

18,000 90tJ.JOD

16.000 :::toO.DfJO

14,000 i 700,000

~ 12,000 600,000

G,OOO 300.]00

4,1)00 200 ·JOt)

),000 ' 100,000

0 2006 2011 l016 lOll 2:026 20H

P•3c~l·: Pat;onage -Estrm.'lted Restojent Population Llr'1>2.3r\AJvl Peak Patronage) Figure 4.10- Train patronage and population growth (Sunshine Coast line catchment}

13 June 2012 Page 23 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Future travel demand is generally forecast using transport models which consider population, employment and travel behaviour (based on current behaviours). Future projections of these elements are considered in the following sections.

Regardless of any major infrastructure investment, the global indicators for demand suggest that strong growth will continue to put pressure on the transport system, especially in the peak periods in the inner city.

The combined effect of strong growth from the Gold Coast, moderate growth from the Cleveland line and declining growth from the Beenleigh line is moderate growth of 2.3% per year (2005-2011 and 2009-2011 ). 4.6 Population and employment forecasts

At 30 June 2011, preliminary data published by the Office of Economic and Statistical Research (OESR) indicated that south east Queensland had a resident population of just over 3 million residents.

Despite the recent slight moderation in population growth in 2009 and 2010 at 1.7% and 1.9% respectively, growth still remains above the national average, and should not be considered indicative of a sustained slowing in growth into the future.

New population projections released in 2011 by OESR indicate an expected 4% or 150,000 people increase by 2031 over comparable 2008 forecasts which were used to inform the development of the Regional Plan and Connecting SEQ 2031. The largest increases have occurred in Caboolture West, Caloundra South, Yarrabilba, Flagstone, Coomera, Griffin- Mango Hill, Beaudesert, Redland, West End and Woolloongabba.

The new population growth forecast in local government areas are illustrated in table 4.11.

Annual Annual Annual Annual growth grol'lth growth growth 2006 2011 2006-11 2016 2021 2016-21 2026 2021-26 2031 2026-31

Brisbane 991,260 1 085,614 1.84% 1.153,770 1,210,093 0.96% 1.249,285; 0.64% 1,272,272 0.37%' Gold Coast 466,433 544,165 3J3o/o 613,280 2.42% 677,929 2.02% 739,276 1.75% 798,417 1.55% Ipswich 142,400 175,469 4.26% 221,713 4.79% 286,430' 5.26% 369,185 461,990 4.59%'

Loc~yer Valley 31,932 37,710 3.38% 42,961 2.64% 49,000 55,911 63,551 2.59% Logan 260,140 289,010: 2.13o/o 326,748 2.48% 365,443 2.26% 406,631 2.16% 452,184 2.15%' Moreton Bay 332.862 390.204 3.23%. 430,729 2.00% 467.860 1.67%' 501,488 1.40% 533.170 1.23%; Redland 131,210 145,874; . 2.14% 158,293 1.65% 169,607 1.39% 179,784 1.17% 188,471 0.95%: Scenic Rim 34,709 39,149' 2.44% 44,957 2.81% 55,002 4.12'111 66,832 3.97% 80,364 3.76%' Somerset 19,676 22,502,_' 2.72o/o: 24.997 2.13% 28,131 2.39% 31,613 2.36% 35,245: 2.20% Sw1shine Coast 295,084• 338,429• 2.78% 376,733 2.17% 420,439 2.22% 464,552 2.02% 508,177· 1.81% SEQ Total 2,705,705 3,068,126 2.55% 3,394,181 2.04% 3,729,934. 1.90% 4,064,557 1.73% 4,393,841 1.57%'

Table 4.11 - 2011 OESR population growth forecasts by local government area (Note- 2006 is estimated residential population)

The National Institute for Economic and Industrial Research (NIEIR) publishes employment forecasts and its most recent for south east Queensland was published in 2009. This data (also currently used by Brisbane City Council) was used as a broad basis for departmental demographers who adjusted the data based on regional and local planning (availability and supply of land), local government economic strategies and other considerations to develop a detailed employment scenario for south east Queensland.

13 June 2012 Page 24 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The employment forecast datasets for use in transport models is currently being revised in line with the newly released OESR population projections. Overall, it suggests the total employment forecast for south east Queensland will increase by 2%, with increases in Bromelton, Ebenezer, Ipswich, Newstead, Lutwyche, South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, Beaudesert, Park Ridge, Caloundra South and for three major shopping centre expansions in Chermside, lndooroopilly and Carindale.

The forecast jobs growth is currently as follows, as shown in table 4.12. Annual Annual Annual Annual grow1h growth growth grovv1h 2011 2016 2011-113 2021 2016-21 2026 2021-26 2031 2026-:31

Brisbane 787,138 885,884 953,708 1,008,428 1.12%: 1,049.259 '0.80% Gold Coast 229,883 260,827 289,579 308,439 1.27% 325,274 1.07% Ipswich 69,073 82,623 98,681' 3.62%. 116,732 3.42'Yo 145.982 4.57% Lockyer Valley 11,633 14,954 15,910 1.25% 16,707 0.98% 18,081 1.59% Logan 79,121 91,626 99,6921 1.700A.' 109,439 1.88% 116 012 U7%

Moreton Bay 109,265 125,990 136.797' 1.66%: 141,534 0.68% 146,630 0.71'~), Redland 42,325 46,352 48.474: 0.90%' 49,831 0.55% 50,529 0.28% .... " Scenic Rim 13,562 14,932 15.880: 1.24% 16,813 1.15% 17.784 U3% Somerset 6,604 7,369 7.65ol 0:75% 8,131 1.23%1 8}69. 1.52% sunshine coast 128,414 154,011 174.035 2.47% 193.433 2.14%' 211.229 SEQ Total 1,477,018 1,714,676 1,872,056 . 1.77%' 2,002,408 1..36% 2,089,548 0.86% Table 4.12- Employment forecast by local government area (2009 NIEIR data)

There were no indications through this data or economic development plans for south east Queensland that there would be a meaningful shift of Brisbane CBD with employers who have location mobility jobs to elsewhere around Brisbane or the south east Queensland region.

The CBD and inner fringe areas are expected to continue to grow as major employment locations as businesses and government take advantage of the effects of agglomeration. In 2031, 42% of all jobs in Brisbane will be located in the CBD and fringe with 70% of these in the CBD and inner (South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley, Spring Hill) and the remaining 30% in the fringe. The CBD and fringe will maintain approximately 20% of all jobs in south east Queensland through to 2031.

Table 4.13 highlights the impacts of this forecast global growth on rail catchments as previously described in this chapter. It shows continued strong growth especially over the next ten years to 2021 for the rail catchments of the Gold Coast, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast. These catchments are also the strongest performers in growth for the ten year period from 2021 to 2031.

Taking in to account that the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast patronage has outstripped growth in recent years, strong forecast growth will continue to put pressure on the rail network at key areas where the network is constrained.

catchmem PopulaliOn AM Peak Train Patronage catchment Population catchment Population Annual Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate Line (20013 to 2011) {2006 to 2012} (2011 to 2021) (2021 to 203'} Beenleigh 19% -1.6% 21% 16% Caboolture 2.9S/<> 7.3% 1.6% 12% Cleveland 20% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7%

Doomben 1 ,_lJCOi /0 -2.2% 05% 05% Ferny Grove 12% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% Gold Coast 2.8% 9.3% 2.4% 17% Ipswich, Rosewood and Richlands 2_5~·'0 4.4% 28% 30% Shorncliffe 14%, 2.2% 02% 04% Sunshine Coast 2.6% 3.2% 2.3% 1.9% Table 4.13- Ra1llme catchment actual forecast population growth and actual tram patronage growth

13 June 2012 Page 25 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

4.7 Transport modelling (Cross River Rail)

• As noted earlier in the report, OESR recently released new population forecasts for south east Queensland. These forecasts include population changes in specific areas of the region, which then translate to changes in job forecasts, compared with the demographic inputs used for Cross River Rail. • Overall the south east Queensland 2031 population has increased by 4% in the latest release forecasts. The new 2021 forecasts are about 1.5% higher than the previous forecasts for south east Queensland. • 2031 growth forecasts are also higher in key rail markets including the outer local government area's of Ipswich (6%), Moreton Bay (2%), Gold Coast (1.5%) and parts of Logan (6%). 2021 growth is also generally higher in these local government area's compared to the previous forecasts. The Gold Coast in 2021 is very similar to the previous forecasts (<1% lower) though it is important to note that Coomera is one of the strongest growth areas in the region. • As a result of the latest demographic release it is expected that patronage figures produced by the Cross River Rail model would generally increase commensurate with the changes in population described above. • Figure 4.14 shows the differences between the 2008 (used by CPM) and revised 2011 forecasts of population. The graph shows that in most areas, the new population projections are higher than that used in the Cross River Rail modelling.

12% 1112011 2021 10% 2031 8%

Brisbane Gold C

Figure 4.14- difference in population projections between 2008 release (used in Cross River Rail} and 2011 release (most recent}

Figure 4.15 shows the differences between the 2008 (used by CPM) and revised 2011 population forecasts (low, medium and high series) for the whole of SEQ. Again, it shows the new population projections are higher than that used in the Cross River Rail modelling.

13 June 2012 Page 26 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5.000.000

- ,._ -2011 Edrtion (low forecast)

-2011 Edttion (medium forecast) 4,500 000 - "' 2011 5:1ffion (high Ioree ast) Differe nee of --11--2008 Edttion (medium forecast) as used in CRR [',lodelling } 150.000 people

4,000 000 ~-- . -- _.;_----- 1111 ------Annual Growth Rate 2011 to 2021 ----- •2011 Ed. Low- 1.47% •20 I I Ed. lv1ecl- 1.97% o2011 Ed. High -2.46% 3,500 000 •2008 Ed. lv1ed- 227%

Annual Growth Rate 2021 to 2031 •20! 1 Ed. Low-! 18% 3.000.000 ------•2011 Ed.Med-1.65% •2011 Ed. H;gh-2.11% •2008 Ed. Med- 1.44%

2.500,000 +------,------r------,------,------r------, 2006 ERP 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Figure 4.15- Difference in 2008 and 2011 edition population projections for south east Queensland 4.8 Summary

Until 2009, south east Queensland experienced a period of significant population growth (2.7%- 2.8% annually), public transport growth and changes in land use. While population growth has slowed more recently to around 1.8%, it remains above the national average. Major economic assessments suggest Brisbane is well positioned to grow significantly in the next 10 years.

New population forecasts released in 2011 indicate a 150,000 people increase by 2031 over the comparable 2008 forecasts that were used to inform the Regional Plan, Connecting SEQ 2031 and Cross River Rail modelling. These new population forecasts would suggest patronage figures produced by the Cross River Rail model would generally increase.

The long term forecast is therefore for continued strong population growth in the region. Importantly much of this growth is forecast to occur in the areas served by rail such as the Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast rail catchments. At the same time, Brisbane's inner city is forecast to remain the primary area for jobs growth with 20% of total south east Queensland jobs (similar to today), suggesting a strong commuting transport task from the outer areas to Brisbane.

Public transport patronage, which grew strongly between 2003-04 and 2008-09 at between 7.9 and 15.5 million trips per annum, has also slowed recently due to a range of factors such as fare increases. However, train patronage across the region as a whole has continued to grow faster than population growth (3.4% vs. 2.4%), most notably in the Gold Coast, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast and Caboolture rail catchments where it has significantly outstripped population growth.

Overall, while there has been a general easing in travel demand growth indicators across the region since 2009, this is not indicative of trends in all local government areas. Regardless of any major infrastructure investment, the overall indicators for demand suggest strong growth will continue to put pressure on the transport system, especially in the peak periods in the inner city.

13 June 2012 Page 27 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5 Capacity Weekday peak public transport capacity, for the purposes of this review occurs in the inner city and can be considered to be driven by three key and interrelated capacity elements. These are: 1. Train and bus capacity and operations 2. Road/busway or track capacity 3. Platform and bus interchange capacity.

Capacity will be determined by the 'weakest link' of the three capacity elements. For example, it may be at times limited by insufficient fleet or congested platforms or track/road capacity.

In the following sections, an assessment is made of the elements limiting capacity in both the bus and rail networks within the inner city. 5.1 Bus System Capacity

5.1.1 Vehicle capacity and operations

The bus fleet in south east Queensland currently comprises almost 2,400 buses (at March 2012). More than half of these are operated by Brisbane Transport, the region's predominant bus operator.

Transport modelling estimates that there are currently around 28,000 bus passengers entering the CBD in the AM 2 hour peak, compared to 40,000 by rail. The estimated number of buses during this period is around 1,100 or 550 per hour. Whilst this suggests only half the seated capacity is utilised (-25 passengers per bus), utilisation varies considerably by route and other factors such as dead-running (ie. running back to depots) need to be considered.

In terms of overcrowding, analysis supplied by Trans link indicates that for 1st Quarter 2012, 45% of routes that terminate in the CBD in the AM peak had total boardings which exceeded seated capacity. Focusing on just the prepaid peak rockets terminating in the CBD, 29% of these routes had total boardings which exceed seated capacity in the AM peak. It should be noted that this does not factor in alightings occurring prior to arrival in the CBD, meaning that some buses may not technically be overcrowded at that point.

