RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Where should a metro go? Feel free to post draft routes...

Nowhere, until both the 1st and 2nd Cross City Rail tunnels have been built.

Quote from: stephenk on February 07, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
Nowhere, until both the 1st and 2nd Cross City Rail tunnels have been built.

Yes, Brisbane's CBD is so riduculously small that I can't see a true metro.

To the contrary, a subway system that REPLACES buses would be viable.  The number of buses from UQ to Indooroopilly or the city alone each day would make that a viable route.  Buses would feed the subway, not compete with it meaning that far fewer buses would come into the city.

Actually Indro is a minor destination from UQ.  Only the 427/428/432 run there.

UQ-City is a relatively major route.  It could justify a rail line in theory, but a double river crossing and the dead end nature of it is probably what made them decide on the Elenoar Schonell Bridge instead.  To do it now means that money is to be written off, which isn't going to be too popular.

Quote from: somebody on February 07, 2010, 10:08:11 AM

Quote from: stephenk on February 07, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
Nowhere, until both the 1st and 2nd Cross City Rail tunnels have been built.

Yes, Brisbane's CBD is so riduculously small that I can't see a true metro.

Within the next 20-30 years it is going to grow quite considerably as more redevelopment and infill development happens around the Valley, Bowen Hills, Newstead, South Brisbane, Wooloongabba etc. etc.

Quote from: nikko on February 07, 2010, 15:18:26 PM

Quote from: somebody on February 07, 2010, 10:08:11 AM

Quote from: stephenk on February 07, 2010, 09:53:19 AM
Nowhere, until both the 1st and 2nd Cross City Rail tunnels have been built.

Yes, Brisbane's CBD is so riduculously small that I can't see a true metro.

Within the next 20-30 years it is going to grow quite considerably as more redevelopment and infill development happens around the Valley, Bowen Hills, Newstead, South Brisbane, Wooloongabba etc. etc.

...and all of those areas will be served by the 2 planned suburban rail tunnels.

Commuter rail and metro a two totally different things.

As per my post in the CRR discussion the current planning is for only a small % of overall trips.  Ki
If we also build a metro we will dramatically increase the % of trip by PT.  We need both!!!

Quote from: Jonno on February 07, 2010, 17:48:31 PM
As per my post in the CRR discussion the current planning is for only a small % of overall trips.  Ki
If we also build a metro we will dramatically increase the % of trip by PT.  We need both!!!

I'm afraid that it's not at all clear that is correct.  If it serves some un-served or poorly served destinations, or dramatically improves service quality, then yes.  But, so far the metro is only going to places which we already have a decent service.  Improving existing service is likely to be better bang/buck.

Quote from: nikko on February 07, 2010, 16:20:51 PM
Commuter rail and metro a two totally different things.

If an as planned 3-line (through the CBD) suburban rail system running at least 7tph off-peak serves most CBD destinations, then why do we need a metro to do the same thing?

Quote from: Jonno on February 07, 2010, 17:48:31 PM
As per my post in the CRR discussion the current planning is for only a small % of overall trips.  Ki
If we also build a metro we will dramatically increase the % of trip by PT.  We need both!!!

The ICRCS has projected load increases by 2026 of approx x2 on many lines, and x4 on the Gold Coast Line. I would say that is more than a couple of a percent?

Not as a total of all trip growth it isn't.  I am not saying it is not an awesome increase in capacity and service at all.  It is just that we need to be moving upward of 40-50% of all trips by PT (60% across active and public transport).  To do this we need to look at all options to achieve this %'s.

Bulimba,Hamilton,Newfarm,Red hill,Kelvin grove,paddington

Thanks for your replies.
This is the metro thread.
Thanks
TT

QuoteAs per my post in the CRR discussion the current planning is for only a small % of overall trips.  Ki
If we also build a metro we will dramatically increase the % of trip by PT.  We need both!!!

