Hybrid - super buses for Brisbane? Ministerial statement

[ozbob]

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Paul Lucas
12/07/2007

State Government considers 'super buses' for Brisbane busways

TransLink is considering trialling revolutionary 200-passenger 'super buses' on Brisbane's busway network, Minister for Transport and Main Roads Paul Lucas said today.

Mr Lucas said TransLink was likely to decide by November whether the 'super buses' were suitable to trial on the city's busway network.

Mr Lucas, said the vehicles, known as LighTrams, were already in use on the streets of Switzerland where they operated as electric trolley cars. Any Brisbane trial would involve buses powered by hybrid diesel/electric engines, rather than overhead electric wires.

"These super buses are about 25m long and can carry about 200 people - three times as many people as a normal bus and more than twice that of existing articulated buses," Mr Lucas said.

"Even though they're twice the length of a standard bus they have the same turning circle as a standard articulated 'banana bus'."

Mr Lucas said if any trial went ahead the double articulated buses would operate on Brisbane's dedicated busway network, not suburban streets.

"These vehicles are a good fit for Brisbane's growing busway network, especially given the increased passenger demand." Mr Lucas said.

"They can carry up to 200 people, which is the same capacity as three normal buses.

"The vehicles don't compromise on any of the features bus passengers are used to.

"The vehicles are very passenger friendly with low floors, aisles designed to maximise passenger flows, areas for disabled passengers, video surveillance and modern timetable information systems."

Mr Lucas said LighTrams were also environmentally friendly.

"LighTrams can run on a hybrid diesel electric engine and use considerably less fuel than the three standard buses required to carry the same number of passengers," he said.

"When working off the diesel engine, LighTrams can also use 100% bio diesel, further reducing their impact on the environment.

"They are also much quieter than conventional buses."

Mr Lucas said despite their large size, LighTrams were still very manoeuvrable thanks to an extra steering mechanism on the fourth axle of the vehicle.

Mr Lucas said there were a number of important issues that needed to be resolved before any trial went ahead.

"I want to make it very clear there is no guarantee a trial will go ahead," Mr Lucas said.

"There are a number of issues that need to be investigated before any trial is given the green light."

Mr Lucas said TransLink had advised him that issues currently being considered included manufacturing timelines, weight and size standards for vehicles operating on Australian roads and mechanical work that would need to be undertaken to allow buses to operate in the country.

"TransLink is currently talking to the vehicle manufacturer and working through these issues."

"More work needs to be done, but if the vehicles stack up we will look to place an order for a small number of LighTrams to trial them in a live environment in Brisbane next year.

"And if any trial is successful, they could become the newest addition to the TransLink fleet," he said.

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=52907

==============================================================

[ozbob]

http://www.trolleymotion.com/en/ndetails.php?n_ID=106

24m LighTram

[keplerau]

Minister, I query the numbers - "twice as long as existing busses & carry 200 passengers."
    - from memory the existing busses are licenced to carry about 64 incl standing.
    - 2 x 64 = 128 passengers (please explain)?
    -  a pair of these long busses will fill a Bus Station stopping zone. - completely
    - some busy Bus Stations may have to be upgraded (again)

As usual the Ministeral Statement gives all polly speak escapes ie., no guarentee that the trial will go ahead etc., etc.,
maybe double deckers as supplied to Sydney Transport by "Custom Coaches"  maybe an alternative? 
I'm informed that they will fit on the busway system with the exception of Queen St. Station                                                                                                                          - the long busses may not fit Queen St either as platforms are route orintated to suite the existing busses.

Keplerau

[ozbob]

Yes there will be a need for some modification of present stops.
I think the trial will probably be on express high volume services if it goes ahead.  The run to the Queensland University might be a good one for example.  Also City to Kelvin Grove QUT campus and so forth.  Also a LighTram would be a marvellous option for the shuttle between QUT Gardens Point and QUT Kelvin Grove during semesters.

The best solution will be decent rail - light and heavy, bus is much better suited to short haul community transport.  Alas, Brisbane has had a bus centric focus and we are now really starting to pay the price IMHO.  Brisbane has one of the lowest rates of accessibility to public transport for all Australian capitals. 

