RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Brisbane bi-articulated bus ' Metro ' - network review (separate thread)

>> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14718.0

"What PT options does does SEQ need?"

Just add more trains to the network in the off peak!

^ Yo.  At least the commentator calls the vehicles what they actually are " buses " ...   

The vehicle can clearly run on the road in mixed traffic, so let's start getting this to run in areas like Mains Road and you can even put your T2 or bus lane under it.

This guy is across all social media platforms. He presents it well and I like how at the end he asks his viewers of what they would like to see, in terms of improved public transport in Brisbane City.

I reckon from what BCC has planned there is still going to be a lot of buses travelling through the CBD.  Adelaide street will be a sea of buses as well as Mary Street.

Yet, BCC reckons that Buranda, Woolloongabba, Mater Hill and South bank stations are their biggest trip generators. Thus, this proves that an Indooroopilly to UQ mass transit corridor is urgently needed. This can allow Public transport travellers to bypass the CBD allowing them to get to these destinations quicker. It can also provide for quicker trips to and from the Gold coast as people will then be able to transfer at the PA Metro station for services at Boggo Road.  Woolloongabba could also be an alternative transfer point as well,  with either or would save commute times.

I reckon this would shave off at least 20 mins for a Gold Coast trip to and from Indooroopilly.

In Qld--->This temporary bus stop is about to become one of the city's busiest public transport hubs - InQueensland

In Qld have picked up the story regarding the temporary Cultural Centre transport arrangements

Brisbane Metro – upcoming changes to Cultural Centre station

Major infrastructure works are now underway in South Brisbane and will continue until 2024 to deliver Brisbane Metro – a new era of connected transport.

From 15 August, major public transport changes will occur, including:

·      temporary closure of Cultural Centre station platform 2

·      relocation of all outbound South East and Eastern Busway services to the temporary platform 2, located on Melbourne Street

·      relocation of all outbound West End and Highgate Hill services to the temporary platform 3, located on Melbourne Street.

Changes to traffic, cyclist and parking will also occur, including:

·      permanent removal of the left turn from Hope Street onto Melbourne Street for all vehicles

o  Grey Street to be accessed via Melbourne Street, Merivale Street, and Glenelg Street

·      temporary removal of the dedicated cycleway along Melbourne Street, from Victoria Bridge to Hope Street

·      temporary removal of five on-street parking spaces on Montague Road and permanent removal of four on-street parking spaces on Merivale Street to facilitate new bus layover zones. Five spaces within the Merivale Street carpark will also be removed.


culturalcentrechangesjul22.pdf

^ Discussion for Brisbane Metro – upcoming changes to Cultural Centre station

>>>> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14743.0

(added it to this thread for information only)

In Qld--->Moving right along: Brisbane Metro transit project rolls into suburbs with new UQ station - InQueensland

While I support Brisbane Metro going to the airport, I think it's better to improve the East West connection from  Indooroopilly to Buranda.The extension of the busway from UQ to Indooroopilly will speed of travel times for many going East to West, as well as provide a mass transit solution for the schools precinct at Indooroopilly.

Again the investment (yes larger $$) in Light Rail pays off with significant passenger loading. 

https://twitter.com/TheSydneyBlog/status/1551004534205362176?

Brisbane Metro will do little to increase capacity and does not address the current mess of routes and diversions in peak hour.  Lot of money to not really improve anything. Guess it fits together with the fleet of Flying Taxis.

https://twitter.com/ryansrumblings/status/1552780031218266112

^ It would be unthinkable to restrict these bi-arctic vehicles only to busway operation. Clearly they can run on main arterials such as Mains Road Sunnybank and down Coronation Drive to at least Indooroopilly.

We can then start to think about feederising some bus routes around Indooroopilly and giving people a choice about transferring to a Metro bus or a train.

I'm feeling like a 10 year anniversary re-release of all the "Superbus" stuff you came up with, Metro!

The more pressing issue is that even with double the number they are going to buy, that is still not enough even for the busway to work properly. 

