Proposal: Busway to Subway

[James]

But you have to ask what the purpose of your comment was. The definition of business district is subjective. Should Fortitude Valley be considered also? In Melbourne should docklands be included in the definition of CBD? What about North Sydney, plenty of office towers popping up there but it's not the CBD...

My point is this: if you consider where workers are going to be and how that will slowly change over time you will come to realise that there will be demand for people to go to offices at work along Coronation Drive, in Newstead, in the Valley, in Kurilpa, in Wooloongabba, at RBWH and so forth. And therefore there is no bogeyman to be afraid of. Indeed, this was one of the ideas that lead to the creation of route P88. It is one of the driving reasons for the inner City CityGlider network that BCC put in their Transport Plan recently.

If there is demand for Coro Drive buses for commuters, I think it would already be very well utilised. You have not yet noted that there are around 20bph going down Coro Drive in the counter-peak direction, along with 4tph of trains. Newstead has CityGlider, as does Kurilpa and the Valley. RBWH has 66/330/333/340. People can transfer to get to those destinations should it be required once they arrive in the centre of the CBD.

We don't need to near-terminate to cater for that demand. I believe all the frequents should 'hub' across a few City streets, and that the frequents (and a few significant secondary routes) should be the only ones entering the CBD.

The current system is already failing and will fail even worse if we continue this paradigm of failure.
* High fares
* Entire suburbs without frequent services
* Underutilised expensive infrastructure
* Huge labor costs
* Waste and inefficiency galore
* 50% empty buses during peak hour (peak hour!!)
* Subsidies going through the roof, among the highest in the world
* $400 taken from every ratepayer in the BCC area on top of this

If you want to run a taxi style service, you are going to pay taxi style fares.

And what options are those going to be? Are people going to to jump in their cars for fear of a 1 minute walk down a flight of stairs where there will be trains almost instantaneously arriving so that they can sit in the car park that is the South East Freeway during peak hour?

But you see, these roads are not that bad. Brisbane is far from Sydney at this point in time.

And as I have said, and you fail to recognise, there is a mental cost associated with transferring!!!! Maybe transferring in Lapdog's head is not worth any time at all, but transferring in the minds of commuters is an inconvenience. That must be suitably compensated by increased frequency. What you propose is imposing an inconvenience without a transfer.

You can go on about the 'network' all you bloody like, but generally when you withdraw someone's frequent direct trip to the CBD and replace it with a frequent trip with a connection to the CBD, commuters don't end up being pretty happy, even if you are giving them a frequent route to some destination they don't visit.

To extend on that, the reason why people act this way is because everybody generally acts in their own self interest. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it is not. Saying 'these people have a frequent route, but now you have a crappy feeder on the same frequency as your former bus to the CBD' is not the way to generate passengers.

In the bus review, by and large, passengers were set for more frequent routes, even off the go frequent network. Indooroopilly routes would have all gotten increased frequency, bar the 444. And as I've stated, I support the TL bus review. What you propose will not save many resources and will not be a net positive for the bus network. Long-term, your idea may have a case, but the busway could just simply be converted to trolleybuses or LRT. No need to combine CRR V2.0 with a bus/subway/flying pig tunnel.

I want to stress that my primary advocacy is for a busway conversion, starting with a subway rather than a busway being installed alongside heavy rail in the CRR tunnel.

Sydney looks to redesign around near side termination:
Sydney has a compact CBD constrained by an Isthmus of land and sydney harbour...

The Sydney Morning Herald today reports that plans outlined in the recently released Transport Masterplan to turn around thousands of bus commuters at the edges of Sydney's CBD remain some years away. The Masterplan states:

Once again, do not support far termination either. Sure, when the CBD becomes bigger there may be cause for it, but right now the only real thing we have which could be anywhere close to 'near termination' is terminating some routes at Bowen Hills/RBWH.

[#Metro]

And as I have said, and you fail to recognise, there is a mental cost associated with transferring!!!! Maybe transferring in Lapdog's head is not worth any time at all, but transferring in the minds of commuters is an inconvenience. That must be suitably compensated by increased frequency. What you propose is imposing an inconvenience without a transfer.

If you are against transferring, you are also against a simple, legible frequent network. If you want to run the system like a taxi, you will have to pay taxi style fares. There is a mental cost to being whacked huge fare increases so that a privileged few who have decent services can save themselves 1 minute so they can use the system like some subsidised personal car.

You can go on about the 'network' all you bloody like, but generally when you withdraw someone's frequent direct trip to the CBD and replace it with a frequent trip with a connection to the CBD, commuters don't end up being pretty happy, even if you are giving them a frequent route to some destination they don't visit.

To extend on that, the reason why people act this way is because everybody generally acts in their own self interest. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it is not. Saying 'these people have a frequent route, but now you have a crappy feeder on the same frequency as your former bus to the CBD' is not the way to generate passengers.

You are actually right about self-interest. I enjoy my 161 Paris Hilton Personal Home Rocket (thanks BT!!) immensely. But everybody funds Public Transport. Public Transport is NOT A CAR. If people want car style trips, they should pay for one themselves. As I keep saying there are cities which do transfer to rail or to bus. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

I want to deconstruct this particular point:

but now you have a crappy feeder on the same frequency as your former bus to the CBD' is not the way to generate passengers.

You are suggesting that the transition from a direct service to a feeder network would result in the NET REDUCTION IN PASSENGERS SYSTEMWIDE.

I am suggesting that doing so would increase pax, firstly because the least worst possible transfer is one where the connecting service is frequent as possible (and it is - subway), secondly because we would reduce duplication and get buses into parts of the city that never had frequent services before (i.e. NEW passengers) and thirdly because many crappy half hourly or hourly routes could be BUZzed. We might even get some fare relief!

Some people would have to transfer. That's just too bad, so sad. Welcome to the real world people, big cities do this Brisbane isn't a country town anymore. We just don't have financial resources to give everyone the royal treatment into the CBD.

