RAIL - Back On Track Forum

It's worth reflecting on why 'fare cut mania' is happening and not something else... like bus reform or new BUZ services.

Think about it.

New bus services would necessitate some form of structural review of the bus network.

That could be framed as 'cuts', even though it might be an overall improvement.

BCC has a track record of opposing comprehensive bus reviews of the network... simply because as a council it is politically hard to do (ward politics).

So there is your answer.

And few people will refuse a freebie.

When BCC ran trams, this was not so much of an issue as the tram route was fixed and the works expensive, so you had no choice but to build it simple and direct.

Not so with buses.

And that is the issue with BCC. Good bus reviews are very hard for them.

Which is why changes are glacial and limited to cosmetic/superficial changes, with the exception of Brisbane Metro BRT, which forces network alteration. For example:

Brisbane City Council parks proposed bus network changes as Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson backs down

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-city-council-parks-proposed-bus-network-changes-as-queensland-transport-minister-scott-emerson-backs-down/news-story/b14ab3c0d7551433b2910e0259acaad5

And they have little incentive to connect to the train system.

You have to argue with the State Government, co-ordinate with TMR/QR/Treasury if you want bus-train interchanges... which is simply easier not to pursue.

(Building a proper bus-train interchange at Indooroopilly has been an issue for 40+ years)

You would have to build a bridge and align the two organisations, and then potentially have a fight over funding as there are incentives to cost-shift when you have organisational interfaces come up against each other.

You essentially need double or triple permission to get it done.

If this was Perth, the bus planners and train operators (presumably) are all under one roof at the Public Transport Centre in East Perth.

They could resolve that over the water cooler in the kitchen. There is no other organisation to battle with.

Not here in Queensland.

Apparently, there are two traffic light systems in Qld, one run by TMR and the other run by BCC 😂 Not saying that the TMR traffic management system is any better.

Any improvement will be welcomed.

Hopefully, any new system will allow for priority approach for pedestrians, cyclists and buses as well. As everyone may have experienced you can wait up to 3-4 mins before crossing the road even when there is no traffic approaching and the intersection is empty.

I am also not sure if the BCC and the TMR traffic light systems are properly interfaced either.

Also another point is that a lot of tourists on YouTube always complain about the wait times at traffic lights here in Brisbane. So you can pretty much conclude it's an issue isolated to Brisbane as well as other Australian cities.

https://x.com/UnwalkableBris1/status/1753932719632064919?s=20

Quote from: #Metro on February 04, 2024, 10:15:23 AMIt's worth reflecting on why 'fare cut mania' is happening and not something else... like bus reform or new BUZ services.

Think about it.

New bus services would necessitate some form of structural review of the bus network.

That could be framed as 'cuts', even though it might be an overall improvement.

BCC has a track record of opposing comprehensive bus reviews of the network... simply because as a council it is politically hard to do (ward politics).

So there is your answer.

And few people will refuse a freebie.

When BCC ran trams, this was not so much of an issue as the tram route was fixed and the works expensive, so you had no choice but to build it simple and direct.

Not so with buses.

And that is the issue with BCC. Good bus reviews are very hard for them.

Which is why changes are glacial and limited to cosmetic/superficial changes, with the exception of Brisbane Metro BRT, which forces network alteration. For example:

Brisbane City Council parks proposed bus network changes as Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson backs down

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-city-council-parks-proposed-bus-network-changes-as-queensland-transport-minister-scott-emerson-backs-down/news-story/b14ab3c0d7551433b2910e0259acaad5

And they have little incentive to connect to the train system.

You have to argue with the State Government, co-ordinate with TMR/QR/Treasury if you want bus-train interchanges... which is simply easier not to pursue.

(Building a proper bus-train interchange at Indooroopilly has been an issue for 40+ years)

You would have to build a bridge and align the two organisations, and then potentially have a fight over funding as there are incentives to cost-shift when you have organisational interfaces come up against each other.

You essentially need double or triple permission to get it done.

If this was Perth, the bus planners and train operators (presumably) are all under one roof at the Public Transport Centre in East Perth.

They could resolve that over the water cooler in the kitchen. There is no other organisation to battle with.

Not here in Queensland.