Most of the bus fleet is standard 12.5 metre buses with a seated capacity of 45. However, more recently a number of larger buses have been purchased, known as High Capacity Vehicles (HCV). These include 14.5 metre HCVs with a seated capacity of 56 and 18 metre HCVs with a seated capacity of 63. Trans link recently announced more HCVs for around 10 service routes to commence mid June 2012.

Some parts of the busway network cannot easily accommodate larger vehicles, which have difficultly manoeuvring through constrained spaces such as in the Queen Street Busway Station. Larger buses also use more platform space and require longer boarding times for passengers. As such, while use of larger vehicles is important, it needs to be carefully targeted to key corridors.

The bus system currently has a single-seat profile, in which most people can catch a direct service to the city from their local area; interchanging is not yet a major feature. While offering good network coverage, this operational profile means a very large number of services converge on limited space in the CBD. It also offers limited cross-town suburban connectivity, resulting in a high reliance on the CBD for interchanging and a subsequent increase in passenger volumes.

13 June 2012 Page 28 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The result of the current operating pattern is dense and complex operations within the city that are compounded by a range of factors such as the one-way street system which requires many services to enter and exit using different routes. A passenger may alight in Adelaide Street in the morning and board the same service on Ann St in the evening. The system can be hard to understand and use, particularly for non-regular or first-time users.

The current operating pattern also requires a lot of bus stopping space and layover space. Significant bus growth under the current operating regime would therefore require substantial investment in new infrastructure such as station platforms in the CBD.

How inner city bus capacity and access issues manifest over time is therefore closely linked not just to the volume of buses but the bus operating pattern. The current operating pattern has benefits, primarily by providing broad network coverage for those trips going to the CBD, in most cases with a single seat journey. However, it creates operational inefficiencies and becomes problematic when the bus system grows to an intensive scale. As shown in the figure 5.1, the benefits would progressively be out-weighed with major system growth.

There is limited space in the inner CBD street system to handle a significant increase in the number of buses. The flexibility to change bus operations is one of the main advantages of the bus system. Broadly, it suggests that consideration must be given to a different operating pattern over time. There are opportunities to simplify operations to and within the CBD by reviewing network operations (including the suburban network) where possible. Ideally, this would be done in conjunction with a review of the inner city street system (priority, one-way configuration, etc).

Operating strategies such as inner city circulation buses to connect key emerging nodes (e.g. Woolloongabba, South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley, Bowen Hills) to reduce bus demand on the CBD and improve connectivity are being sensibly considered by Translink and Brisbane City Council.

Current operational strategy Implications of growth (under development) Network features Bus ser,ices to CBD many' reduced legibility i increased complexity Frequency moderate few high frequent unchanged Interchanging minor ongoing centralised interchanging Operational efficienc:/ average difficult to manage due to voiLJme / complexity Inner city road use claim e:>.iensive and widespread critical constraint CBD stop capacit:r· requirement very< high significant increase in demand CBD lay-over capacity requirement veri high significant increase in demand r··.Jetwork redundancy significant unchanged Reliability difficult reliant on significant bus capacity• and priority Placemaking reduced visual amenity Transport safety concern in mixed use areas reduced unless modes are ser;erated Legibility' relatively poor reduced due to increased complexity *Legibility - how easy is it to use and understand the system Figure 5.1 - Bus network features (South East Queensland Bus Network Study, Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012)

5.1.2 Road and busway capacity

Like the rail network, Brisbane's bus network is intensely focused on the inner city and on meeting weekday peak demands. Sufficient capacity in and through the inner city bus network is critical to the effective operation of the wider bus network.

13 June 2012 Page 29 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5.1.2.1 Inner city network

Busways are the predominant method of moving buses to and from the CBD, with approximately two-thirds of CBD bound services using the Inner Northern Busway and South East Busway.

The most concentrated bus volumes involve the southern approach to the CBD, not only due to the large number of services but because they are required to truncate in order to cross the river at the Victoria and Captain Cook Bridges.

The South East Busway is the single busiest bus corridor in the network, carrying near 250 buses or over 12,000 passengers per hour in the morning peak near Woolloongabba- these volumes are recognised as among the highest by international standards. Notionally, this represents a high load factor at around 48 passengers per bus.

The Captain Cook Bridge (without bus priority) carries more buses per hour than the Victoria Bridge, with 228 buses per hour and 211 buses per hour respectively in the morning peak in 2012 (Translink).

Demands on the Inner Northern Busway are currently relatively moderate at 70 buses per hour however this will increase with the progressive extension of the Northern Busway (the section to Kedron is due to open on 18 June 2012).

The inner city road network is also critical to the bus network and experiences high demands. Key bus links (amongst others) include Elizabeth Street (221 buses per hour), Adelaide Street (115 buses per hour) and Wickham Street (110 buses per hour).

Road network and intersection capacity constraints in Current AM peak 1hr bus demands (2012) areas where high volumes of buses share space with !.ink SIISes 1 1u• general traffic is effecting bus operations and reliability. South East !;}~§JI<~Y (between 358 Some of these are core bus corridors, and delays can llbJo!foongabba JlmctJon and Allen St eXJt) therefore have wider bus operating implications. In addition, the one-way street system requires services to Captain Cook Bridge 228 use different locations for in-bound and out-bound Elizabeth St 221 journeys, which is not logical for passengers. Victoria Bridge 211 Overall, the inner busway network (especially the South Adelaide St (eastbound) 115 East Busway) and CBD streets experience very high bus Wickham St (Fortitude Valley) 110 demands in the peak periods (table 5.2). Many parts of Adelaide St (westbound) 74 the network are operating near capacity. In line with where the highest bus demands are, current bus King George Square 70 constraints primarily involve capacity issues on parts of Anr' St (Forttude Va!ley) 63 the South East Busway (particularly some key busway stations), as well as issues on key streets approaching Arm Sl {city) 58 and within the CBD. CoronatioP Dr 1 Milton Rd 50 Caxlon I Musgrave I Kelvin Grove Rd 23 I 18 I 34

~sourced from TTA

Table 5.2 - AM peak one hour bus demand by access route to the CBD

13 June 2012 Page 30 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

While there is no single factor causing bus contraints in the inner city, most tend to relate either to station capacity, areas where buses interact with general traffic and/or areas of high pedestrian activity. A particular example is the Melbourne Street busway portal to Cultural Centre Busway Station, where buses encounter traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and traffic congestion. In many cases, significant benefit could be gained from bus priority treatments, if they could be implemented.

5. 1.2.2 Outer network

Congestion on various approach roads and inner city streets is also causing delays and reliability issues. Buses that share road space are subject to the same variability in travel times as cars.

On the outer road network approaching the inner city, bus reliability and travel time performance is affected by traffic conditions and congestion. In many cases, bus operating issues are more pronounced on the outer road network on the inner city streets because here traffic growth has been suppressed by traffic congestion further out.

Bus delays in the outer network cause inefficiencies such as bus bunching (catching up to each other where one bus can be overcrowded and others near empty) and flow through impacts for operations (e.g. buses late for start of their next service).

The following roads connecting to the inner city regularly experience congestion that impacts on bus operations (basically all radials to varying degrees).

• Gympie Road I Lutwyche Road • Coronation Drive • Sandgate Road • Ipswich Road • Kelvin Grove Road (has Transit Lanes) • Logan Road • Waterworks Road (has Transit Lanes) • Stanley Street • Milton Road • Kingsford Smith Drive • Wynnum Road

5.1.2.3 Future constraints

The scale of future bus growth in the longer-term is intrinsically linked to rail investment. A major rail investment such as Cross River Rail would drive a change in the way parts of the bus system are operated to maximise benefits, for example by feeding more buses to rail with less through bus trips to CBD. This flexibility is one of the advantages of the bus system. Similarly, the lower the level of rail capacity increase, the greater the pressure on the bus network.

Since 2004 bus patronage has grown around 7.5% per annum increasing from about 71.7 million boardings to nearly 119.2 million boardings (201 0-11 ). Growth up to 2008-09 averaged 9.8% per year but has slowed since then.

As fiscal constraints will place limits on the number of major rail or bus infrastructure projects that can be constructed within the next five years, initially bus growth is likely to continue at historical rates unless bus services are impacted by reduced reliability and worsening travel times which would curtail growth to lower levels.

Initial analysis suggests with the current operating pattern, there will be a continuation and intensification of the current situation in terms of bus demand and associated constraints. There would be ongoing heavy reliance on the Captain Cook Bridge and Victoria Bridge; both would exceed capacity for longer periods each day.

13 June 2012 Page 31 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The maximum capacity of the South East Busway, already being approached in some sections (e.g. near Woolloongabba Junction) would be exceeded as would station capacity at key stations such as Cultural Centre Busway Station. Additional bus access and capacity through the Cultural Centre precinct would be expected to become increasingly problematic as this area also already operates close to capacity.

Overall, the South East Busway corridor and river crossing capacity could be considered the main areas of potential constraint in the medium-term. There would also be significant issues on core CBD streets, such as Adelaide Street and Elizabeth Street and some new platform constraints may begin to emerge at Roma Street and King George Square Busway Stations.

The bus network will continue to play a significant role for its key market (short-distance suburban commute and inner cit distribution) regardless of any rail investment. With or without rail upgrades, significant investment in bus infrastructure to increase capacity will be required to ensure the bus network continues to service demand for its key market.

5.1.3 Platform capacity

Six of the top ten busiest public transport stations in terms of passenger activity across the whole public transport network are currently on the busway network. These are mostly inner city busway stations, namely Cultural Centre, King George Square, Roma Street, Southbank and Mater Hill.

The Cultural Centre Busway Station, which is possibly the most constrained, is the region's third busiest public transport station after Central and Roma Street rail stations. It is also the single most intensive interchange location on the public transport network, with more morning peak boardings and afternoon peak alightings than any other rail or busway station.

Like an intersection on a road, stations are generally the first areas in the busway network to emerge as 'choke-points'. On the busway network, stations are the primary limiting factor as well as where the busway network interacts with the road system. As stations approach capacity, small delays (like someone asking the driver for directions) can quickly compound into a backlog of buses that takes time to clear.

Due to the volume of buses, station capacity constraints are emerging during peak periods at Cultural Centre Busway Station and (to a lesser extent) Mater Hill and Southbank busway stations. This manifests in reliability issues and undesirable bus queuing on the Victoria Bridge and on approaches in the busway network.

The constraints at Cultural Centre Busway Station are also complicated by the two intersections buses must navigate in order to enter the South East Busway. Providing optimal station capacity and ensuring effective station operations will be key to maintaining overall bus network capacity.

Station operations can be optimised to ensure faster boarding times and minimal 'random' delays such as driver queries. This optimisation would deliver largest benefits at stations that operate near capacity such as Cultural Centre Busway Station where some of these 'micro management' solutions are currently being trialled.

Within the CBD, bus stops tend to focus on roads traversing the core and the entry and exit points of the city. Bus stops are currently concentrated on a relatively small number of roads I precincts including Adelaide Street, Elizabeth Street, Queen Street, Edward St and Creek Street. This consolidation offers benefits in terms of legibility, interchange and destination grouping. However, it also presents challenges by concentrating many bus movements which also need to share road space with cars and pedestrians. There is limited kerbside space for buses.

13 June 2012 Page 32 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The issue of layover must also be noted. Adequate supply and strategic location of bus layover is critical to efficient operations. Finding layover space is increasingly difficult in the city core where space is a premium; the implication is a limited ability to terminate more services in the CBD.

5.1.4 Summary

Capacity bottlenecks have been identified at a number of key locations in the inner city bus network. These can mostly be attributed to mixed traffic (including pedestrians) intersections and includes the Melbourne Street Busway portal, Melbourne/Grey Street intersection, Adelaide Street and a number of core CBD streets.

A number of busway stations are also approaching bus platform capacity, namely Cultural Centre, Mater Hill and Southbank Busway stations. Station constraints limit the capacity of the busway network.

If the current operating pattern continues, there will be an intensification of the current situation in terms of bus demand and constraints. There is limited space in the inner CBD street system to handle a lot more buses and there will be ongoing heavy reliance on key infrastructure such as the Captain Cook Bridge and Victoria Bridge.

There are opportunities to increase the effective capacity of parts of the bus network. A change to more efficient operating patterns would make better use of existing infrastructure. However, some capacity enhancements (new infrastructure, road priority) would also still be required to keep up with demand growth. 5.2 Rail System Capacity

5.2.1 South east Queensland rail network

The rail network in south east Queensland comprises more than 300km of rail corridors with over 600km of track within those corridors.

This network supports a variety of rail operations, including commuter passenger (Citytrain), intrastate and interstate passenger (Travel/Tilt Train, XPT), and bulk and intermodal freight (coal, containers etc).

Citytrain services comprise about 90% of all rail traffic on the south east Queensland network.

13 June 2012 Page 33 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

®II i Train and bus.way network: map , _

f"l<< &IV41«li; ""' ~'"~'..:obi>• 10.:•1 ;;,~o~>lo

~ :icld C

5.2.2 Vehicle Capacity and Operations

5.2.2.1 Current Rail Fleet and Operations/Services

Queensland Rail's passenger fleet currently comprises 207 three-car sets that are either electric multiple units (EMUs), suburban multiple units (SMUs) or interurban multiple units (IMUs). Coupled together to form the six car sets operating on the bulk of the network, these units offer the following capacity: • six-car EMU/SMU sets: 472 seated passengers (750 design capacity including a comfortable number of standees) • six-car IMU sets: 434 seated passengers (750 design capacity including a comfortable number of standees).

