Article: Metro plans to have less seats on inner city services

[ozbob]

From the Herald Sun click here!

Metro plans to have less seats on inner city services

Metro plans to have less seats on inner city services

    * Ashley Gardiner
    * From: Herald Sun
    * October 06, 2010 12:00AM

METRO plans to run a two-tiered train system in Melbourne to cope with booming patronage expected this decade.

Busy inner city services could lose seats to make way for more passengers.

But Metro chief executive Andrew Lezala said commuters travelling longer distances deserved more seats.

Speaking at the Melbourne Press Club yesterday, he said the network would eventually run two types of service.

"Over the next 10 years, we will certainly be running two types of service," he said.

"(There will be) a suburban service running relatively long distances over 25 minutes, where we need a lot of seats.

"Increasingly, in the centre, we're going to be running high-density services, and there may be a case for less seats in the future."

Mr Lezala said Hong Kong-style longitudinal seating, where there is one row of seats along either side of the carriage, could be introduced if growth in passenger numbers warranted it.

Under this model, express services that bypassed many inner city stations would run to the outer suburbs. Metro would also run short services that stopped at all stations in areas closer to the city.

Mr Lezala said service frequency would increase.

"I would be aiming for five-minute frequency in peaks on all major corridors, and 10 minutes in off-peak," he said.

Tourism and Transport Forum spokesman Euan Robertson said the public transport patronage growth in Melbourne was faster than in any other Australian city.

"Commuters need to be open-minded about innovative solutions such as restricting seating on congested services to manage this demand explosion," he said.

Metro met its punctuality target for September, after gradual improvement in on-time performance since May. Mr Lezala said he was now in discussions with the State Government to recover $4 million in payments it is owed.

The Government froze the money after Metro's persistent failure to reach targets.

Mr Lezala conceded passengers were intimidated on the system by youth gangs, drunks and people with mental issues.

"I sometimes feel intimidated," Mr Lezala said.

"A lot more visibility of our staff on the trains will help."

Hmmm ....

"I would be aiming for five-minute frequency in peaks on all major corridors, and 10 minutes in off-peak," he said.

[#Metro]

Hmmm ....

"I would be aiming for five-minute frequency in peaks on all major corridors, and 10 minutes in off-peak," he said.

This is a metro. Seriously, this could be done in Brisbane. QR trains can run at intervals of 3 minutes- so 5 minutes and 10 minutes frequencies on CityTrain are achievable provided the core section is decongested somehow.

[#Metro]

"I would be aiming for five-minute frequency in peaks on all major corridors, and 10 minutes in off-peak," he said.

Perth comes very close to this already. So the 'we are not dense enough/we don't have the population/everyone loves cars' argument does not work. Perth is one of the most car dependant cities in the world!

Even 'we don't have density/TOD around stations' excuse does not work.

Many of Perth's rail stations are located in the middle of freeways, making it extremely hard to walk there.
People have to come in by bicycle, car or bus interchange. Trains run 15 minutes in the off peak, and more frequently in peak.

[frereOP]

No, neither of them are Metro-style services.

The Melbourne model is a hotch potch of traditional rail and Metro-style operation.  To be truely effective, Metro systems run on a point to point basis on dedicated (not shared) lines like bus trips, and sometimes in one direction only on a loop like the Yamanote Line in Tokyo (or the 598/599 bus in Brisbane).  Carriages have 3 or 4 doorways on each side to facilitate entry and exit, and trains are often smaller and shorter (eg Paris and Berlin) making the train sets cheaper themselves (so you canbuy more of them for the same money) and the cost of station construction is lower.  They have parallel seating.  Distances between stations can be relatively short (just 2-3 blocks in London, Berlin and Paris) and there are no timetabling issues associated with a train on one line having to wait at signals for a train on another line to pass through.

I'm not saying it's not a solution but to quote an old saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig".

This is why I fully support the BCC proposal for a true Metro system which they say will be needed by 2026 in addition to the QR cross river rail project.  We need to start planning and building it now.  See details on Page 7-8 of http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/documents/about%20council/sept07_final_report_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf

[#Metro]

I disagree.

The authorities are getting too caught up in technologies, which is curious, because their whole justification of the busway and bus system was based on 'let's ignore the technologies and look at service characteristics.'

I do not support the metro proposal, but could be convinced otherwise.
My position has changed as the realisation that the QR system could be converted to one sunk in.

