RAIL - Back On Track Forum

I find it interesting that BCC is trying to spin it as it was apparently always the case that it was meant to be a temporary trial and not something more permanent for running these buses (and they are buses) on the 169.

The amount of complaints I've seen about things like ride quality and my own observations using it from an accessibility perspective shows that these vehicles need a complete overhaul.  People have been posting in particular about how bouncy and noisy it is on board, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd sections.

Honestly, it's a BCC LNP fail from my perspective, and one would hope that the State Government LNP team (or at least the ALP team) see this as a major reason why BCC needs to be stripped of their overlapping public transport planning powers.

They have been driving empty buses in and out of the Queen Street tunnel for over nearly 3 years as a trial - A world record in the public transport realm to be trialling buses!

But we have to wait until they finish the Adelaide Street tunnel first, before they implement the bus network changes they are intentionally delaying until the 'Metro' is operational. That will be 2.5 years since the bus review started - Another world record in transport planning! 

With the delays piling up, running empty buses, and having them idle, its no wonder the State hasn't reviewed the 'Metro' as part of its 100-day review.

Is 60 longer buses really going to get everyone around Brisbane for the Olympics, and cater for population growth in Brisbane before 2032?

So what will the buses do now? Or does it take a few months to change the PIDs and voices to the Metro 1&2 routes?

Quote from: nathandavid88 on November 18, 2024, 10:02:44 AM

Quote from: AnonymouslyBad on November 17, 2024, 22:10:15 PMCould it be that they can use the Queen St tunnel after all?

I don't think there was any reason why the LighTrams physically couldn't use the tunnel, it was just having that many vehicles using the one tunnel could form a bottleneck.

Yes, they advertised that it is easier to manoeuvre and has a smaller turning circle etc. It is also meant to reduce congestion by having less routes. So realistically there's no reason the routes couldn't have run from day 1 (after some much more limited testing).

Quote from: STB on November 18, 2024, 11:35:28 AMI find it interesting that BCC is trying to spin it as it was apparently always the case that it was meant to be a temporary trial and not something more permanent for running these buses (and they are buses) on the 169.

AIUI It was always the case that this was temporary, though also I thought it would be going for longer. That could just be my error though.

Couriermail --> Brisbane Metro quietly stopped only four weeks after launching $

QuoteBrisbane Metro has quietly been stopped amid commuter criticism of the much-hyped $1.5bn project, including that the electric buses are uncomfortable to ride on.

Brisbane Metro has been taken off the road just four weeks after launching with council now in negotiations with the new state government amid ongoing teething issues with the divisive $1.5bn transport project.

The Brisbane City Council made the shock announcement at the weekend that the double-length electric vehicles' use of route 169 would end, not resuming until possibly next year.

Transport Chair Ryan Murphy said teething issues needed to be ironed out after public feedback, with regular buses replacing the electric Metro buses. ...

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1858349353666232368

Quote from: aldonius on November 18, 2024, 13:16:25 PMAIUI It was always the case that this was temporary, though also I thought it would be going for longer. That could just be my error though.

My recollection is the same as yours - it was always stated that it was temporary services, but I also did think it would last a bit longer. Cr Ryan Murphy reportedly did say that it was a 4 week trial when discussing the launch to reporters on the first day, but that wasn't mentioned in any of the official media for it.

Brisbanetimes --> City Hall digs in on Metro bus route 'trial' amid questions over rollout $

QuoteBrisbane City Council has denied the much-touted start of its flagship $1.4 billion Metro bus project was ever meant to be more than a limited trial.

But a former state government source has added further doubt over the council's earlier contradicting statements, saying July talks never mentioned only short-term use.

The council says the four-week servicing of the existing 169 bus route from Eight Mile Plains to the University of Queensland stopped on Sunday after the semester came to an end. ...

Brisbane Metro suffering some issues with rain ingress & door sensors across the new fleet #problem

ABC News --> Brisbane Metro project blows out to $1.55 billion as rollout postponed to 2025

 

            

So it ended up costing as much and taking as long as a real metro with a track?

^ I think we all know a real metro would've cost twice the estimate.

It'd still be finished by now though.

A rail based metro would cost 10x what you're looking at here

Quote from: SilverChasedSo it ended up costing as much and taking as long as a real metro with a track?

Not quite. BERT was ultimately chosen, so there must have been good reasons for not going with the then Quirk Metro. Let's go through the ABC article's main points.

- Inflation & Cost increases. So $944 million in 2016 dollars is about $1.163 million in 2023 dollars. The ABC refers to $1.55 million, so the actual increase after taking inflation into account is about ~ $387 million.