13 June 2012 Page 34 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

In addition to these sets, Queensland Rail's fleet also includes eight Inter City Express (ICE) three-car sets that operate the longer distance Nambour/Gympie North services.

Stabling locations for the fleet are provided at Mayne in the inner city and at various locations in the outer parts of the rail network.

The size of the Citytrain fleet has been expanded to its current level with the purchase of 64 three-car SMU/IMU sets for $693 million over the past five years, to provide additional services to cater for growth in south east Queensland.

5.2.3 Track capacity

5.2.3. 1 Inner city network

In defining the key issues affecting inner city rail capacity and its ability to support both current and forecast growth, it is important to firstly clarify that the problems for the inner city rail capacity are not solely related to the Merivale Bridge.

Fundamentally, the four-track arrangement that exists between Roma Street and all the way through the city to Bowen Hills is a key network constraint as this section of track involves the majority of Citytrain services, interstate XPT paths and all rail freight movements to the north of Brisbane. However, the river crossing is a key constraint and bottleneck which must also be addressed.

Without more track capacity through the CBD, there will simply not be enough capacity beyond the 40% increase in patronage indentified for more trains services to cater for demand from the southern and northern parts of south east Queensland. The following is a summary of the key inner city capacity constraints shown in figure 5.4: • Single inbound track across the Merivale Bridge- used by long-distance express trains from the Gold Coast as well as suburban trains from Beenleigh and Cleveland. This capacity constraint on the bridge and access into Roma Street station restricts growth on these services. • Park Road Junction -is near capacity servicing Beenleigh, Gold Coast and Cleveland trains, as well as freight services to the Port of Brisbane all crossing at a single at grade junction. • Single platform faces at Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills - limits the maximum number of trains per hour. • Peak trains returning to Mayne Yard- delays in accessing the yard because of flat junction conflicts at Roma Street could cause short delays to through running services. • Trains merging into a single track south of the CBD - Inbound Ipswich express and Richlands all stops trains have to merge west of Milton onto a single through running track, with crossing conflicts with outbound services. • Longer dwell times in the CBD area, such as Central - high passenger loads to Central require longer dwell to unload/load, limiting capacity to 23 trains per hour on suburbans (due to double platforms at Central) and 19 trains per hour on the main lines for the current signalling design and technology. • Crew change practices impacting dwell times at Bowen Hills.

13 June 2012 Page 35 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

trains returning Mayne Yards

changes

Smgle pl~tforms

long dwell limes

Merivale Bridge capacity Trains onto single Congested junction

Figure 5.4: Key Inner City Rail Network Issues

In addition to the issues identified above, it should be recognised that a range of other constraints also exist within the south east Queensland network that are impacting on its ability to cater for current and forecast growth.

At the heart of the network, the Brisbane CBD rail comprises 4 tracks between Roma Street and Bowen Hills. The combined maximum capacity of 42 trains per hour in each direction (84 trains per hour in total) is limited by the current signalling design and technology. The main lines have a theoretical maximum capacity of 19 trains per hour (each direction) while the suburban lines have a higher capacity of 23 trains per hour (each direction) due to dual platform faces at Central Station allowing one train to approach the station while another (in the same direction) is at the station or preparing to depart.

As well as the inner city tunnels and stations, the approach routes to the inner city rail lines and stations have some constraints in the peak which limit capacity into the inner city itself.

Without significant investment in track infrastructure through the CBD, strict sectorisation of the network and highly disciplined train movements are not possible to achieve.

5.2.3.2 Outer Network

The main constraints within and beyond the northern section of the south east Queensland rail network affecting performance within the inner city network include: • single track sections on some of the northern branch lines including Shorncliffe, Doomben and Airport, together with irregular service gaps causing irregular crossing points • north coast express services and slower Caboolture services having to share the same two railway tracks north of Petrie • inbound trains from the suburban lines having to cross to the main lines between Eagle Junction and Northgate • outbound trains to Doomben, Airport and Shorncliffe lines crossing the path of inbound trains • limited overnight stabling facilities and station platform capacity.

The main constraints within the southern section of the south east Queensland rail network include: • single track section on Gold Coast line between Coomera and Helensvale • single track section on Cleveland line between Manly and Cleveland

13 June 2012 Page 36 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• Gold Coast express services and slower Beenleigh services having to share the single inbound track between Beenleigh and Salisbury • scheduling constraints -inbound Cleveland services conflicts with outbound Beenleigh and Gold Coast line at Park Road • limited overnight stabling facilities and station platform capacity.

5.2.3.3 Implications of capacity constraints

Based on historical passenger growth rates and the existing train operating regimes, the inner city rail network and in particular the approach from the south was predicted in the Cross River Rail Modelling to reach its peak capacity by 2016-2018, depending on patronage growth. This timeframe is based on Cross River Rail patronage forecasts of approximately 4.27% per annum network wide. The capacity limits for each suburban and main line through the inner city is forecast to be reached at varying timeframes, reflecting varying growth and capacity constraints across the network.

The first inner city capacity threshold to be reached is forecast to be the southern suburban lines, servicing the Gold Coast, Beenleigh and Cleveland via the Merivale Bridge which service the Gold Coast, Beenleigh and Cleveland in the south, with track capacity being reached by 2016.

If changes to operating regimes are implemented, the Panel estimated the pinch point is reached in 5-8 years, depending on growth rates. In other words, if the growth rate is less than the 4.27% and more like the more recent growth rate of around 2.9%, this estimated capacity timeframe would be extended.

In reality, transport networks don't suddenly reach a tipping point. As capacity is used up, more and more measures are put in place to manage the issue, however reliability is expected to deteriorate.

Without additional line capacity or changes to operations to allow higher frequency services, peak period service performance on the passenger rail network is forecast to decline with significant reductions in service reliability and increased overcrowding across the Brisbane rail network expected.

By 2021 Nambour, Ferny Grove, Cleveland, Gold Coast and Ipswich corridors were expected to experience a reduction in reliability of passenger services of more than 10% compared to 2009. By 2031, the reduction in reliability of passenger services on some of the major corridors, including Caboolture, Doomben, Shorncliffe and Airport was expected to reach 50% compared to 2021. Passenger services on the Beenleigh line would experience a further reduction in reliability of more than 20%. In fact, all lines approaching the CBD were expected to be unable to achieve the current Queensland Rail benchmark of 92.4% on time reliability passenger services (less than four minutes) during the morning peak period by 2031.

Train loadings and levels of overcrowding in 2020 have been forecast (table 5.5), having regard to passenger demand across the network and the constraints of inner city rail track capacity places on adding additional services.

This identifies that the levels of service required to cater for passenger demand cannot be provided due to the inner city capacity constraints (in the absence of a major new infrastructure such as Cross River Rail), which results in significant increases in the number of services considered overcrowded by 2020.

13 June 2012 Page 37 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Maximum Standing density 2010 2020- loading of Passenger1m2 % of services services services constrained AM 1 hour peak by inner city capacity % of services <750 Up to 2.2 94 66 750-850 2.2-3 6 15

> 850 3 0 15

Table 5.5: Maximum loading (standing density) of services (AM 1 hour peak)

Subject to the accuracy of the forecast, these measures identify that there could be a: • significant increase in the number of passengers standing for periods in excess of 20 minutes • significant increase in the proportion of services exceeding the acceptable maximum load of 750 passengers per service, increasing from 6% in 2010 to 34% in 2020 • In 201 0, this equated to 7 services overcrowded in the AM peak 1 hour peak period and AM 2 hour peak period. • In 2020, this equates approximately 28 services overcrowded in the AM 1 hour peak period and 39 services overcrowded across the AM 2 hour peak period.

It should be noted that the loads on Gold Coast trains in 2007 and 2008, that triggered high levels of passenger complaint and media attention, were between 550 and 700 passengers on peak hour services, significantly lower than the maximum load standard of 750 passengers per service. This reflects the higher level of discomfort for standing passengers on the longer distance, interurban services.

The panel considers that loadings above 850 will not be achieved for AM weekday passengers travelling to the CBD. Passengers will either not board the overcrowded trains or the unreliable dwell times of such crowded services will reduce the maximum number of trains that can be operated. A balance is likely to be struck between the two elements.

13 June 2012 Page 38 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5.2.4 Sectorisation of the Citytrain network

The suburban lines and main lines form two largely independent sectors, namely: • Main sector: Services operating on the main lines, including Nambour, Caboolture, Ipswich, Richlands and Rosewood lines; • Suburban sector: Services operating on the suburban lines, including Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben, Ferny Grove, Cleveland, Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines.

Shornclifle Caboolturet Nambour

Ferny Grove

2012 CltyTraln Sectorlsatlon Concept mop representing sectortsatlon between the mafn and suburban lines

Ipswich

Springfield

Sectors provide the opportunity to logically match through services to destinations with similar service demands. The sectors also provide the opportunity to limit the flow on effects of delays and incidents to other sectors.

However, the lack of strict sectorisation within the network reduces schedule robustness and an increased risk of knock-on delays across lines. This can sometimes result in long-distance rollingstock being used for short distance services and vice-versa, potentially reducing capacity on services to the CBD which in turn results in passengers on longer-distance commuter services not being provided carriages with bathroom facilities.

The current operations mean that inter-dependencies between the two sectors (i.e. the main sector and the suburban sector) constrain the rail network capacity as well as service reliability. The sharing of services and tracks between main sector and suburban sector, especially between suburban lines to the north and western lines to the south-west mean that an incident in one sector has the potential to cause delays across both sectors. For example, Shorncliffe services are currently connected to Ipswich services during the morning peak period, requiring trains to crossover from the suburban lines to the main lines and potentially delaying other services on both sectors.

In the off peak periods, the ability to switch from the suburban to the main lines and vice versa in the event of a track fault or defect provides considerable robustness to the delivery of services.

13 June 2012 Page 39 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

5.2.5 Platform Capacity

Central Station is the busiest station on the Queensland Rail City network, experiencing relatively short but intense peak flows with passenger movements being of a strong tidal flow in nature. Central station has been estimated to have a capacity of around 43,000 passengers in a two hour period for the current configuration of the station. The panel considered that there may be opportunities to increase the capacity of vertical transportation by adding a new concourse on the northern end of the station and steps or escalators accessing each platform. The panel is not aware of restrictions on the use of the fire stairs on the southern end of the platforms in normal operations.

Cross River Rail modelling forecasts that this capacity will be exceeded by 2021, and be well in excess of this by 2031, with more passengers trying to use the station than can be comfortably accommodated by the existing platforms and access stairs, which are already experiencing noticeable congestion during peak periods. Regardless of what capacity is ultimately achieved, the panel considers ongoing vigilance in platform management is essential in order to maintain safe platform operation.

Despite this constraint, the overall demand for passenger alightings in the CBD in the morning peak period is forecast to increase from 37,000 (2009) (30, 100 of which alighted at Central Station) to more than 61,000 in 2021 without Cross River Rail. At Central station, it is forecast that total passenger boardings and alightings in the morning peak period will increase from 2009 levels by about 37% to 47,300 in 2021.

Roma Street Station is the second busiest station with almost 40,000 passenger movements (boardings, alightings and transfers) on a typical weekday with approximately 10,000 alightings the 2 hour morning and approximately 1 0,000 boardings in the 2 hour afternoon peaks.

Alighting movement at Roma Street station in the morning peak however is overwhelmingly pedestrian orientated with around 75% of passengers walking from the station to the surrounding precinct, 14% transferring to bus and a further 12% transferring to other rail services.

Specific issues at this station include crowding at the main ticket gate line within the subway. Another key problem exists at the station exits approaching Roma Street itself, where the exit closest to the northern end of George Street is a narrow set of double doors with narrow stairs, a narrow footway and no formal pedestrian crossing. The panel considers these congestion points are able to be fixed at relatively low cost.

5.2.6 Reliability

There are two concepts of reliability: 1. services planned actually running 2. how close services run to their timetabled plan.

In the first instance, Queensland Rail typically cancels services in about two cases per thousand which is considered to be very good performance. In terms of on-time running typical performance is 90-94% on-time arrival at Central Station in the peak, less than four minutes late. In the peak, provided there are sufficient services, actual on-time performance becomes less of an issue to passengers other than annoyance for the trains stopping waiting for a signal or platform to clear.

Reliability of passenger rail operations has been forecast to decline significantly by 2020 and to an even greater extent by 2031.

By 2020, assuming the network will be operating at capacity, on-time reliability was forecast to decrease by 11% compared to current levels.

13 June 2012 Page 40 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The range of contributory factors include: • single-line sections • crossing conflicts: limited capacity due to 'flat' or at-grade rail junctions, where train services have to cross • more services operated through a corridor per hour reduces recovery opportunities • services from different corridors sharing track increase the cumulative effect of delays across the network; sectorisation separates operations from different corridors to separate tracks, therefore limiting the effect of delays to the corridor on which the delay occurs • trains with different performance characteristics (speed, acceleration) sharing corridors • equipment and system reliability • overcrowded trains increase dwell times at stations, as unloading from congested train carriages becomes slower, reducing the frequency of service that can be achieved that can be achieved • diverse stopping patterns and running times reduces the capacity that can be achieved with simple, consistent stopping patterns • empty trains returning to stabling, or positioning trains from stabling to commence services during the peak.

5.2.7 Summary

Current rail network constraints and capacity issues are emerging in the peak and will intensify as demand grows and peak train services increase. The capacity to operate freight services is impacted by the way passenger services are operated.