The door density is also a problem, to the point where I still don't see an advantage to these over a conventional 3 door artic.

QuoteI'm feeling like a 10 year anniversary re-release of all the "Superbus" stuff you came up with, Metro!

Remember how RBOT suggested merging Route 109 UQ Lakes and Route 66 Woolloongabba, and TransLink came back and was like ... not sure about that the timetables don't seem to link up...

Interesting, Cr Murphy is now calling the ' metros ' buses, which they are of course, bi-articulated electric buses.

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1556654499183624192

https://twitter.com/bne_lordmayor/status/1559296526681522176

https://twitter.com/bne_lordmayor/status/1559296550748454912

Note the bi-artic. ...

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1560124074797387776

Some BRT food for thought......

Quote from: SurfRail on April 27, 2022, 16:30:14 PMI've just run a few quick numbers.

The promised 2 minute headway in peak would be 30 buses an hour each direction through the CBD for a total of 60 movements total.  This is notionally 15 buses per hour each direction (4 minute headways) on each of the 2 routes, overlapping to produce 30 buses per hour each direction (2 minute headways) at stations from Woolloongabba to Roma Street inclusive.  From RBWH to Roma Street and on either leg south of Woolloongabba, this is going to be a 4 minute headway only. 

Both routes would take around 25-30 minutes to complete based on the current trip times for Routes 66 and 111.  Journey times will vary by up to 5 minutes depending on time of day, passenger loadings, number of other services using the busway, conflicting movements at junctions, platform congestion etc, as they do now.  We know there will be on-board validation like every other bus, so there will still be delays in boarding and alighting due to ticketing validation and thus no time saving there over the present arrangements. 

There may be some sort of modest time saving based on there being less congestion around the junctions due to a reduction in bus movements, and a faster route around the Gabba and between North Quay and KGS, but I can't see that it will change substantially other than the timings becoming more reliable across the day.  Best case scenario to me still looks like 25 minutes end-to-end for each route in peak hour, with a big question mark around that being achievable.

You then have to account for recovery time after each trip.  There are a number of factors here:
- Industrial arrangements applicable to turnaround time (which accounts for toilet / meal breaks etc), which will mandate a certain minimum time sitting at the end of the route.  IIRC the current requirement is 4 minutes per service, but don't quote me on that.
- Northbound buses at Roma Street and RBWH need to continue past the last stop to turn around at Countess St / Ernie's Roundabout respectively and then travel back to the opposite platforms at Roma Street / RBWH stations to continue southbound.
- The vehicles will need to recharge, albeit I am not sure how often.

So, being very generous, that would mean a given bus could complete a return trip on each route in 60 minutes, being 2 x approximately 25 minute trips plus say 2 x 5 recoveries. 

To sustain 2 minute headways in both directions from Woolloongabba to Roma Street would therefore require all 60 buses to be in use in peak times. 

I therefore consider it extremely unrealistic that 60 buses can deliver the promised timetable.  All 60 buses would need to be on the road and on a razor-tight timetable.  This is unsustainable.

Even if this could be delivered reliably, the capacity on each individual route is no more than 15 buses per hour.  Being generous again and assuming that the buses carry say 200 passengers each (which is 50 in excess of "normal mode" and 30 in excess of "event mode"), that is 3,000 each, or 6,000 in the core.

A more realistic assumption would be they can deliver a bus every 2.5 minutes, which would be a bus every 5 minutes on each leg (12 buses per hour, 24 buses per hour in the core, total of roughly 48 required with 20% of the fleet available for maintenance, back-up, beefing up the timetable temporarily for special event services etc).  That is consistent with G:Link which has a normal weekday peak vehicle requirement of I believe 14 out of 18 trams.

Assuming a more realistic capacity for the vehicles (ie the 150 advertised by the project outside of "event mode"), that is a peak capacity of 1,800 per route, and 3,600 in the core.  You can also assume this capacity will not be available all day long, the same way the busway's existing passenger capacity scales way way back outside the AM and PM peaks.

