RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Here is my guess of how it will be routed based on the current intel.


Overall route:


At the site of the old car yard, you could also use this as a bus staging area for special events (Eg AFL, Olympics) and bus layover capacity:


Remember the current busway station and layover is already below the level of Stanley Street in a big "pit", so that entire space is availble to be reconfigured to a better busway station, without needing new excavation.


So a tunnel from the SEB would 'punch' under stanley street into the current station site. Then it is just a simple case of moving the platforms westward to  accomodate the portal.  Moving the platforms westward also means they can be directly above the CRR platforms.

Wouldn't this be a better representation of the service pattern?

- Maroon Glider will still need to cover Logan Road
- Route 200 will still need to run (just move it to go via Stanley St and Stanley Roads)
- (Even a modified Route 29 might stay, as it serves a cross-town function to Kangaroo Pt and The Valley)

QuoteConsider, 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.

Or you could just catch a cross-town bus, like a modified Route 29 which would allow you to transfer at Buranda.

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

It's not like buses don't already originate from these areas. Again, one can use the connecting bus 29. If buses were better connected to Beenleigh Rail line, would it really be "a different catchment area?" A 10-minute bus ride implies a 5km catchment zone, Springwood is within this zone to a rail station. For Hyperdome is a different case, local road network would make it harder to access rail (that said at these distances, you probably shouldn't be using a bus)

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

Snide comment, but if we assume that bus Route 29 costs $2 million per year to operate, versus a $400 million dollar project. Roughly, it would have a break even point around ~ 200 years to break even.

Value for money? I'm not convinced at this stage

QuoteMaroon Glider will still need to cover Logan Road

I thought about that but the 175 is going High Frequency (sort of) so in the long run I would look at something like a BUZ 175 to cover Logan Road and then send the Maroon Glider to Bulimba.

I agree about re routing the 200. The current issue is that I think TL wants to give OCR a direct service to the Gabba, which explains the co-existence of the 200 and 222.

Once the Gabba is on line there is no need for the separate service pattern.

QuoteSnide comment, but if we assume that bus Route 29 costs $2 million per year to operate, versus a $400 million dollar project. Roughly, it would have a break even point around ~ 200 years to break even.

Thats's not the only route that would change of course.
Consider it almost like an "enabling' project, since it definitely allows for a better network design overall.
And I think that the busway stop there will attract more passengers.

QuoteOr you could just catch a cross-town bus, like a modified Route 29 which would allow you to transfer at Buranda.

Which is 'fine' but if we are expecting passengers to interchange to get onto the core network, it will fast add up in terms of wait times if they then have to do another set of transfers to get between close stations in the inner city.

Eg you come off the 230 at the Gabba, you then ride it a couple of stops to Buranda, and then get on a 3rd bus to get to Upper Mt Gravatt.

Or, you come off the 230 at the gabba, and then get on the Metro 2.

I've always thought that having the Gabba on a spur was a bad design.

You can forgive it for UQ, because that is a strong destination on the other side of the river and has PAH and Boggo Road on the branch too,
And you can  forgive it for the Eastern Busway, because there was at least a long term ambition to get to Capalaba.

But the Gabba? It's only ever going to be this dumb little 300m long branch that will never be extended anywhere, and you have to split frequency and services to give it the right number of buses.

When it goes on the mainline it will be awesome because it will get EVERY bus, and many passengers will be able to change there for other buses and rail without the need to enter the CBD, which IMHO could avoid other expenditure down the track.

This diagram focuses on connections between the class A services. Metro 1 and 2, the CRR sector, and the Cleveland sector.

One major flaw of the current network is that there is no interchange between Metro 1 and CRR until Roma street, so passenger potentially have to do a bit of backtracking. The connection is there of course, but its going to add quite a bit of extra time for people reaching major destinations. Bam thats a big chunk of the time budget gone for travellers. You can also see that extra service patterns are required for other combinations too.

The act of putting Gabba onto both Metro 1 and Metro 2 definitely results in a tidier network.

Something I wish to point out is that remember when Boggo Rd almost wasn't included in CRR. Now, if it had been excluded, you still could have made interchanges at Roma St between lines, or they could have had extra short bus routes (Eg passengers to UQ on CRR could have used the 29  from Gabba instead of the 66/29 from Boggo Rd)

But we know it would have been 'messy' and added to journey times.

I feel this is a similar situation, except the difference is people are putting up with the longer journey times (or just driving if they are on the edges and its exceeding their daily time budget)

And doing this will 'unlock' a lot of journey and make a more legible network.