If the headways are small (i.e. a frequent service, say every 5 minutes) people will flock to this. Unlike buses there will be no bottleneck, unlike trains there will be no freight to worry about, people crossing tracks (screens can be installed) or crossing conflicts. Shallow tunnels under main roads means more $$ saved. The whole thing could be automated (no guard or driver- save $$) and the services would be better or at least as good as any BUZ we have in Brisbane currently. (199 run buses every 5 minutes).

We have seen the revolution in ridership which comes with complete and dedicated separation in combination with high frequency in buses (BUZ) even in areas far far out from the city (Like Aspley). Now it is the time for rail to follow.

The UQ/St Lucia-West End-CBD-Valley-Newstead/New Farm Axis should be done first as that is likely to be the most successful and well patronised. The project could be done in stages with CBD-West End done first and made operational.

If patronage works well, this might not need government funding or at least not as much... it might even be self funding...

Quote from: nikko on February 07, 2010, 16:20:51 PM
Commuter rail and metro a two totally different things.

Exactly.  Only someone who has ridden The London Tube/London Overground, or the Paris Metro/SNCF or Berlin UBahn/SBahn services would really know what the difference it.  Metros provide a more bus-like service than the overground (QR-style) services.  More like a tram/light rail service but much faster.

Inner Brisbane is ripe for a Metro - especially if it was to replace buses on some major routes like the BUZ routes.

Quote from: somebody on February 07, 2010, 13:48:37 PM
Actually Indro is a minor destination from UQ.  Only the 427/428/432 run there.

Ever tried to get a seat on at 427,428 or 432 from UQ?

Quote from: somebody on February 07, 2010, 13:48:37 PM
UQ-City is a relatively major route.  It could justify a rail line in theory, but a double river crossing and the dead end nature of it is probably what made them decide on the Elenoar Schonell Bridge instead.  To do it now means that money is to be written off, which isn't going to be too popular.

Not true,  the busways were built with conversion to light rail in mind.  A large part of the infrastructure for a I'pill/UQ/City Metro line is already there and it wouldn't be wasted money, especially if the Buranda to UQ busway was converted and Buranda made into an interchange.

St Lucia is also high density due to the sheer amount of students living there.
It could support a Metro station in its own right.
Students are probably less likely to own cars or be able to afford one, so PT is their choice.
There is also a disconnect between West End and St Lucia due to the river acting as a barrier.
The City Cat is not sufficient enough to be considered a "mass transit option".

Current BCC proposal (2007)

Quote from: frereOP on February 07, 2010, 19:33:11 PM
Ever tried to get a seat on at 427,428 or 432 from UQ?

Yes, but not in peak.  But if that's why you're suggesting this, then why not greater frequency of these services?  Checking the timetable, even the peak frequency is only about 13/hour, which isn't really enough for a surface railway, let alone a tunnelled metro service.

Quote from: frereOP on February 07, 2010, 19:33:11 PM

Quote from: somebody on February 07, 2010, 13:48:37 PM
UQ-City is a relatively major route.  It could justify a rail line in theory, but a double river crossing and the dead end nature of it is probably what made them decide on the Elenoar Schonell Bridge instead.  To do it now means that money is to be written off, which isn't going to be too popular.

Not true,  the busways were built with conversion to light rail in mind.  A large part of the infrastructure for a I'pill/UQ/City Metro line is already there and it wouldn't be wasted money, especially if the Buranda to UQ busway was converted and Buranda made into an interchange.

Would still require a close down of the bridge, which just isn't happenning.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 19:45:34 PM
St Lucia is also high density due to the sheer amount of students living there.
It could support a Metro station in its own right.

That may be, but 3 stations (UQ, St Lucia, West End) doesn't make a line.

Quote from: stephenk on February 07, 2010, 18:15:43 PMIf an as planned 3-line (through the CBD) suburban rail system running at least 7tph off-peak serves most CBD destinations, then why do we need a metro to do the same thing?

Those weren't the only stations which are proposed and the stations are much too far apart to be an efficient means of travelling around the Inner City.

QuoteIf an as planned 3-line (through the CBD) suburban rail system running at least 7tph off-peak serves most CBD destinations, then why do we need a metro to do the same thing?