The single, key ingredient in a metro isn't close station spacings, it isn't multiple doors, it isn't shorter trains.

The key ingredient in a metro, is frequency.

And this key point is being lost in the rush to re-invent the wheel in Brisbane and install big, costly, sexy technology which is unintegrated. This is the 'let's copy Paris' approach to planning. Brisbane trains can be modified to have more doors, less seats and run at shorter intervals with better signaling. The Yamanote line is heavy rail AIUI running on the same gauge as QR trains. We are confusing types of trains with types of service.

The cost of re-inventing the wheel is colossal, costly and time consuming. I can see why the authorities want a metro- to relieve passenger demand in the inner sections of the train network during peak hour. However, those funds would be better off going into improving the QR system and light rail, either underground or on the surface. Unfortunately, Brisbane seems allergic to light rail proposals in all their forms and anything will be done to avoid light rail. Even if it means this bizzare situation where we have modes at capacities directly above and below but not at light rail level comes about.

[#Metro]

There was an article about this recently too:

australia: pitfalls of metro-envy

For a variety of political and cultural reasons, many of these opportunities have not been pursued.  Instead, in Sydney and Melbourne especially, we've been encouraged to long for something called a "metro."  Many Australians have been to Europe and often to some of the East Asian megacities, and the word "metro" is meant to refer to the high-frequency, high-capacity rail transit, usually underground, that laces the dense cores of those cities.

It's been easy to jump from those desires to the notion that since Australia doesn't have metros now, it needs to build them.  But Bowen's work in Melbourne (and our own work on the Sydney Morning Herald inquiry) are pointing out that our cities already have a network of grade-separated rail lines covering the areas of European density, and that the quickest way to get a "metro" level of mobility is simply to run these lines much more frequently.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/australia-the-pitfalls-of-metroenvy.html

[ozbob]

Inclined to agree TT.  The CRR will kill a metro in Brisbane IMHO.  What is more logical will then be further heavy rail underground extensions eg. CRR2 and others possibly. 

Melbourne and Sydney heavy rail underground extensions work well. Can't see a metro in those places either.  Frequency is the key and that will happen progressively from now.

[frereOP]

The single, key ingredient in a metro isn't close station spacings, it isn't multiple doors, it isn't shorter trains.

The key ingredient in a metro, is frequency.

My point exactly.  It is the hardware in a Metro system that makes higher frequency possible.  Smaller trains are cheaper to run (remember someone has to pay the cost of subsiding unprofitable public transport), they can be loaded and unloaded very quickly to reduce platform time,and they accelerate and decellerate very quickly so they vacate the platform very quickly as well.  Also they are not constrained by timetable issues associated with shared lines like overground system is.

Yes, the Yananote line is an overground line but its a loop and it has a train frequency of 2 mins because of all the features above - try that kind of frequency with the current QR system.  Can't be done! A dedicated Metro system is the only way QED

Go to London and ride the tube, go to Singapore and ride the MRT, go to Tokyo and ride the subway and see for yourself then compare that with the debarcle we have here where trains are limited to 20kph (Roma St to Central) and can get held up as trains switch lines while others are halted.

[#Metro]

Disagree.

It is the hardware in a Metro system that makes higher frequency possible.

Toronto runs trains every 4-5 minutes on the Bloor-Danforth subway in peak, and every 2-3 minutes off peak.
While there is probably no need to run trains that frequently, with signal upgrades and untangling of the lines, AIUI
frequencies very close to this are possible already.

Smaller trains are cheaper to run (remember someone has to pay the cost of subsiding unprofitable public transport), they can be loaded and unloaded very quickly to reduce platform time,and they accelerate and decellerate very quickly so they vacate the platform very quickly as well.

I had a debate with Somebody about this, and the greatest ongoing cost is actually labor, not the length of the train or the amount of electricity it uses. QR trains can have more doors put in- indeed over time I can see the rollingstock become more specialised for the express trains and trains that serve the inner city. There is already the seeds of this distinction when you look at the SMU and EMUs, they have different features and seating layouts.

Also they are not constrained by timetable issues associated with shared lines like overground system is.

This is more to do with network design than being or not being a metro. There are metros that do interlining and share lines. So the idea of isolated lines is a characteristic common to, but not defining of, a metro. A converted QR CityTrain system will not be perfect as the real thing, but why exceed design specifications if what you can convert at hand will do the job well and good enough for your needs.At the fraction of the cost, it may be possible to separate the lines in the core, if required.