In the bus review, by and large, passengers were set for more frequent routes, even off the go frequent network. Indooroopilly routes would have all gotten increased frequency, bar the 444. And as I've stated, I support the TL bus review. What you propose will not save many resources and will not be a net positive for the bus network. Long-term, your idea may have a case, but the busway could just simply be converted to trolleybuses or LRT. No need to combine CRR V2.0 with a bus/subway/flying pig tunnel.

If the busway were converted to LRT or Trolleybus it would STILL have to force transfer anyway. I support the TL bus review as you do, but as I pointed out earlier, you see simplification as good enough, I want to go one step further. I don't think Trolleybus would have the capacity, I don't think LRT would have the frequency.

The politicians, rightly or wrongly, are offering a combined tunnel. That's what's on the table. So the question is now what to put in that tunnel. It will be a net positive because there will be savings and efficiencies and thus more services for everyone to more places more often. Ottawa intends to save $100 million $CAD per year through terminate and transfer.

[Gazza]

and thirdly because many crappy half hourly or hourly routes could be BUZzed.

I think this is where the argument falls apart. Terminating a route at Wooloongabba is not magically going to free up a whole lot of money to reinvest, especially if you have to spend on a concrete fiesta driverless metro stub to allow it.

Some routes can be improved by feederisation (Eg the 400 series west of Indro, the 161, the 300 once the Caboolture line gets 4tph because you'd get a time saving due to being able to use rail, and a frequency boost for no cost.

On a lot of these routes you are halving the length, so you can double the frequency.

But on other corridors terminating at gabba saves only about 10%, so you'd need to do that to muck with 5 or so routes in order to double the frequency on just one, and the other 4 get no improvement.
And you get no time saving either, because a 1 stop journey on the train and connection is slower than scooting across the CCB.

[#Metro]

Gazza, you do make a good point.

What is telling though is BT's truncation of the 117 at Wooloongabba.
http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/131014-117,121,124,125.pdf

(The route 104 is also suggestive...)

Now, not many people are affected by it. But my prediction is that the increasing fares will force further truncation at this location. I understand that people may thing that "it's not that much". But when you have a bus service going day in day out every hour or every half hour or perhaps more frequency, all those distances add up to increased costs - perhaps not much but it is a saving that can be made and hence the incentive to take it.

The high fares have already seen a "garnishing" of services late at night on buses and the citycats, more garnishing to come I suspect.

[#Metro]

Near Side Termination.
Brisbane Already Does it... forced near side termination to other bus routes.


Who died as a result of 117 termination at Wooloongabba?

[Gazza]

But is 117 a 'welfare' route or a 'patronage' route?

[#Metro]

But is 117 a 'welfare' route or a 'patronage' route?

So it is OK to cut routes so long as they are welfare at Wooloongabba?

So, what routes should NOT be terminated at Wooloongabba?? (remember that 230 and 235 are welfare routes based on their frequency  )

[#Metro]

Hope any answer takes into account that this route although a coverage route was BOTH HIGH VALUE FOR MONEY and VERY HIGH CAPACITY UTILISATION. 

Proof here:

http://mobile.translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-117.png

[techblitz]

But is 117 a 'welfare' route or a 'patronage' route?

So it is OK to cut routes so long as they are welfare at Wooloongabba?

So, what routes should NOT be terminated at Wooloongabba?? (remember that 230 and 235 are welfare routes based on their frequency  )

Dont agree with that sorry. While there is no set definition of a welfare route......i would class most hourly services as welfares and half hourly or better services as patronage.
Eg: 101,686,225,398,397,362,240,260,541.....way too many to list...
315 and perhaps 220 would be an exception to this.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I guess besides the 330, 333, 340 a very large majority of buses on the northside are then classified as welfare routes

[#Metro]

Dont agree with that sorry. While there is no set definition of a welfare route......i would class most hourly services as welfares and half hourly or better services as patronage.

FYI, I hate to shock people, but (agree or disagree) TransLink OFFICIALLY considers 230 a welfare route, and thus according to the arguments so far, should be terminated at Wooloongabba... 

Don't believe me, just look in the title box...

Classification: COVERAGE

[minbrisbane]

What would happen if it became a frequent route?  I'd half bet patronage would skyrocket.

[Golliwog]

Why whenever we talk about Brisbane's bus network generally, do we lament the fact that we have dodgy routes to anywhere but the CBD, but then the majority of the time whenever we discuss route improvements, we jump on BUZing CBD bound routes? I mean, Bulimba has the frequency of the Citycats, and with the cross river ferries, the Blue Cityglider and route 199 are easy to catch. the problem is obviously getting to the citycat as not everyone is close to it. So with BUZing a Bulimba route, why not focus on making it connect to the Citycat/ferry for those wanting to go to the CBD, and send it elsewhere (but somewhere that's still a decent sized trip attractor) to try and cater for the trips that are currently missed by our CBD focused PT network?

LD, BUZ the 230 but send it to West End via the Gabba and you'll get that West End-Gabba direct connection () plus connect West End with Bulimba.

[#Metro]

LD, BUZ the 230 but send it to West End via the Gabba and you'll get that West End-Gabba direct connection () plus connect West End with Bulimba.

Now there is a sensible idea. I sent it to Carindale

I mean, Bulimba has the frequency of the Citycats, and with the cross river ferries, the Blue Cityglider and route 199 are easy to catch.

^ Would any Bulimba Residents like to chime in at this point? Don't be shy!!

[James]

If you are against transferring, you are also against a simple, legible frequent network. If you want to run the system like a taxi, you will have to pay taxi style fares. There is a mental cost to being whacked huge fare increases so that a privileged few who have decent services can save themselves 1 minute so they can use the system like some subsidised personal car.

But the 130/140/150 isn't anybody's personal taxi service.  You keep saying I am against transferring, but I am not. I am against forcing the transfers you suggest because:
1) In the case of routes like the 180, 200, 230, the transfer is occurring too close to the CBD.
2) In the case of routes like the 130, 140 and 150, you cannot make transferring more attractive than the current option, especially in peak.