Because it serves a separate function and a specializes in one passenger market.
One could compare this to the Busway which specializes in transport through low density areas for trips within 30 minutes of the City, or the CityGlider which specializes on high volume routes with multi-door boarding.

QuoteThere is a need to improve service integration between local bus services and line-haul rail
and higher capacity busway services to minimise the number of buses entering the CBD.
The means of transfer must be simple, quick, convenient and requires high-frequency line haul
services. Adequate pedestrian infrastructure capacity is required within and between
stations to make transfers acceptable.

QuoteAn underground Metro system would reduce the
impact of surface based public transport and improve pedestrian amenity in the CBD. The
Metro system would distribute passengers across the CBD and surrounding areas and
minimise the number of local buses needing to access the CBD.

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 19:25:23 PM
If patronage works well, this might not need government funding or at least not as much... it might even be self funding...

If you think a metro in Australia would be profit making, then you are very naive!

Quote from: frereOP on February 07, 2010, 19:33:11 PM
Only someone who has ridden The London Tube/London Overground, or the Paris Metro/SNCF or Berlin UBahn/SBahn services would really know what the difference it.

I have ridden all of those systems extensively, and know that enhancing suburban rail capacity through the centre of Brisbane (a la Paris RER, and Berlin S-Bahn) is a much more useful project than an inner-city metro.

By the way, London Overground does not currently pass through London's CBD, so isn't a good system to use in this case. The East London Line, previously a metro line, is currently being converted to London Overground which is suburban rail, to make it more useful.

The 2 systems serve 2 different purposes.  The overground delivers people to the perimeter of the city (eg to Euston or Liverpool St stations) then The Tube delivers them around the inner city (well more or less, there is a deal of overlap).

Paris or Berlin would be more similar to Brisbane, Berlin especially because it has a lower population density and more distinct centres like Alexanderplatz.  Brisbane has Toowong, Mt Gravatt etc.  The Metro is the way to get around in Berlin - and its clean and feels safe too, unlike the Paris Metro which has signs reminding you about pick-pockets!

QuoteIf you think a metro in Australia would be profit making, then you are very naive!

*might*

There are examples around the world, and not just with metro services but with busways too. Of course as unlikely as it may be we should still aim to be efficient and cost effective, rather than just give up at the beginning. The development of TODs and high frequency will maximise the utility of these projects.

Now look, I don't think the urban Metro should be sacrificed just so the pot can be kept for funding the ICRCS.  
That ICRCS is costed at 13 billion or so IIRC; Yes it has merit, the need is there and I love it and have tried to find alternative alignments for it, but you know all the Privatisations in Queensland ($15 billion) would only just scrape in at paying for it... and it (the tunnel) needs to be built in 6 years flat... good luck for that one...

Quote from: stephenk on February 07, 2010, 21:06:56 PM
If you think a metro in Australia would be profit making, then you are very naive!

Sydney buses meet a bit over 90% of costs IIRC from fare revenue.

Quote
Dehli Metro: Profitable
Hong Kong Metro MTR: Profitable
Singapore SMRT: Profitable
Tokyo: Profitable
Taipei: Profitable (and only 8 lines ~75km length)
Bogota Busway: Profitable
Curitiba: Profitable
Vancouver SkyTrain: 46% funding from farebox
Brisbane Airtrain: Profitable (and you got the construction thrown in as well)

Most of the profitable PT systems are are metro rail, or metro-rail like. Only 2 are busways and no mass ferry systems. Granted, our situation will probably be more like Vancouver- requiring subsidy to assist in maximizing service. But if you can get the best of both worlds, why not?

But the TODs have to start happening...and the NIMBYs will have to stop wanting to kill them...

And some of these services have extremely low fares, e.g. Bogota, Singapore (Even Airtrain is cheaper than the alternatives of bus transfer ($40), taxi ($40)  or $13 for 1 hour park at the Airport plus tolls are coming too add ~$4 or gateway toll as well etc).

And if an ETS comes along, I wonder if we would be able to claim carbon credits... as it cuts car pollution.

