RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Regarding councillors comment:
Want to go from South Brisbane, to South Bank, to Boggo Road and Buranda? There's several buses for that.
I understand some overlap for connections but the design is quite bad with several overlaps in a row.

Anyway that mess is already done. I hope they work on the north side where there is an actual gap in the train network. Maybe connecting to the north train network at the terminus instead (Carseldine was proposed).

I've just hopped on a BERT at 8MP with a grand total of 2 other people and was surprised by the expected travel time.
77/299/111/555 to Buranda: 12 minutes
169 to Buranda: 10 minutes where it used to be timetabled as slower than the other buses

This is now my fastest way towards the city. I wonder if this was done on purpose so it is preferenced by journey planner apps.

Quote from: timh on October 23, 2024, 16:21:09 PM

Quote from: JimmyP on October 23, 2024, 16:14:07 PMThere isn't enough desk left from the amount of  at the Councillor's comment. 

Also, if the bendy bus does get extended to Indro, that just solidifies the ridiculousness of transport in Brisbane. Absolutely ZERO reason it should be extended to Indro when there is a perfectly good railway, running at good frequencies all day every day, running the same route.

It's not running the same route though. If the busway linked to Indro it would create a proper east west link, and would mean students from Ipswich / Western suburbs could get to UQ and other destinations along the SE Busway (ie Griffith etc) without having to go through the city.

That being said, I don't see how they could possibly build a a Class A ROW busway through UQ to Indro. It would involve a ridiculously large tunnel through some pretty tough terrain. Needlessly expensive for a bus.

For an East West link to Toowong / Indro / UQ, I'd rather see the Brisbane Subway built, especially considering how much tunneling would be involved.

If via UQ to Indro, yes, that would be fine. I took Metro's comment as City to Indro (same as Coty to Chermside/Carindale).

So caught the Metro/BERT today for the first time and noted some design flaws from a wheelchair perspective.

1.  I need to sit sideways due to carsickness, not backwards as what is designed for wheelchair users (most wheelchair users will face backwards when on board in the wheelchair space).  The problem comes when there's a metal bar that has been installed in the front two wheelchair spaces that actually injured my legs (the metal bar is for a wheelchair user to hold on while facing backwards), because I need to face sideways and hold on using my right arm (too dangerous to face forwards), my legs ended up scrunched up against this metal bar and was actually quite painful.  The other wheelchair space next to it doesn't have this metal bar, but it also doesn't have any points where I can hold on, like I can on the normal buses.

2.  There is a requirement to press the wheelchair ramp button when you want to get off, that's fine and dandy if you are facing backwards as the button is next to you, but if you are facing sideways like I need to do, then you can't physically reach that button as it's directly behind you.

3.  Something I noted too is that when you press that button it alerts all on board that at the next stop the front door will remain closed until the ramp is activated, and if you are boarding, if you press the disabled button, it will warn you to move back to allow the ramp to come down.  That doesn't help though when you reach your stop and you've got a bunch of people all running towards that front door on the outside and standing right up to it blocking the ability for the ramp to come out.  The staff member on board today helping people out actually had to tell people multiple times to step back as the ramp needed to be activated - took a few goes as people were oblivious to their surroundings, before they realised that a staff member on board was barking orders for them to step back.

The Brisbane Metro Bus Is Here (And It's Already Expanding!)

Discussion between BCC Cr Murphy and Mel Pikos. Foreshadows an all-blue team alignment between State Government and BCC to further expand Brisbane Metro across Brisbane.

Quote from: STB on October 23, 2024, 19:37:32 PMSo caught the Metro/BERT today for the first time and noted some design flaws from a wheelchair perspective.

1.  I need to sit sideways due to carsickness, not backwards as what is designed for wheelchair users (most wheelchair users will face backwards when on board in the wheelchair space).  The problem comes when there's a metal bar that has been installed in the front two wheelchair spaces that actually injured my legs (the metal bar is for a wheelchair user to hold on while facing backwards), because I need to face sideways and hold on using my right arm (too dangerous to face forwards), my legs ended up scrunched up against this metal bar and was actually quite painful.  The other wheelchair space next to it doesn't have this metal bar, but it also doesn't have any points where I can hold on, like I can on the normal buses.

2.  There is a requirement to press the wheelchair ramp button when you want to get off, that's fine and dandy if you are facing backwards as the button is next to you, but if you are facing sideways like I need to do, then you can't physically reach that button as it's directly behind you.