You are actually right about self-interest. I enjoy my 161 Paris Hilton Personal Home Rocket (thanks BT!!) immensely. But everybody funds Public Transport. Public Transport is NOT A CAR. If people want car style trips, they should pay for one themselves. As I keep saying there are cities which do transfer to rail or to bus. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

I want to deconstruct this particular point:

but now you have a crappy feeder on the same frequency as your former bus to the CBD' is not the way to generate passengers.

You are suggesting that the transition from a direct service to a feeder network would result in the NET REDUCTION IN PASSENGERS SYSTEMWIDE.

I am suggesting that doing so would increase pax, firstly because the least worst possible transfer is one where the connecting service is frequent as possible (and it is - subway), secondly because we would reduce duplication and get buses into parts of the city that never had frequent services before (i.e. NEW passengers) and thirdly because many crappy half hourly or hourly routes could be BUZzed. We might even get some fare relief!

Some people would have to transfer. That's just too bad, so sad. Welcome to the real world people, big cities do this Brisbane isn't a country town anymore. We just don't have financial resources to give everyone the royal treatment into the CBD.

Firstly Lapdog, please tell me this: Lets cut the 411 off at Toowong, but keep the same frequency. Do you know how that will go down with residents? Like a lead balloon. That would lead to a net reduction in overall patronage. This is what I am specifically mentioning in my point.

When you impose a transfer (a time penalty of 5 minutes), you need to provide an increase in frequency.

Let us use a specific example. I'll call the transfer penalty 5 minutes in this case. Yes, the wait time will only be around 2 minutes, but as I have said, people do not like transferring. The reason why we force transferring in PT is because it is not economic to provide rockets to everybody's doorstep, and hence for some passengers on lower-patronage routes, we can feed them into rail/bus. We are going to use Mains Rd at Altandi - stop 68 as our example. We will assume an average wait time of one minute.

Current trip:
1 minute wait time
+
33 minute trip to CBD (using 7:39am P133 service)
=
34 minute trip

Lapdog's proposed subway trip:
1 minute wait time (frequency is so high it can't be increased)
+
14 minute trip to GU
+
5 minute transfer
+
19 minute trip to CBD (assuming similar trip time to now)
=
39 minute trip

You are selling the residents of Mains Rd an inferior option. Long term, I do believe there should be a Mains Rd railway line which is fed by passengers - this is because over time, the busway will no longer be able to handle the huge loads from the Mains Rd corridor, and the busway will be needed to serve its own catchment area.

If the busway were converted to LRT or Trolleybus it would STILL have to force transfer anyway. I support the TL bus review as you do, but as I pointed out earlier, you see simplification as good enough, I want to go one step further. I don't think Trolleybus would have the capacity, I don't think LRT would have the frequency.

The politicians, rightly or wrongly, are offering a combined tunnel. That's what's on the table. So the question is now what to put in that tunnel. It will be a net positive because there will be savings and efficiencies and thus more services for everyone to more places more often. Ottawa intends to save $100 million $CAD per year through terminate and transfer.

Trolleybus would allow for the core BUZ routes to continue to proceed along the busway. Metro, no. LRT, possibly, not but really.

Why I say Trolleybus is the low patronage routes can have a forced transfer, while the high patronage routes can join the busway and continue along it. It also would allow for capacity similar to that provided by LRT. As I have mentioned, one day the SE Busway will no longer have a bucketload of buses joining it at Mains Road.

With regards to the 117 - 'Very High' patronage is misleading. A service only needs 5 standing load services/week to be classified as 'Very High' patronage. The thing can still be an air parcel in peak. Cost recovery also does not mean a lot - the 417 has a 'High' cost recovery even though it carries air very frequently.

They also classified the 411 as a patronage route. http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/network-information/stops-and-stations/stop/005764

Near Side Termination.
Brisbane Already Does it... forced near side termination to other bus routes.


Who died as a result of 117 termination at Wooloongabba?

Nobody, because the change hasn't been implemented yet. But I support near-termination of low patronage coverage routes like this. Just not sure it is the best idea doing this to the 117 while air parcels like the other 11x routes (e.g. 112, 113, 116 etc.) continue to the CBD.

[Gazza]

So it only needs 5 standing loads a week....Does that mean an air parcel that gets one overloade trip due to afternoon schoolkids gets bumped into very high patronage?

[techblitz]

So it only needs 5 standing loads a week....Does that mean an air parcel that gets one overloade trip due to afternoon schoolkids gets bumped into very high patronage?

if that was the case then the 124 would be high patronage. It gets a full standing load each day at 3.30pmish by the time it gets to Annerley on inbound.
I would assume the 117 gets good numbers to acacia ridge shops. 124 however would only have small numbers connecting to sunnybank shops. It carries a LOT of air between Salisbury and sunnybank that's for certain.
Perhaps nikko can clarify as I don't think translink stated in their reports how they came to the figures of Hi,low.moderate patronage.

[STB]

Just a quick suggestion Lapdog, you might want to upload those TL maps from the TL Bus Review to another site as TL may get rid of those links eventually, meaning we won't be able to view what you've posted.

[longboi]

So it only needs 5 standing loads a week....Does that mean an air parcel that gets one overloade trip due to afternoon schoolkids gets bumped into very high patronage?

if that was the case then the 124 would be high patronage. It gets a full standing load each day at 3.30pmish by the time it gets to Annerley on inbound.
I would assume the 117 gets good numbers to acacia ridge shops. 124 however would only have small numbers connecting to sunnybank shops. It carries a LOT of air between Salisbury and sunnybank that's for certain.
Perhaps nikko can clarify as I don't think translink stated in their reports how they came to the figures of Hi,low.moderate patronage.

It's somewhere in there I think. Not 100% on the figures but I do know < 7 is 'low'. Moderate would have to be 7 - 15 or 20 and then high would be above that. Figures would be averaged out across the number of services.

A few reasons 117 has high patronage is that is traverses both Beaudesert Rd (Alternative to 124/125) and Ipswich Rd (Which shares a BUZ alignment). If it happens to arrive before any of those services which do generate good patronage in those particular sections then people will just jump on it. Add few alternatives, a low span of hours and half-hourly frequency (even during peak) and you have a big concentrations of pax. with few other PT options.