Until we get the rail infrastructure, and much is coming, I think looking at the LighTram type options is a good idea.

Regards
Ozbob

[ozbob]

bump

[Mr X]

When are our red and green line super busway express buses coming, Anna?   or was that another headline stunt?   amazing how easily these things are swept under the carpet and forgotten about!

[somebody]

When are our red and green line super busway express buses coming, Anna?   or was that another headline stunt?   amazing how easily these things are swept under the carpet and forgotten about!

I thought that they decided they weren't appropriate (I would agree)

They only ever promised to "consider" them.

[Mr X]

Where did they say that?   It was a silly idea anyway imho  

Ohhhh ohh I get it
Announce something you know won't get through and then make a statement saying it's under "review". 

[colinw]

IMHO if you're considering monstrosities like that, then it is time to convert to light rail or metro.

[somebody]

IMHO if you're considering monstrosities like that, then it is time to convert to light rail or metro.

Indeed.

Although "conversion" isn't happening. It would need to be a new corridor.

[#Metro]

Ottawa is converting their busway to light metro standard LRT, I see no reason why the SE Busway should receive sacred cow status. Conversion to a metro would allow doubling busway capacity.

If we assume average 80% loadings during peak hour on the SE Busway, really larger buses and feeder system (I don't see how that would work in peak hour unless you went fully Bogota) then really there isn't any solution that comes even close to the capacity a metro would offer on that section of the busway.

I'd like to see a proper appraisal of the options. The fact that SEQ2031 is silent on the busway capacity is very unusual.

[Golliwog]

TT, you're well aware I disgree with you about converting the busway, so I'm not going to go into that. But if you were to upgrade to light rail, what kind of capacity are you thinking we're going to get?

[#Metro]

TT, you're well aware I disgree with you about converting the busway, so I'm not going to go into that. But if you were to upgrade to light rail, what kind of capacity are you thinking we're going to get?

1. What makes you think I would like to see the SE Busway upgraded to LRT? I have explicitly stated that I think metro conversion (at least on the inner parts) would be an idea worth looking at seriously.

2. Metro conversion has the potential (depending on the design) to double the capacity of the busway ~ 30 000 - 40 000 pphd. At the moment the busway (12 000 - 18 000 pphd) is pushing the lower bound of metro systems (c.f. Toronto Yonge-University-Spadina Line ~ 30 000 pphd) and the upper bound of light rail/tram systems. I am yet to be convinced that bogotarisation would be a long term solution.

Indeed the Ottawa busway system operates as a feeder system in the OFF peak, but during peak hour the buses all become full and therefore they run all the way to the CBD during peak hours. The same is true in Canberra where on the weekend a feeder system operates, but during weekdays demand becomes so great that the buses all run to the CBD.

This is THE EXACT OPPOSITE to what people seem to be suggesting on here, which is turn it into a feeder and then feed during PEAK hour (really, that's going to have to be a mighty big bus they are transferring into, maybe as big a train capacity perhaps and no seats?)

My main criticism against the 'just Bogotarise it' is that it isn't really a longer term solution. Its not that arctics can't be done in the meantime- they can and should. But longer term??? Doing that would probably require platform extension, tunnels into the CBD and construction of aprons at stations so that any solution is going to be costly ($billions) no matter what option gets chosen. And at such a cost the benefit (marginal increase in capacity?) BRT upgrade to bogota style BRT might not be worth it really.

However, I digress. What I really want to see is a proper capacity study done on it and options presented and appraised by a proper engineering firm. In the mornings I already see lots of congestion on busway platforms at Garden City, Griffith University, Buranda, Mater Hill and CC, and these are going to get worse (and remember we haven't got feeder buses terminating at these platforms yet like some suggest!). Is this really going to last until 2031? If you are going to spend money on a subway, why put it in West End-CBD-Newstead when where the demand is an order of magnitude lower- it doesn't make sense at all.

[#Metro]

There is another possibility here. And that is to terminate buses at Wooloongabba and transfer them into CRR, plus use Captain Cook and CC.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'd just love to see a light rail operate some of the dips and turns on the South East Busway and then what happens to the busses that branch off from the Busway. If your going to do the South East Busway whats stopping them continuing to the North aswell.