Rail was the backbone for transporting people in Brisbane. As was trams. There weren't any buses. Trams and trains had their own fare structure. Train fares went to state while tram fares went to bcc. Patronage hasn't been met since. Road based travel has come along and people shifted away from pt. Bcc used buses as a justification to ditch the tram network and to get more people back onto bcc modes of transport and we also then saw Brisbane's transport act come into effect. As road travel further increased both the state and bcc used it as a voter card. Road this and that. Multiple cancelled road projects litter bcc. Toowong flyover, Albion overpass, Markwell street overpass at Bowen hills, Ivory street and many others. The ICB was a legacy project. As too was Airport link. This is why motor vehicle use is entrenched in multiple generations. As Brisbane expanded and surrounding councils merged urban sprawl came into effect. This also meant bcc developed land right up to the state railway corridor boundary line (indoorpilly junction shopping centre for example). Bcc had no intention of running buses to train stations as they collected bus fare revenue. Most bus/rail interchanges are at long distance locations where different fare structures were in place, smaller bus networks so communication between rail and buses was quite good (delaying trains and buses to meet connections) along with dedicated rail passes. For example you used to be able to buy unlimited train travel tickets station to station eg Caboolture-Central or Zillmere-Beenleigh. Didn't matter if it was peak or off peak. Pretty sure the student station to station rail pass is still available which I think is still cheaper than using a gocard. The downsides were that you had to pay the full cost upfront which could be quite pricy depending on what station-station it was. I think these were phased out in 2007/2008?

When translink was formed it wasn't perfect and it still suffered from a lack of funding and upper management approval/leadership (such as the Caboolture timetable issues where qr had a fix within days but higher ups at translink wanted to see if passengers would change without the need for spending additional money on reprinting timetables - in the end political influence once again fast tracked it when the media started running negative stories about it). And as we all know translink was finally going in a good direction until Newman got in, gutted it and thrusted it deep into tmr who had minimal planning or resources for it.

The problem with tmr and qr in regards to infrastructure is one sees it as a long term asset and the other see's it short term asset. For example Newman/tmr removed a lot of planning from MBRL/L2P that QR wanted/had moved plans towards. This being QR's intention of removing strathpine terminators, the Dakabin stabling project, Dakabin-Petrie triplication project, Anzac anvenue overpass replacement project and trouts road corridor. We have also seen TMR push forward for other projects within the rail corridor such as Carseldine park and ride and the northern busway.

Quote from: HTGWhen translink was formed it wasn't perfect

It was simply another re-run of the 1980s MTA and essentially suffered the same fate as it.

There is a big difference between what happened in Perth and what happened in Brisbane.

In the Brisbane case, we have multiple different agencies and the gap between them was then filled with an intermediating authority. That has been done twice now in Queensland.

In the Perth case, a single agency was created where different agencies were brought in-house and became divisions of the PTA.

A third attempt at Translink III will likely meet the same fate for the same reasons as before.

Pinning these problems on Newman etc is to commit the Fundamental Attribution Error. If it were not Newman, it would have been someone else doing it.

The reason why this keeps happening IMO is that it is situational. It is not about specific people.

You could replace all the people and still get the same result.

Choosing to set up the governance as per the Perth option, or a variant of it might allow a different result.

You can't compare it to various other versions. It's just something you have randomly found on paper. Translink was changing before Newman as they finally had some funding and people that knew what they were doing. He can and will be blamed (and you clearly have no idea about Newman's plans at the time and what was changed internally ie qr set up for privatisation across different levels eg rollingstock assets, rollingstock operations - drivers/guards/station staff, mtce assets - track/trackside/control - and you want to cut red tape ha! He did quite a lot of damage to make it look lean on paper. The same with translink being set up in such a way that it wasn't a fully established department within tmr and was something that could be sold off/privatised at a later date. Translink has now fully been incorporated into tmr but still has problems especially with Bailey and others at the helm. But so too can the current state mob as they haven't done anything to improve things. And this stems back to translink being hamstrung by its own department/tmr or by the state using pt as a voter card. In a nutshell the state not planning for rollingstock has created this solution of lack of services/frequency. You can argue all you want but that's the truth. They've got the rollingstock to increase services on lines if they wanted to tomorrow but they can't as future infrastructure plans mean services potentially have to be cut once that comes online once again stemming from poor rollingstock planning. And they much like council can't argue too much over it as it becomes a political liability both internally and externally across multiple levels of government.  This is why we see cheap shots between council and state instead of someone putting their foot down.

You just need people in there that know what they are doing, not using it as a political tool and not afraid to go against their current minister.

"you can't compare..."

Nonsense. And missing the broader picture entirely.

And it's not about getting the "right people" (weasel words) either.

Putting the right people into the wrong situation will result in them doing the wrong thing.

The game itself needs to change. That's where governance arrangements comes into play.

Perth doesn't have these issues!

The only nonsense here is you constantly ignoring what others here have to say because you get so focused on what you think must be jammed down everyone else's throat until they agree.

The right people. Those that know about public transport and don't hide under development authorities (CRR), not communicating between other projects/departments (CRR/Kuraby-Beenleigh projects) and aren't afraid to put people in their place so we don't get this stupid local council proposing fare cuts or stupid route plans that we have now.

Nope, claiming that you can't draw a comparison between the MTA and Translink is objectively nonsensical.