It is too early to give up... even the rollingstock could be investigated to see if a leaseback scheme (ie renting the vehicles for a fraction of the cost it would be to buy them outright) could have merit. The CityCat and BT buses are under this scheme IIRC.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 19:47:01 PM

Current BCC proposal (2007)

The UQ line should extend underground via Indooroopilly station - Indroopilly SC - Chapel Hill - Kenmore Central. This then inturn will create an alternative route to the city for people who live in the West.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 23:05:11 PM
Most of the profitable PT systems are are metro rail, or metro-rail like. Only 1 is a bus.

You left out Curitiba on which the TransMilenio system is based.  Also profitable, and very cheap for citizens.

Thanks, I stand corrected.
Curibita also.

It can be done. Just requires someone to lead and TODs.
TODs around as many busways and rail stations as possible. This means Milton as well!

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 23:05:11 PM

Quote
Dehli Metro: Profitable
Hong Kong Metro MTR: Profitable
Singapore SMRT: Profitable
Tokyo: Profitable
Taipei: Profitable (and only 8 lines ~75km length)
Bogota Busway: Profitable
Curitiba: Profitable
Vancouver SkyTrain: 46% funding from farebox
Brisbane Airtrain: Profitable (and you got the construction thrown in as well)

Lets look at Delhi. It is making a profit due to:
-Very high population density - even Brisbane's inner city isn't particularly high density.
-Empty sites for property development - not much free land in inner city Brisbane.
-Cheap property resumption for re-development - not possible in Brisbane.
-Politics that allow for PT operator to enter property market - could happen in Brisbane?
-High (and thus cost efficient) train loadings accepted - would make Brisbanites waddle back to using their Holdens.
-Dubious construction safety standards (9 people killed) - not acceptable to cut costs this way in Australia.
?Little in the way of Unions, and red tape.
-Mainly elevated structure - cheaper to build than tunnels - not possible through inner city Brisbane.

Sorry to pour water on the fire, but a profitable metro in Brisbane is would be exceedingly difficult to achieve, and most likely impossible.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 22:11:43 PM
Now look, I don't think the urban Metro should be sacrificed just so the pot can be kept for funding the ICRCS.  

So you would rather spend limited money on something that Brisbane debatably needs (an inner city metro) instead of something that Brisbane desperately needs (more suburban rail capacity)?

Put in a TOD
Increase the frequency
Allow bikes
People will flock to it.

Quote
Sorry to pour water on the fire, but a profitable metro in Brisbane is would be exceedingly difficult to achieve, and most likely impossible.

My point was that it is likely that Metros are very cost efficient... my point still stands. I remember when busway was first debated the newspapers ran stories like "The ways busways fail" and all sorts of "oh, it can never happen here, nobody will catch it". Today Cultural Centre is overloading, Busways are almost full to capacity and there are massive waiting times for services- a hands down victim of its own success. If it can be done for Busway, it can be done for a rail metro.

QuoteSo you would rather spend limited money on something that Brisbane debatably needs (an inner city metro) instead of something that Brisbane desperately needs (more suburban rail capacity)?

This really is for QLD Gov to decide. All the Privatisations in Queensland combined would only just scrape in at paying for the ICRCS. Good luck with the lobbying...

Quote from: tramtrain on February 08, 2010, 21:15:54 PM
Allow bikes

Bikes are usually banned from metros in tunnels due to safety reasons.

Quote
People will flock to it.

Not if they can't get to it due to lack of suburban rail capacity.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 07, 2010, 23:05:11 PM
Dehli Metro: Profitable
Hong Kong Metro MTR: Profitable
Singapore SMRT: Profitable
Tokyo: Profitable
Taipei: Profitable (and only 8 lines ~75km length)
Bogota Busway: Profitable
Curitiba: Profitable
Vancouver SkyTrain: 46% funding from farebox
Brisbane Airtrain: Profitable (and you got the construction thrown in as well)

Most of the profitable PT systems are are metro rail, or metro-rail like. Only 2 are busways and no mass ferry systems. Granted, our situation will probably be more like Vancouver- requiring subsidy to assist in maximizing service. But if you can get the best of both worlds, why not?