[Golliwog]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, by all means, invest in a metro from a south (or where ever else). But don't try to use that to replace the busway. Have it run in a parallel corridor or something, but trying to 'upgrade' the busway is a waste of time and money. There are plenty of things that can be done to ease the capacity constraints on it, for little cost. Heck, joining some of the southside and northside routes together to try to eliminate CC terminators would be a not insignificant change, which has no costs associated with it other than operational ones.

[O_128]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, by all means, invest in a metro from a south (or where ever else). But don't try to use that to replace the busway. Have it run in a parallel corridor or something, but trying to 'upgrade' the busway is a waste of time and money. There are plenty of things that can be done to ease the capacity constraints on it, for little cost. Heck, joining some of the southside and northside routes together to try to eliminate CC terminators would be a not insignificant change, which has no costs associated with it other than operational ones.

why would you duplicate the busway with a metro, as TT has said the best long term option is the metrofy the SEB and the NB but tunnel through the central section to allow of buses to be serrated from traffic in the city.

Also I really don't see LRT having an issue with turns etc, seen a prague tram?

The issue with joining north and south buses would be reliability though you could perhaps merge the 111 and 333  post NB

[#Metro]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, by all means, invest in a metro from a south (or where ever else).

It doesn't make sense to use a high capacity mode for a low capacity task. The single best place for a metro, where the demand justifies one, is on the SEB!

But don't try to use that to replace the busway. Have it run in a parallel corridor or something,

Parallel duplication creates competing infrastructure. Not a good spend of time or money. Why should the SEB have sacred cow status?

but trying to 'upgrade' the busway is a waste of time and money. There are plenty of things that can be done to ease the capacity constraints on it, for little cost.

I am not arguing that these little stop-gap things shouldn't be done in the mean time. Of course they should, but isn't the demand for PT going to double or whatnot come 2031? A metro would double the capacity of the SE Busway and allow buses to become high frequency feeders in the suburbs, a tried and tested model (the same model that is going to be used for GCLRT BTW). Would these "little cost" things double the capacity of the busway? Its doubtful, and that's the kind of capacity you'd need when your talking about a corridor that is doing 12 000 pphd in 2011 (what will it need to be in 2031?).

Heck, joining some of the southside and northside routes together to try to eliminate CC terminators would be a not insignificant change, which has no costs associated with it other than operational ones.

[Golliwog]

But I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would stack up for it. The SEB carrier people just fine, the only difference that you could have would be capacity.

It doesn't make sense to use a high capacity mode for a low capacity task. The single best place for a metro, where the demand justifies one, is on the SEB!

So you're saying theres nowhere else on the southside that has any demand like the suburbs that are along the SE Busway?

Parallel duplication creates competing infrastructure. Not a good spend of time or money. Why should the SEB have sacred cow status?

So we should be trying to funnel everyone onto the one line? I'm not saying the SEB is a sacred cow, just that I can't see that replacing it with a metro would stack up economically when theres so many other things we could be spending that money on. Plus, we don't just have one road into the CBD from the south do we? Why should there be just one (two if you include rail) route for PT to access the CBD from the south?

I am not arguing that these little stop-gap things shouldn't be done in the mean time. Of course they should, but isn't the demand for PT going to double or whatnot come 2031? A metro would double the capacity of the SE Busway and allow buses to become high frequency feeders in the suburbs, a tried and tested model (the same model that is going to be used for GCLRT BTW). Would these "little cost" things double the capacity of the busway? Its doubtful, and that's the kind of capacity you'd need when your talking about a corridor that is doing 12 000 pphd in 2011 (what will it need to be in 2031?).

I was told it's more like 16 000pphd at the moment. I have no idea what some of these small things would do. But seeing as there is 4 BUZ routes from the north that all terminate there, plus however many other non BUZ routes that do (300, etc) plus the 9 BUZ routes from the south that terminate in the city, theres quite a lot of duplication there. If these routes were conjoined then I can see a vast reduction in the number of buses through CC without carrying any less people. If bus lanes were invested in then you could help get rid of some of the reliability issues.