3.  Something I noted too is that when you press that button it alerts all on board that at the next stop the front door will remain closed until the ramp is activated, and if you are boarding, if you press the disabled button, it will warn you to move back to allow the ramp to come down.  That doesn't help though when you reach your stop and you've got a bunch of people all running towards that front door on the outside and standing right up to it blocking the ability for the ramp to come out.  The staff member on board today helping people out actually had to tell people multiple times to step back as the ramp needed to be activated - took a few goes as people were oblivious to their surroundings, before they realised that a staff member on board was barking orders for them to step back.

I'm somewhat afraid to ask given the NGR fiasco....but was there accessibility consultation and/or testing on the design?

Quote from: Cleveland Line on October 23, 2024, 20:53:28 PM

Quote from: STB on October 23, 2024, 19:37:32 PMSo caught the Metro/BERT today for the first time and noted some design flaws from a wheelchair perspective.

1.  I need to sit sideways due to carsickness, not backwards as what is designed for wheelchair users (most wheelchair users will face backwards when on board in the wheelchair space).  The problem comes when there's a metal bar that has been installed in the front two wheelchair spaces that actually injured my legs (the metal bar is for a wheelchair user to hold on while facing backwards), because I need to face sideways and hold on using my right arm (too dangerous to face forwards), my legs ended up scrunched up against this metal bar and was actually quite painful.  The other wheelchair space next to it doesn't have this metal bar, but it also doesn't have any points where I can hold on, like I can on the normal buses.

2.  There is a requirement to press the wheelchair ramp button when you want to get off, that's fine and dandy if you are facing backwards as the button is next to you, but if you are facing sideways like I need to do, then you can't physically reach that button as it's directly behind you.

3.  Something I noted too is that when you press that button it alerts all on board that at the next stop the front door will remain closed until the ramp is activated, and if you are boarding, if you press the disabled button, it will warn you to move back to allow the ramp to come down.  That doesn't help though when you reach your stop and you've got a bunch of people all running towards that front door on the outside and standing right up to it blocking the ability for the ramp to come out.  The staff member on board today helping people out actually had to tell people multiple times to step back as the ramp needed to be activated - took a few goes as people were oblivious to their surroundings, before they realised that a staff member on board was barking orders for them to step back.

I'm somewhat afraid to ask given the NGR fiasco....but was there accessibility consultation and/or testing on the design?

Yes there was, but it was from a small select group of a mix of disabilities.  Obviously the wheelchair users picked all face backwards when they board a bus (which is technically the correct way to travel in a wheelchair - signs indicate that on the bus).  I was told the metal bars were installed based on feedback from those wheelchair users (presumably so those with difficulty holding onto things can have two points of contact rather than just one).  Unfortunately that has the side affect of making it difficult and painful for me to sit sideways (as it was never designed for that).

I'm planning on contacting the project team tomorrow to provide that feedback, so hopefully the metal bars can be redesigned to allow leg room for those who do sit sideways.

Quote from: #Metro on October 23, 2024, 20:14:27 PMThe Brisbane Metro Bus Is Here (And It's Already Expanding!)

Discussion between BCC Cr Murphy and Mel Pikos. Foreshadows an all-blue team alignment between State Government and BCC to further expand Brisbane Metro across Brisbane.

As I have posted in other social media platforms

"What people are forgetting is that these buses can simply not move the number of people that this and other corridors need to move.

The scale of change needed in SEQ is just way too big for buses that hold 150 max. 

If we want to be close to leading practice then around 30% of the 15 million trips estimated in 2031 (see below) need to be by public transport... up from 6% today.  That's an extra 3.6 million trips per day! 

Sydney Metro moved 1 million in 1st week (7 days) so 3.6 million a day is going to take way way more than longer buses!

Names aside this is a good vehicle but on this corridor is the wrong vehicle.  I am not even sure on this corridor Light Rail is appropriate.

The busway must become a Metro moving 100,000's a day...like Sydney!

https://flic.kr/p/2qfDpq6"

Might be repetitive but the math is correct!

Quote from: JonnoSydney Metro moved 1 million in 1st week (7 days) so 3.6 million a day is going to take way way more than longer buses!

High patronage systems have high off-peak frequency. That high off-peak frequency can be achieved without resorting to a rail-based metro costing $1 billion/km.

As discussed previously, the main disadvantage of rail-based metro in this corridor versus others is (a) the huge per-km cost and (b) the requirement of twin tunnels under the Brisbane River. A bus-based solution avoids both of the above in this particular case.

We also know from the BCC BUZ data that patronage doubles when the frequency goes from 30 min to 15 min. This is mainly driven by off-peak increases in patronage. That's a service-based approach we could adopt now that isn't conditional on finding $10-$20 billion for heavy infrastructure works.

Brisbane Metro BRT is going to catalyse the re-organisation of the BCC bus network (northside particularly), and there are going to be more Brisbane Metro BRT lines. It would be great to see the BUZ network program restarted to complement the Brisbane Metro BRT.