Another nice possibility i thought of is that if all buses stop at Gabba, then there is no barrier to having all BUZ routes go via the CCB.
Presently you cant do that, eg if you sent the 130/140/150 via the CCB then it would break connections with the 200 and eastern suburbs routes.
This may need to be done long term if we get a metro 3 to Carindale and need to free up capacity through Cultural center.

It also enables better interchange to services across the storey bridge, since there is no need to "overshoot" and run them to UQ or Griffith or whatever.
They can simply originate at the Gabba where all connections are available.

I feel the Gabba is an untapped resource because its actually a huge site, so you could make it into quite a substantial interchange, especially if the layovers are moved down the caryard site.

I am a fair person, and I will give credit where credit is due. Gazza, I think with the latest diagrams it was a well argued and substantiated case on your part.

- I am concerned about rockets which would lead to buses every 12 seconds (300 buses/hr) being routed via Woolloongabba station. IMHO the existing portion of busway could remain as a lead up to the Captain Cook Bridge as I can't really see that volume of buses going past Woolloongabba station. There would be high potential for congestion and friction there.

- I would like to see how Logan Road and Eastern bus services are proposed to enter the new station if the intersection at Mains Rd and Ipswich Rd is grade separated.



^^^ This is a nice diagram 

Gazza - do we know if the roof of the Clem7 is more than ~8m below the level of Gibbon St there?

Quote from: aldonius on October 16, 2022, 14:11:11 PMGazza - do we know if the roof of the Clem7 is more than ~8m below the level of Gibbon St there?

Control Line - 29m under Stanley St and 25m under busway station ? Is this road surface?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060820173509fw_/http://www.nsbt-eis.com/assets/downloads/EIS/Vol2_Drawings/9090-PLL-XL-001-5.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20070401234342/http://www.nsbt-eis.com/

Tunnel has a 12m outside diameter. 

https://developmenti.brisbane.qld.gov.au/DocumentSearch/GetAllDocument?applicationId=A005344952

To maximise the usable land recently bought i would use the alignment below and existing road space. I would also build Henry Street straight to Ipswich road instead of the current dog leg.  Great development potential for sure.

Woolloongabba

^^ I assume Gazza's dogleg was included to try and avoid as much residential property resumption as possible, by pushing it closer to the commercial properties fronting Ipswich Road.

Quote from: nathandavid88 on October 17, 2022, 12:38:38 PM^^ I assume Gazza's dogleg was included to try and avoid as much residential property resumption as possible, by pushing it closer to the commercial properties fronting Ipswich Road.

My dog leg comment was about the current Henry Street not Gazza's route.

^^ I don't see the benefit - seems like a lot of unnecessary resumptions.

https://twitter.com/bne_lordmayor/status/1592392979633037312

Brisbanetimes --> New bus station to transform Gabba into transport hub

QuoteIn a dramatic reconfiguration of public transport around the Gabba, a senior Brisbane Council source has revealed Brisbane's $450 million Metro underground bus station is likely to be built opposite Woolloongabba's new Cross River Rail station.

While the transport department would not confirm the Stanley Street site had been finalised, the council source told Brisbane Times: "It is now well and truly on the cards." ...

There is a perfectly good site right next to (it is actually tripping distance) the CRR station? If this is solely to have layover facilities then we still have the wrong bus network design! This is just stupid!!

We just don't get "integrated" in QLD do we.  I bet you would still have to Touch On and Touch Off between the stations too

If this is the location then the TMR purchase makes no sense?

I made a high contrast version since that image is so light.

Let's hope the engineers who are smarter than the politicians (that's not hard) can connect the two stations seamlessly with a solid design.

Sent to all outlets:

Gabba Busway Station Resumptions Not Necessary!

17th November 2022

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport has asked for more detail around the $450 million bus station at Woolloongabba contained within the SEQ City Deal announced in March this year.

An article in the Brisbanetimes that indicated the underground station is likely to be built opposite Woolloongabba's new Cross River Rail station and requires $70 million in property resumptions has left Rail Back On Track Members wondering "what's exactly going on".
( Brisbanetimes: New bus station to transform Gabba into transport hub https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/new-bus-station-to-transform-gabba-into-transport-hub-20221114-p5by6y.html )

The purchase of the former car yard on Ipswich Rd by the Department of Transport and Main Roads made sense as the location of an entrance to an underground tunnel entrance. Members had discussed how the buses could leave the existing busway and head underground to a station/platforms directly adjacent to the CRR station creating a single integrated station which required little to no resumptions.  There is plenty of space directly adjacent to the Woolloongabba CRR Station to integrate the busway platforms into the station. Building it on the southern side of Stanley St just doesn't make sense.