Like the bus system, the current operating pattern has scope for change and there would appear to be measures to increase capacity before significant step changes are required.

The panel also considers there are options to increase station capacity at the critical Central and Roma Street stations.

The maximum trains per hour that can be operated in the core of the inner city seem in part to be restricted by the current signalling design and technology. Queensland Rail is considering a new generation signalling system which if implemented provide the additional benefit of significantly enhanced safety. New rollingstock and additional stabling will be required for additional peak services and some peak spreading.

Increased services per hour and crowding will lead to lower levels of reliability. A step change in capacity such as Cross River Rail would deliver significant improvements in latent capacity and reliability.

13 June 2012 Page 41 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

6 Confirmation of the problem Population growth in south east Queensland for the past 10 years has been averaging 2.4% and if this growth continues, population will increase by 60% in 20 years. Population is now forecast to grow to 4.39 million in 2031 (2011 release OESR) and the indicators in 2011 show that the region is on its way to reaching this target.

It is also very important from an overall transport network perspective to understand where this population is expected to be located and where they will work. With the majority of these people expected to be housed in excess of 30km of Brisbane's CBD in locations such as Yarrabilba, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and Ipswich, the Brisbane CBD is expected to continue to dominate as the key employment centre.

Public transport has a market share of more than 70% for peak journeys to the CBD. The Brisbane City Council Economic Development Plan (2012-2031) forecasts an additional 130,000 jobs in the CBD by 2031.

The high peak demand from the city and growing size of the Brisbane population mean that heavy rail is the primary mode to do the bulk of the future transport task to the CBD for long distance trips. Buses will continue to play a strong role for shorter to middle distance trips.

The current inner city capacity is limited to an absolute maximum (but with diminished reliability) of 84 trains per hour. This is a technical limit relating to the track layout, type of rollingstock and the current signalling system. The peak capacity ceiling represents an increase of over 25% trains per hour (from 65 to 84 trains per hour). It may be prudent to operate at a slightly lower maximum in order to reliably achieve a set number of trains per hour, e.g. 76 to 80 trains per hour. The 20% additional peak services assume 78 trains per hours to allow a small margin for reliability reasons.

As the number of trains per hour approaches the 84 trains per hour limit, the system will become less reliable and have limited capability to recover quickly from incidents and delays. The loss of capacity from delays will reflect the combined impact of various infrastructure and rollingstock faults and defects and also passenger related incidents. There are ways to operate the railway more intensively to manage as well as possible to achieve higher train loads of passengers, encouraging peak spreading and managing passenger movements.

High demand from the Gold Coast, Beenleigh and Cleveland rail lines will result in this rail sector being the first to be constrained by capacity limits between Park Road, the Merivale Bridge and Roma Street.

Consequently, this report confirms the passenger train network on the southern approaches to the CBD has a capacity problem that will gradually become worse. A step change in heavy rail capacity will be required around 2020, the exact timing depending on future growth and the effectiveness of interim measures to increase capacity.

13 June 2012 Page 42 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

7 Consideration of Interim Rail Capacity Options

7.1 Assessment of Interim Options

Initial analysis by the panel suggests that a selected suite of initiatives could provide a boost to train capacity of up to 40% from the current level of capacity of 65 trains per hour in the AM 1 hour peak (112 trains in the AM 2 hour peak) to a capacity level up to approximately 156 trains in the AM 2 hour peak period in the period from between 2013 to 2020 and possibly beyond. Excluding additional trains, stabling for additional trains, outer network track upgrades, and operating costs, capital costs are expected to be in the order of $200- $300 million to achieve these improvements, subject to more detailed cost estimation as well as operational and engineering feasibility assessment.

By contrast Cross River Rail boosts capacity in morning peak hour capacity by up to 103% from 65 per hour to 132 per hour in the AM 1 hour peak period but at a capital cost of $6.4 billion (in 2010 $s) excluding additional trains, stabling and operating costs.

A recommended implementation program tor the interim initiatives, reflecting the priorities identified in assessment is shown in Appendix one. The interim initiatives are subject to more detailed costing operational and engineering analysis.

7 .1.1 Reliability and Safety Context

The number of services that can be reliably operated on a network, during a defined period, defines rail track capacity. Assessing capacity is complex, since numerous aspects such as infrastructure layout, rollingstock performance, passenger loads, timetable and other general operational issues must be considered. However, quantifying capacity is important, since it provides an impartial view of complex capacity issues to determine the capacity constraint and assesses the benefits of capacity enhancing investments.

The key concept in rail capacity assessment is that capacity and on-time reliability are inseparably linked. The minimal acceptable reliability defines capacity as shown in figure 7.1

The intersection bet>.veen minimum acceptable reliability Reliability and perfonnance defines capacity

Minimum acceptable reliability

Maximum Humber oftralns capacity Figure 7.1 : Defining rail capacity

13 June 2012 Page 43 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The direct relationship between capacity and on-time reliability can be illustrated as follows. Adding more services to a network has a negative impact on on-time running as more capacity is used. However, these impacts are marginal if sufficient capacity is available.

When the network approaches or exceeds its capacity limit, as more trains are added a cumulative effect of more risk of delays which accelerates the deterioration in on-time running. This is reflected in figure 7.2.

As trains are added to a Reliability rail networ!,, reliability lnitially declines slowly

Howt?ver, as more trains are added, delays cascade, leading to a increasingly rapid decline in reliability

Number of trains

Figure 7.2: Impact on reliability when adding service to a network

There are a range of influences that affect rail operations and network capacity, all of which need to be taken into account when assessing the capacity of a network. These include: • track infrastructure: single-line sections, sections of track without opportunities for trains to overtake • service crossing conflicts: 'flat' or at-grade rail junctions or intersections, where train services have to cross, limit capacity • signalling design capacity in trains per hour • network sectorisation: services from different corridors sharing track increase the cumulative effect of delays across the network; sectorisation separates operations from different corridors to separate tracks, therefore limiting the effect of delays to the corridor on which the delay occurs • rollingstock performance: trains with different performance characteristics (speed, acceleration) sharing corridors • infrastructure and rollingstock reliability: equipment failures resulting in poor reliability or availability to operate services • rollingstock capacity and train crowding: overcrowded trains increase dwell times at stations, as unloading from congested train carriages becomes slower, reducing the reliable headways I frequency of service that can be achieved • timetabling: more frequent service levels reduce ability to recover from delays.

13 June 2012 Page 44 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Figure 7.3 illustrates a range of these influences impacting inner city rail network capacity in the south east Cleveland rail network.

Eagle Junction

Peak trains returning to Mayne Yards

Norman by Peak trains returning to Mayne Yards ------+

Merivale Bridge capacity Trains onto single

Congested junction

Figure 7.3: rail capacity issues in the inner city

The purpose of this discussion was to reinforce that: • the rail network needs to be considered as a system given the wide range of factors influencing capacity including infrastructure, rollingstock, timetable and operational issues • on-time running and capacity are inherently linked, as the capacity of the system is defined as the maximum number of trains per hour.

In addition to reliability of services, the more congested the network is the more red and yellow signals are faced by train drivers. In the event of human error, the consequences of the error tend to be more severe when the network is congested.

13 June 2012 Page 45 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

7.2 Queensland Rail reliability performance

On-time running and percentage of train services delivered are key performance measures for railways. Queensland Rail performance targets are set by Translink and reported quarterly in the Trans link Tracker. Performance from early 2010 to late 2011 is illustrated in figure 7.4.

On-time and services delivered - train•

On time n.1nning

Figure 7.4: Translink Tracker 2009-12 for peak periods

7.3 Growth forecast assumptions and historical context

There are a variety of factors that are considered that make it difficult to accurately determine future rail patronage. This report earlier described the historical correlation between rail patronage, employment growth and population growth and other factors which could influence any future patronage forecasts. Figure 7.5 shows that based on the extrapolation of historical growth and forecast growth from the Cross River Rail modelling, the timing to reach the maximum inner city train path capacity can be estimated and this ranges from approximately 2018 for continued growth at 4.9% to 2022 for slower growth at 3.33%. The 4.27% growth rate has been derived from the transport modelling undertaken for Cross River Rail.

13 June 2012 Page 46 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Passenger growth scenarios: forecast versus historical

------100000 ------~--

90000 "0 ~ t: cu I - E 80000 r------"--- ...... _...... _ ...... o:.::-:::= --.- Q) ~ ~ ---- c ----: ----· ------.:.:: 70000 cu ~ ~ --- Q) ~ a. 60000 ... ---- - J: ~,- C'll 1--- := 50000

30000

~,r:o ':;._"-'?> f0 {l;cv ~"\;) c§ \,cv \"(')_;) ~"'!)< ~~ ~.::. \,co '?>{1) f0{1; \;:)'?> "" ,

3.33% p.a. (2006-2012) - - -Maximum capacity inner city reached

Figure 7.5

A key point is that, if the more recent growth rate continues, the projected demand would be below the green line and not reach capacity for over a decade. In effect, 1% growth in demand could be offset by a 1% improvement in efficiency/capacity.

The graph shows that in the absence of Cross River Rail or a similar project, capacity is likely to be exceeded between 2018 and 2022.

Table 7.6 shows that historically, rail patronage has outgrown population by between 1 and 2% per annum. As discussed previously, this trend is expected to continue with strong resident population growth in outlaying areas of south east Queensland and the continued strong growth of the inner city and CBD areas for employment. Rail will need to provide for this intra-regional commute function as other modes become less competitive over these longer distances.

When we consider the range of forecast population growth rates in south east Queensland from 2011 to 2021, based on historical correlations, and the absence of any future indicators to suggest otherwise, we can expect to see continued strong growth in rail demand across the south east Queensland network which has the potential to fall within the range (3.33% and 4.90%) shown on the Figure above and the table below.

13 June 2012 Page 47 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Growth Scenario 2006-2011 2011-2021

Forecast

SEQ Population Low 2.44% 1.47%

Medium 2.55% 1.97%

High 2.73% 2.46%

CRR 2.27% 1.97%

SEQ Rail Patronage Low 3.33%

CRR 4.27%

High 4.90%

Table 7.6: Comparison of population and rail patronage growth scenarios

Rail patronage on the critical sections of the network from Gold Coast, Beenleigh and Cleveland may achieve higher rates of growth as demand continues to strengthen and alternative modes become less competitive.

13 June 2012 Page 48 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail 8 Assessment of initiatives

The following section details the panels assessment of initiatives, with the initiatives discussed in general order of priority. 8.1 More shoulder-peak rail services and more express services outside the peak

Currently, approximately 65% of all AM peak trips (i.e. all trips made between ?am and 9am) are made during the peak 1 hour (arrival Central between 7:30am- 8:30am), with the remaining 35% travelling in the shoulder peak hour (7:00am to 7:30am and 8:30am and 9:00am.)

Spreading the peak, to allow greater utilisation of existing track capacity, is considered to be a priority initiative to manage growth not only in the short to medium term, but also beyond. It also makes good economic sense to better match supply and demand.

Additional train services can and should be provided in the shoulder peak periods, where there is track capacity available, to help spread the passenger load across the two-hour AM peak period and reduce the demand pressure on peak one hour services.

8.1.1 Impact of this initiative

Departmental has identified that if the spread of AM peak trips changed to 60% in the peak 1 hour and 40% in the shoulder peak hour, this would delay when the first threshold of inner city capacity, the southern services using the suburban tracks via the Merivale Bridge by approximately 2 years.

This impact is based on the Cross River Rail demand forecasts of 4.27% per annum. Should lower growth rates continue as per the last few years, then major investment can be further deferred.

13 June 2012 Page 49 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

8.1.2 Capacity opportunity

The capacity opportunity this initiative provides is illustrated in figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.

This compares scenarios for the future spread of services in 2020, and the extent to which these scenarios are within the capacity thresholds: • current (2012) spread of services across the peak period • 2020: 65:35 spread of services across peak • 2020: 60:40 spread of services across peak • 2020: 55:45 potential spread of services across peak.

Peak spreading of services: current

100 Theoretical 90 capacity 84tph 80 Estimated practical capacity 78 tph Ul 70 Q) u ·s:... 60 Q) Ul 50 ~co Q) c. 40 :iii <( 30

0 Current (2012)

llllil Peak 1 hour (7:30-8:30) 111111 Shoulder peak 1 hour (7-7:30, 8:30-9) I

Figure 8.1: Current (2012) AM 2 hour peak period - inbound service levels in peak and shoulder peak hours

Peak spreading 2020: 65-35 scenario (same as current 2012)

100 Theoretical 90 capacity 84tph

80 Estimated practical ID 70 capacity 78 tph ·s:u ...Q) 60 Ul ~co 50 Q) c. 40 :iii <( 30

0 2020: 65:35 scenario

11!:1 Peak 1 hour (7:30-8:30) 1111 Shoulder peak 1 hour (7-7:30, 8:30-9) I

Figure 8.2: 2020 assumed AM 2 hour peak - inbound service levels in peak and shoulder assuming the same 65:35 profile could be maintained

13 June 2012 Page 50 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Peak spreading 2020: 55-45 scenario

100 Theoretical 90 capacity 84tph

80 Estimated practical capacity 78 tph Ill 70 Q) u ·:;: 60 ...Q) Ill .II: 50 nl Q) ll. 40 ::iiE <( 30

0 2020: 55:45 scenario

IIlii Peak 1 hour (7:30-8:30) IIIII Shoulder peak 1 hour (7-7:30, 8:30-9) I

Figure 8.3: 2020 assumed AM 2 hour peak- inbound service levels in peak and shoulder assuming a more balanced 55:45 profile could be achieved

This illustrates how services could be provided across the 2 hour peak period to implement this initiative. It also identifies the potential to provide further service level increases in the shoulder peak.