 

Update: Terminology

It is not a ' metro '.  It is bus rapid transit.  Expecting it be something it is not is delusional fantasy.
 
As Jonno correctly points out BERT is not really the long term solution for Brisbane, it is complementary.  It does have capacity limitations when compared to a true metro system.

Continuing to describe BERT as ' Brisbane Metro ' is highly delusional, it is bus rapid transit. Consider the Sydney Metro, exclusive right of way, high frequency, high capacity (>>> BERT). 
A metro system has its own ROW, doesn't mix with other vehicles or traffic. Just pop down to UQ Lakes and watch the bus parade.  When a bi-artic arrives it is a 'metro' is it?  And when the other buses are there (which outnumber the bi-artics) it is bus rapid transit?? 

The name ' Brisbane Metro ' was part of the political con that has been foisted on Brisbane by BCC politicians. Frankly, transport planners in this state are somewhat embarrassed with the name ' Brisbane Metro ', as they should be.

Please refer to the 'Brisbane Metro' as bus rapid transit. 

Because that is what it is. I don't support political cons. 

LinkedIn


My comment:

Bus rapid transit improvements. I had a ride on one of the new bi-articulated electric buses on route 169. Top bus! Comfortable, rides well, excellent passenger information on board - PIDs and announcements. But lets not pretend this is a 'Metro' it is not, it is improved bus rapid transit. I prefer the name BERT (Busway Electric Rapid Transit) to differentiate from the rest of the buses they run with. The vehicles are electric bi-articulated buses - ' Berties ' 😊 👍

QuoteBrisbane Metro is going to catalyse the re-organisation of the BCC bus network (northside particularly), (snip)

Is it though? All it achieved on the southside was some tinkering around the edges. While at least something is better than nothing, we still have massive amounts of duplication, competition between bus and rail, massive blackspot areas, major lack of a proper feeder network, and so on.

The big buses are all well and good, but lets stop praising them as the saviour of everything PT in Brisbane, cause they're not. They're a reasonable addition to up some capacity in areas that need a small bump.

https://x.com/bne_lordmayor/status/1849183307969204461

Quote from: JimmyPIs it though? All it achieved on the southside was some tinkering around the edges. While at least something is better than nothing, we still have massive amounts of duplication, competition between bus and rail, massive blackspot areas, major lack of a proper feeder network, and so on.

This is mainly down to change management. We already saw both in Adelaide (state level PT agency) and the 2012-2013 bus review how hard it is to pull off change. People want to feel compensated if major changes are imposed on them. This does exactly that.

Much of the problem is train frequency. It is 30 minutes. Even the frequent parts of the inner rail network have issues because often there is no bus interchange to connect to, getting one installed requires negotiations between 2 levels of government, and even then the weekend train frequency is not good (versus BUZ services which are a consistent HF timetable across the weekend, unlike trains).

QuoteThe big buses are all well and good, but lets stop praising them as the saviour of everything PT in Brisbane, cause they're not. They're a reasonable addition to up some capacity in areas that need a small bump.

I tend to agree with the Lord Mayor on this JimmyP.

Quote from: Adrian Schrinner (BCC)Brisbane Metro [BRT] is the step-change our growing city needs to get more people on public transport and the first day of Brisbane Metro [BRT] patronage demonstrates precisely why.

Until the rail network has those enabling service upgrades (a state government responsibility), BCC will continue to run and improve its bus network largely independent of it. It is also difficult to connect a 15-minute BUZ service or Metro to a rail station on a weekend if the connecting train frequency is 30 minutes or the bus interchange is not there.

If people will demonstrably interchange onto BRT they will definitely change onto rail (I mean we already know they will but Qld seems to want to convince itself that common practice will work here). The proof will be in the pudding.

Is it just me or is it weird that Translink has no social media about the start of the service?

Something wrotten in the state of Denmark??

Or just distancing themselves?

The route hasn't changed, the frequency hasn't changed. They've just put a different bus on. They don't usually announce when they change bus models on routes.
Hey guys, it's a Volgren on the 314 today. Artics on the 111!

Yeah, like Silverchased said, I don't think there's much for them to announce tbh. BCC has made a big song and dance of this "soft launch" as largely a political ploy. Realistically nothing much has changed to the network except the 169 now has bigger buses.

When the """Metro""" launches properly on 111 and 66, with the new timetable, improved frequencies, new HF routes, consolidation of routes, Adelaide Street tunnel, Buranda platform lengthening etc., then Translink would actually have something to report.