All your profitable rail systems are in Asia and for that matter have high population densities.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 08, 2010, 21:15:54 PM
Allow bikes

Don't see why we can't do this.  CityRail allow bikes at all times as far as I am aware.  A child's fare is applicable to the bike.

QuoteA child's fare is applicable to the bike.

At peak times only for the childs ticket, off peak free.   http://www.cityrail.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/

Quote from: ozbob on February 09, 2010, 12:12:17 PM

QuoteA child's fare is applicable to the bike.

At peak times only for the childs ticket, off peak free.   http://www.cityrail.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/

Pretty sure it used to be payable at all times.  'Tis a bit of a strange rule though.

In 2026 the SE Busway is at or above capacity, even with superbus-BRT or LRT options.
One option is to have passengers and commuters on 150 and 130 services be dropped off and transfer to the rail services (feeder)
The LRT option IMHO will likely be a "feeder + line haul" option. Although artic buses could be used, larger superbuses (i.e Tri-arctic) may have to also be restricted to the busway as their size etc may not be suitable for street running.

The metro is important, as it is envisaged that in 2026 (IIRC) non-BUZ services would terminate at the nearest metro terminal and allow passengers to transfer as the busway may not be able to handle the volumes... this is (part of) the reasoning behind the metro.



The image posted here is for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review. Source: Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report 2007, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. p48 http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

QuoteTo the contrary, a subway system that REPLACES buses would be viable.  The number of buses from UQ to Indooroopilly or the city alone each day would make that a viable route.  Buses would feed the subway, not compete with it meaning that far fewer buses would come into the city.

This is the reasoning... I couldn't have put it better myself frereOP.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 10, 2010, 18:56:32 PM

QuoteTo the contrary, a subway system that REPLACES buses would be viable.  The number of buses from UQ to Indooroopilly or the city alone each day would make that a viable route.  Buses would feed the subway, not compete with it meaning that far fewer buses would come into the city.

This is the reasoning... I couldn't have put it better myself frereOP.

Then lets get digging. Not only is the metro or whatever its called this week needed for rail capacity but also for buses. Moves should be made now to build busway style stations at the selected drop off stations.

Quote
Metro
The construction of a Metro system would require the construction of underground track,
stations and stabling facilities. Metro construction is at shallow depth, eight to ten metres,
depending on terrain, and with a tunnel diameter a little over four metres.
Construction would be by 'cut and cover' under existing streets and parkland for tube and
stations. Deeper driven tunnels would be required in hilly terrain and at river crossings.
Metro stabling can be at end stations or track extensions to avoid difficult
interconnections and resumptions. During construction there would be significant traffic
disruption where cut and cover works are in progress. Careful road space management
and diversions would be required. However once operational, the Metro would
significantly reduce the number of local buses and cars needing to enter the CBD.

Mass Transit Report p57
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698

QuoteLight rail:
In fact some light rail services are referred to as 'light metro' due to their similarity with
metro systems. The smoothness of the ride is one of the key strengths of light rail
systems but this outcome relies heavily on the design and construction of the system
and the level of priority provided. Power is generally supplied via overhead lines
although diesel or hybrid options are also available.

The electric vehicles receive their energy source through overhead wiring or through a
third rail either running alongside or between the tracks. As with Bus Rapid Transit
systems, the level of priority provided (grade separated or mixed with traffic) is generally
the main factor in the capacity of the system.

Mass Transit Report, p38

Depends on what the engineers think... there would be a lot of preliminary work though...

Cost and Capacity

Light Rail: 18-22million /km (Gold Coast Estimate), 10-100million/km (indicative range) @ 4000-25000 pax/hr/one-way
Metro: $30m-500million /km @ 10 000 - 40 000 pax/hr/one-way
Heavy Rail: $60-300million /km @ 10 000 - 75 000 pax/hr/one-way

Appendix page D-5
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE:511622983:pc=PC_2698

Note added Thurs 25 Mar 2010:
It would seem that busway is about $190-$500 million per km with an upper range around 15 000 pax/hr/direction