There is no need to buy a sledgehammer to crack a nut when you can buy a nut cracker.

Yes, the Yananote line is an overground line but its a loop and it has a train frequency of 2 mins because of all the features above - try that kind of frequency with the current QR system.  Can't be done! A dedicated Metro system is the only way QED

I think the frequency over the Merivale bridge in AM peak hour comes pretty close. And that is just on current signalling. Upgraded signaling will make this even better. A dedicated metro is not the only way. Light rail on the surface or underground in tunnels can also do a similar job, indeed there are applications of light rail that are called 'pre-metro'.

Go to London and ride the tube, go to Singapore and ride the MRT, go to Tokyo and ride the subway and see for yourself then compare that with the debarcle we have here where trains are limited to 20kph (Roma St to Central) and can get held up as trains switch lines while others are halted.

Again network design.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. I used to like the idea of the metro, but now I've changed my mind. The worst thing Brisbane could do is sink billions and billions into a monumental, costly piece of infrastructure which isn't integrated properly and then not have the funds to run services on it or anything else. Sound familiar?

[#Metro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

[longboi]

How would a metro be any less intergrated than, say, a busway?

[Golliwog]

The busways are getting a lot better at integrating with the rail network. See the Park/Boggo Rd interchange and Roma St as examples of this. The CC/South Brisbane and the two South Banks are examples of the original design where they were just put in near each other but with no simple way to go between. If you look at the artists impressions of the interchange to go in eventually at Carseldine its virtually the same as Park Rd. Buranda is another example of it not being particularly easy to transfer, but that is hard to rectify given the horizontal and vertical alignments that they had to go with.

[somebody]

South Bank isn't nearly as bad as the Cultural Centre/South Brisbane if you have been there before and know where you are going.  It's really the signage which is the main problem at South Bank.

[frereOP]

How would a metro be any less intergrated than, say, a busway?

They are integrated if designed and built properly.  A well planned Metro style operation compliments and could/would replace much of the surface bus traffic on busy routes like the 199.

Advantages?

• fewer cars and buses on the road
• less congestion
• less carbon pollution
• faster point to point services

The Queen St Bus Station is at or near capacity now during peak hour.  We can't just keep adding services to increase frequency (eg like a proposed 450 BUZ) - there just aren't enough stops.  We need to build new infrastructure that suits our needs and to take pressure off the bus network.  Traditional suburban rail just doesn't do because its not designed for that.  Metro and light rail do.  It's not about modify something we already have in some forlorn hope that it might just do the job for a while.  All that does is defer the inevitable.

It might be expensive and not give a return on the investment - that's a narrow minded economic rationalist view of the world.  The real question should be what is the cost of not doing it?  Answer, you defer the cost to others (like the taxpayers and businesses who have to pay for the cost on congestion) so all beneficiaries (not just passengers) should contribute to the cost through taxes because non-users benefit too.  If you don't build it:-

• there will be more cars and buses on the road
• there will be more congestion
• there will be more carbon pollution
• and increasingly slower point to point travel times

[#Metro]

We need to build new infrastructure that suits our needs and to take pressure off the bus network.  Traditional suburban rail just doesn't do because its not designed for that.  Metro and light rail do.  It's not about modify something we already have in some forlorn hope that it might just do the job for a while.  All that does is defer the inevitable.

It would be very disappointing to have a metro system built at approximately 200-300 million per kilometre, and still have a perfectly good suburban rail service functioning at frequencies of every half hour. The main service characteristic of a metro is frequency, and this can be done on the current rail system. And boy, does the current rail system need a frequency boost!

It might be expensive and not give a return on the investment - that's a narrow minded economic rationalist view of the world.  The real question should be what is the cost of not doing it?  Answer, you defer the cost to others (like the taxpayers and businesses who have to pay for the cost on congestion) so all beneficiaries (not just passengers) should contribute to the cost through taxes because non-users benefit too.  If you don't build it:-

    * there will be more cars and buses on the road
    * there will be more congestion
    * there will be more carbon pollution
    * and increasingly slower point to point travel times

I never said anything about whether the service would be financially profitable or not. Indeed many metros and public transport services do not make profits- governments do take a broader view of the service. But that said, there is no point sinking huge amounts of funds into a competing metro project which will divert large quantities of funds from all other forms of PT, including the rail network.