Of course you can compare them. They were essentially set up to do the same thing.

https://twitter.com/CrJaredCassidy/status/1754102658175320383?t=FmHdCusv0aUCgC-MMf_E-w&s=19

https://x.com/ryansrumblings/status/1753961766609182808?s=20

We interrupt this general sh%t show for a song ... #youaremostwelcome

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1754323065948037229?s=20

https://x.com/ryansrumblings/status/1754101367189491809?s=20

 

Haha what sort of garbage take is this?

"If you criticize anything I do, it means you're running lines for the other side."

Couriermail --> Brisbane cross-river tram line the Greens' latest pitch ahead of Brisbane City Council election $

QuoteA tram line connecting Mount Gravatt to Hamilton via the Story Bridge would be investigated if the Greens gain power in Brisbane City Council next month.

A Greens-led council would put $10 million into commissioning a delivery study and undertaking public consultation for bringing light rail back to the River City. ...

The light rail policy should appear here in time > https://www.jonathansri.com/

More evidence BCC is a de facto transit agency.

Also - trams never ran over the Story Bridge. Trolley buses ran instead. This is a clue that potentially the bridge won't support LRT but this will have to be confirmed or refuted by engineers.

The Valley to Hamilton Northshore part of the route seems sound.

Just putting in a BUZ on parts of it in the interim would have been a good move.

The cost of light rail as proposed would be very considerable. The problem is the underground services along the roads proposed. Before any track could be laid these would have to be sorted.  Road closures would be a significant issue while those works were done.   A study is reasonable, which I think would confirm these issues. Story Bridge is a potential issue as well.  As #Metro mentioned it never has had trams on it. BCC own Story Bridge, I am sure Team Schrinner will highlight the fact if Story Bridge is not able to be used for light rail.

Quote from: ozbob on February 07, 2024, 06:40:32 AMThe light rail policy should appear here in time > https://www.jonathansri.com/

Bring Back The Trams
A modern light rail plan for Brisbane

https://www.jonathansri.com/lightrail

Quote... A modern light rail plan for Brisbane

The Greens would start rolling out modern light rail lines progressively, starting with a new L1 Line, from Upper Mt Gravatt to Hamilton via the Valley and the Story Bridge.

We would fund a $10 million detailed public consultation and delivery study for the new L1 Line. Our objectives would include:

A new 24km light rail line linking Upper Mt Gravatt to Hamilton Northshore via the Story Bridge.

Possible alignment here, shown alongside the Greens' Brissie Bus Boost plan.

Large, high-capacity vehicles, carrying around 450 people each.

A tram at least every 7.5 minutes from 5am - midnight

Services every 5 minutes in peak periods

Some services running 24 hours per day

Tracked vehicles, running on steel rails

In-ground "wire free" power supply, which is safe and low-impact, similar to Sydney's CBD and South East light rail

Generally avoiding road widening, except where necessary by reallocating space within the existing road corridors. ...

QuoteThe cost of light rail as proposed would be very considerable. The problem is the underground services along the roads proposed. Before any track could be laid these would have to be sorted.  Road closures would be a significant issue while those works were done.

Exact same issues apply to the Gold Coast, and upgrading from buses to trams literally quintupled patronage along the corridor.

^ parts of the GC LR.  The Greens L1 proposal will have the problem for the entire route.

I have a bit of a weird take here: If we were going to have a lot of trams in Brisbane (and I note that the proposal is just for one line, but still) it's probably a good idea to get a bunch of the teething issues sorted out on what is presently somewhat of a secondary corridor.

My opinions have changed a bit on in-road service. Gympie Rd has demonstrated that we're going to get all the services upgrades drama just for a BRT lane, so the jump up to LRT is less.

The policy does specify a high frequency bus will be placed in first to lead patronage followed by tramstitution 

https://x.com/brisbanetimes/status/1755047646820192747?s=20

Quote from: #Metro on February 07, 2024, 11:31:16 AMThe policy does specify a high frequency bus will be placed in first to lead patronage followed by tramstitution 

👍👍

I wonder why they didn't consider the route to go down Logan Road. It is more direct and much of Logan Road has more space.

Absolutely critical to this is if they consider strong connections to heavy rail and/or busway, for example at Buranda and Fortitude Valley.

It is the old Route 71 connected to Mt Gravatt.  With 60 the other end

https://x.com/QldGreens/status/1755021832401600713?s=20

"Fully costed plan"  ??

Edit:  ^ been deleted  ....

Quote from: OzGamer on February 07, 2024, 13:58:33 PMI wonder why they didn't consider the route to go down Logan Road. It is more direct and much of Logan Road has more space.

The SE Busway fairly closely mirrors the Logan Road alignment, and I get the impression that the Greens didn't want a tram line that duplicates the existing busway.

That said, it could be argued that using Ipswich Road as the alignment creates a line that similarly duplicates the Beenleigh Line between Moorooka and Park Road/Boggo Road.