[#Metro]

But I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would stack up for it. The SEB carrier people just fine, the only difference that you could have would be capacity.

The SEB is just fine? Will it be fine in 2031? The main benefits would be

- Reduced labour cost to operate the core section
- Savings in travel time due to buses being turned back at busway stations
- Higher frequency in the suburbs all day long
- Doubled capacity to allow for growth

So you're saying theres nowhere else on the southside that has any demand like the suburbs that are along the SE Busway?

Are you aware of any other corridor in Brisbane that does 12 000 pphd?? The next step down is BUZ 199 which does, what ~ 1000 pphd in peak hour...

So we should be trying to funnel everyone onto the one line?

Isn't that the whole idea of a transport corridor?

I'm not saying the SEB is a sacred cow, just that I can't see that replacing it with a metro would stack up economically when theres so many other things we could be spending that money on. Plus, we don't just have one road into the CBD from the south do we? Why should there be just one (two if you include rail) route for PT to access the CBD from the south?

So you want to duplicate the SEB, why do that on a completely new corridor (bulldoze more houses for a parallel alignment, more expensive as you start from scratch and still doesn't fix the issue of SEB capacity). What is the purpose of building twice the infrastructure to carry half the passengers each?

I was told it's more like 16 000pphd at the moment. I have no idea what some of these small things would do. But seeing as there is 4 BUZ routes from the north that all terminate there, plus however many other non BUZ routes that do (300, etc) plus the 9 BUZ routes from the south that terminate in the city, theres quite a lot of duplication there. If these routes were conjoined then I can see a vast reduction in the number of buses through CC without carrying any less people. If bus lanes were invested in then you could help get rid of some of the reliability issues.

Replacement of BUZ routes / conjoing could be done but there isn't a way that is going to come even close to adding an extra 15 000 - 20 000 pphd of capacity. And you still need to run hundreds and hundreds of buses all the way into the city centre, all duplicating eachother, each with their own operator all the way into the CBD. With a metro the entire thing can be automated, resulting in a massive labour cost saving that can be re-invested in frequency in the suburbs.

[O_128]

But I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would stack up for it. The SEB carrier people just fine, the only difference that you could have would be capacity.

It doesn't make sense to use a high capacity mode for a low capacity task. The single best place for a metro, where the demand justifies one, is on the SEB!

So you're saying theres nowhere else on the southside that has any demand like the suburbs that are along the SE Busway?

Parallel duplication creates competing infrastructure. Not a good spend of time or money. Why should the SEB have sacred cow status?

So we should be trying to funnel everyone onto the one line? I'm not saying the SEB is a sacred cow, just that I can't see that replacing it with a metro would stack up economically when theres so many other things we could be spending that money on. Plus, we don't just have one road into the CBD from the south do we? Why should there be just one (two if you include rail) route for PT to access the CBD from the south?

I am not arguing that these little stop-gap things shouldn't be done in the mean time. Of course they should, but isn't the demand for PT going to double or whatnot come 2031? A metro would double the capacity of the SE Busway and allow buses to become high frequency feeders in the suburbs, a tried and tested model (the same model that is going to be used for GCLRT BTW). Would these "little cost" things double the capacity of the busway? Its doubtful, and that's the kind of capacity you'd need when your talking about a corridor that is doing 12 000 pphd in 2011 (what will it need to be in 2031?).

I was told it's more like 16 000pphd at the moment. I have no idea what some of these small things would do. But seeing as there is 4 BUZ routes from the north that all terminate there, plus however many other non BUZ routes that do (300, etc) plus the 9 BUZ routes from the south that terminate in the city, theres quite a lot of duplication there. If these routes were conjoined then I can see a vast reduction in the number of buses through CC without carrying any less people. If bus lanes were invested in then you could help get rid of some of the reliability issues.