Bear in mind G:link can comfortably deliver 2,400 pphpd along the whole system all day long at only 8 trams per hour (ie 14 trams on the road), with considerably fewer hurdles to turn-around time.  They can and do turn trams around much faster than any BCC bus currently, and do not need to send a tram a kilometre up the road and back to change ends at a terminus like will be required here.  The system can also comfortably operate with double, triple or quadruple this headway, given enough trams.  There is no way Brisbane Metro could due to the limited platform capacity and lack of fixed guidance, and certainly not with "normal" rigid or articulated buses getting in the way.

Is there any project modelling available that would tend to suggest anything above is incorrect?  Happy to look at it if there is.

Every time we discuss the Bi-artic Metro project it gets me thinking about how the service grows

The best figure I can find for # of passengers per hour is 16,000 passengers using the South East and Inner Northern Busways. Metro Summary There is no mention of per direction and the Wikipeadia calculation for the busway of 18,000 per direction assumes 62 passengers per bus at 1 bus every 12 seconds.  I find this a very unrealistic number as we know that there was a comment from Translink that a high % of buses on Victoria Bridge are half full Call to get half-full buses off city bridge - Brisbane Times

As per SurfRail calsc Metro will peak at around 7,200 in the core with a bus every 2.5 minutes each direction.  Leaving almost 9,000 travelling on other routes (not sure how they fit between the Metro vehicles) and a very messy/dangerous platform experience remaining.   The vehicle costs are around $190M. So $3.2M per vehicle.

Now using Sydney's highly successful Alstom Citadis 305 trams which do come in a battery/flash charge version and can carry a whopping 400 (actually 466 but I am being kind) passengers in a dual vehicle setup cost $10m per set of 2 - $5mil each.  You actually only need 22 sets.  So a similar cost to the current Metro vehicles.

Now this is where it gets fun. Assuming we want to make the busway work like a trunk route and remove the worry about the random arrival of your bus and the scramble up and down the platform. We need to move 16,000 across the core. The light rail can do it with just 50 trams with one arriving every 3 minutes in both directions. Yes the cost is now almost half a million but there are a lot of buses now available to run across the city. If we ever needed to move to 2min headways (quite possible) we are moving 24,000 people through the core.

I know there is the cost and disruption of installing the rails but surely there are ways to do this without having to close the busway (e.g. cover the work in peak hours, only excavate at stations to keep platforms level). Yes, it's too late now (maybe) but what a missed opportunity.  Infrastructure Australia should hang their head in shame too.  They allowed such a limited increase for such a massive cost.  We'll have to fix it in time.
 

The Courier Mail is reporting that the Queensland Government has acquired a 1.28 hectare car yard site off Ipswich Road at Woolloongabba for "Future Transport Needs". Could this be part of the plan to turn route the busway via Woolloongabba Station?


QLD Government buys 1.28ha former 'Gabba car yard for 'future transport needs'

The Queensland Government has spent more than $40 million on a 1.28ha former car yard in the heart of the 'Olympic precinct'.



Chris Herde
Follow

less than 2 min read
October 14, 2022 - 12:00AM
The Australian Business Network

THE State Government has snapped up a former car yard in the Olympic precinct which will cater for "future transport needs".

The Government is part of a multimillion dollar wave of buyers keen to secure sites in the heart of the 2032 Olympic Games and a Transport and Main Roads (TMR) spokesman confirmed that they had settled on the purchase of a 1.28ha former car yard at 73 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba. Industry sources say the purchase price was just over $40m.

The site was one of the largest privately-owned properties in the area and marketed as "one of the most significant development opportunities" to have hit the market in the last few years.

It was on the market about eight years ago and been under contract a number of times since.

The TMR spokesman said because of the rapid pace of development and the upcoming changes earmarked for the suburb which encompasses the Olympic precinct they continued to plan for "future transport needs".