My big question with this plan is, if they are going to all the effort of introducing a tram line, shouldn't said tram really service the inner city directly? I know the Greens like their cross town services that bypass the CBD itself, but something as major as a tram line I think needs to go through the CBD proper.

The key is that they are listening to the experts who say prioritise walking, cycling and public transport before driving.

They will work with the State Govt to plan it all collaboratively.

Quote from: Nathandavid88My big question with this plan is, if they are going to all the effort of introducing a tram line, shouldn't said tram really service the inner city directly? I know the Greens like their cross town services that bypass the CBD itself, but something as major as a tram line I think needs to go through the CBD proper.

Green Team's proposal will need to be investigated and refined, but this will happen if they get into office. Concepts get refined.

Service needs to stop in the CBD is the main point of feedback.

Using the Gold Coast Light Rail unit cost of $150 million/km (Stage 3) as the test value:

24 km x $150 million/km = $3.6 billion (Ballpark Estimate).

This is also assuming we can get across the Story Bridge (a big assumption).

The proposal would be much better if half of it was done as Brisbane Metro BRT/CityGlider/BUZ (say the CBD-Valley-Story Bridge-Mt Gravatt bit) and the other half as LRT (Queen St-Valley-KSD-Hamilton Portside).

This would be more affordable at ~ $1.2 billion (LRT cost CBD to Hamilton Portside only) and could initiate significant urban renewal of Fortitude Valley and development at Portside Hamilton. Wickham street could end up becoming a LRT mall like George Street in Sydney.

Quote from: #Metro on February 07, 2024, 23:35:15 PM

Quote from: Nathandavid88My big question with this plan is, if they are going to all the effort of introducing a tram line, shouldn't said tram really service the inner city directly? I know the Greens like their cross town services that bypass the CBD itself, but something as major as a tram line I think needs to go through the CBD proper.

Green Team's proposal will need to be investigated and refined, but this will happen if they get into office. Concepts get refined.

Service needs to stop in the CBD is the main point of feedback.

Using the Gold Coast Light Rail unit cost of $150 million/km (Stage 3) as the test value:

24 km x $150 million/km = $3.6 billion (Ballpark Estimate).

This is also assuming we can get across the Story Bridge (a big assumption).

The proposal would be much better if half of it was done as Brisbane Metro BRT/CityGlider/BUZ (say the CBD-Valley-Story Bridge-Mt Gravatt bit) and the other half as LRT (Queen St-Valley-KSD-Hamilton Portside).

This would be more affordable at ~ $1.2 billion (LRT cost CBD to Hamilton Portside only) and could initiate significant urban renewal of Fortitude Valley and development at Portside Hamilton. Wickham street could end up becoming a LRT mall like George Street in Sydney.

It's a study with a possible route! We really trashing it? At least they don't think a bigger road is the solution.

Trashing it?  I don't think so.  It is perfectly reasonable to query the plan.  Light rail is a strong mode in the right circumstances.

L1 has not been fully costed, all that has been advanced is a plan for do consultation and a delivery study to the tune of $10 million.   

Sounds like a very sensible approach! Are any of the congestion-busting road projects fully-costed! Highly unlikely!! A rough estimate and a transport budget skewed to road projects.  There isn't even a study to work out the best use of the money.

LRT has to be part of SEQ future transport system as are true Metros. Studying where they should go sounds forward thinking!

Quote from: JonnoIt's a study with a possible route! We really trashing it? At least they don't think a bigger road is the solution.

If anything, the suggestions in this thread by members would strengthen the proposal.

If candidates want to avoid our comments, they had ample opportunity to consult with us before they go to market with their idea.

Remember... Rod Harding (Red Team) did something like this with his LRT proposal. Got comments on it from us too.

QuoteThe SE Busway fairly closely mirrors the Logan Road alignment, and I get the impression that the Greens didn't want a tram line that duplicates the existing busway.

But arguably, the Ipswich Rd alignment duplicates the Beenleigh line.

To an extent, the mountain of Mt Gravatt keeps the catchment separate. Eg as the crow flies, its 1.8km from Griffith Busway station to the commercial district of Mt Gravatt, but there's no practical way to get through the bush.

I'm glad to see the Greens pushing a significant and meaningful public transport agenda, it is notable that the other parties public transport agendas are really lacking in ambition and scope.

I'm not in perfect agreement with all aspects of the Greens proposals but they're very much on the right track in trying to expand access and fill gaps.

One specific point I'd make is that I do agree with this L1 avoiding the CBD, it has several transfer points for that and instead improves other community connections. I also don't think it's a problem that it replicates heavy rail in places because light rail is always slower and better for local travel. Having said that any attempts to investigate route options will consider these issues.

Engineering:

7 Evening News piece. Raised the issue of tram gross weight and load capacity for the Story Bridge.