The proposal outlined in the Brisbanetimes shows two stations that just happen to be near each other. The lack of a truly integrated public transport system shows how political game playing continues to fail the people of Queensland. Further, public transport infrastructure is meant to intensify development, not demolish it. Any vacant land should also be used to build affordable and social housing, not park buses.  Buses that should be operating frequent all-day services not sitting waiting for peak hour.   

The Minster for Transport and Main Roads and Lord Mayor need to urgently explain why the busway can't be integrated into the Woolloongabba CRR station as illustrated by members.  If the answer is "there are too many buses to allow them all to stop at the new busway station" then the bus network is broken. 

Integration needs to go much further than a single ticketing system and journey planner app.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Facebook ...

https://twitter.com/JonathanPBryant/status/1592849600549126145

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1592891775907090433

I can see the logic in the proposed design.  Using the existing layover area would require "metro" services to turn off the existing SE busway plus an expensive tunnel to be built to link back up with the SE busway, creating more congestion points at both ends.

By having the new station at the proposed location, it would simply become part of the SE busway.  Metro and other "all station" buses would be able to stop there.  Buses that head to the existing Woolloongabba station wouldn't change - and the existing Woolloongabba station would remain in place.

Looking at the diagram, the proposed location lines up with the southern end of the CRR platforms.  Ideally another entrance point to the train station would be placed here, although I doubt that will happen.  I think we'll end up with a pedestrian bridge across Stanley Street to link up with the Woolloongabba precinct that runs from the CRR station to the Gabba.

The only negative is the distance from the Gabba for events.  But if people don't want to walk a few hundred metres, they can always change at Mater and catch a bus that stops at the existing station.

QuoteBuses that head to the existing Woolloongabba station wouldn't change - and the existing Woolloongabba station would remain in place.

I think thats a poorer outcome because it would be a long walk between services at the existing station and the new station. I think the idea should be to streamline it into a single facility, possibly with same platform transfers.

Like you said, youre envisioning a situation where:
if people don't want to walk a few hundred metres, they can always change at Mater and catch a bus that stops at the existing station.

Having an inline station but also an offline station would be a bit messy.

Quote from: Gazza on November 17, 2022, 11:04:32 AMHaving an inline station but also an offline station would be a bit messy.

On the other hand, having two separate bus stations plus a train station would assist during major events, with the two bus stations serving completely different routes.

Quoteit would be a long walk between services at the existing station and the new station

People don't need to change between buses here.  They can do that at Mater.  Having a combined station with added conflict of movement is counter-productive. 

All of these turns would add a significant amount of time.  The great thing about the busway is that it's quick.  We don't want to have to wait to turn off after Buranda, wait to turn onto the exiting busway at Woolloongabba, only to have to wait to turn back onto the SE busway again.  Or are you proposing that the existing SE busway section between Stanley St and the turnoff towards UQ be closed and all SE busway buses diverted to the "new" Woolloongabba station?

The latest committment from TMR is this:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/new-bus-station-to-transform-gabba-into-transport-hub-20221114-p5by6y.html

Quote... Brisbane's $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project will be finished in late 2024 and tested in early 2025. However, the Department of Transport and Main Roads said detailed planning for the Gabba link to the Metro would not be finished until late 2024, with any new bus connections only likely to be finalised 12 to 18 months later.

Council said the timing of the link between the Cross River Rail and the Metro was a state government issue.

On Friday, Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner revealed the underground busway at the Gabba would require $70 million in resumptions.

The transport department said community talks would begin next month.

So Cross River Rail will be in service long before a new 'Gabba Bus Station in in place.

I think the Lord Mayor has decided to generate a bit of publicity to push it along. 
I am not sure that is going to happen as quickly they would like.

QuoteOr are you proposing that the existing SE busway section between Stanley St and the turnoff towards UQ be closed and all SE busway buses diverted to the "new" Woolloongabba station?

Basically.

Option 1: The section that would become redundant would be from Stanley St to about Henry St, depending on how the new deviation was built.

Option 2: With the 'leaked' plan the new busway station next to Reid St could be big enough to have both an online station and a Suncorp style special events platform area.
Not really ideal because eastern routes would not be able to service this stop.