Tbh I think council just did this soft launch as a political stunt so they can say that they launched the project this year, like they originally said they would. Realistically the project is actually delayed til 2025. I'm sure Crisafulli et al at state LNP are enjoying the pleasant kickbacks right before the election, just by association that it was an LNP council that launched it

Interchange doesn't specifically require a massive interchange area to be built. Would it be nice? Sure. But literally a bus stop is all that is really needed, as long as it is big enough for the expected use.
Roma Street to Darra is 15min frequency all day, every day including weekends, yet still has absolute rubbish feeder services, so your argument there doesn't stand up Metro.
Good frequency bus in to good frequency rail means minimal waiting times, and it can be just a stop on the bus route.
The bendy bus is literally a slightly larger bus - what is a step change about it?

People will accept change when it is done properly, which includes good consultation and very good communication around why things have changed and why it will be better. 2013 did not do that well, and a lot of politics brought the whole thing down.

BCC needs to get the f##k out of PT, full stop. A proper integrated transit authoroty needs to be put in place and sort this sh!t out.

The Lord Mayor is hawking on like he's just solved world peace. They have literally substituted one bus for a slightly higher capacity bus as a soft launch because the project is running late (as most have over the past few years for various reasons). They have definitely not put in some magic system that solves the city's transport problems like it's being beat up to be.

Quote from: JimmyPPeople will accept change when it is done properly, which includes good consultation and very good communication around why things have changed and why it will be better. 2013 did not do that well, and a lot of politics brought the whole thing down.

Perhaps, but consultation and communication are not change management. Neither is having a "good" plan that is logical or effective. They are elements of change management but there is much more to it than that. People are not fully rational.

Change management means looking at stakeholders and having a strategy for implementation such that it isn't resisted. You might only review the network in parts rather than all at once. You might run old and new services in parallel for a time before withdrawing the old ones. You might start with retaining legacy services but reduce their frequency first. BCC knows how to do this hence it is combining both the introduction of Brisbane Metro BRT and network redesign at the same time.

Quote from: JimmyPRoma Street to Darra is 15min frequency all day, every day including weekends, yet still has absolute rubbish feeder services, so your argument there doesn't stand up Metro.

Indooropilly Train Station. No interchange.

Quote from: JimmyPThe Lord Mayor is hawking on like he's just solved world peace. They have literally substituted one bus for a slightly higher capacity bus as a soft launch because the project is running late (as most have over the past few years for various reasons). They have definitely not put in some magic system that solves the city's transport problems like it's being beat up to be.

So how much funding did the Queensland Government contribute to the $1.4b Brisbane Metro BRT project? I heard it was $0.00. Is this correct?

Source: Time 8.41 min and forwards in the below video

Quote from: timh on October 24, 2024, 12:41:22 PMTbh I think council just did this soft launch as a political stunt so they can say that they launched the project this year, like they originally said they would. Realistically the project is actually delayed til 2025. I'm sure Crisafulli et al at state LNP are enjoying the pleasant kickbacks right before the election, just by association that it was an LNP council that launched it

They are still reporting that the M1 & M2 routes could be operational before the end of the year, so I guess we will see. A potential change of government could see things sped up at DTMR. As well as the political points that the M169 scored, the use of the vehicles on this route also forms the final phase of the vehicles' testing regime - real world operational use of the LighTrams on a high frequency, high capacity route. 

QuoteYou might run old and new services in parallel for a time before withdrawing the old ones.

I've seen  this idea mentioned before, but we don't have the fleet size nor the drivers available to run two services in parallel.

QuoteIndooropilly Train Station. No interchange.

On paper Oxley and Darra should be much better though. Oxley even has an interchange.

Eagle Junction should but doesn't, even the 369 was pared back. Toombul should.

From the Research thread:

BCC has used parallel running in the past as a change management tool:

Quote from: Dudgeon (1988)So that there was no negative publicity, Cityxpress has generally been introduced over the top of existing Citybus routes, which are rationalised afterwards if warranted.

The other thing is that if you do introduce interchanges (assuming they were built) then the connecting train service needs to be frequent. That's on the Queensland Government to fix, not BCC.

Quote from: Dudgeon (1988)The disastrous attempts at using the interchange concept in Brisbane had produced hundreds of letters of complaint. Clearly the public thought that the Council and its managers were a bunch of non-caring incompetents.

Change Management. Get the change management/transition management part wrong, and it doesn't matter how good the network plans are. The 2013 bus review did the whole city, which upset people across the entire city all at once. The mapping was also poor. This exact situation was reproduced in the 2020 Adelaide bus review, where there is no LGA involved, which suggests that the idea of doing everything at once might have to be reconsidered.

This time around residents are getting Brisbane Metro BRT along with the network changes, and the reaction has been very different. Yes, they may be logically separable initiatives (which member HTG often points out) but that is not the point.