The metro system would have to be built from scratch. The problem with Brisbane is that due to the sheer capital expense of a metro system, it would only be useful in the core section of the city. Which already has good public transport options. What is needed is a service that can reach further out where people are more car dependent. That's commuter heavy rail.

I'm not against a metro because its a metro. Take a look at the alignment they are proposing- it adds no new destinations that aren't already accessible by reasonably frequent public transport options. Where I would support investigation into a metro service would be the conversion of the busway system, although this has to be weighed up against light rail options. I would support investigation into conversion of the SE busway into a metro service, subject to the investigation also weighing up conversion to commuter rail and light rail options. Along that alignment, you would have a far better chance of proper integration.

[Golliwog]

First up, I would agree totally that if constructed properly a metro could integrate with the busway and rail networks brilliantly. However, I don't know that now is the best time to be going for a metro. In 20 years maybe, but at the moment we have a rail network that is totally under utilised. IMO it would be wasteful to go about building a totally new network when we have railways sitting there with only 2tph offpeak. Where we have bottlenecks such as single track sections and non-grade seperated junctions that limit the capacity of the network. Before they build this metro I would think that they would need to remove these contraints on the rail network to allow useful frequencies to encourage transfers to rail. Yes right now they can run trains off-peak at higher frequencies already on most of the network, but IMO they should focus on getting the rail network to a stage where it has all or almost all the physical infrastructure it would need to run trains at say 5/10 minute frequencies and it is just up to Translink/QR and the patronage that determines the service levels.

The major benefit of the metro that I can see is that yes, it doesn't add any new destinations to the network. But once you have it there, you would be able to totally reorganise the buses (namely the 199/CityGlider) which would no longer be needed, meaning you would be able to take all these buses and put new routes else where in the network to bring passengers in from currently underserviced areas.

[frereOP]

Smaller trains are cheaper to run (remember someone has to pay the cost of subsiding unprofitable public transport), they can be loaded and unloaded very quickly to reduce platform time,and they accelerate and decelerate very quickly so they vacate the platform very quickly as well.

I had a debate with Somebody about this, and the greatest ongoing cost is actually labor, not the length of the train or the amount of electricity it uses.

Smaller trains means smaller infrastucture (ie smaller and cheaper even unstaffed stations) and trains that are able to negotiate tighter curves and provide a more localised transport system (like buses and trams).

Also they are not constrained by timetable issues associated with shared lines like overground system is.

This is more to do with network design than being or not being a metro.

So we are stuck with a system that is constrained by traditional railway design and we should just cop it sweet?

Yes, the Yananote line is an overground line but its a loop and it has a train frequency of 2 mins because of all the features above - try that kind of frequency with the current QR system.  Can't be done! A dedicated Metro system is the only way QED

I think the frequency over the Merivale bridge in AM peak hour comes pretty close.

Well, inbound trains get stopped (or slowed to walking pace) on the Merrivale Bridge all the time.  It takes 4-5 minutes to get from South Brisbane to Roma St and they are less than 2km apart (average speed is between 20 and 30kph).  The advantage of a Metro is fast point to point travel times (~2mins station to station) as well as high frequency.  Who is going to untangle the lines?  How much will this cost?  Are they going to get it right?

Best solution is to start from scratch and design and build a new system that doesn't have these issues to begin with and spend that money there..

Go to London and ride the tube, go to Singapore and ride the MRT, go to Tokyo and ride the subway and see for yourself then compare that with the debacle we have here where trains are limited to 20kph (Roma St to Central) and can get held up as trains switch lines while others are halted.

Again network design.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. I used to like the idea of the metro, but now I've changed my mind. The worst thing Brisbane could do is sink billions and billions into a monumental, costly piece of infrastructure which isn't integrated properly and then not have the funds to run services on it or anything else. Sound familiar?

This is an economic rationalist view - don't build it if you can't make it pay.  The question should be what is the cost to the community as a whole of NOT building it.  That's why public transport is subsidised - because even non-users benefit and it's economically beneficial to the community as a whole.  Yes, someone has to pay but that's why we pay taxes.  If you don't want the services (schools, hospitals, roads, police buses, trains), pay less tax but don't complain that services are not up to scratch.

An engineer friend of mine who help build part of the Singapore MRT (Clark Quay to Dhoby Ghaut) said that if you want to build a tunnel and make money, building a subway/metro is the only way, not a road tunnel.  So why did we spend 4 billion building 6km of unprofitable Clem 7 when we could have spent the same and built 12km of subway somewhere with a guaranteed income stream?