"The land provides an opportunity to progress several important transport and infrastructure planning activities to accommodate future needs within the wider Woolloongabba precinct," he said.


https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/prime-site/qld-government-buys-128ha-former-gabba-car-yard-for-future-transport-needs/news-story/39bb662e954d2fa99ead261679064f4d

So #73 is just north of where Ipswich Rd and the motorway/busway corridor cross.

Presumably it's for some additional staging area? The alternative is that they're going to divert the entire busway (if you just put W'Gabba station onto the existing busway, that doubles the distance to the stadium, etc)

That whole area is such prime real estate. It would be good to see it all flattened and built up as mixed use in conjunction with a big new integrated Gabba Station. Shame the City Plan fails to see this and for some reason puts so much effort into retaining inner-City industry

Oh the irony if they built along the same route as the original Woolloongabba Rail line. I know they won't just thought the location was ironic.  But it could integrate to portals form Logan Road and Stanley Street.

 

Quote from: aldonius on October 14, 2022, 10:22:43 AMThe alternative is that they're going to divert the entire busway

Taking another look at this... with the CRR and the Clem7 tunnels, and how built up it all is, I don't think anything of the sort could happen. Not for $400m, not if the Stones Corner extension was anything to go by.

What is the problem that is trying to be solved here? Can't the bus station be left the way it is?

Quote from: #Metro on October 14, 2022, 19:18:56 PMWhat is the problem that is trying to be solved here? Can't the bus station be left the way it is?

Well, as you know, the powers that be have decided the best thing to do with $400m is to convert the Woolloongabba station to an inline station.

Quote from: #Metro on October 14, 2022, 19:18:56 PMWhat is the problem that is trying to be solved here? Can't the bus station be left the way it is?

Because it removes the "Branching Problem".

QuoteBecause it removes the "Branching Problem".

Is it really a problem we cannot live with? It's been like that for the last 21 years.

Aren't there other projects that can bring in the same or better benefits for this money (e.g. Shorncliffe, Manly Turnback and 3rd platform)

This sort of project looks like a "nice to have" not a "must have".

QuoteTaking another look at this... with the CRR and the Clem7 tunnels, and how built up it all is, I don't think anything of the sort could happen. Not for $400m, not if the Stones Corner extension was anything to go by.

Stones Corner was $465 million. This Gabba bus station seems more complicated as more tunnelling is involved and the station is underground, wheras Stones Corner was an elevated station.

QuoteIs it really a problem we cannot live with? It's been like that for the last 21 years.

Aren't there other projects that can bring in the same or better benefits for this money (e.g. Shorncliffe, Manly Turnback and 3rd platform)

I mean, we've lived without those things for a while too (And many other problems)
Though the goal i think is to fix problems in the network rather than suffer for no reason.

Here are some factors which might have led to this decision.

-CRR for starters. Wooloongabba will become a key interchange point, with many bus routes terminating there.
Presumably passengers from the SE will want to get to Albert st and QUT, so an interchange at the Gabba would save time and therefore increase patronage.

-Building up of the Gabba precinct. Currently half the catchment is taken up by what was Goprint, and the Gabba stadium. When new offices, residential go in there will be more demand for this station from all directions.
In the long run, this will be like another south bank imo.
https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/precincts/woolloongabba-station-precinct/

-Olympic Venue

-Extension of the busway to Springwood, which will increase busway patronage. There will be more and more passengers on that SE corridor wanting to get to the Gabba direct.

-Dramatic simplification of the network. The busway suffers from the fact it has 3 branches in quick succession...Boggo Rd, Eastern Busway, and the Gabba branch. All of these locations are activated inner city destinations with good patronage potential, but we must run a lot of overlapping service in a congested part of the network to connect them all (Think of the the 28, 29 etc)
Also services overlapping like the 200 and 222.

I think there was talk of "why isn't there an M3 service to the Gabba"
Imagine all the extra vehicles you need and the extra service you need to run in order to provide that service on an annual basis, compared to a once off cost of changing the station to be on the main route.

But what is sillier is getting between popular busway stations can involve leaving the busway alltogether which defeats the purpose of it being class A.