The construction training centre and (the soon to be closed) Nyanda High would probably also be contributing factors. Although most wouldn't be travelling to the CBD.

[#Metro]

Just a quick suggestion Lapdog, you might want to upload those TL maps from the TL Bus Review to another site as TL may get rid of those links eventually, meaning we won't be able to view what you've posted.

Thanks for this constructive feedback STB.

[#Metro]

In the case of routes like the 130, 140 and 150, you cannot make transferring more attractive than the current option, especially in peak.

So let me get this straight. Route 161 is packed during peak hour. Should my personal home rocket continue to the CBD in peak hour even if that means someone else in Yeronga misses out on services?

In the case of routes like the 180, 200, 230, the transfer is occurring too close to the CBD.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've already given examples of other cities that do near side termination. I think the main argument is more with the busway conversion rather than the network design for me at least. You'd have to terminate with larger buses anyway.

If most people are going to the CBD and not beyond then they're just one stop away and perhaps have to spend a minute or two walking down stairs. That's not a big deal. Some services might continue to the CBD. It should be noted that in Toronto, the number of bus services entering the CBD at peak hour can be counted on two hands.

Firstly Lapdog, please tell me this: Lets cut the 411 off at Toowong, but keep the same frequency. Do you know how that will go down with residents? Like a lead balloon. That would lead to a net reduction in overall patronage. This is what I am specifically mentioning in my point.

But this is a strawman! Of course you'd increase the frequency to boot, and you'd have funds for that from recycling the savings. For your information, route 402 already terminates at Toowong from St. Lucia and nobody has yet died. On many mornings it is full and popular (clearly doesn't go down like lead balloon otherwise nobody would catch it right?). Next argument please...

Why I say Trolleybus is the low patronage routes can have a forced transfer, while the high patronage routes can join the busway and continue along it. It also would allow for capacity similar to that provided by LRT. As I have mentioned, one day the SE Busway will no longer have a bucketload of buses joining it at Mains Road.

With regards to the 117 - 'Very High' patronage is misleading. A service only needs 5 standing load services/week to be classified as 'Very High' patronage. The thing can still be an air parcel in peak. Cost recovery also does not mean a lot - the 417 has a 'High' cost recovery even though it carries air very frequently.

I disagree. Even if the bus is full at peak hour they should be fed into the Subway system. Consider this:

A bus every 10 minutes (6 services per hour) x full bus (65 passengers) = 390 people
A bus every 10 minutes (6 services per hour) x full superbus (100 passengers) = 600 people

This is not even 1 standard QR train load. When you consider the buses in Toronto terminate and transfer much more people than this it is time to stop making excuses. http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/index.jsp

For example,  TTC route 32 EGLINTON WEST and 35 JANE are feeder buses which run buses every ~ 4 minutes in peak, it is one of Toronto's busiest routes. 15 buses/hour x 65 = 975 pax transferring per hour well above anything in Brisbane.

Just because the 'bus is full' doesn't mean it should not be terminated. Indeed it should be terminated so it can be sent back ASAP to pick up another load if it is that popular. This will rake in the cash for TransLink and also save labour resources because you don't have to pay drivers to drive all the way to the CBD.

They also classified the 411 as a patronage route. http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/network-information/stops-and-stations/stop/005764

Great. With buses every 10 minutes, barely 400 people are on it. It's almost nothing when compared to loads that are terminated at train stations overseas.

[#Metro]

You are selling the residents of Mains Rd an inferior option. Long term, I do believe there should be a Mains Rd railway line which is fed by passengers - this is because over time, the busway will no longer be able to handle the huge loads from the Mains Rd corridor, and the busway will be needed to serve its own catchment area.

What if the buses were coming every 30 seconds? Should it not be feederised then? What if the buses were coming every 10 seconds like they do at Cultural centre? Removing buses would mean that people at CC would have to wait longer, and they would see a net reduction in benefit to them - should the buses not be cut just for their benefit? If your argument were right it would apply at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, 30 seconds, 10 seconds, and you'd soon see that would be silly.

I would imagine the loads would be very uneven. You are selling the residents everywhere else in Brisbane an inferior option because they have to wait during peak hour for their bus so that the privileged few who are too precious to incur a very tiny penalty (indeed if there is one) don't have to get up off their seat. This is grossly unfair and inequitable. You are (not intentionally) in effect arguing that people with lots of services should keep them and those who don't have them should continue to put up with garbage services during peak hour.

The flaw in your reasoning is that is only considers passengers on the bus. A proper evaluation would look at that and balance that against everybody else who also catches public transport in the wider city and also those who do not catch PT at all due to low or no frequency in their area.

[#Metro]

Just because the 'bus is full' doesn't mean it should not be terminated. Indeed it should be terminated so it can be sent back ASAP to pick up another load if it is that popular. This will rake in the cash for TransLink and also save labour resources because you don't have to pay drivers to drive all the way to the CBD.

I want to expand my point further to show that feederisation of even BUZ routes that are absolutely at full capacity will likely not have a negative effect provided that the transfer times are kept as low as possible and thus result in a net increase in passengers EVEN IF we ignore all other people in the network.

Let's say there is a BUZ route that originates in outer Brisbane, say we call it generic BUZ 123. During peak hour this bus runs every 10 minutes and carries absolute full load. Let's say the route is super popular and it is a super bus with 100 pax on board. Thus it carries 600 pphd during peak hour.

One bus leaves the bus stop at exactly 8:00 am
A second bus leaves the bus stop at 8:10 am
A third bus leaves the bus stop at 8:20 am

... and so on...

Should it be feederised even though it may be full and incur a 5 minute transfer penalty?

What would happen if we cut it short? Some people may leave because they don't like the extra 5 minutes added to their journey in peak hour. However, the fact that the bus is full suggests that the limiting factor here is the bus and it's lack of spaces and not the demand for the bus.