[frereOP]

First up, I would agree totally that if constructed properly a metro could integrate with the busway and rail networks brilliantly...

...The major benefit of the metro that I can see is that yes, it doesn't add any new destinations to the network. But once you have it there, you would be able to totally reorganise the buses (namely the 199/CityGlider) which would no longer be needed, meaning you would be able to take all these buses and put new routes else where in the network to bring passengers in from currently underserviced areas.

I agree totally.  That's the benefits of a Metro style operation compared to a traditional QR style railway.  They provide more localised and much higher frequency services that can replace existing transport modes making those resources avialable for deployment elsewhere.

The problem about deferring it is that the cost of building something in 20 years will be prohibitive.  The best time to build something was always yesterday and the cost of building it in 20 years should also take into account the cost of not building it now such as the need for more buses in the mean time and increased road congestion and slowing travel times.

[#Metro]

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. Rail station spacing in Brisbane is quite close already.

Smaller trains means smaller infrastucture (ie smaller and cheaper even unstaffed stations) and trains that are able to negotiate tighter curves and provide a more localised transport system (like buses and trams).

The point is being missed here and blinded by fixation on technology.
Look at the service characteristics- frequency, area, destinations served.

So we are stuck with a system that is constrained by traditional railway design and we should just cop it sweet?

It would be easier and cheaper to fix the current system than re-invent the wheel.

This is an economic rationalist view - don't build it if you can't make it pay.  The question should be what is the cost to the community as a whole of NOT building it.  That's why public transport is subsidised - because even non-users benefit and it's economically beneficial to the community as a whole.  Yes, someone has to pay but that's why we pay taxes.  If you don't want the services (schools, hospitals, roads, police buses, trains), pay less tax but don't complain that services are not up to scratch.

The point is being missed here. What is the cost of building a metro, which is not needed and has other cheaper, faster to implement options at hand and will lock up substantial amounts of funds into it and deprive the wider rail network of funds.

I would argue that locking up huge amounts of funds into a metro system that will serve a core section of Brisbane, which already has good public transport options especially when there are cheaper, faster options such as better bus services and light rail is actually financially imprudent.

It will result in more congestion, more cars on the road, have a huge impact on the community. In fact I would go so far as to claim that building it will result in:

   * there will be more cars and buses on the road (Because it doesn't serve the outer areas where the car dependent suburbs are, it serves the inner core which already has good options).

   * there will be more congestion (because of point #1) and because the wider rail was deprived of funds to build this thing and because it will compete with passengers, along the suggested alignment)

   * and increasingly slower point to point travel times (because money was spent on the metro and not all the 100s of bottlenecks on the QR heavy rail system).

I am not against a metro because it is a metro. I don't agree with with the current alignment and I feel that there are faster cheaper options like buses and light rail services and frequency improvements that that could do just as good a job much more cheaply. This is one of the reasons why Sydney (a city with double the density of Brisbane) canceled their metro project- that money is now going into trains and light rail. This is why Melbourne, also far more dense than Brisbane, shows no intention of building a separate metro network- they are going to convert over their heavy rail network.

What hasn't been taken into financial account is opportunity cost- a dollar spent on metro is a dollar not spent on something else- in my view, that something else is the QR heavy rail network.

Where I would support a metro being looked at in Brisbane is for the conversion of the Busway network to metro rail.

[Golliwog]

A fair point, but we're pretty much always going to need more buses. I would also think that increasing the service frequency off-peak and also extending service hours would do something to alleviate road congestion and travel times. How many people would use trains and buses if they ran later or more frequently? I either refuse to use the 362 (which has a stop 50m from my front door) because it comes once an hour and after already having waited for a train in the city don't want to wait for up to an hour again, or can't as the service stops running at 5pm. The route is a useful route, it just runs poorly.

A cost benefit of waiting until later to build the metro is that by then Translink may have changed so that station designs incorporate shops/cafes/etc this would do much to cut the extra costs that would be incurred, yet so far Central is the only station that has anything within the go gate cordon, and few others are near or next to shops.

TT: I think you miss the point that by putting a metro in the inner area, you can take away many of the bus rotues in there, freeing up buses for use in outer areas where they can get into the streets to pick up pax form their homes. I also think there is no way to change the busway to metro or light rail without causing total chaos on the current network.