Services may be planned in line with the theoretical capacity, however due to variations in dwell, run time faults and incidents, a reliable capacity or predicted capacity of 76 tph has been assumed.

This identifies that in addition to 13 to 19 additional peak hour services being introduced from current level of 65, up to the level of inner city track capacity an additional 17 to 22 shoulder peak services could be added to support peak spreading from current level of 47.

The need to increase shoulder services to these levels will be subject to forecast growth, and the ability to reliably operate such high levels of service that would place more pressure on network capacity over the peak period.

A key issue that needs to be considered in implementing this initiative is the potential impact on freight capacity in shoulder peak periods.

This potential impact needs to be further investigated, as impacts on freight services may need to be mitigated by investment in targeted freight infrastructure in the south east Queensland rail network, for example freight passing loops/refuges.

8.1.3 Assessment of peak spreading trends on the current network

Analysis of recent trends in the spread of passenger loadings across the peak period indicates that peak spreading is already occurring. For example, on Gold Coast line services; there has been a spreading of the peak from 64.9% travelling in the peak hour in 2009 to 63.5% in 2011, with only 1 shoulder peak Gold Coast service added during this period.

13 June 2012 Page 51 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

As services become more crowded, passengers may adjust their travel patterns to travel on less crowded services as indicated above. The following initiatives should also be considered for implementation, depending on forecast growth and the effectiveness of implementation of the peak spreading initiatives to cater for forecast demand: e off-peak pricing incentives taking advantage of go card flexibility • staggered work times I flexible working arrangements with major employers in the CBD.

All these measures have limitations. However, when developed a combination can be effective.

For example, the level of flexibility of employment conditions and workplace hours will affect the ability of passengers to start work earlier or later, which will impact the effectiveness of this initiative.

Also, earlier services for passengers already undertaking longer distance trips, requiring earlier departures than currently, may also be less attractive. For example, passengers on the Gold Coast line currently departing from Varsity Lakes at 5:48am arrive at Central at 7:11 am.

The implementation of a fares strategy to support the implementation of the peak spreading initiative, by providing fare pricing incentives to encourage passengers to travel in the shoulder peak period, should also be considered. Given this is an approach that could be readily and quickly implemented through go card ticketing, the extent to which increasing shoulder peak services provides an incentive for passengers to change their travel arrangements should be monitored and subject to crowding levels, a fares strategy implemented if needed. 8.2 Revising seating arrangements on trains to increase capacity

Increasing the carrying capacity of trains by revising seating arrangements provides an opportunity to increase the overall passenger carrying capacity of the network.

The current Ciytrain fleet has a number of different fleet types, with varying seating configurations and carrying capacities. In addition, the standing density that aligns with the maximum load for these trains, which is generally 750 passengers (combined seated and standing) for a six car train (375 passengers per three car set) is 2.2 passengers per m2.

Examples of varying seating configurations are shown in diagram 8.4.

Diagram 8.4

13 June 2012 Page 52 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The impact of alternative seating configurations on train capacity is shown in table 8.5.

Internal Seating Standing Standing Total Total configuration capacity (3- area (m2) capacity (3- capacity: capacity: 6- car) (3-car)_ car) 3-car car Transverse 244 61 131 375 750 Mixed 236 66 142 378 756 All 215 78 168 383 766 longitudinal

Table 8.5: Train capacities with standing passengers at 2.2 pax/m2

However, the impact of accepting higher standing densities, in addition to changing the internal configuration, has a far greater impact on carrying capacities, as shown in table 8.6 and 8.7.

Internal Standing Standing Standing configuration density density density 2.2 3.0 3.6 pax/m2 pax/m2 pax/m2 3-car sets Total % Total 0/o Total 0/o capacity increase capacity increase capacity increase Transverse 375 - 426 - 463 - Mixed 378 0.8 433 1.7 473 2.2 All longitudinal 384 2.2 449 5.4 496 7.2

Table 8.6: comparison of loadings at varying seating configurations and standing densities

Internal Transverse All 0/o Extra Extra seating (pax/m2) longitudinal increase passengers passengers configuration in carrying per train per train car capacity Standing 2.2 3.0 density Total 375 449 19.7% 74 25 capacity: 3- car Total 750 898 19.7% 148 25 capacity: 6- car

Table 8.7: Indicative impact of increased standing density through all longitudinal seating

The table above indicates that the passenger carrying capacity of a 6-car train, with all longitudinal seating, and a standing density of 3.0 passengers per m2, would have a total capacity of 898 passengers. By removing 58 seats on extra 148 more passengers can be accommodated lifting the current capacity of 750 passengers per 6-car train to 898 passengers.

However operating trains at these loading levels is likely to have a considerable impact on dwell times at stations, with the consequential and counter-productive impact on the achievable track capacity and train throughput and reliability (on-time running).

13 June 2012 Page 53 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Graph 8.8 illustrates the exponential increase in dwell times as standing densities increase.

------~ 5.0

(lJ ~50~------

.,~ LQ F ... _.-__,.._, ___ ,_,.._ ...... _... -_<"_--_..._,.,.==-====_::______----- .,.. ~ ;o ::::

:aUJ ~0

0.0 100 150 200 230 300 350 40( 450 Passengers per 3 car trnin ~~Estimated Dv,.·el! Estimate (62off, 5 O"""l per carl -,Standing Density of =:.crttJ.lntrg ~.:.:.sengers

Graph 8.8: Relationship between passenger standing density and overall time

It is also likely that passenger acceptability of such high load levels particularly for journeys over 20 minutes will be low, given the current perception that a train load of 750 passengers is 'too crowded'.

Australians generally value personal space and many are uncomfortable with crowding, and in practice it is not easy to achieve three passengers per square metre given physical characteristics of passengers and accompanying luggage.

To further illustrate the appropriateness of the loading standards applied for the south east Queensland rail network, the loads on Gold Coast trains in 2007 and 2008 which triggered high levels of passenger complaint and media attention equated to average standing densities between 1 .1 to 1.4 passengers per m2.

Removal of seats in existing trains or suitable configuration of new train seating are considered a relatively low cost approach, with less than one year to implement for existing trains. However reconfigured trains will need to be dedicated the particular shorter route sectors in which they are intended to operate.

Application to the shorter operating sectors, which minimise the length of time for passengers to stand, would be desirable. Diagram 8.9 shows the travel time distance for all stops trains from Central station, noting that the current guideline of 'no standees for more than 20 minutes' is used for service planning.

This approach is consistent with the strategic vision for Urbanlink services identified in Connecting SEQ 2031.

In summary, improved seating configuration in association with better platform management is estimated to increase train loading by approximately 5% in peak periods.

13 June 2012 Page 54 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

N.ambour: 114 Minutos 2012 Operating Strategy N AM Peak 730- 830 (inbound) Map r&pre-SS>nts trave.f time-s ba.tw~n i~n-tified stattons and Cs.ntral EB

Main Line Suburban Unr:t Stations Q

20 Minutes F1om C-entral 20-30 Minutes F1om Central Bindha: 21 !IAinutc-.s

Airport lnmrnatfonaf: 20 Minutes

Diagram 8.9- Map identifying trips less then 20 minutes and 30 minutes from Central Station

8.2.1 Capacity benefit

If trains with less seating and higher standing capacity were used on shorter distance suburban sectors more capacity could be achieved. Shorter trips are assumed to have higher passenger acceptance of standing based on an assumed operating strategy in 2020 that identifies approximately 40 x AM 1 hour peak inbound services will provide on these sectors.

The extent to which this capacity benefit can be delivered reliably is also dependent on whether new trains can be configured with more doors to allow reduced dwell time. Three door carriages introduce new risks with potential unsafe stepping distance into carriages. It is understood a survey of all affected stations would be required to fully assess the safety implications of changes "gap" on existing stations.

Trials are proposed to test public reaction and test seating options.

13 June 2012 Page 55 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

8.3 Minor signalling upgrades to improve safety, reliability and reduce headways

The requirement for minor signalling upgrades to the inner city network, to achieve the maximum capacity of the existing inner city network at an acceptable level of reliability, has been identified by the department in previous studies. This assumed capacity is 23 trains per hour on the suburban tracks (which use Merivale Bridge) and 19 trains per hour on the main line tracks.

Achieving this level of capacity through the inner city network, to optimise track capacity, were fundamental assumptions for Cross River Rail.

This initiative considers the capacity and reliability benefits that can be achieved through the modification of existing signalling while maintaining acceptable levels of reliability. To achieve these benefits, a range of signalling modifications in the Roma Street to Bowen Hills section of the inner city network were considered, including: • changing overlap lengths • modifying the speed profile to match the operation of the railway • changing existing signal positions • adding signals.

In order to identify the benefit of this initiative, operational simulation modelling was undertaken to compare the on-time running of the 2020 network with and without the minor signalling enhancements. These outcomes were compared with a 2009 simulation undertaken for Cross River Rail.

The implementation of minor signalling enhancements would increase service reliability by approximately 7.4%, compared to predicted reliability in 2020.

The implementation of minor signalling enhancements would improve service reliability by approximately 7.4%, restoring overall network reliability to within 5% of the simulated 2009 levels. However, these levels are forecast to still be lower than Queensland Rail's benchmark level.

This initiative was proposed to support additional peak services and improve the reliability of the system. The panel considers this to be a prudent investment to be implemented prior to increasing peak services. 8.4 Short starter turnback

This initiative involves using the spare capacity of the existing fleet to provide additional services in peak period, to support peak spreading.

The long run times for Citytrain services from Ipswich to Caboolture for example limits opportunity for a second full run in peak period. However there have been several opportunities identified for a second short run: • three possible paths from Corinda • three from Strathpine (with additional platform) • one from Sandgate (with supporting platform) • one from Ferny Grove or four from Mitchelton (with additional platform).

Analysis of the current timetable provided locations (although possibly requiring supporting upgrades) for these second runs.

13 June 2012 Page 56 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Some facilities are understood to be already in place to support this. The cost of operating these additional or extended services would be expected to be marginal as it involves better utilisation of existing crews and trains. 8.5 Real time information to advise passengers of crowding and influence them to change to a different service

A key objective to address capacity constraints is to maximise the use of available capacity on services. Passengers would be provided with information to assist their travel choices which may assist with peak spreading.

Translink is piloting a real time information system on Clark's Logan City services in early 2012. At this stage, the project is limited to the pilot. However, the system is capable of supporting up to 4,000 vehicles across multiple delivery partners and the supplier has a proven ability to integrate trains into their system. The extension of the existing system to cover the rail network is subject to funding availability and procurement processes.

A real time passenger information system would support the use of available capacity by providing information to passengers on the level of crowding on services, enabling passengers to make informed decisions to choose less crowded trains. This would help spread passenger loads across available train capacity. Real time train location would be provided to customers via SMS, web, smart phones, and other media.

There are two options for providing train crowding information: 1. Capture in real-time and post in real-time- this requires all trains on the line in question to be fitted and a backend system capable of collating and disseminating this information. 2. Capture historically and provide information to passengers based on the likelihood of any particular service being crowded (advice has been provided that counters applied to ten percent of the Queensland Rail fleet would generate a sufficiently clear picture of the extent of crowding).

8.6 Removal of XPT paths from the peak period

The daily Countrylink XPT (Express Passenger Train) service from Sydney departs from Roma Street station in the morning peak and uses train paths that could otherwise be used for Citytrain passenger services. As this service operates to a New South Wales timetable, its arrival at Roma Street is affected by the annual switch to daylight saving time, which results in paths being reserved for the XPT in the Citytrain timetable for both seasons.

As a result, XPT services require two paths inbound and two paths outbound on the dual gauge line between Roma Street and Salisbury junction and to enable crossing movements with suburban train services to access platform 2 at Roma Street.

The removal of the XPT service from the AM peak period is a key assumption of Cross River Rail, to enable utilisation of these paths for Gold Coast express services that utilise the dual gauge line. This change would require negotiation with Sydney Trains (formerly Railcorp) and the Australian Rail Track Corporation and should be progressed as soon as possible.

13 June 2012 Page 57 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

8.7 Improve station and platform management to increase throughput

The time taken to load and unload passengers at stations is a major contributor to dwell time (the time allocated for each train to pause at a particular station), and therefore impacts service headways and capacity.

As patronage demand increases, the dwell time at the more popular stations, particularly Central, will tend to rise as the proportion of heavily loaded trains increases and the average time between services is reduced.

An increase in dwell times will reduce capacity as fewer services can operate per hour and service reliability deteriorates.

If the maximum capacity of the inner city network, and Central station in particular, is to be used, the management of passengers during loading and unloading in the peak will become a critical component, since delays to trains loading or unloading at inner city stations will cascade through the timetable, when there is little or no spare time between trains.

Examples of platform management initiatives included ensuring: • access to train doors are not blocked by waiting passengers • clear access paths to stairs and escalators.

Examples of passenger management to control passenger waiting areas, access routes and ensure orderly loading, include: • platform markings to show door positions, loading points and "keep clear" exit routes • 'loading managers' to safely marshal passengers and ensure loading points and exit routes are kept clear • improved control of train stopping point to ensure accurate alignment of doors with load points when trains stop • countdown clock to indicate time until doors close, flashing lights or audible warnings to indicate when loading should cease • specific loading announcements via the station public address system.