QuoteCitylimited

...A concept called Citylimited was developed as a half way version between Cityxpress and Citybus., The concept was to eliminate about every second bus stop on a major bus route, reduce the off-peak frequency from twelve to a "clockface" fifteen minutes, and use the airconditioned buses as a marketing reward. Bus stop information was to be supplied at every stop.

Implementation was poorly organised. There was a serious delay in choosing the bus stops to be eliminated so that the promotional thrust was ruined and became virtually non-existent. Only some passengers were able to be advised by Friday afternoon by which time bus stop changes had already commenced.

Because the Aldermen [BCC Councillors] had not been informed of the background to, and advantages of the concept, they were in no position to market the change to irate constituents who found on Monday morning that their normal bus stop had disappeared and the timetable changed so that they missed their bus. By Monday afternoon commitments had been given to reinsert some stops and over the ensuing months most were reinstated.. Citylimited has now ceased to exist.

Was the concept wrong or did it never have a chance? The lesson about proper promotion to all clients of the bus was well learned.

Notes

Just another government bus service? (Do proper incentives achieve as much as privatisation?)
John W. Dudgeon
Director of Planning & Research, Department of Transport
Brisbane City Council,  Australia
13th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Christchurch, New Zealand, 18-21 July 1988;
Forum papers. Volume 1 and 2

URL: https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/just-another-government-bus-service/

Is research from 1988 still as relevant?
I mean passenger info is more freely available and can be disseminated into apps, socials, the website, live alerts.

Brisbane is a lot bigger now and i think they use HASTUS to really manage fleet and staffing more than they would have in the past.
Ultimately if you are running overlaid services, that means you'd be doing it through peak. Where are the spare buses?

 I don't think its a scalable concept. We already know from bobs posts that we can barley even maintain the timetable we have in many bus regions.

Quote from: GazzaIs research from 1988 still as relevant?

Well, all research has to come from the past.

I believe there is a saying, 'those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.' The Adelaide situation might have been avoided if perhaps some research had been done into what happened in other cities and appropriate mitigations or adjustments put in place, for example.

In any case, it is just an example of one of many change management things you might do.

I think the replacement of route 169 buses with Brisbane Metro BRT (soft launch) is part of that change management and transition. As such it is an 'Early Adoption' change activity designed to build community support ahead of the actual launch. It also has the benefit of revealing any problems and allowing them time to be fixed ahead of the actual launch.

Well done BCC.

QuoteWell, all research has to come from the past.

Ok yeah of course but something from 1 or 5 or 10 years ago is more relevant from 36 years ago.
Especially in fields where technology has progressed.

Things like an interactive map showing network changes, route planning apps and so on did not exist back then.
Eg

QuoteI think the replacement of route 169 buses with Brisbane Metro BRT (soft launch) is part of that change management and transition. As such it is an 'Early Adoption' change activity designed to build community support ahead of the actual launch. It also has the benefit of revealing any problems and allowing them time to be fixed ahead of the actual launch.

It's more that they DO have a bunch of spare buses sitting idle because construction should have been done by now. and can give them a run on the route, so it probably makes sense. But when the main metro routes are launched, the 169 will be 'downgraded' back to normal buses.

But what you are suggesting sounds like say for example you want to have the 599/598 GCL running in parallel to a suite of new cross town routes, and that would take too many buses.

QuoteOk yeah of course but something from 1 or 5 or 10 years ago is more relevant from 36 years ago.
Especially in fields where technology has progressed.

Technology might have progressed, but people's aversion to change might not have. There is a people dimension to this as well. If a bus turns up at a train station, and the train is coming in 30 minutes, the reaction is probably going to be similar as it would be in 1988 - negative.

QuoteIt's more that they DO have a bunch of spare buses sitting idle because construction should have been done by now and can give them a run on the route, so it probably makes sense.

As more Metro BRT vehicles come into service, existing standard buses would be freed up, I would imagine. There needs to be some serious planning because the Olympics is 8 years away, and we might need double the bus fleet for that and new or expanded depots to store the buses (both standard and Metro BRT buses).

The sooner the major corridors are mapped out and are converted to Brisbane Metro BRT, the better placed we will be for carrying passenger loads for the Olympics. I'm hoping the northside BRT depot is built next and Brisbane Metro BRT expands to include between the CBD and Chermside.