[#Metro]

TT: I think you miss the point that by putting a metro in the inner area, you can take away many of the bus rotues in there, freeing up buses for use in outer areas where they can get into the streets to pick up pax form their homes. I also think there is no way to change the busway to metro or light rail without causing total chaos on the current network.

Golliwog, if a metro was built along the busway alignment, that would stop a huge number of buses from ever getting anywhere near the CBD. It would allow a huge saving in terms of bus-km, operator costs and labour. Unbelieveable savings, that make the disruption worth it.

I do not believe for one second that the busway is untouchable or too disruptive to convert. That is just pure nonsense IMHO. The City of Ottowa, on which the SE busway is modelled on,  is converting their busway to light rail as we speak. If the busway was opened in stages, then it can be shut down in stages.

IMHO there is a very good case in the future to convert the busway to metro rail. On that point I would agree with FrereOP and yourself. But on the point of running a metro specifically parallel to the Ipswich Rail line? Doesn't seem like its worth it IMHO. Light rail or service upgrades could do that job much more cheaply.

In fact, the city of Toronto is now turning to light rail and bus rapid transit as an alternative to metro to extend the benefits and reach of their metro system. Why? the cost.  I will post a link later.

[Golliwog]

It may run parallel to the Ipswich rail line, but it will have a completely different catchment area. It has a stop at Toowong, and thats it after that its under the river and replacing the 199/Cityglider. Having the cross river link is great as it allows those form Westend to access the rail network there instead of having to go around via South Bank. Yes, theres already the citycat, but a metro would be faster and more frequent, and would reduce the need to transfer from bus to ferry and the possible wait incurred.

I can see a low disruption way of converting hte busway, but you wouldn't be able to run light rail until you had converted the entire busway. Also, what would you do about the large number of rockets using the Captain Cook bridge? You wouldn't be able to run light rail across there.

[#Metro]

It may run parallel to the Ipswich rail line, but it will have a completely different catchment area.

Disagree. A bus interchange at Indooroopilly and converting most western suburbs buses to feeders would work cheaply.
Bus interchange $25 million or so, save bus km, put those people on the train. BUZ 450, BUZ 412 and BUZ 444 could become light rail trunk services or supebuses also capable of crossing the river. Light Rail through West End would have stops placed comparably close together. Remember, close stops = slower speed, more cost because you have more stations, which means underground boxes more lifts, stairs etc.

It has a stop at Toowong, and thats it after that its under the river and replacing the 199/Cityglider. Having the cross river link is great as it allows those form Westend to access the rail network there instead of having to go around via South Bank. Yes, theres already the citycat, but a metro would be faster and more frequent, and would reduce the need to transfer from bus to ferry and the possible wait incurred.

A metro is not required to cross the river. Speed and frequency are service characteristics that can also be performed using Light rail and bus technologies too, much more cheaply via a bridge structure or a tunnel as well. A bridge is proposed between this area (St Lucia/Toowong) anyway.

I can see a low disruption way of converting hte busway, but you wouldn't be able to run light rail until you had converted the entire busway.

Not necessarily. Ottowa is working on conversion that will allow light rail in the core, which will then be incrementally extended. Buses will feed the light rail system- this type of conversion technique would work well with an interchange somewhere like Wooloongabba for example.

Buses are 'flexible' enough to terminate outside rail and busway stations and move out of the way of obstacles we are often told. So I don't know- perhaps Buranda would be good for this. They managed to add a whole tunnel portal to the UQ Lakes busway and still operate the busway, so I don't see why they can't come up with something to cope with this. Otherwise, TL can ring up Ottowa, which Brisbane's busway is based on and ask them what to do. Surely the busway came with conversion instructions.

After all, its been constantly touted as being able to be converted to Light Rail. Not sure about metro though- this might be a bit more different. But again, I'm sure it won't be the catastrophe the authorities make it out to be. After all, the Cross River Rail tunnel will be drilled through many kilometers of solid rocks. Busway conversion should be easier than that. Shouldn't it? It's been designed for LRT, but metro might be better.

Also, what would you do about the large number of rockets using the Captain Cook bridge? You wouldn't be able to run light rail across there.

Bus lane down Story Bridge. Most rocket services get replaced and people switch over to the LRT services. LRT is all day, peak hour is what 2 hours in the day, so actually in the whole scheme of things, the loads the express buses carry in might not be as much when compared to all day trips- I don't actually know. But, hey, if you give them a frequent metro or light rail and the transfer is easier and higher service level and comfort, I think these riders can be retained.