For example....

Gabba to Stones Corner? The Maroon Glider links those stations, but leaves the busway.

Upper Mt Gravatt to Gabba? Either use the 175 (off busway) or take a 111/150/555 to Mater Hill, and then walk backwards to the Gabba.

Quote from: #Metro on October 15, 2022, 11:09:13 AM

QuoteBecause it removes the "Branching Problem".

Is it really a problem we cannot live with? It's been like that for the last 21 years.

Aren't there other projects that can bring in the same or better benefits for this money (e.g. Shorncliffe, Manly Turnback and 3rd platform)

This sort of project looks like a "nice to have" not a "must have".

QuoteTaking another look at this... with the CRR and the Clem7 tunnels, and how built up it all is, I don't think anything of the sort could happen. Not for $400m, not if the Stones Corner extension was anything to go by.

Stones Corner was $465 million. This Gabba bus station seems more complicated as more tunnelling is involved and the station is underground, wheras Stones Corner was an elevated station.

Plus, the Gabba solution will include tunnelling under Stanley Street to connect east to Logan road and Stanley Street East. They are delivering this in conjunction with the Gabba redevelopment.

They won't get people onto public transport unless there are significant time savings. They need to extend the Metro services to Indooroopilly via UQ on grade seperated infrastructure. This will improve east west travel times and provide time savings when travelling south to the Gold coast. Therefore people from the west can transfer at Boggo Road instead of the city when travelling South.

I'm happy to consider the merits of the proposal, but my current view is that it is not particularly persuasive or convincing.

QuoteI mean, we've lived without those things for a while too (And many other problems)
Though the goal i think is to fix problems in the network rather than suffer for no reason.

Is anyone really "suffering" from the Gabba being a branch line though? And why does the station need to be underground ($$$) rather than on the surface?

Quote-CRR for starters. Wooloongabba will become a key interchange point, with many bus routes terminating there. Presumably passengers from the SE will want to get to Albert st and QUT, so an interchange at the Gabba would save time and therefore increase patronage.

- Very few bus routes are terminating at W/Gabba in the New Bus Network plan (2022), and of those that are, or might be, they are low frequency. Modifying the Route 29 from UQ Lakes to travel to W'Gabba and then over the Story Bridge would create the connection between the SEB and Gabba, without the infrastructure expenditure.

Quote-Building up of the Gabba precinct. Currently half the catchment is taken up by what was Goprint, and the Gabba stadium. When new offices, residential go in there will be more demand for this station from all directions.
In the long run, this will be like another south bank imo.

- Isn't one new train station and one existing busway more than sufficient to cater to this demand? It doesn't explain why a new underground busway station is required. It's not like there isn't a busway there already.

Quote-Olympic Venue

Co-location of the CRR train station with a busway station will mean less reliance on the busway, not more. The Olympics is also a once-off event. The costs of financing a stream of debt interest payments on $400 million is much longer term. And the IOC whole idea of "new normal" is to use existing infrastructure.

- Just holding the opening ceremony at Suncorp Stadium (which has the capacity and a train station) would mean avoiding both the cost of both this and constructing a new Gabba Stadium. (Save ~ $1.4 billion)

- This also has to be considered against an improved existing W'Gabba surface station option. Has that option been explored? (seems not).

Quote-Extension of the busway to Springwood, which will increase busway patronage. There will be more and more passengers on that SE corridor wanting to get to the Gabba direct.

- Busway patronage has always been increasing since the busway was opened in 2001. This is nothing new.

- I would like to see estimates of transfers from SE busway stations to the Gabba. When events are on Gabba shuttles operate along the SEB, so there really isn't a need (e.g. - not a want) to alter the infrastructure.

- If buses in Logan were simply designed to also feed train station (like they are supposed to) pax could just get on a Beenleigh or Gold Coast line train and get to Woolloongabba. No need for this project.