In association with seat reconfiguration and on-board announcements for passenger to move down the aisles away from the doors, the panel estimates an increase train loads of 5% is achievable without deteriorating dwell times. 8.8 Extra bus services on the highest demand north-south routes

The panel consider this initiative will deliver limited benefit as bus corridor catchments generally have limited overlap. The South East Busway did initially shift some patronage to rail from the Beenleigh line.

The busways helped grow the public transport market through higher service levels and less delay than shared roads. Modelling suggests 1 ,000 passengers will change to buses from trains with commencement of Northern Busway.

13 June 2012 Page 58 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

8.9 Off peak pricing incentives

Based on a peak fare elasticity assumption of -0.25, off-peak pricing incentives are not expected to deliver a significant shift of passengers from the peak to off-peak as peak passengers are less price sensitive with many commuting to work with similar start and finish times each day. Peak spreading and a larger incentive may have a greater impact if service frequency just before and after the peak was improved. It is understood that only 7% of peak passengers are on concessions (other than students).

There is the risk of increased revenue foregone with any further boost to off-peak fare discounts. The extent of this risk may be contained by limiting the higher off peak discount to the rail mode. 8.10 Staggered work times Staggering work times and university start and finish times is worthy of consideration in order to support peak spreading and better utilisation of existing track capacity.

While it may be difficult to convince private employers, the Government (State and Brisbane City Council) is a significant employer in CBD with significant influence.

The panel considers there are no downsides to encouraging staggered work times in many areas of the public sector. 8.11 Summary of review: Short to Medium term initiatives

The analysis of short to medium term initiatives has identified that in combination, it is estimated that up to 40% increased weekday two hour peak capacity can realistically be achieved.

Key priorities based on progressively increasing cost are: • Seat reconfiguration, station platform management and real time information to passengers • Short starter turn-backs • Peak spreading (beyond the short starters) • Additional peak services underpinned by signalling upgrades, expanding stabling and removal of XPT peak paths to improve timetable robustness • More trains (New Generation Rollingstock).

13 June 2012 Page 59 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Graph 8.10 summarises the significant latent capacity that can be achieved.

Increasing train services per hour does limit the ability to recover from incidents and delays.

Proposed Peak Capacity Improvements (2012- 2020)

·Additional peak services ·Signalling upgrades ·Stabling •Remove XPT paths

40% Peak spreading & Extra real-time information Short starter tllrn-backs

Seat reconfiquration & station Require new platform management rolling stock ! Can be achieved using ! current rolling stock t ~ ! ! ; 1 l ··:-·············; ...... Current peak New peak capacity capacity

Graph 8.10

Graph 8.11 shows the capacity gains from the short to medium term initiatives against various rates of rail patronage demand growth to highlight the range of years in which the new peak capacity is reached and when a major step-change in capacity such as Cross River Rail may be required. Inner City Rail Network- Estimated timing for 'step' increase in capacity Estimated AM Peak Passenger Demand Earliest timing for "step' latest timing for 'step' increase in capacity increase in capacity

100,000

90,000

80,000 f,Jew peak capacity (all lines at capacit{l

70,000

50,000

40.000 Track capacity at Merivale Bridge could be reached 'Trend lines are based on with new trains between 2017 and 2020 historical train patronage growth

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Graph 8.11

13 June 2012 Page 60 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The recommended short to medium term initiatives are estimated to add a further 40% capacity to the network to achieve the theoretical new peak capacity for the rail network. Depending on growth, the new peak capacity of the inner city rail network is estimated to be reached some time between 2018 (with average 4.9% per annum growth) and 2022 (with average 3.33% per annum growth).

13 June 2012 Page 61 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

9 Consideration of Alternative Options to Cross River Rail Prior to Cross River Rail, the department undertook an extensive range of integrated transport planning processes and studies to assess the merit of alternative transport solutions for the inner city. These included the following: • Inner City Rail Capacity Study (ICRCS) (2009) • draft Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for south East Queensland( Connecting SEQ 2031) planning process • Western Brisbane Transport Network Strategy (2009).

These studies all led to the conclusion that a balanced transport system, with heavy rail (ie. Cross River Rail) as its backbone, was the best solution to address the city's growing transport task into the future. The outcomes of these studies were further refined and confirmed through the pre feasibility, detailed feasibility and Business Case phases of Cross River Rail as follows. 9.1 Strategic transport options

An assessment of strategic transport options and their ability to meet the identified need was undertaken as part of the Connecting SEQ 2031 process, and the Cross River Rail Business Case. These options included prioritised investment in the road network over the public transport network and a range of strategic public transport options as follows:

Option one - Heavv rail enhancement • Inter city connection function- augmentation of the existing through rail system • Suburban commuting function- augmentation of the existing through rail system and supported by limited development of the existing busway network. Existing on-road bus system to be refocused to provide a bus-rail feeder network with a number of augmented interchanges and reallocation of existing bus kilometres to meet this requirement. • Inner city distribution function - augmentation of the existing through rail system in conjunction with the inner city on-road bus network. Increased inner city coverage provided by rail network would reduce the required inner city bus network. Bus Network would provide a flexible level of coverage in the inner city. Inner city metro would provide longer term option for inner city distribution function.

Option two - Enhanced bus network • Inter city connection function- intercity function limited to capacity provided by existing rail system, i.e. services matched to available capacity. This would necessitate turning trains back at the edge of the inner city and transferring passengers to another mode. • Suburban commuting function- primarily provided by a significant expansion of the bus and busway network. Supported by limited expansion of rail system until capacity of each system is reached. • Inner city distribution- provided by expansion of inner city bus distribution services. Provision limited by ability to provide additional bus infrastructure and taking of road space for bus movements.

Option three - Light rail • Inter city connection function- intercity function limited to capacity provided by existing rail system, i.e. services matched to available capacity. This would necessitate turning trains back at the edge of the inner city and transferring passengers to another mode.

13 June 2012 Page 62 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• Suburban and busway commuting function- provided by limited expansion of rail service until capacity of rail system is reached. Development of a new inner city light rail system. Existing on-road bus system to be refocused to provide a bus-light rail feeder network with a number of interchanges and reallocation of existing bus kilometres to meet this requirement. • Inner city distribution- primarily provided by a new inner city light rapid transit system supported by a reduced inner city bus network.

Option four- Metro • Inter city connection function -intercity function limited to capacity provided by existing rail system, i.e. services matched to available capacity. This would necessitate turning trains back at the edge of the inner city and transferring passengers to another mode. • Suburban commuting function- provided by limited expansion of rail service until capacity of rail system is reached. Development of a new inner city metro system. • Existing on-road bus system to be refocused to provide a bus-metro feeder network with a number of interchanges and reallocation of existing bus kilometres to meet this requirement. • Inner city distribution - primarily provided by a new metro system supported by a reduced inner city bus network.

In order to assess the relative merits of the alternative public transport options in quantitative terms, a rapid economic appraisal (REA) was undertaken as part of the Cross River Rail Business Case to quantify the change in capital and operating costs and project benefits for the Bus, Light Rail and Metro options compared with a Heavy Rail option.

The outcomes of the REA summarised in table 9.1 are based on cost estimates for the Cross River Rail reference project time at the time of the assessment, which have since been further refined (reduced) as the project progressed.

Option Present value Present Value Present value of Benefit cost of capital cost of operating benefit ($000) ratio ($000) cost ($000) Heavy Rail (Cross 5,552 724 7,908 1.26 River Rail) Enhanced bus 5,744 655 3,777 0.59 Light Rail 5,134 2,059 3,997 0.56 Metro 10,625 1,843 4,976 0.40 Table 9.1 Rapid economic appraisal results The REA identified that a heavy rail option would deliver the highest benefit cost ratio (BCR) when compared with the alternatives. The qualitative analysis of options also identified that there would be a number of other weaknesses for the Bus, Light Rail and Metro options, in terms of level of service issues. These can be summarised as follows: • Bus Enhancements would present level of service issues due to disruptive surface works during construction and the likely requirement to interchange at the city fringe, therefore not addressing the inter-city/regional travel needs of commuters. • Light Rail, due to its on street running requirement, would not satisfy the constructability, amenity, equity and accessibility service requirements. It also would not address the inter-city/regional travel needs of commuters due to the likely requirement to interchange at the city fringe. • Metro would require rail turn-back capacity beyond 2031, which had not been investigated at the time of analysis. It also would not address the inter-city/regional travel needs of commuters due to the likely requirement to interchange at the city fringe.

13 June 2012 Page 63 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail 9.2 Strategic heavy rail options

A variety of heavy rail route options were identified and assessed throughout the Inner City Rail Capacity Study (ICRCS) 2008 and the detailed feasibility stage of Cross River Rail. Together these stages examined more than 100 heavy rail alternatives which were reviewed and shortlisted to provide a project definition and corridor that would be developed into the Reference Design for Cross River Rail.

9.2.1 Inner City Rail Capacity Study

The ICRCS was essentially the prefeasibility work leading to development of the Cross River Rail detailed feasibility phase. During this study, 70 possible network concepts were identified and evaluated.

The ICRCS broadly included the rail network triangle between Bowen Hills, Park Road and Milton rail stations, and ultimately identified three preferred options, all of which: • passed the mandatory criteria- they relieve the identified inner city capacity constraints, can be constructed using Queensland Rail construction standards and have no totally unacceptable social or ecological implications • scored highest on a weighted multi-criteria analysis across all disciplines, confirmed by sensitivity testing • had similar quantifiable economic impacts • had the same route for the first corridor required by 2016 • had a different route for the second corridor required by 2026.

Although the preferred three options were different 'as a package', each option had a common corridor at 2016 proceeding from the south through the CBD and via Spring Hill to Bowen Hills. The ICRCS team identified the following additional 2016 corridors for further analysis in the detailed feasibility phase: • Merivale Bridge or tunnel (to use as much of the existing alignment as possible along the Merivale Bridge alignment) • Newstead/Fortitude Valley route (as an alternative to the Spring Hill route).

These findings provided the basis for the development of the Cross River Rail Project, which targeted the 2016 capacity requirements.

9.2.2 Cross River Rail detailed feasibility

The detailed feasibility phase for Cross River Rail examined potential heavy rail options under the following streams of investigation:

9.2.2.1 Inner City Rail Capacity Study options

This phase involved a review of the three options from the ICRCS discussed above. Evaluation of these options generated an additional three options, providing a total of six options, which were evaluated through two stages of weighted multi-criteria analysis. This led to a shortlist of the following three options, illustrated in figure 9.2. • Option A1 -a new rail line between Fairfield and Wooloowin, with four new stations at Woolloongabba, CBD (Edward Street), Spring Hill, Exhibition (RNA), upgraded stations at Park Road and Bowen Hills and a 1 0.75km tunnel. • Option 81 - a new rail line between Fairfield and Breakfast Creek, with three new stations at Woolloongabba, CBD (Edward Street), Newstead, upgraded stations at Park Road and Bowen Hills and an 8.75km tunnel.

13 June 2012 Page 64 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• Option C2- a rail line between Fairfield and Bowen Hills that duplicates existing rail line from Park Road to Bowen Hills, a 5.5km tunnel from west Roma Street to Bowen Hills, a fourth surface track between Park Road and South Brisbane and a duplication of the Merivale Bridge. Under this option there were no new station locations but underground platforms that would be required at Central, Roma Street, Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills.

f!:l"'11"! l'llll lo.rw..!ru RoU!~A Inner Rail '""'~'"''"'~' Study Elwbl!l .._ ~~non I<><~Uon Rolli"{

Figure 9.2: Three 2016 corridor options developed from Inner City Rail Capacity Study

9.2.2.2 Straight line path

The Straight Line Path was another stream of investigation that further developed the ICRCS options to examine additional through-running heavy rail corridors. The aim of this pathway was to refine the ICRCS options in order to improve affordability and operational effectiveness; 15 options were identified and evaluated. These included options of breaking into the existing rail tunnels, changing proposed stations, shallow river crossings and rail loops. From the original 15 options, the shortlisted Straight Line Path options were:

13 June 2012 Page 65 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• Option SL 1 -a new rail line from Fairfield to Exhibition Loop with new underground stations at Park Road, Woolloongabba and the CBD, and 6.5km tunnel. Quadrupling the exhibition loop. • Option SL2- a variation on SL 1, option SL2 turns to the north-west after the CBD station to connect to a new underground platform at Roma Street before joining up to the Exhibition Loop. • Option SL3- a variation on SL 1, where the alignments in the CBD shift to the south west of the city (George Street). A new station would be located at the Roma Street Parklands which can be connected to the Roma Street Station at concourse level. • Option SL3 (Bridge)- same as SL3 with tunnels through the CBD and south of the Brisbane River. The river crossing however is made via a bridge. The higher ground of this alignment allows the driven tunnel to be commenced in a shorter distance from the bridge landing and hence reduces the impact of cut and cover works on the city streets.

9.2.2.3 Challenge path

This involved an investigation of potential alternative options, outside of the constraints of the prefeasibility study. The panel understands these investigations were limited by time and the level of funding available. The aim of the challenge path was to determine if there were any alternative feasible heavy rail options to solve the inner city capacity problem; 20 options were identified and evaluated.