- Problematic comparison. The article compares a real-world project (with real-world blowouts) to a theoretical rail project (which assumes immunity from cost blowouts). No reason is given for that unreasonable assumption.

As we all know, a rail project would not be immune from cost blowouts either, as we have seen on Cross River Rail and the Sydney Metro. Indeed, anything that involves Priority A ROW (including roads or road tunnels) is likely to blow out because the infrastructure market is hot.

Quote from: ABCBrisbane's "cheaper" alternative to an underground metro now costs more than the original plan due to repeated budget blowouts.

^ This is a very carefully worded statement such that the reader is not alerted to the following fatal aspects of the 2016 Quirk metro proposal which renders it wholly unviable:

- After spending ~ $2 billion on the 'Quirk Metro' it would reduce overall busway capacity. Using 300 pax trains would give a ~ 9000 pphd peak capacity. This is about half of what the current peak capacity of the existing SEB is. Unviable.

- Major unresolved technical and engineering issues (such as the vehicle weight being unlikely to be supported by the Victoria Bridge). Unviable.

- Creation of forced interchanges at short distance from the CBD. Interchanges themselves are fine, but doing it at Herston or at Woolloongabba - locations that are already very close to the CBD - would have been unpopular.

- Undercosting. The Quirk Metro proposal did not provide for metro tunnels under the Brisbane River. A rail-based metro from the southside necessitates paying for a tunnel under the Brisbane River. $$$

- Key locations left out. The 2016 Quirk Metro left out UQ Lakes and RBWH, both these destinations are included in the current Brisbane Metro BRT project.

So what would a serious rail-based metro cost given the same BERT budget of say $1.5 billion? Given the Sydney Metro costs around $0.5 - $1 billion/km, you would get about 1.5 km to 3 km of rail-based metro with one station at either end. So perhaps one station in the CBD and one in Fortitude Valley. That's it.

The patronage and utility of something like that would not be much. To get decent patronage, you'd need something similar to the length of an average bus route (say 10-15 km). This would require 5-10x the funding commitment, and hence not be cheaper.

Take-Aways

A key takeaway here is to stress test proposals by presenting them to groups such as RBOT or experts for comment and feedback before public launch. Not doing this means that you will get that same feedback at launch, when it might be too late  due to not wanting to be seen to backtrack.

Notes

RBA Inflation Calculator
https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html

Brisbane Metro Subway System - Propaganda Response (Wed June 15, 2016)
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2016/06/brisbane-metro-subway-system-cut-crap.html

Quirky Metro - the delusion continues
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2016/06/quirky-metro-delusion-continues.html

Couriermail --> 20-year Brisbane Metro maintenance deal with Swiss approved by Council $

QuoteA 20-year maintenance deal with the Swiss manufacturers of Brisbane Metro has been approved by council which it says will save ratepayers money.

It comes just days after the controversial four-week trial of the Metro on the 169 route ended and claims from the Labor Opposition that the two main routes might not be running until as late as the end of next year. ...

So what is the BCR on 1.55 billion (suspect more cost will surface eventually) that the public (especially those with mobility challenges) don't like, leaves busway a mess of randomly arriving bus routes and doesn't improve capacity!

Has to start with a very big minus sign!

$1.5 billion to go backwards is a interesting project to support and claim was the only solution possible.

Do you not see the politics in our transport planning and think actual transport planing has nothing to do with this project and most BCC plans?

Quote from: Jonno on November 21, 2024, 07:03:49 AM$1.5 billion to go backwards is a interesting project to support and claim was the only solution possible.

A lot of people around here have been saying for years that we should rearrange the bus system to reduce the number of empty bus seats coming into the city.  So nobody is going to be that put out by capacity reductions. 

Fully segregated busways have shockingly high capacity - second only to full heavy rail.  Bigger buses are a credible way to achieve a marginal increase in capacity, but the reorganization of outer southside routes largely negates that increase - consciously trading it for better performance of the feeder services (either in terms of opex or in terms of headways).  On balance, I think this was a trade-off worth making, but reasonable minds may differ.

The reality is that fully segregated BRT is probably a dead end capacity wise.  The only way to make substantial increases to capacity is heavy rail conversion, but most BRT corridors are mostly inadequate for heavy rail.  Conversion would probably cost the same as just building a new heavy rail corridor from scratch.