Quote from: nathandavid88 on October 24, 2024, 14:51:41 PM

Quote from: timh on October 24, 2024, 12:41:22 PMTbh I think council just did this soft launch as a political stunt so they can say that they launched the project this year, like they originally said they would. Realistically the project is actually delayed til 2025. I'm sure Crisafulli et al at state LNP are enjoying the pleasant kickbacks right before the election, just by association that it was an LNP council that launched it

They are still reporting that the M1 & M2 routes could be operational before the end of the year, so I guess we will see. A potential change of government could see things sped up at DTMR. As well as the political points that the M169 scored, the use of the vehicles on this route also forms the final phase of the vehicles' testing regime - real world operational use of the LighTrams on a high frequency, high capacity route. 

is the busway as a collective high capacity?  I say it is mid-capacity!

I don't know what assumptions are going into the heavy and suburban rail figures in Jonno's graph, but crush capacity on a 6-carriage QR train is traditionally 1000 passengers and our signalling currently supports up to 24 tph, so that's 24k pphpd.

We've found that on the SEB we seem to top out at about 120 bph usable through Mater Hill, so with a BERTie capacity of 150 passengers that's about 18k pphpd max. In practice we'll be probably closer to 12k pphpd through Mater Hill because not every bus is a BERTie (though I imagine efforts are on to at least maximise the use of artics!). Gabba junction does about 300 bph in peak so technically up to 30k pphpd, but they aren't stopping.

I suppose the numbers may have factored in more trains per hour and maybe 9-car trains.
Also they may have factored in higher capacity buses. In other countries, their artic buses have higher capacity (170-200) than our bertie.

Brisbane Metro BRT II possibly?

There was a bus that can hold 256 pax.

So 256 x 120 buses/hr = 30,720 pphd similar to rail. Maybe HESS can buy the designs and start manufacturing



Notes
Fraunhofer IVI
https://www.autotram.info/en.html

QuoteThe AutoTram® Extra Grand demonstrates a future-oriented technology for public transport. As an intermediate public transport vehicle, it combines features of conventional buses (e.g. high flexibility, low infrastructure costs and moderate life cycle costs) with the advantages of trams like high transport capacity, driving comfort and the possibility of partial emission-free operation.

The multi-unit vehicle with rubber tires is more than 30 meters long and has a capacity of 256 passengers. It has been developed and constructed within the research program »Innovative Regionale Wachstumskerne«, which was initiated by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Running 120 buses an hour would need a crazy amount of drivers and consume vastly more energy than equivalent rail. I'm fairly sure you're joking Metro but I had to state the obvious anyway.

The graphic Jonno has put up would be theoretical. The RER lines in Paris run commuter trains with passenger capacity at crush of around 2,500 with 30 trains per hour. The RER A alone carries more passengers than the entire Brisbane transport network.

I don't think BERT is a total disaster but it has been a poor investment without equivalent benefit. It will make less significant difference than CRR will. On the other hand suburban extensions will be able to make a big difference to our relatively low density suburbs. I desperately hope the proposed extensions are improved to interconnect with the train system at all points to make this whole ordeal more productive though.

^^ It is another example of the con being foisted as manufacturers give fantasy names to their bi-articulated and even tri-articulated buses.  They are not trams, trams run on rails and are well established as a distinct transport mode. What is the aversion to calling buses actually what they are, and the mode that it is - BRT?

 

Quote from: AJ TransportRunning 120 buses an hour would need a crazy amount of drivers and consume vastly more energy than equivalent rail. I'm fairly sure you're joking Metro but I had to state the obvious anyway.

Jonno's discovery and reaction to the existence of the HESS Bus-Tram was hilarious 

On a more serious note, the Wooloongabba does a bus every ~12 seconds currently. Half the buses are routed via Mater Hill and Cultural Centre, the other half travel over the Captain Cook Bridge.

This junction is key to the SE Busway's capacity as if it had only one exit portal, it would be congested with vehicles.

In any case, a bus every ~24 seconds proceeds via Mater Hill towards Cultural Centre, or about 150 buses/hour IMHO. So the SEB already meets or exceeds this 120 buses/hour IMO.

I think a lot of the discussion about Brisbane Metro is focusing on peak hour vehicle and line capacity, and trying to link that back to mode share in a mode-specific way.

High mode share comes from high off-peak usage.

In turn, this high off-peak usage comes from frequency, which is possible to deliver either on steel wheels or rubber tyres.

With CRR and GC Faster Rail (another misnaming) and Brisbane Metro BRT, I doubt that peak busway capacity will be reached for a while.

Construction of the Flagstone line (in part) will also relieve the SEB.

Advantages vs Disadvantages

The rail-based metro mode does have one advantage over Brisbane Metro BRT - it is much better placed to accept high-volume interchanging passengers (e.g. like the model Perth or Toronto has going).