Firstly cost benefits mean nothing when your spending 800 million to run a line with only trains every 30 mins. Secondly the SEB is coping now but thats typical Queenslander syndrome we need to have plan NOW so that in 2020 when people are waiting 20 mins to get on a Bus there is a solution. Thirdly 20000 people per hour on a metro would be at the lower end of the scale you can get some high loadings with a metro. Fourth by 2031 there is going to be a line of high density straight down the SEB where do these people go?

We need to stop pretending everything is ok when its not SEB will fill up soon and there are capacity improvements but ultimately there is no solution but a full blown mode swap.As Ive said before some planer earlier this year said theres a bit of an internal struggle on what mode will be chosen with a split metro/light rail but its what will be of most benefit.


A EMP - Chermside automated metro would be the perfect solution LONG TERM and would allow buses to be rerouted. LRT might not have the capacity and it makes no sense for a full bus to terminate and all those passengers transfer to another bus.

the biggest issue with a metro would be the tunnelling involved from buranda to lutwyche but then you get the benefit as having the inner northern and southern busways as congestion busters for buses or light rail.

[#Metro]

We need to stop pretending everything is ok when its not SEB will fill up soon and there are capacity improvements but ultimately there is no solution but a full blown mode swap.As Ive said before some planer earlier this year said theres a bit of an internal struggle on what mode will be chosen with a split metro/light rail but its what will be of most benefit.

Personally, the upper end of LRT is 15 000 - 25 000 pphd and that is when you have Class A ROW and it basically operates, looks and feels like a metro. LRT conversion would only add about ~ 5000 pphd extra capacity, so 25% extra capacity at maximum, whereas metro operation we are looking at 100 % more capacity. Even 'Bogota-ification' of the SEB would probably add maybe 25% and that is assuming that you can terminate hundreds of feeder buses dump heaps and heaps of people onto a 70 m platform and have another bus pick them up (unless you wanted to construct aprons, a tunnel, pricey why bother when the extra capacity is small).

So I think that cuts it really- LRT upgrade on the SEB is not an option. Go straight to metro. Metros can also have rubber tyres so that gradients up to 13% are possible. Metro down the SEB, underneath Queen or Adelaide Streets, into Fortitude Valley (take pressure off the core of the rail system, take huge numbers of buses off city streets altogether, massively simplify the network, then continue the metro through the Valley then into the Northern Busway under Gympie/Lutwyche Roads all the way to Chermside).

I wouldn't bother replacing Cultural Centre or the Inner Northern Busway, that can stay as it is as the volumes once the metro is up and running will drop. As for the subway idea from Toowong to CBD to Bowen Hills, there is this thing called CityCat & Ipswich Rail line. Build a green bridge at the end of Montague Road over the river and run buses on it. Coming to think about it you could send buses off Coronation Drive - West End making that versatile and avoiding Coro Drive congestion.

And there you have it- a single, high capacity core backbone that is automated (city transport won't be crippled during a strike), high frequency and allows for very high feeder frequency for buses in the suburbs.

[#Metro]

Building on O-128's idea, I shall dubb the metro from Chermside-Valley-SE Busway The North-South Subway.
because that's what it does.

[Golliwog]

So you justify the metro by saying that while the buswya can cope with current loadings now and a little into the futre, but that we need the extra capacity of the metro to cope long term, then shut down the idea of a second corridor by saying that each would only have half the patronage. In terms of other places with demand for 10,000pphd, I was implying pretty much anywhere else on the southside. PT is only accounting for 7% of trips remember, so theres obviously some latent demand. You're obviously not wanting to debate this, so I'm not going to bother.

[#Metro]

So you justify the metro by saying that while the buswya can cope with current loadings now and a little into the futre, but that we need the extra capacity of the metro to cope long term, then shut down the idea of a second corridor by saying that each would only have half the patronage. In terms of other places with demand for 10,000pphd, I was implying pretty much anywhere else on the southside. PT is only accounting for 7% of trips remember, so theres obviously some latent demand. You're obviously not wanting to debate this, so I'm not going to bother.