From this process, the preferred Challenge Path option CP4 (including a city loop) was recommended as an alternative option for further consideration. This option involved a new surface rail line between Salisbury and Corinda and new rail tunnel loop in the inner city from Roma Street to Exhibition Line via a new Central North Station. It required new stations at lndooroopilly, Central North and Exhibition with a 1 .6km tunnel. Surface works include: a 4km surface connection between Salisbury and Corinda; two additional tracks between Merivale Bridge and Roma Street; and a quadruplicating of the Exhibition Loop. This option is illustrated in figure 9.3.

13 June 2012 Page 66 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Figure 9.3: Preferred Challenge Path option (CP4 including city loop)

9.2.2.4 Rail loop option

This involved an investigation into a potential rail loop system. The aim of this study was to examine if a rail loop system would provide better affordability and operational effectiveness than the existing through-running rail system.

The study found that, due to the scale of infrastructure required to provide the loop (i.e. two river crossings), a rail loop in Brisbane would cost considerably more than a through-running rail corridor, as proposed by Cross River Rail, and provide significantly less benefit.

13 June 2012 Page 67 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

9.2.2.5 Assessment of Options

The preferred options were assessed by the project team in consultation with key stakeholders. This included representatives from Translink, Queensland Treasury, Infrastructure Australia, Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Department of Transport and Main Roads and Brisbane City Council.

The eight shortlisted options from the different investigation streams were evaluated in a weighted multi-criteria analysis using the criteria categories of serviceability, accessibility and sustainability, along with consideration of affordability and construction.

Based on the strategic heavy rail analysis processes outlined above, the overall ranking of the options was as follows:

Option Ranking SL 1-3 (tunnel) 1-3 SL3 (bridge) 4 A1 5 B1 6 CP4 7 C2 8

The following comments summarise the ranking outcomes: • The three straight line tunnel options were the highest ranked options. • Option SL3 (bridge) had the next highest score but rated low under sustainability and constructability. The space required for the approaches either side of a new bridge and for new surface track would create significant environmental, public realm and commercial impacts. These would be particularly high for this option which involved the construction of a bridge through the Botanic Gardens. • ICRCS options A1 and B1 were ranked 5th and 6th as the longer length of tunnel provided a higher level of serviceability; however, they did not offer the level of accessibility of the Straight Line Path options. • Option CP4 was ranked 7th, scoring low in all criteria. It scored particularly low in serviceability primarily because of the combination of Ipswich and Gold Coast services running in the same corridor. It also did not provide the same level of accessibility and sustainability. The option represented a lower cost alternative to meeting the serviceability criteria.

The process concluded that further analysis of Challenge Path Option CP4 be discontinued. This conclusion was formed for the following reasons: • rather than increasing sectorisation, option CP4 was seen as diminishing this objective by operating the Gold Coast/Beenleigh express services with the Ipswich/Springfield services on the same lines, hence introducing operating risk that is avoided by the other options • inability of this option to enhance access to trip attractors or generators within the inner city that are currently not serviced by rail, in particular the lack of a new station in the heart of the Brisbane CBD • the nature of new track construction at Milton and adjacent to Roma Street Station carries a high risk for adverse impact or disruption to rail operations as well as potential impact on the business and residential environment that has recently emerged as a result of the Barracks redevelopment • inability to provide an adequate catalyst for redevelopment within the inner city; in particular, this assessment identified the inability of this option to support redevelopment within precincts such as Woolloongabba as currently envisaged within the regional and city-wide planning framework as a major shortcoming reduced potential for value uplift and capture.

13 June 2012 Page 68 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• The last ranked option was ICRCS Option C2 which scored last in all criteria except serviceability where it ranked 7th. This option adopted an alignment concurrent with the existing rail corridors resulting with a low score in serviceability and accessibility. Surface construction south of the river along the existing alignment resulted in very low scores in constructability while the need to build a tunnel under the existing alignment resulted in an estimated capital cost only slightly less than that for SL 1-3.

In particular, this analysis highlighted the following key issues associated with Option C2: • Freight- reduced the number of available rail freight paths • Access - limited ability to improve access to the public transport network • Time savings- provided limited travel time savings • Sustainability - did not support the then government plans or urban development policy • Constructability- construction activities occur in a highly constrained and operational rail environment. This results in a complex design which has significant impacts on rail operations and diminishes the quality of existing stations. • Commercial- option had a high risk profile, no ability to be staged and little opportunity for value capture.

Option C2 was therefore discounted at the time.

9.2.2.6 Cross River Rail Preferred Options

Based on the above, the Cross River Rail project team determined that options SL2 and SL3 represented the best balance of cost and benefit. These options were considered to have a significant cost saving compared to the options identified in the ICRCS and had higher accessibility outcomes then SL 1.

Based on the key elements and alignments identified as part of options SL2 and SL3, the following project elements were determined to guide the development of the Cross River Rail Reference Project: • A passenger rail tunnel (either twin tube or single tube) between Fairfield Station and Exhibition Station to provide a significant enhancement in inner city rail capacity. The tunnel would be designed to allow for use by all existing and new Citytrain rollingstock to ensure flexibility in operations. • New underground stations at Woolloongabba and in the southern end of the CBD, with further consideration of the value of an underground Spring Hill Station or improved connectivity to the Spring Hill commercial precinct. • Possible underground platforms at the current Park Road Station and Roma Street Station or Central Station to enhance passenger interchanging between Cross River Rail and existing rail lines. • Potential upgrades to surface rail stations at Bowen Hills, Park Road, Exhibition and potential station upgrades between Dutton Park and Salisbury. • Quadruplicating of track on the Exhibition line between tunnel connection and Mayne Yards to allow for all train movements- passenger, freight and stabling manoeuvres. • Infrastructure to remove junction conflicts between Bowen Hills and north of Wooloowin to allow sufficient capacity for all train movements- passenger and freight. • Additional track capacity between Fairfield and Salisbury to allow for an increased frequency of passenger movements in the peak periods, and passenger and freight movements in the off-peak in a strategically important rail freight corridor. In the development of the Reference Project, consideration has been given to the benefits and costs for freight, passengers and the surrounding community in extending the tunnel further to the south. • Possible grade separation of the Cleveland and South Coast lines at Park Road junction to remove inefficient crossing movements.

13 June 2012 Page 69 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The development of the project was also determined to include consideration of the following elements: • design of a second inner city rail tunnel corridor from the western line to the Exhibition Station (at surface and in tunnel via Roma Street Station and a new Central North Station) to preserve the ultimate inner city rail network • planning for a separate inner city metro network to ensure the preservation of underground space for this long term distribution system and allowance for the necessary connections at Cross River Rail stations • new sectorisation of Citytrain services to take advantage of the new capacity • enhanced Citytrain operating practices to a standard consistent with operating in an underground environment • platform screen doors to improve the comfort, safety and capacity of underground stations • enhancements to signalling systems and train control facilitated by the new capacity and the additional levels of sectorisation • additional rollingstock to provide additional services within the Project and to meet the necessary standards for operating in an underground environment • urban design and enhancements to the public realm in and around the new and upgraded station locations in close collaboration with Brisbane City Council.

Despite the conclusion that option CP4 be discontinued, there were some elements of this option that were considered worthy of further investigation, including the inner city connection between Roma Street Station and the Exhibition line, and track widening to the west of Roma Street Station. The option also represented a lower cost alternative to meeting capacity requirements on the rail network.

As a result, further investigations into rail operations, engineering, patronage forecast, economics, possible impacts to property and costs for this option (known as the Alternative Option) were conducted. The results of those investigations are outlined in section ten.

The preferred corridor for investigation during the Cross River Rail detailed feasibility phase was determined (based around options SL2 and SL3) and is shown in figure 9.4. This broad corridor was the focus of detailed feasibility investigations and within this corridor various route and station options were explored. The corridor was also sufficiently wide to allow for the investigation of the Alternative Option.

13 June 2012 Page 70 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

lrwe:>llga~fng how ~be I:TIIin track> n

""'fe!Tl!d IOCllit!<~n, ofn.,... unc!ergll)lfnd station --.____ In the B011P ROJLd Urban \llllap p

111Ve$tig;u!ng wh"re. within the area of Investigation, tho tllnncl wllfS~~rfllce In _----tile 11\!lu!h.

111W!llplinc llow many additional tl"il b!!l'iNi!<;n Soali!lbllf\' and llutta" Pari< at!! noodl!d '•"~;:.:::..::,;:;.;___~----- and haw l1> provldo ""'l:ra tracks soulh of the L!!lnnell entrance...

Figure 9.4: Cross River Rail preferred corridor and project definition elements

The detailed heavy rail analysis, undertaken as part of the Cross River Rail Business Case development investigated in detail a shortlist of potential solutions including a Minimal Enhancement Option (predominantly operational initiatives) (Discussed in Sections 7 and 8), a lower cost Alternative Option and a more detailed North-South Option, as well as a range of reduced scope options. These are discussed in detail in section ten.

13 June 2012 Page 71 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

9.2.3 The Cleveland Solution

In addition to the options considered above, GHD, on behalf of the Council of Mayors for south east Queensland, investigated an alternative option to Cross River Rail called the "Cleveland Solution" as shown in figure 9.5.

Figure 9.5: The Cleveland Solution Route

13 June 2012 Page 72 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The Cleveland Solution concept involved replacing heavy rail trains on this branch line with a Light Rail Metro (tram) style shuttle service, effectively reducing the number of trains consuming paths though to the CBD by 30-35%. The proposed Cleveland service would run as light rail on a new tunnel from Park Road to Woolloongabba and across a bridge to Queensland University of Technology (OUT) Gardens Point, then by tunnel under Herschel Street to a new underground rail at Roma Street. It would then use the Exhibition line to connect out to Ferny Grove.

In summary, it comprised a: • 5km line from Park Road Station to Roma Street Station (partly at grade, 3km in tunnel and 1.3km elevated over river) • 3.8km from Roma Street Station to the Ferny Grove Line at Mayne Yard (largely at grade) • six new stations at Park Road, Woolloongabba, OUT/Queen Street, Roma Street, Exhibition and Bowen Hills and Citytrain interchanges at Park Road, Roma Street and Bowen Hills • 1.4 km heavy rail passing loops at Norman Park • 12 km Manly to Cleveland 2nd track • new fleet of 50 x 45m 'Light Metro' carriages (this frees up the release of 24 x 6 car EMU sets used on Cleveland line) • depot at Hemmant and stabling yards.

The interim estimate of the capital cost (by GHD pre-feasibility estimate 2011 $s) was in the order of $2.5 billion. To allow an appropriate comparison of the Cleveland option with other options, the department engaged cost consultants Turner and Townsend to develop a comparative cost estimate for the Cleveland option based on the first principles approach used for Cross River Rail. This approach was reviewed by Evans and Peck during the Cross River Rail process and has been subject to scrutiny by Infrastructure Australia. Turner and Townsend estimated the cost for the new light metro alignment in the Cleveland option to be around $4.025 billion (201 0 $s), which includes a $1.15 billion risk allowance.

Analysis has highlighted a number of areas which would require further details: • Escalation: no allowance has been made in the Cleveland option. • Risk and contingency; the cost estimate for the Cleveland option includes 10% for risk and contingency. The Australian Government's 'Best Practice Estimating Guide' requires a range of between 40% and 60% for projects at this stage of development. • Duplication of the Cleveland line between Manly and Cleveland and freight passing loop: the $50 million allowance for these two projects in the Cleveland option estimate is about 1 0% of the cost estimate for duplication of the Cleveland line, which is identified as up to $500 million in the Queensland Infrastructure Plan for this 13.2 km section. • Underground stations: the Cleveland option estimate of $175million for stations (3 underground, 2 elevated in Brisbane River, 2 surface), is considered to be about 30% of the cost for this infrastructure.

To enable a fair like for like comparison with Cross River Rail, the Cleveland option would also require additional infrastructure to address other network constraints that have been included in the full scope of Cross River Rail, including projects required to separate freight and passenger services between Park Road and Salisbury, and inner city stabling.

Given the Cleveland option is being promoted as more cost effective than Cross River Rail, there needs to be a similar level of scrutiny applied as there has been to Cross River Rail.

13 June 2012 Page 73 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

Cross River Rail assessed this project as part of a review of project alternatives. It identified that the Cleveland option would provide a short term capacity benefit for the Merivale Bridge and inner city network, however the life of this benefit would depend on the rate of growth of patronage on the lines that would continue to use the Merivale Bridge (Gold Coast, Beenleigh). Based on forecast growth, if the Cleveland line services were removed from the heavy rail network by implementing the Cleveland option, the demand for trains from Gold Coast and Beenleigh is forecast to still exceed the capacity of the Merivale Bridge and inner city suburban tracks in the decade 2020- 2030.

However, the tight timeframe for this report has precluded the panel confirming this cost estimate or capacity benefit. GHD advised it could potentially be operational within four years.

There are concerns that Cleveland and Ferny Grove passengers may get worse journey times and seating however the proposed higher frequency would reduce concern about needing to interchange, for example, Park Road.

The Cleveland Solution does not have the same benefits for freight trains as Cross River Rail -it does provide an additional freight line passing loop at Norman Park. However, the Public Transport Priorities Program is arguably the better approach to provide the required additional track for freight between Yeerongpilly and Park Road.

As the Cleveland Solution is a standalone line using a modern light metro, it is relatively more suitable an "Availability" based PPP contracts with performance incentives and deductions as it has few interface issues. This could reduce costs per passenger carried and stimulate innovation in the "product" offered- ticketing, service standards, facilities, information.