The main disadvantage of a rail-based metro on the SEB corridor is that it would require twin tunnels under the Brisbane River ($$$). That would easily be ~$5b. Brisbane Metro BRT can just use the existing Victoria Bridge. Doing a rail-based metro to say Springwood, would easily be $20b at $1 billion/km (Sydney Metro unit costs). This is consistent with the high cost estimates for rail encountered with the Direct Sunshine Coast line and Gold Coast LRT extensions.

If we want abundant rail, its unit cost to build needs to come down to Perth levels. Or it just won't be built.

The Brisbane Metro BRT project offers improved operations at just 10% of that or less.

Further relief of the SEB is possible if one were prepared to adopt the Perth option and perhaps place the Gold Coast line into the M1 or M3 corridor. That would allow the existing CRR tunnels to be used and further relieve the SEB. See https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14912.0

So there are several options still available to extend the life of the SEB before it hits capacity and needs to go to the next level.

 

It might be 10% of the cost but it only delivers at the very very best a 10% improvement. We next 1000% improvements to get to leading practice mode levels.

Mode share a a key measure of the success of your public transport project.

Peak capacity is key given where we starting from.

Quote from: JonnoIt might be 10% of the cost but it only  only going delivers at the very very best a 10% improvement. We next 1000% improvements to get to leading practice mode levels.

Jonno, I don't think it has been demonstrated that the SEB is at or near capacity. It is congested with vehicles, but I recall the 2013 bus review revealed that the loadings on the buses were on average 50%?

Quote from: #MetroHigh mode share comes from high off-peak usage.

In turn, this high off-peak usage comes from frequency, which is possible to deliver either on steel wheels or rubber tyres.

^ Focus needs to be improving off-peak frequency, which is what gets high patronage, patronage growth, and mode-shift. There are more off-peak hours in the day than there are peak hours, even though patronage is lower during those hours.

We don't have to make improvements conditional on long waits and high-cost projects. When the SEB reaches capacity with Brisbane Metro BRT, then options will have to be revisited, but it is a while off reaching that point IMO.

And yes, in principle Jonno, I do agree with you that the SEB patronage would support a rail-based metro on patronage alone right now. The issues are the requirement for bored tunnels into the Brisbane CBD ($$$) and how the government is not prepared to pay for that (at least any time soon).

 

The well documented issue with high frequency BRT is the problem with passenger congestion at stops etc.
You only have to experience the mess that is say Mater Hill bus station with heavy passenger loadings.  It is not a pleasant experience at all. It is all very well having 120 buses/hour but they can't carry the maximum passenger load because of the limitations of BRT.  This is where rail moves in.  BERT will allow the redeployment of some of the buses presently on the busway to improve frequency in feeders and perhaps novel cross suburban routes, and even perhaps boost other routes to high frequency. It is not a quantum leap in capacity per se, but will allow a better overall bus network provided BCC and Translink find the moral courage. 

I think the BERT trial using route 169 is a sensible move.  It is shakedown in real time.  I know that BCC TfB staff, and the bus drivers have already gained valuable lessons and experience, and will allow a better effort with M1 and M2.

Ffs, so because I didn't list out a thesis on change management, of course Metro decides his opinion is vastly superior and is the only one that matters 
Yes, we all know there is more to change management than communication. We're not morons. However communication was one of the biggest failings of the 2013 bus network review, hency why I brought it up. Biting off too much at once was another issue, they should have broken it up in pieces. Still doesn't go against anything I said.

Interchanges:
Again, why does Indro require a full interchange before buses can be fed there? A regular (or maybe larger than normal) bus stop with good connection to the station is all that is needed, with the buses continuing on their route to terminate elsewhere. Perhaps something like everything except 444 goes to UQ instead of the City amd feeds in to Indro station for transfers.
As has also been said above, Oxley has a bus interchange that is barely used. Darra has a decent bus area that isn't used anywhere near to its capacity.
Surely making use of current infrastructure (with minor upgrades where required) would be much better than building major new infrastructure, right? ...

You have also been vocal in the past about rail not being extended/improved until after CRR is finished, yet you're well and truely on the bandwagon of the bendy bus needing to roll out in other areas before any sort of network reform can possibly be done. Only a little hypocritical...

QuoteJonno, I don't think it has been demonstrated that the SEB is at or near capacity. It is congested with vehicles, but I recall the 2013 bus review revealed that the loadings on the buses were on average 50%?

Sooooo, we don't actually need the extra bendy buses? Just consolidate what routes use the busway, using normal bendy buses on the busway to ensure the capacity is available, therefore the buses that actually use the busway are better loaded, better feeder services in the suburbs...
The "network reform" has reduced the busway by what, 2 routes? 