Under a feeder scenario, a new bus would come into existence between the first bus to leave and the second bus to leave, paid for by cost savings. This bus would come into existence at 8:05 am. Let's call this bus number 1.5 (since it comes between the first and the second bus to depart).

The fact that the bus immediately before it and the bus immediately after it carry full load may suggest that some people are being left behind. It also suggests that there are people who may not even be at the bus stop because they know that the bus is always full and they can't get a seat and hence these (unseen) people drive to work.

What could we say about the load of bus service 1.5? Would it have a lot of passengers? You bet!! It might even be half full or full. Therefore any passengers that would be turned away from the bus service with a 5 minute transfer penalty, would immediately be replaced with the same or even more passengers, so a net gain...

Who would these passengers be? People who are left behind and new people who never wait at the bus stop because they are discouraged by the fact that they can't get a seat.

[longboi]

It would be a very long time before any cost savings are realised should the massive piece of infrastructure you're proposing is realised.

It would also take considerable time to attract new passengers to a route. Non-PT users aren't put off by the fact that they can't get a seat, they wouldn't have a clue. They drive because they have long-held beliefs that PT is slow, more effort (walking etc.) and more expensive (It's easier to forget about how much you pay in fuel, rego and maintenance).

Why do we need to introduce this entire new mode in the first place? That's my only issue. We should be doing better with what we have and making mutually beneficial infrastructure upgrades. Tearing down the busway and replacing it with a subway just doesn't make any economic sense. For better or worse we're stuck with the busway.

[#Metro]

It would be a very long time before any cost savings are realised should the massive piece of infrastructure you're proposing is realised.

It would also take considerable time to attract new passengers to a route. Non-PT users aren't put off by the fact that they can't get a seat, they wouldn't have a clue. They drive because they have long-held beliefs that PT is slow, more effort (walking etc.) and more expensive (It's easier to forget about how much you pay in fuel, rego and maintenance).

Why do we need to introduce this entire new mode in the first place? That's my only issue. We should be doing better with what we have and making mutually beneficial infrastructure upgrades. Tearing down the busway and replacing it with a subway just doesn't make any economic sense. For better or worse we're stuck with the busway.

People would love it and it would be easier to communicate the service to people because the word SUBWAY is associated with rapid, high capacity frequent services coming every few minutes like other world cities in London, Paris, Tokyo etc.

Secondly there would be cost savings from (a) shorter bus routes, (b) automation

Thirdly there would be more revenue from direct stimulation through improved frequency paid for by the cost savings. Ottawa expects to save $100 million dollars per year in operational costs by converting the core of their transitway to rail. Rail is more efficient as you have a better staff:passenger ratio and labour is a significant cost.

Fourthly, the network would be simplified and with more frequent services over the entire city, mobility across the city as a whole would be increased massively. Thus NEW passengers.

Fifthly, we are getting the tunnel *anyway*. So the money for the tunnelling is going to be spent REGARDLESS of mode. If we put busway in the tunnel you are still going to have to pay for a tunnel. A rail tunnel might even be cheaper because the vehicle is fixed to rails it can be narrower.

Sixthly, a major cost in construction is land acquisition and earthmoving. The busway ROW is already acquired so the major cost component is already paid for and thus conversion would be adding power equipment and tracks to the busway surface and raising the height of busway platforms (pay for a concrete truck to dump a load of concrete to do this). If powered rail or linear induction is used there would also be no need for overhead wires.

[Gazza]

and raising the height of busway platforms (pay for a concrete truck to dump a load of concrete to do this)

Wow, you seem to have such a good grasp of construction processes 

[#Metro]

Wow, you seem to have such a good grasp of construction processes

"This timelapse video shows the concrete pour for the new Epping station platforms."

[Gazza]

Yeah, but that's a new platform and just  saying "pay for a concrete truck to dump a load of concrete" is an obvious attempt to make it sound like some cheap simple trivial task.

It's like saying "Complete the GCLRT heavy rail connection, just pay someone to chuck some metal rails and sleepers on the ground"

...Where's the part where you show them setting up formwork, laying down conduits, installing roof structures etc.

Redoing the busway platforms would be a bit more involved because you'd be replacing all the street furniture, putting in new canopies (unless you want people hitting their heads due to increased platform height)....All the lifts would take a bit of modification since the shaft would be finishing short of its current bottom point.


Not impossible etc, but it's still very much a concrete fiesta.

[#Metro]

...Where's the part where you show them setting up formwork, laying down conduits, installing roof structures etc.

If you would like to volunteer a plan for said transition you won't be stopped.

UQ Lakes rebuilding and expansion might be a model.

[STB]

Yeah, but that's a new platform and just  saying "pay for a concrete truck to dump a load of concrete" is an obvious attempt to make it sound like some cheap simple trivial task.

It's like saying "Complete the GCLRT heavy rail connection, just pay someone to chuck some metal rails and sleepers on the ground"

...Where's the part where you show them setting up formwork, laying down conduits, installing roof structures etc.

Redoing the busway platforms would be a bit more involved because you'd be replacing all the street furniture, putting in new canopies (unless you want people hitting their heads due to increased platform height)....All the lifts would take a bit of modification since the shaft would be finishing short of its current bottom point.


Not impossible etc, but it's still very much a concrete fiesta.

A lot of the construction work also involved a lot of realigning the underground services (pipes, power and communication conduits etc) for the GCLR.  Any sort of major construction work would need this to be done.

By the way Lapdog, you make out that you represent what the public thinks, but to be blunt, you only represent yourself and what you think, and what you think is quite a bit to the radical far left without thinking of the economic reasons and the others which I've read through have put forward quite solid arguments which you've just put up your own brick wall towards as it goes against your thinking.

IMO,  a subway is all well and good, but for various reasons, it's not going to work on the SE Busway corridor.  Also I'd suggest you provide evidence of Toronto's population's thoughts to their public transport system, just because they have it, doesn't mean they like it, and nor should anyone be thinking about cookie cutting other transport systems to Brisbane.  No transport system in the world does this, that's why we spend millions doing studies, so we get the right custom made system for the city, not something cookie cut out of another city simply for the reason 'it works there, so it'll work here'.  That's crazy, you need your mental health checked, talk.