Thinking otherwise is the broad road to making the same mistake as Ottawa made.  They converted a successful busway to LRT, which had.. problems.  Starting on day 1, the interchange stations at each end of the line experienced platform overcrowding.  Within the first month, train doors started breaking due to passengers holding the doors open at stops, and leaning on the doors during travel.  Within the first year, train availability became a problem.  Trains were run in service more frequently than had been planned.  This meant that trains simultaneously needed more frequent scheduled maintenance, needed more frequent unscheduled maintenance (ie the broken door issue), but also were much more likely to be needed back in service before maintenance was completed.  Within the first two years, quality of maintenance work carried out became an issue.

Fundamentally, these issues all stemmed from overcrowding.  The LRT couldn't cope with the demand it inherited from the busway it replaced.  There's no reason to think that switching the Brisbane busways to LRT would go any differently.  The busway as it is, is quite successful.  The only truly viable way forward is full heavy rail, but that is likely to cost what it costs - whether it replaces the existing busway or not.  The ideal outcome would probably be to build the best new rail corridor you could for whatever amount of funding was available, and leave the busway as it is.

Yeah, BRT and LRT have similar capacity, though the LRT will have lower lifecycle costs and better passenger experience.

BRT the vehicle capacity is lower, but it is possible to run at sub 60 second frequency due to the ability for vehicles to brake quicker and overtake at stops.

LRT obviously bigger capacity per vehicle but it is difficult to run short headways reliably, so in the wash it is little difference.

This is why i think further conversion is a waste of money, youre going to spend more billions, and a lot of disruption, but only get a few percent extra capacity....

You could build a 10km tram line from Woolongabba to Upper Mt Gravatt for a similar cost of a conversion, but actually get mass transit closer to where people want to go.

But the kicker is, you also get basically double capacity in that area of brisbane because you have two high capacity lines operating independently.

Quote from: Gazza on November 21, 2024, 09:35:19 AMYou could build a 10km tram line from Woolongabba to Upper Mt Gravatt for a similar cost of a conversion, but actually get mass transit closer to where people want to go.

But the kicker is, you also get basically double capacity in that area of brisbane because you have two high capacity lines operating independently.

^^^ This. Bringing back trams to Logan road would be pretty popular politically too. Has good optics to it. The HF 175 is a step in the right direction towards really making the Logan road corridor a viable option for light rail in the future. I'd rather see that than a busway conversion

Quote from: Jonno on November 21, 2024, 07:03:49 AMSo what is the BCR on 1.55 billion (suspect more cost will surface eventually) that the public (especially those with mobility challenges) don't like, leaves busway a mess of randomly arriving bus routes and doesn't improve capacity!

Has to start with a very big minus sign!

$1.5 billion to go backwards is a interesting project to support and claim was the only solution possible.

Do you not see the politics in our transport planning and think actual transport planing has nothing to do with this project and most BCC plans?

They only did one in 2017 when the released the Business Case where they claimed it was 1.91. This was supposed to have the Underground Cultural Centre station, and be built on budget and on time, and no bus network changes. 

They made numerous changes to what was proposed, they went over-time and over-cost. but didn't revise either the BCA or designs - how strange!

Where's the Final Design Report and updated Business Case???
Why isn't is publicly released?

This project reeks of political interference. I betting the final cost will be +$2 billion. Did we get a BCA and study on the benefits on adding banana buses to the Glider services?

Funfact - the BaT Tunnel's BCR was 1.16! at least 1.00 of it was due to political interference from someone claiming to be a civil engineer.

Quote from: JonnoDo you not see the politics in our transport planning and think actual transport planing has nothing to do with this project and most BCC plans?

The aim of routine social, economic and environmental assessment is to provide a measure of objectivity around a project, aid decision making and provide transparency to taxpayers who are funding it.

In this way, we avoid having to rely solely on the assertions of politicians or enthusiasts.

The life of a Brisbane Metro BRT vehicle is 20 years. If a rail based metro is not required in that timeframe, then it is a good interim measure.

And yes, BCRs can be done both pre and post project completion. Post completion BCRs are less common, as politicians generally seek to avoid highlighting when things don't go to plan.

In terms of the West end cityglider, a BCR was done on that comparing it against LRT in 2007 as part of the Lord Mayor's mass transit report.

Couriermail --> Brisbane Metro to be boosted by 41 million seats if 'compromise' can be reached $

QuoteMetro expansion plans could be boosted by another 41 million seats over the next eight years.

But the constraint of the Airtrain deal and pending Federal government approval to reallocate $50m towards a business case was stifling the progress of four new planned extensions and their ability to operational by the 2032 Games.

Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner thinks a "compromise" could be reached on the Airtrain deal based on current usage. ...

Ah the Lord Mayor The Minister for Transport at it again!

Quote from: Jonno on November 22, 2024, 06:49:57 AMAh the Lord Mayor The Minister for Transport at it again!

It is a good demonstration of 'institutional factors' creating conflict opportunities and misalignment.

This would not happen in Perth, which has one PT agency. Queensland has three.

As much as Brisbane metro BRT is useful, the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to improve PT to Brisbane Airport is to put more trains on the existing track. You don't even need to buy Airtrain to do this.

RBoT: Brisbane versus Perth: Why we need to fix Brisbane Airtrain before 'Going Metro'

> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=289950

Quote from: #Metro on November 22, 2024, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: Jonno on November 22, 2024, 06:49:57 AMAh the Lord Mayor The Minister for Transport at it again!

It is a good demonstration of 'institutional factors' creating conflict opportunities and misalignment.

This would not happen in Perth, which has one PT agency. Queensland has three.

As much as Brisbane metro BRT is useful, the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to improve PT to Brisbane Airport is to put more trains on the existing track. You don't even need to buy Airtrain to do this.

I would say political ego that in the face of a failing/floundering project goes on the offensive!!

"Don't worry about the current project that is over budget, delayed and not likely to make much of a difference.

We have the future sorted!!"

I simply don't understand this obsession with getting the "Metro" to the airport. Why don't they focus on the places it might actually help, like Chermside and Carindale?

^ Because it's easy to play political games by talking about the airport, I suppose. I don't get it either.

The other proposed extensions are far more important and could get up and running far more quickly. But they would require BCC to actually do something and probably something motorists don't like. It's easier to complain that you don't have the "freedom" to run a white elephant into the airport and sit on your hands for a decade.

Quote from: OzGamer on November 22, 2024, 11:08:24 AMI simply don't understand this obsession with getting the "Metro" to the airport. Why don't they focus on the places it might actually help, like Chermside and Carindale?

Gaslighting.

Quote from: #Metro on November 22, 2024, 07:09:46 AMAs much as Brisbane metro BRT is useful, the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to improve PT to Brisbane Airport is to put more trains on the existing track. You don't even need to buy Airtrain to do this.

I agree.  I suspect that there is currently some level of capacity constraint carrying through from the Gold Coast line.  But after the new pattern starts, who knows.  There should be enough slots to run 12tph through from Ipswich.  Some of these are going to need to continue out to Doomben, but that should still allow for a signficant boost in airport frequency.

That being said, Airtrain is at least somewhat responsible for the cost of running trains across the airport spur, so they would probably need to be convinced that more trains would increase revenue more than it increased cost..

Quote from: hU0N on November 22, 2024, 14:50:41 PMI agree.  I suspect that there is currently some level of capacity constraint carrying through from the Gold Coast line.  But after the new pattern starts, who knows.  There should be enough slots to run 12tph through from Ipswich.  Some of these are going to need to continue out to Doomben, but that should still allow for a signficant boost in airport frequency.

That being said, Airtrain is at least somewhat responsible for the cost of running trains across the airport spur, so they would probably need to be convinced that more trains would increase revenue more than it increased cost..

Nah, the airport line is full of single track, and probably close to capacity when it's running 4tph. But a consistent 15 minute service is fine honestly - that's what Airtrain is currently not delivering.

I think the suggestion is that the government could, without buying out Airtrain, subsidise them to run more services. It's gross and it somewhat breaks the model but it does achieve the outcome, for less money than 'Metro' rubbish.

Yes, 4tph is fine so long as it does that all day, seven days a week, from early morning until late at night. The infrastructure is more than capable of that.

Once there is enough usage that that is too crowded you could start to think of other services, but not to the city. Frequent bus services direct from the airport to Chermside or Mt Gravatt across the Gateway Bridge or something like that.

But while ever the airtrain is running 2tph and stopping at 9PM that infrastructure is underused.

Upcoming Brisbane Metro infrastructure works

QuoteFrom 6am Monday, the westbound section of O'Keefe Street at Woolloongabba, between Ipswich Road and Kent Street, will be closed to traffic to allow for work on the Princess Alexandra Hospital Station.



Vehicle access to the hospital will be via Diamantina Road, while detours will be in place for pedestrians and buses.



The work is scheduled to finish before December 9.



From Friday, until January 13, there will be major disruptions on North Quay and Adelaide Street to allow for construction of a new Adelaide Street tunnel entrance.