Infrastructure:
At the end of the day, sometimes proper infrastructure is needed. And with that, generally you get what you pay for. They're spending how many billion $$ for the new tunnel on Adelaide st (or wherever it is). Would be interesting to know how much more exxy it would have been to build the tunnel from the south side of the river to avoid the Melbourne St portal area too.
Same as the CRR tunnel. Reduce it to Dutton Park from Yeerongpilly area, which significantly reduces the benefits and capacity uplift available. Get what you pay for.

Yes, everyone agrees we need to make the most of what we already have, absolutely. But that also means we desperately need major network reform to iron out the network and create a proper network with feeders rather than everything going to the City.
Northgate to Darra is high ffequency all day every day. Can be feederised quite easily.
Buses can also feed in to Chermside with only a couple routes using regular bendy buses to complete the journey to the City on one or two routes, etc.etc.etc.

However, we still need an eye on the future. Still need to plan for new infrastructure to improve/extend exisiting stuff, provide better connections, and so on, just like the Sydney Metro plans that came out the other day. They're a long term plan and solution, doesn't mean you can't do sort term improvements with what we have, and vice versa. They're not mutually exclusive. Only thinking about the here and now will royally screw the region in the future.

QuoteHowever communication was one of the biggest failings of the 2013 bus network review, hency why I brought it up. Biting off too much at once was another issue, they should have broken it up in pieces. Still doesn't go against anything I said.

Why were you expecting my own response to automatically go against yours?

Change management was the biggest failing of the 2013 bus network review. A simple stakeholder mapping of impact vs influence would have revealed BCC and its councillors as a major stakeholder (along with us and unions) and thus engagement was necessary before just putting it all out there. The whole program seemed to focus on communication with the public, and seemed not to consider that there are more stakeholders than just that.

Quote from: JimmyPA regular (or maybe larger than normal) bus stop with good connection to the station is all that is needed, with the buses continuing on their route to terminate elsewhere.

When you say "good connection" at the station, what does that actually mean? I believe there are about ~ 10 different bus routes that continue past Indooroopilly Shopping Centre on Moggill Road. Are you suggesting to run all or most of that to Indooroopilly Train Station with just an ordinary bus stop? Assuming 4 buses/hr in peak x 10 routes, that would be a bus every 1.5 minutes at that stop. An ordinary pole and shelter stop would probably not be sufficient? There also needs to be space for layover and terminating services.

Quote from: JimmyPYou have also been vocal in the past about rail not being extended/improved until after CRR is finished, yet you're well and truely on the bandwagon of the bendy bus needing to roll out in other areas before any sort of network reform can possibly be done. Only a little hypocritical...

We already had the rail-based subway proposal floated by LM Quirk and the Brisbane Subway proposal floated by Palaszczuk in 2010. These two proposals have gone nowhere. I'm not even sure they qualify as serious "planning", other than lines on a map and being a feature/talking point, what actual planning work has been completed on the subway proposal in the 14 years since it was released?

Do you think a Brisbane Metro BRT rollout would be lower, higher or the same cost as a rail extension/subway implementation? Do you think it would be slower, faster or the same time frame to roll out?

Let us know.

The reason why the busway is congested and yet the buses are empty is because the feeder buses are routed through the core of the network, instead of feeding to these metro buses.

Everyone appears to know this but it continues.

Quote from: aldonius on October 24, 2024, 19:45:57 PMI don't know what assumptions are going into the heavy and suburban rail figures in Jonno's graph, but crush capacity on a 6-carriage QR train is traditionally 1000 passengers and our signalling currently supports up to 24 tph, so that's 24k pphpd.

We've found that on the SEB we seem to top out at about 120 bph usable through Mater Hill, so with a BERTie capacity of 150 passengers that's about 18k pphpd max. In practice we'll be probably closer to 12k pphpd through Mater Hill because not every bus is a BERTie (though I imagine efforts are on to at least maximise the use of artics!). Gabba junction does about 300 bph in peak so technically up to 30k pphpd, but they aren't stopping.

It's going to be less than 120 buses through Mater Hill if everything is articulated, there isn't enough platform capacity and given we have passing lanes an articulated bus pulling up in the wrong part of the stop can block the busway.  Even a rigid can do that.

One thing that frustrates me is where you get a driver who does the "right" thing and reopens the doors, sometimes multiple times and on a route with 5 minute headway, or even pulls back onto the platform.  Somewhere like the Cultural Centre, if you do this where your bus happens to be at the city end of the outbound platform, it chokes everything up.  Doors closed should universally mean "catch the next one" like it does on the G:link.

I honestly wonder if it is worth having passing lanes at stations at times (at least between the Gabba Junction and Victoria Bridge).  A lot of these daily operational practices wreck the efficiency of the system.