Quote-Dramatic simplification of the network. The busway suffers from the fact it has 3 branches in quick succession...Boggo Rd, Eastern Busway, and the Gabba branch. All of these locations are activated inner city destinations with good patronage potential, but we must run a lot of overlapping service in a congested part of the network to connect them all (Think of the the 28, 29 etc)

Also services overlapping like the 200 and 222.

- I agree that there are overlapping services, but route 28 and 29 are so short and frequent I don't think the sum total cost of running those compares anywhere near the $400 million of this proposal.

- Overlapping services like 200 and 222 are the result of network planning and can be fixed in the current bus review if TransLink and BCC wanted to. Just move Route 200 on to Stanley Street, through East Brisbane and along Stanley Road to Carindale.

- Of course the most dramatic simplification of the network would be to convert the SE busway to metro rail. At high levels of use, BRT becomes inefficient because you are always doing "patch up" jobs and capital works to mitigate this inefficiency. We are spending billions on mitigation work, which is essentially what Brisbane Metro is - mitigation work - to bring the SE busway back to journey times that existed when it first opened.

- I have already demonstrated elsewhere, metro rail could already be supported on current patronage down the SE busway, and that its annual patronage levels are already 2x of that carried by Sydney's Metro Northwest.

What to do with the $1.4 billion saved? Spend it on the Sunshine Coast line, and access to the Olympic venues up there.

QuotePlus, the Gabba solution will include tunnelling under Stanley Street to connect east to Logan road and Stanley Street East. They are delivering this in conjunction with the Gabba redevelopment.

This sounds a bit more promising. If the plan was to tunnel under Stanley Street and grade-separate the intersection with Ipswich Rd/Main Street, and possibly a new busway station at East Brisbane, that would have more merit.

That said, you can achieve all of that without creating a tunnel connection from the SEB to W'Gabba.

QuoteIs anyone really "suffering" from the Gabba being a branch line though?

I mean, its possible to get anywhere in SEQ via public transport, but it often wont be frequent or direct.
Having the station on line increases the frequency of service it gets, as well as the directness, without an increase in long term running costs or an increase in fleet requirements.

QuoteIs anyone really "suffering" from the Gabba being a branch line though? And why does the station need to be underground ($$$) rather than on the surface?

Ok, the first point would be that whatever happens at the Gabba needs to have the busway platforms fairly close to the rail platforms, so having a surface busway "on line" near Leopard St wouldnt fly.

I dont think the station will need to be underground. It's more about building a short section of busway that feeds buses through in the "correct direction".
If TMR are acquiring the car yard on Henry St, my guess is that they will re route the busway through that, then tunnel for about 400m under Gibbon St then feed into the current station.

QuoteVery few bus routes are terminating at W/Gabba in the New Bus Network plan (2022), and of those that are, or might be, they are low frequency. Modifying the Route 29 from UQ Lakes to travel to W'Gabba and then over the Story Bridge would create the connection between the SEB and Gabba, without the infrastructure expenditure.

Ok I actually said its so that people can get off at the Gabba, and then short cut on a train under the river to get to Albert St (For QUT etc).

Yes you cant terminate many buses in the 2022 plan there yet because the busway station is in the wrong configuration for this to work en masse. But if the station was "on line" it would be able to work.

Consider, if a bus from the east terminated at the Gabba at present, and you wanted to get to somewhere in the SE, you cant because no routes run south from gabba to the SE. But if the station was online, you could go south on any route, or the M1 or the M2, or heavy rail.

Quote- If buses in Logan were simply designed to also feed train station (like they are supposed to) pax could just get on a Beenleigh or Gold Coast line train and get to Woolloongabba. No need for this project.

The SE Busway to Springwood (and eventually Hyperdome) serves a different catchment area to the heavy rail line.

Also, in terms of $1.4b saved.
The presence of the Gabba stadium being upgrades doesn't really alter the long term travel demand for this area.
Its a question of whether to spend $400m or not.

Quoteagree that there are overlapping services, but route 28 and 29 are so short and frequent I don't think the sum total cost of running those compares anywhere near the $400 million of this proposal.

But there is going to be a break even point isn't there?