[longboi]

People would love it and it would be easier to communicate the service to people because the word SUBWAY is associated with rapid, high capacity frequent services coming every few minutes like other world cities in London, Paris, Tokyo etc.

Secondly there would be cost savings from (a) shorter bus routes, (b) automation

Thirdly there would be more revenue from direct stimulation through improved frequency paid for by the cost savings. Ottawa expects to save $100 million dollars per year in operational costs by converting the core of their transitway to rail. Rail is more efficient as you have a better staff:passenger ratio and labour is a significant cost.

Fourthly, the network would be simplified and with more frequent services over the entire city, mobility across the city as a whole would be increased massively. Thus NEW passengers.

Fifthly, we are getting the tunnel *anyway*. So the money for the tunnelling is going to be spent REGARDLESS of mode. If we put busway in the tunnel you are still going to have to pay for a tunnel. A rail tunnel might even be cheaper because the vehicle is fixed to rails it can be narrower.

Sixthly, a major cost in construction is land acquisition and earthmoving. The busway ROW is already acquired so the major cost component is already paid for and thus conversion would be adding power equipment and tracks to the busway surface and raising the height of busway platforms (pay for a concrete truck to dump a load of concrete to do this). If powered rail or linear induction is used there would also be no need for overhead wires.

1. Labour costs don't end with drivers.

2. You still pay the same amount for buses in maintenance and labour and potentially at least three-quarters of the current amount for route km's and fuel which isn't a saving because those costs just get transferred to the subway

3. You can achieve greater coverage and frequency outside the CBD by moving to a trunk and feeder service with what we already have.

4. The tunnel is being built to benefit current infrastructure which has the potential to be utilised better if invested in properly. Putting our current heavy rail system in the 'too hard' basket in favor of a shiny new subway is going to mean we continue to pay for mediocre heavy rail services.

5. Why not manage congestion and demand by taking advantage of an improved heavy rail system or small changes to the road network for high capacity buses to force tranfers further out and building a grid network of buses for the inner 5km? You reduce the need for rocket services to far-flung outer areas and reduce the need to find layover space in the CBD, as well as circulating passenger flow rather than concentrating it on a small number of corridors.

[#Metro]

A lot of the construction work also involved a lot of realigning the underground services (pipes, power and communication conduits etc) for the GCLR.  Any sort of major construction work would need this to be done.

By the way Lapdog, you make out that you represent what the public thinks, but to be blunt, you only represent yourself and what you think, and what you think is quite a bit to the radical far left without thinking of the economic reasons and the others which I've read through have put forward quite solid arguments which you've just put up your own brick wall towards as it goes against your thinking.

IMO,  a subway is all well and good, but for various reasons, it's not going to work on the SE Busway corridor.  Also I'd suggest you provide evidence of Toronto's population's thoughts to their public transport system, just because they have it, doesn't mean they like it, and nor should anyone be thinking about cookie cutting other transport systems to Brisbane.  No transport system in the world does this, that's why we spend millions doing studies, so we get the right custom made system for the city, not something cookie cut out of another city simply for the reason 'it works there, so it'll work here'.  That's crazy, you need your mental health checked, talk.

Hi STB.

Thank you for your unprompted personal value judgements and mental health assessment. I can only look forward to reading what you have to say on both accounts for all other RAILBOT forum members (Gazza, Ozbob, Brizcommuter etc...) as I am sure they would be only too pleased to receive one from you.

As usual, have a wonderful day.

[James]

So let me get this straight. Route 161 is packed during peak hour. Should my personal home rocket continue to the CBD in peak hour even if that means someone else in Yeronga misses out on services?

Your example is a dumb one. The 161 has 30 minute frequency. By cutting it at Garden City, you could triple, maybe even quadruple, frequency (at which point the area would be flooded with frequency, and hence, resources can be sent elsewhere).

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've already given examples of other cities that do near side termination. I think the main argument is more with the busway conversion rather than the network design for me at least. You'd have to terminate with larger buses anyway.

If most people are going to the CBD and not beyond then they're just one stop away and perhaps have to spend a minute or two walking down stairs. That's not a big deal. Some services might continue to the CBD. It should be noted that in Toronto, the number of bus services entering the CBD at peak hour can be counted on two hands.

Lets say for a 180 passenger travelling from Greenslopes to the Cultural Centre. Under your system, passenger boards there, transfers at Buranda, transfers at Wooloongabba for a bus via Mater Hill and eventually gets to the Cultural Centre. They also have the option of using the Cleveland line, hopefully on 15 minute frequency by that point - but that still leaves the possibility of a quite significant wait.

Under my system, the 180 passenger maintains a direct trip without being forced to do a double transfer on a trip that is not very long at all.

But this is a strawman! Of course you'd increase the frequency to boot, and you'd have funds for that from recycling the savings. For your information, route 402 already terminates at Toowong from St. Lucia and nobody has yet died. On many mornings it is full and popular (clearly doesn't go down like lead balloon otherwise nobody would catch it right?). Next argument please...

This proves your lack of knowledge of the bus network, and passenger travel. A lot of the passengers boarding the 402 and 412 are not transfer passengers! They are passengers from other parts of Toowong who have walked there. The passengers who are transferring, though, are generally bound for non-CBD destinations (i.e. stations along the Caboolture, Ipswich and Richlands line).  Your argument that 402 is full of passengers transferring to rail to go to the CBD is stupid and you should stop using it immediately.

But you missed my point completely. This is what you propose with the 130/140/150. You can't increase frequency any more. You can "make" the buses come every 30 seconds, but such is the nature of buses that it will not do anything, and you might as well just have rockets going from every bus stop to the station.