Exactly where are you going to put this second corridor? Where is this latent demand corridor that can satisfy 10 000 pphd? Down Ipswich Road? Down Logan Road? Parallel to the SEB and Beenleigh lines? It may well be more expensive because that requires the ROW to be acquired all over again, whereas with the SEB upgrading to a metro the ROW is already acquired, so there is no need for earthworks, tunneling and housing resumptions to the extent that a parallel corridor would require. As the ROW acquisition is one of the largest costs in a PT project, upgrading the current SEB, rather than a new alignment would be much more sound.

To put this in an external perspective, consider the proposal to upgrade the Ottawa busway versus building another parallel LRT alignment parallel to the existing Ottawa busway. Which proposal makes more sense?

My point is that by concentrating demand, you can build enough pax to use mass transit systems like a metro.

[Golliwog]

Or you can build even more demand by expanding where they can get to on the network. Why is it perfectly ok to chew up the SEB to make a metro, but not chew up an existing road?

[SurfRail]

Or you can build even more demand by expanding where they can get to on the network. Why is it perfectly ok to chew up the SEB to make a metro, but not chew up an existing road?

Because the SEB is on a virtual bee-line between Upper Mt Gravatt (secondary CBD), Griffith Uni (biggest uni on the southside) and a number of other potential trip generators en route depending on which line is taken.

In what other alignment would a metro make sense?

[#Metro]

Or you can build even more demand by expanding where they can get to on the network. Why is it perfectly ok to chew up the SEB to make a metro, but not chew up an existing road?

Sounds like the SEB is untouchable.

In these suburbs the main issue will be
1) Capacity to fit their bus on the busway
2) Terminal capacity in the CBD

Mobility will more than be sufficiently improved by terminating and turning back buses at the metro station, rather than have them run all the way to the CBD. This increases the frequency and thus patronage. Because you now have money, buses and staff now surplus by removing duplication on the core section (and I will add that a bogotarisation still requires staff to operate the bus on the core) this can then be re-invested in more frequent and more bus routes in the suburban areas to pick up people from their front door.

I think 30-40 000 pphd is more than plenty of capacity well into the future. Building a parallel new alignment is not necessary or economical simply because there is already a ROW in the form of the SEB that can be upgraded more cheaply than starting from scratch.

I note you still haven't answered the question on exactly where this corridor would go. If anyone checks out the http://transitmapsetc.blogspot.com/ blog, you will see where the bus routes all combine is on the SEB and then also through the CBD. That's where you need capacity the most- on the core.

[#Metro]

Or you can build even more demand by expanding where they can get to on the network. Why is it perfectly ok to chew up the SEB to make a metro, but not chew up an existing road?

Existing roads have houses and people living next to them. The SEB corridor does not (nobody has a driveway that leads into the SEB for example). From political, economical and engineering point of view, upgrading the current corridor would be both faster and cheaper than a totally new parallel alignment. To aquire 1 property you are easily looking at $500 000 - $1 million, then you have earthworks, upgrading and grade separation, realignment of utilities blah blah... you don't need to do anywhere near this if you upgrade the SEB.

A staged construction would also allow the SEB to gradually be replaced, much like the Ottawa busway upgrade will allow the core section to be upgraded where capacity is required, but retain busway and bus lanes further out where the need is not as pressing.

[Golliwog]

I haven't suggested a route as I don't know where it would be most needed. Thats what you'd do a study for. I'd go with putting UQ on it though, that'd get your patronage right up. And of course the bus routes all currently join up at the SEB, that what its there for! Where else would they go?

I'm well aware that existing roads have houses on them, but that can be dealt with, its not impossible, or that difficult to deal with.

[#Metro]

I haven't suggested a route as I don't know where it would be most needed. Thats what you'd do a study for. I'd go with putting UQ on it though, that'd get your patronage right up. And of course the bus routes all currently join up at the SEB, that what its there for! Where else would they go?

I'm well aware that existing roads have houses on them, but that can be dealt with, its not impossible, or that difficult to deal with.

I think it is obvious that a brand new parallel duplicating alignment would be vastly more costly and less necessary than upgrading a current ROW and that upgrading the current ROW would yield more than enough peak capacity to sufficiently deal with peak hour in 2031 or beyond (30 000 - 40 000 pphd!). There is no need to have UQ put on the subway system, the existing busway can simply feed people to the NSS. If volumes become very high arctic buses or light rail (300-500 pax per vehicle) can be used. It would be challenging to deviate a subway to UQ, and probably not necessary as the Eleanor Schonell Bridge already exists.