Option 3: Have 6 platforms in the station
1/2 CRR
3/4 Southern Platforms
5/6 Relocated eastern platforms

Looking at the Brisbane Times image, it looks like nothing more than an infill station being added just to the south of the current Gabba junction. (Perhaps 400m downstream from the Mater station).

Think of it like a Woolloongabba (suburb) station, but no where near as good as a Gabba (stadium) station.
Imagine the confusion if they keep both with similar confusing names!!

^^ "Woolloongabba Busway Station" for the new one and just "The Gabba" for the existing one?

Probably different platform numbers across the two buses and the train station?

Sydney: Builds a Metro which leaves from same platform!

Brisbane: We can have 3 stations all with similar names that require you to tap on and off and walk 100m between each

Seriously!!! It straight out of Utopia!

Brisbane Metro - pilot metro testing at Mount Cotton

^ There's also a video of testing at Mt Coot-Tha in the quarry. 

I'm really liking this Superbus!

A big problem for the ' Brisbane Metro ' is the misappropriation of the term Metro.

This sets up a cycle of doubt in outcomes and the like in many minds, because it is bulldust.

Metro in the public transport/transit sense means a mostly underground railway system in cities,
usually a separate system of high capacity high frequency trains.

For example the Sydney Metro.  Calling it the 'Brisbane Metro' has been a mistake.

I dislike the term ' Metro Vehicle ' or any other description for what is just an electric bi-articulated bus.

It is a nice bus for sure, but lets not pretend it is anything other than what it is.

=====

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1595477695516885007

It's biggest problem, in addition the crazy BS name, is that it has little to no ability to increase capacity on the routes it runs! They just can't compete with Light Rail for capacity!

QuoteA big problem for the ' Brisbane Metro ' is the misappropriation of the term Metro.

This sets up a cycle of doubt in outcomes and the like in many minds, because it is bulldust.

Metro in the public transport/transit sense means a mostly underground railway system in cities,
usually a separate system of high capacity high frequency trains.

If It's Not A Metro System, Don't Call It One

QuoteIt's biggest problem, in addition the crazy BS name, is that it has little to no ability to increase capacity on the routes it runs! They just can't compete with Light Rail for capacity!

I'd say its good for applications up to 4000-4500 pphd.

For comparison, the current Blue CityGlider would be sitting around  1000 - 1500 pphd in peak.

Can also run into areas where you couldn't put LRT into an exclusive lane (e.g. Montague Road, West End), can't cross the river due to bridges not supporting LRT (Story Bridge and Victoria Bridge), or where gradients make it undesirable.

Anywhere Brisbane Metro is put, the surrounding bus network must be restructured, so a double win on that front too.

Sent to all outlets:

Brisbane Bus Rapid Transport (BBRT) the correct name for ' Brisbane Metro '

24th November 2022

Greetings,

A big problem for the ' Brisbane Metro ' is the misappropriation of the term Metro.

This sets up a cycle of doubt in outcomes and the like in many minds, because it is not an appropriate name.

I have noticed a lot of lampooning of the name ' Brisbane Metro ' because of its misuse.

'Metro' in a public transport/transit sense means a mostly underground railway system in cities, usually a separate system of high capacity high frequency trains (1).

For example the Sydney Metro, the Paris Metro.  Calling it the 'Brisbane Metro' has been a mistake.

Calling the vehicles  ' Metro Vehicles ' or any other made up description is also hyperbole for what is just an electric bi-articulated bus.

It is a very nice innovative bus for sure, but lets not pretend it is anything other than what it is.

It is not too late to call the ' Brisbane Metro ' what it really is - bus rapid transit.

A suggested name is Brisbane Bus Rapid Transport (BBRT). This name says exactly what it is.

Visitors to Brisbane will no doubt be very surprised to find the ' Brisbane Metro ' is not a metro, but bus rapid transit.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Reference:

1. If It's Not A Metro System, Don't Call It One

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bOhlaLjGJY

Facebook ...

Just get MTR Melbourne to sue all the Australian PT agencies for trademark & name / IP infringement. That'll fix it.   

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1595553217722519552

Quote from: ozbob on November 24, 2022, 08:45:19 AMFacebook ...

Brisbane Bus Rapid Transport (BBRT) the correct name for ' Brisbane Metro ' 24th November 2022 Greetings, A big...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Wednesday, 23 November 2022

Very, very, strong response to this post.  Would seem to be a bit of pent up concern out yonder ...