The GHD proposal is a high level study that currently lacks detail to enable a thorough analysis of the potential costs and benefits on par with the work undertaken on Cross River Rail. The concept of paralleling existing road bridge structures is a good one however the alignment near Roma Street and from Park Road would appear to have significant constraints. Options for other train types should be left open at this stage. Should this concept be developed further, the panel considers integration with other riverside developments to be desirable.

13 June 2012 Page 74 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

10 Cross River Rail

10.1 General overview

As described above, the range of strategic heavy rail option analyses undertaken by the CRR project team provided a number of project elements to assist in developing the Cross River Rail Reference Project. This led to a shortlist of four potential options for further consideration in the Business Case: 1. Minimal Enhancement Option CCRC 2020)- this option, discussed in detail in Section 7 above, comprised a range of operational initiatives (with some potential minor infrastructure enhancements) designed to derive additional performance and capacity from the existing system and defer major infrastructure investment such as Cross River Rail. 2. Alternative Option- this option was regarded as a 'lower cost' alternative to the North-South Option that seeks to improve inner city rail capacity by alleviating pressure on key network choke points. 3. North-South Option- this option, examined in detail throughout the Cross River Rail Business Case, was a proposed north-south rail line in Brisbane's inner city, including a new tunnel under the Brisbane River and new underground inner city rail stations. 4. Minimal Enhancement and North-South Option- this option involved the sequential implementation of the Minimal Enhancement Option and then the North South Option.

Section 10.2 below discusses the options in more detail from a financial and economic perspective. 10.2 Business Case Analysis

10.2.1 The Alternative Option

An Alternative Option was developed by the Cross River Rail team over many months to compare against Cross River Rail using detailed financial and economic analysis. The origins of the core components of this project were identified in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study.

As this option was tested and operationally evaluated the scope grew significantly as did the capital costs.

A preliminary assessment of costs was undertaken by the Cross River Rail project team for the Alternative Option and an estimate of $6.462 billion (201 0 $s) was developed excluding allowance for road and rail closures and costs of compensation for existing subterranean structures. This includes $2.57 billion for an inner city tunnel with the remainder of the cost being for surface works to the north and south.

It does not include additional surface works such as the Clapham Yards reconfiguration and Inner City accessibility would need to be provided by another transport system.

The demand forecasting model was used to estimate patronage forecasts and user benefits for the Alternative Option. In terms of benefits, the demand modelling estimates that they were 50% of those estimated for the Cross River Rail, due mainly to the disproportionate costs of crowding and congestion that occurs once trip levels reach a certain point. The economic evaluation results show that the Alternative Option produces a negative economic return with a net present value (NPV) of- $2.1 billion and a benefit cost ration (BCR) of 0.65.

13 June 2012 Page 75 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

10.2.2 The North-South Option (Cross River Rail)

Cross River Rail is a proposed north-south rail line in Brisbane's inner city, including a new tunnel under the Brisbane River and new underground inner city rail stations. The Reference Project is estimated to cost $6.391 billion (201 0 $s) (P90 risk) and includes the tunnel design, surface track design, station design, proposed construction methodology and property requirements.

The Cross River Rail Reference Project consists of: • 9.8 km twin single track tunnels between Yeerongpilly train station and Victoria Park 4 new underground stations at lower Albert Street (with entrances on the corner of Albert/Mary streets and Albert/Alice streets); Roma Street (underneath existing rail station with entrances at the current concourse and on the southern side towards King George Square); Woolloongabba Urban Land Development Area site with one entrance at the Western side of the site near Leopard Street); and Boggo Road Urban Village (northern entrance integrating with existing busway/rail station and southern entrance serving the growing precinct) ventilation outlet and emergency egress at Fairfield (approx. 17m x 9 m single level surface structure with a 6 m x 6 m outlet vent of approx. 1 m height) adjacent to Fairfield Road and Railway Road flood control facility incorporated in the tunnel southern portal. • 5 km of additional corridor surface tracks from the southern portal at Yeerongpilly to south of Salisbury (includes 4 km of additional freight track, 3 km of additional Cross River Rail tracks and various track realignments and access tracks) one new surface station at Yeerongpilly elevated structure from Moorooka Station to north of Muriel Avenue stabling facility at Clapham Yards minor station upgrades at Moorooka and Rocklea • 2. 7 km of two additional surface tracks on the Exhibition loop from the northern portal at Victoria Park to Breakfast Creek plus additional track construction and realignment to maintain capacity and functionality through Mayne Yard one new surface station at RNA/Exhibition elevated structure near the Inner City Bypass to bypass Mayne Yards. This system consists of two single track tunnels throughout with connecting cross passages to meet fire and life safety requirements. Particular allowance has been made for airspace developments directly above the stations at Albert Street and Woolloongabba and the potential exists for airspace developments adjacent to Roma Street.

Cross River Rail is predicted to deliver the following benefits: • more than double the capacity of the rail network, enabling up to 96 more trains into the CBD in the morning peak- providing the capacity to move 120,000 people in the two-hour morning peak from the north and south. This is the equivalent capacity of a 30 lane highway • improved service reliability and performance • reduced passenger crowding by more than 50% • halved inner city journey time (Yeerongpilly to CBD 1Om ins compared to current 20- 25mins) • delivered freight benefits by creating a dedicated dual gauge freight line from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane • allowed rail network to expand to new areas including Flagstone and Caloundra • enabled redevelopment at key inner city areas • claimed economic benefits of up to $9 billion (NPV) • offered potential for $275 million return from sale of property/development rights (and this could be further enhanced with more aggressive value capture approaches.

13 June 2012 Page 76 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

The Cross River Rail is regarded a visionary long term solution which resolves the capacity constraint between Park Road, the Merivale Bridge and Roma Street. The three key economic benefits of Cross River Rail (72% of total benefits) are travel time savings, road decongestion and train reliability improvements. Cross River Rail has a significant focus on providing a turn-up-&-go high frequency model but this will add substantially to operating expenses. However, additional services could be staged. Total operating cost will grow by the incremental cost of operating the stations and the additional maintenance costs for the new rail sections.

The justification for the project is citywide as well as being south east Queensland based. The alignment with national, state and local goals and objectives is reasonable. The business case format is consistent with State Government Guidelines and Infrastructure Australia's Reform and Investment Framework.

The Cross River Rail also provides sizable benefits to freight trains by freeing up capacity on the existing surface track and improving train path availability to the Port.

The Cross River Rail would be a city changing investment which would generate a range of wider economic impacts (WEis) and urban densification benefits.

The CBA reports and quantifies separately the WE Is and the project BCR is comfortably over 1 .0 without their inclusion. Whilst WE Is should be sizable- they are less reliable, are more subject to being a transfer of growth from one part of a city to another and they should not be the benefit which tips the project into viability. A range of other qualitative benefits are described with these impacts having a range of positive flow-on effects for Brisbane and south east Queensland.

10.2.2.1 Staging Options for Cross River Rail

The Cross River Rail project can be broken into three distinct components, as shown in figure 10.1 below, enabling the benefits of this project to be incrementally delivered in a more cost effective and affordable manner. These are consistent with the staging options presented to Infrastructure Australia.

Works Works

Figure 10.1: Notional staging of cross river rail project

The 'Core' Cross River Rail works (from Yeerongpilly to Victoria Park) shown above include: • construction of two running tunnels from the southern to the northern portal • development of the Wooloongabba, Boggo Road, Albert Street and Roma Street stations • connections to the existing northern and southern rail network.

The 'Core' works are expected to deliver the following benefits: • double the capacity of the rail network from the south

13 June 2012 Page 77 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

• improved service reliability and performance • reduced passenger crowding (more than 50%) • halved inner city journey time- Yeerongpilly to CBD 10 min (from 20-25 min) • reduces private vehicle kilometres by 275 million per annum. • allows rail network to expand to new areas including Flagstone and Caloundra • supports urban redevelopment at key inner city areas.

The full Cross River Rail project benefits will not be achievable however, until the northern and southern surface works outlined below are completed.

These works are estimated to cost around $4.445 billion (201 0 $s, P90 risk), noting that the sale of surplus property/development rights has the potential to reduce this cost by $275m. This assumes Clapham Yards are funded separately prior to delivery of the 'Core' works, and that New Generation Rollingstock procurement proceeds as planned with trains specified for underground operations and ATP.

The Southern surface works- south stage 1 (from Yeerongpilly to Muriel Avenue) include: • new track works • new Moolabin Creek Rail bridge • road alterations to Unwin Street and Evesham Street • new station at Yeerongpilly.

The Southern surface works- south stage 2 (from Muriel Avenue to Salisbury), include: • new dedicated freight line • various pedestrian bridge and access upgrades • various road upgrades • upgrades to Moorooka and Rocklea stations.

Northern surface works- north stage 1 (from Victoria Park to O'Connell Terrace) include: • new track works (two additional surface tracks) • reconstruction of O'Connell Terrace (including new bridge) • development of the Ekka Station.

Northern surface works- north stage 2 (from O'Connell Terrace to Breakfast Creek) include: • a new grade separated viaduct and related approach works • upgrades to Mayne Yard.

10.2.2.2 Cross River Rail Corridor Protection

The Cross River Rail Reference Project also formed the basis of the Environmental Impact Statement, which was completed and released, along with changes to the reference design, for public consultation from August-October 2011. A supplementary report to the Environmental Impact Statement has since been completed in response to issues raised during the public consultation process. The supplementary Environmental Impact Statement is yet to be submitted to the Coordinator-General for his consideration, subject to the outcomes of this review.

An important consideration going forward is the ongoing protection of the Cross River Rail corridor. Since the initial public release of the reference project the department has been protecting the corridor through the use of its concurrence agency powers under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act, 2009 to ensure the future delivery of Cross River Rail is not compromised by incompatible development in the interim. This is of particular importance given the forecast growth for the Brisbane metropolitan area as incompatible development in and around the corridor could result in costly resumptions down the track, should the project proceed.

13 June 2012 Page 78 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

While the ongoing protection of the corridor has the potential to trigger the need for hardship acquisitions, the cost of these purchases are typically funded through the department's Corridor Acquisition Fund (CAF). It does not mean the department is proactively resuming land.

13 June 2012 Page 79 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

11 Conclusions

i. The rail system is becoming increasingly constrained by inner city track and platform capacity because of the continuing growth in travel to the CBD in peak periods. The first lines to reach capacity are expected to be the southern lines via the Merivale Bridge within the next 5-8 years. There is a significant lead time of around 7 years to build another river crossing and increase inner city capacity.

The cost estimates and business case appear robust. The project would deliver significant benefits and a step-change in public transport capacity to support future growth.

4. Leading up to 2020, which is the earliest date Cross River Rail could be completed, there is a clear need to maximise capacity from the existing infrastructure.

13 June 2012 Page 80 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

12 Recommendations

After consideration of all the information made available, the panel recommends the following:

13 June 2012 Page 81 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail

13 Appendix one- References

Brisbane City Council 2010, River City Blueprint, Brisbane.

Brisbane City Council 2012, Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031, Brisbane.

Brisbane Marketing 2012, Brisbane Economic Series Issue Two: March 20121nfrastructure, Brisbane.

Council of Mayors South East Queensland 2012, Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure, Brisbane.

Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2009, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, Brisbane.

Department of Transport 2009, Western Brisbane Transport Network Strategy, Brisbane.

Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011, Connecting SEQ 2031 An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland, Brisbane.

Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011, Cross River Rail Business Case, Brisbane.

Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011, Cross River Rail Environmental Impact Statement, Brisbane.

Jones Lang LaSalle 2012, World Winning Cities, A New World of Cities, London.

National Institute for Economic Industrial Research (NIEIR) 2009 revision commissioned by Brisbane City Council*.

Queensland Transport 2008, Inner City Rail Capacity Study Pre-Feasibility Report, Brisbane.

Queensland Treasury Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2011, Queensland Government population projections, 2011 edition (medium series). (ERP) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-10, cat. no. 3218.0.

Queensland Treasury Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2011, Queensland Government population projections, 2011 edition (low series). (ERP) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-10, cat. no. 3218.0.

Queensland Treasury Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2011, Queensland Government population projections, 2011 edition (high series). (ERP) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-10, cat. no. 3218.0.

Translink Transit Authority 2012, Translink Tracker 2011-12 Q2, Brisbane.

13 June 2012 Page 82 of 83 Independent Review of Cross River Rail 14 Appendix two .. Acronyms

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio

BSTM-MM Brisbane Strategic Transport Multi-Modal Model

BUZ High frequency priority bus service

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

CBD Central Business District

CPM Cross River Rail Project Model

EMU Electric Multiple Unit

GST Goods and Services Tax

HCV High Capacity Vehicles

ICE Inter City Express

ICRCS Inner City Rail Capacity Study

IMU Interurban Multiple Unit

NIEIR National Institute for Economic and Industrial Research

NGR New Generation Rollingstock

NGS New Generation Signalling

NPV Net Present Value

OESR Office of Economic and Statistical Research

OTR On-Time Reliability

PLS Passenger Load Survey ppp Public Private Partnerships

QRL Queensland Rail Limited

OUT Queensland University of Technology

REA Rapid Economic Appraisal

RNA Royal National Association

SEQ South East Queensland

SMU Suburban Multiple Unit

WEI Wider Economic Impacts

XPT Express Passenger Train

13 June 2012 Page 83 of 83