[somebody]

If they get rid of the ridiculous idea of the stations as far as Fruitgrove being only served by via Fairfield/South Bank trains in a post CRR world, then interchange at Altandi becomes attractive after CRR.  I think this point hasn't been considered seriously enough.

[aldonius]

interchange at Altandi becomes attractive after CRR

This. We have our future "Inner City Capacity Boost".  We just need smarter rail network use. I read 13tphpd total from Beenleigh and Gold Coast in peak for CRR off the original Reference Design. Wouldn't the max be closer to 20?

[dwb]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34239150/Connected-City-River-City-Blueprint-Forum


The document above describes something somewhat like what Tramtrain has suggested.

It suggests that metro/subway/docklands-style-'light-rail' should be a new mode in Brisbane. It suggests broadly a crusifix network shape, one line east-west and another north-south. In the map the north-south alignment broadly goes via Logan Road to the south I think, however the bus network could easily be pushed onto Logan Road (with priority) IF the main line haul function in SEB was upgraded to metro. The northern alignment is more the NWTC... which is probably better suited to heavy rail for the northern coastlink.  That is not really important, as the role  of the River City Blueprint was to conceptually and geographically tie things together, mode, staging, specifics would always to be determined in detailed studies, much like the CRR EIS.

Like Tramtrain acknowledges, metro can be rubber tyred, like in Santiago, Chile or Paris. This gives it quite flexible gradients and acceleration/deceleration patterns that may be difficult to achieve with a steel wheel solution. Irrespective, whether it is steel or rubber is not really the point. It's role in the network is what is key - capacity, speed, frequency, reliability, trunk/mainline, local distribution - these aren't long trips and heavy rail network should be focussed on doing the long trips.

For example why would you want to interchange all buses at Woolloongabba with CRR when those trains are a) going to be full already b) suited to coastexpress services with less doors, more seating, and the interchange would only be 1 or 2 stops.... a silly idea and something that passengers don't like - when they can see their final destination.

The draft River City Blueprint saw the east-west line/subway whatever as the contemporary or staged upgrade from the idea of a east-west busway - it could go over the river Toowong to West End and Newstead to Bulimba. It could be started as two green bridges (for buses) and extention to CityGlider, and then, in the future upgraded to metro (probably rubber tyred to achieve grades). Apart from the bridges the upgrade would likely be underground in the inner city to prevent so many resumptions and to improve the urban space, not overshadow it like the busway at Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital. Rather than an east-west CRR (ICRCS) you'd make the function METRO... ie distribution and transfer in the inner city.... that means expresslink passengers from ipswich could transfer at Indro or Toowong to the metro to reach many inner city locations, possibly including UQ, West End, Milton, South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, Fortitude Valley, Bowen Hills, Newstead, Bulimba etc. Or alternatively if that passenger just wanted central station then they travel through on the existing heavy rail alignment right to Central station.

The concept here is that metro, a new mode different to what Brisbane currently has, can provide a high capacity, fast, distribution function... it would be central to a transit NETWORK... moving entirely away from this one seat bus journey from origin to destination, where the destination is just the CBD, rather than the entire inner city region.

Really I think what is important to think about is what order would you do things...

Presumably you'd want to do something like this:
- build CRR first, then you'd
- look to build green bridges to the east (Newstead Bulimba)
- and west (Toowong to West End) which you'd extend the Glider on, then you might
- build a busway along logan road and then
- convert SEB/NB to metro operation, then
- build NWTC for heavy rail tieing in to CRR then
- upgrade the east-west busway to metro.

But, you could do things in a different order. Surely it depends on land use and funding ability. This could be a 20 year transit vision or a 100 year transit vision... either way, certain different things may be needed at different times depending on global economic climate, technological advances, sea level change, lifestyle change etc.

Community may not want green bridges built between West End and Toowong or between Newstead and Bulimba, or their cost might be prohibitively expensive. People may not want buses running through their "peninsular" neighbourhoods.