I disagree. Even if the bus is full at peak hour they should be fed into the Subway system. Consider this:

A bus every 10 minutes (6 services per hour) x full bus (65 passengers) = 390 people
A bus every 10 minutes (6 services per hour) x full superbus (100 passengers) = 600 people

This is not even 1 standard QR train load. When you consider the buses in Toronto terminate and transfer much more people than this it is time to stop making excuses. http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/index.jsp

For example,  TTC route 32 EGLINTON WEST and 35 JANE are feeder buses which run buses every ~ 4 minutes in peak, it is one of Toronto's busiest routes. 15 buses/hour x 65 = 975 pax transferring per hour well above anything in Brisbane.

Just because the 'bus is full' doesn't mean it should not be terminated. Indeed it should be terminated so it can be sent back ASAP to pick up another load if it is that popular. This will rake in the cash for TransLink and also save labour resources because you don't have to pay drivers to drive all the way to the CBD.

And inconvenience people who actually use their bus route, while other people on lesser-used corridors continue to have express buses to their doorstep?

And full bus routes, 99% of the time, make money. Therefore, we can put on another service, and over time it will make money too. Yes, you can turn them back, but then the transfer makes things more inconvenient, especially given these money-making routes are very frequent, and inevitably in peak hour.

What if the buses were coming every 30 seconds? Should it not be feederised then? What if the buses were coming every 10 seconds like they do at Cultural centre? Removing buses would mean that people at CC would have to wait longer, and they would see a net reduction in benefit to them - should the buses not be cut just for their benefit? If your argument were right it would apply at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, 30 seconds, 10 seconds, and you'd soon see that would be silly.

I would imagine the loads would be very uneven. You are selling the residents everywhere else in Brisbane an inferior option because they have to wait during peak hour for their bus so that the privileged few who are too precious to incur a very tiny penalty (indeed if there is one) don't have to get up off their seat. This is grossly unfair and inequitable. You are (not intentionally) in effect arguing that people with lots of services should keep them and those who don't have them should continue to put up with garbage services during peak hour.

The flaw in your reasoning is that is only considers passengers on the bus. A proper evaluation would look at that and balance that against everybody else who also catches public transport in the wider city and also those who do not catch PT at all due to low or no frequency in their area.

The people in Brisbane can get a better option simply by reforming the network a la the bus review, and see how things go from there. We do not need to take the axe to some of Brisbane's most popular bus services in exchange for Lapdog's ideology of 5 minute feeder bus frequency everywhere.

I've also mentioned this, but a day will come when the 130/140/150 feed to rail, maybe with a connection to Garden City/Griffith Uni. This is because heavy rail is what is designed for the job of hauling such high pax numbers. It will also save even more route km, and the loads on the SE Busway will no longer be high enough to justify a subway.

[STB]

A lot of the construction work also involved a lot of realigning the underground services (pipes, power and communication conduits etc) for the GCLR.  Any sort of major construction work would need this to be done.

By the way Lapdog, you make out that you represent what the public thinks, but to be blunt, you only represent yourself and what you think, and what you think is quite a bit to the radical far left without thinking of the economic reasons and the others which I've read through have put forward quite solid arguments which you've just put up your own brick wall towards as it goes against your thinking.

IMO,  a subway is all well and good, but for various reasons, it's not going to work on the SE Busway corridor.  Also I'd suggest you provide evidence of Toronto's population's thoughts to their public transport system, just because they have it, doesn't mean they like it, and nor should anyone be thinking about cookie cutting other transport systems to Brisbane.  No transport system in the world does this, that's why we spend millions doing studies, so we get the right custom made system for the city, not something cookie cut out of another city simply for the reason 'it works there, so it'll work here'.  That's crazy, you need your mental health checked, talk.

Hi STB.

Thank you for your unprompted personal value judgements and mental health assessment. I can only look forward to reading what you have to say on both accounts for all other RAILBOT forum members (Gazza, Ozbob, Brizcommuter etc...) as I am sure they would be only too pleased to receive one from you.

As usual, have a wonderful day.

Hi Lapdog,

I'm actually quite fine with the other RBOT members (barring one - you know who you are).  Simply because they put forward reasonable arguments and come up with reasonable workable ideas, and are willing to listen and even adjust their suggestions based on other people's arguments and not shoot them down simply because they don't align with their thought patterns.

My mental health is quite fantastic by the way (I figured I'd mention that), which is far better than it has been in over 12 months due to personal life problems involving lost friendships, which to me are even greater than a healthy transport system.  Onwards to the future I say!

Enjoy your day.

Regards,
STB

[#Metro]

Hi Lapdog,

I'm actually quite fine with the other RBOT members (barring one - you know who you are).  Simply because they put forward reasonable arguments and come up with reasonable workable ideas, and are willing to listen and even adjust their suggestions based on other people's arguments and not shoot them down simply because they don't align with their thought patterns.

My mental health is quite fantastic by the way (I figured I'd mention that), which is far better than it has been in over 12 months due to personal life problems involving lost friendships, which to me are even greater than a healthy transport system.  Onwards to the future I say!

Enjoy your day.

Regards,
STB

Thanks STB

[#Metro]

As I understand it much of the services such as conduits are inside the wall of the busway not under the busway. Secondly, close inspection of the shelter shows that the roof is bolted to poles. Hence it is conceivable that these could be unbolted and a spacer section added to raise the height of the shelter.

Secondly, many of the high capacity buses used in say Bogota and Curitiba are high floor and thus if these buses were chosen for usage in Brisbane the platforms may need to be raised anyway. Plus raised platforms in suburban areas. There are larger low floor buses available (AutoTram Extra Grand, 256 pax) but these have only become available in Germany in the past year or so. They have less vehicle capacity than a Gold Coast Tram and less than what is currently used on Vancouver's lateast Skytrain metro. They are also not automatic. They may have a use though as feeder services through the Sunnybank area and from UQ to Carindale in my Busway to Subway conception.

Your example is a dumb one. The 161 has 30 minute frequency. By cutting it at Garden City, you could triple, maybe even quadruple, frequency (at which point the area would be flooded with frequency, and hence, resources can be sent elsewhere).

So the fact that the buses are full isn't the principle behind your reasoning. So it IS OK to terminate full buses at stations. Just making that clear.