Perhaps these links could be active transit links in the short term with the longer term vision remaining as metro. Metro could either be bridges or tunnels - you'd have to do some serious engineering work and discussion with the community to figure out what tradeoffs would need to be made at the time. But conceptually, those peninsulars should be brought into the core public and active transport network. Imagine the mode shift you could achieve given the substantial travel time savings compared to car you could achieve. Imagine West End all of a sudden having good access to Toowong, for shopping, health and education. Imagine by this time West End has significantly developed, and Kurilpa Point is a total extension of the CBD.... people might live in West End and work in Ipswich or vice versa. Either way, these concepts open up a network of possibilities and that is really what is important.

[#Metro]

The problem I have with the inner city metro is that the planners appear to be thinking that Brisbane is going to (cringe) 'be like Paris' (like that is the only planning model for a city ever!). This 'shove a metro station everywhere in the inner city' is the Paris model of a city.

Unfortunately, this is Brisbane. The inner city is already saturated with options (walk, bicycle, buses, busway, train stations, citycat), it is the outer suburbs that need mobility improvement.

I would suggest a 'Toronto' model is more appropriate for Brisbane. Toronto upgraded its heavily used streetcar (tram) lines to full blown subway. The Toronto is extremely simple, 98% of buses connect to the subway station where passengers are then superconcentrated at subway stations to support the subway which runs at 2-3 minute frequency in peak hour and 4-5 minute frequency all day (and night) long.

This is the model that I think is appropriate for the South East Busway. Double the capacity of the busway and get the buses trawling the suburbs at high frequency and then concentrating them onto the North-South subway. Something like 80% of people who use the busway DO NOT get on at busway stations, they come into it from street stops in the suburbs, which should already suggest that saturating the inner city with metro stations isn't the way to go.

By using a subway system to do the high capacity line haul work, each mode can do what they do best- buses in the suburbs at high frequency, metro on the core at high frequency and capacity.

Sometimes I think the planners are too busy trying to turn Brisbane into Paris rather than look at solutions that work for the kind of city that we have.

[aldonius]

Exactly -  but within CRR it seems we still have spare capacity from the south, so we should utilise that with (cringe) short-medium workings (end cringe) and some more curve easing south of Y'pilly (discussed to death already).
You don't have the change at the Gabba, you have it out at Coopers Plains or Altandi to high-capacity, 9-car, longitudinal-seating trains. It can't replace the busway, but it can certainly augment it a lot more.

[dwb]

Exactly -  but within CRR it seems we still have spare capacity from the south, so we should utilise that with (cringe) short-medium workings (end cringe) and some more curve easing south of Y'pilly (discussed to death already).
You don't have the change at the Gabba, you have it out at Coopers Plains or Altandi to high-capacity, 9-car, longitudinal-seating trains. It can't replace the busway, but it can certainly augment it a lot more.

Do you really think Gold Coast commuters are going to accept longitudinal seating?

[somebody]

Exactly -  but within CRR it seems we still have spare capacity from the south, so we should utilise that with (cringe) short-medium workings (end cringe) and some more curve easing south of Y'pilly (discussed to death already).
You don't have the change at the Gabba, you have it out at Coopers Plains or Altandi to high-capacity, 9-car, longitudinal-seating trains. It can't replace the busway, but it can certainly augment it a lot more.

Do you really think Gold Coast commuters are going to accept longitudinal seating?

Well they have it now.  Not good.

[dwb]

The problem I have with the inner city metro is that the planners appear to be thinking that Brisbane is going to (cringe) 'be like Paris' (like that is the only planning model for a city ever!). This 'shove a metro station everywhere in the inner city' is the Paris model of a city.

I absolutely do not support continuing a CBD work, suburbs live distinction. It is the cause of most of our transport issues. It steals large amounts of time off many people and is extremely resource wasteful among other things.

I'm not saying Brisbane will be Paris, but inner Brisbane used to be less like what you're suggesting than it is now... it's just that the planners are saying that certain areas should be served by metro not by trams.

[dwb]

Well they have it now.  Not good.

For how much of the train, 2/3 of two carriages?