Lets say for a 180 passenger travelling from Greenslopes to the Cultural Centre. Under your system, passenger boards there, transfers at Buranda, transfers at Wooloongabba for a bus via Mater Hill and eventually gets to the Cultural Centre. They also have the option of using the Cleveland line, hopefully on 15 minute frequency by that point - but that still leaves the possibility of a quite significant wait.

Under my system, the 180 passenger maintains a direct trip without being forced to do a double transfer on a trip that is not very long at all.

James, I think we both agree with each other when you advocate for a mass simplification of the bus network. I am with you there. But as I have made clear previously, I think in the longer term we will have to go beyond this. The politicians have placed on the table for a Cross River Rail Tunnel that contains QR Heavy Rail and a busway. I don't know if the 180 will disappear in to the new CRR/Busway tunnel. We can't give everyone a direct trip - even you acknowledge that. If it is true that most people are bound for the CBD then the trip you describe to Cultural Centre would be somewhat unlikely. On the other hand I would imagine that the network would be set up so that the person could transfer at Wooloongabba Subway not to a train but to another bus  such as 66 to Cultural Centre. That would be one transfer.

Why do I think subway is good rather than busway in the CRR tunnel? Because I think it is going to be a royal pain in the backside to try and retrofit a subway to the combined CRR/Busway Tunnel at some point in the future once it is full of even more buses. You'd have to shut the tunnel down and then what is going to happen with all those buses? Over Captain Cook again and Cultural Centre. You'd have to set up bus stops again all over the city during a retrofit. That will be fun (not!). Best to do it right the first time and build it as subway at the start. Although this is Queensland and we have so many have assed and half baked projects we have to go back to and fix up I have little hope...

[#Metro]

I don't believe it is too radical to consider a metro in Brisbane, given the fact that Ottawa is performing something similar with their Transitway conversion and it has been superficially considered by TMR and BCC in the Lord Mayor's Transit report.

BCC





TMR

[#Metro]

This proves your lack of knowledge of the bus network, and passenger travel. A lot of the passengers boarding the 402 and 412 are not transfer passengers! They are passengers from other parts of Toowong who have walked there. The passengers who are transferring, though, are generally bound for non-CBD destinations (i.e. stations along the Caboolture, Ipswich and Richlands line).  Your argument that 402 is full of passengers transferring to rail to go to the CBD is stupid and you should stop using it immediately.

Show me where I did write the words "going to the CBD". They may not be going to the CBD on it now but clearly people are making the connection. I would make them connect in my Busway to Subway conception. Perhaps you would not. Like I say before buses every 10 minutes x 85 passengers = 510 pax per hour, I don't think that's large by any standard to make them change.

But you missed my point completely. This is what you propose with the 130/140/150. You can't increase frequency any more. You can "make" the buses come every 30 seconds, but such is the nature of buses that it will not do anything, and you might as well just have rockets going from every bus stop to the station.

It might not make the trip faster in terms of raw bus speed or make a large dent in frequency (as it is already frequent), but the capacity would be increased with extra seats to accommodate more passengers left behind or unable to get a seat. And the frequency will also vary depending on the position along the line you choose. Perhaps at Altandi you won't get massive improvement to frequency, but further out where the buses fan out it may be more significant. In any case, I am simply explaining my conception, you don't have to accept it and if you want to draw up your own network plan, fine.

And inconvenience people who actually use their bus route, while other people on lesser-used corridors continue to have express buses to their doorstep?

A few minutes isn't the End Of The World. If you are going to use larger buses like in Bogota, these are high floor and therefore busway platforms would have to be raised, which means the normal buses could no longer run through the busway or stop at busway stations. You could use the AutoTram Extra Grand which is something more recent though. But it would have to be THAT bus (I don't know of any other manufacturers that has the capacity of greater than 256 pax) and you would be limited to 256 pax. This bus is 30 meters or so long so only one could fit on a 50 m platform and two on a 60 meter bus platform so you would have to extend the busway platform also or make some arrangement there.

And full bus routes, 99% of the time, make money. Therefore, we can put on another service, and over time it will make money too. Yes, you can turn them back, but then the transfer makes things more inconvenient, especially given these money-making routes are very frequent, and inevitably in peak hour.

But as we found out earlier in our conversation you are not against the principle of transferring full buses in peak hour. Otherwise you would be against full bus 161 termination in peak, which you are not. You are only against termination of full and high frequency BUZ routes on the grounds that it may add a few minutes to the trip for those passengers.

I take the opposite view on the basis that you would be able to increase capacity for those routes during peak and thus supply more spaces for more passengers, which would also make more money.

To add another service under your paradigm, you would need to buy a new bus at a cost of $1 million dollars or so each. You might argue that I need to buy a subway train, and I would, but when I do I would be able to boost frequency at all connecting locations along the line, whereas you would need to buy a bus for each and every bus route feeding the busway to increase capacity there. PLUS you would need to recruit more casual bus driver staff to drive these buses also. Maybe this is OK in the near term, but in the longer term I prefer terminate and transfer for most services in general. In Toronto this already occurs with the Viva BRT system feeding the edges of the TTC subway system. These BRT vehicles do not drive past the subway and then into the Toronto CBD. They stop, drop off their load and go back...

[#Metro]

If in Toronto they can run their BUZ counterparts to subway stations, why can't we? These BRT services feed subway stations on the very edge of the network where the density is far lower than in the inner built up suburbs of Toronto. This is the reason I am not averse to terminating 130/140/150 at subway stations and "forcing" transfer in my Busway to Subway conception.

VIVA BRT - Feeds subway stations at the end of the subway lines



Video of passenger and bus trip on these busways- they are Class B ROW, would be quite good for the Carindale to UQ sections I would imagine.

[#Metro]

TTC Warden Subway / Busway Station showing Viva BRT buses. If it can be done overseas, then I am confident that routes such as 555, 150, 140, 130, 120, 222 etc can all be fed into the subway system, even if they are full and even if they are high frequency BUZ. In the interim period while the CRR combined tunnel is being built the network could progressively become more and more simplified as a transitionary step.