#ausvotes Greens: Federal Election 2016

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Greens announce all-female team for 'winnable' Qld seats

[ozbob]

Building our clean transport future

The Greens will invest in transport that works for people and our environment

>> http://greens.org.au/public-transport

[ozbob]

If you catch the train or drive in Brisbane, you'll know things need to change. Our plan: https://t.co/KhsDtAzMXx pic.twitter.com/dMRX9opzQY

— Kirsten Lovejoy (@lovejoykirsten) June 8, 2016

[Stillwater]

I am with Jackie Trad on this one -- SHOW US THE MONEY.  Greens can promise just about anything, knowing they won't have responsibility for coughing up the dough to fund it.  BTW, what about the rest of the cost of CRR? 

[OzGamer]

You're right that the Greens are not going to be sitting on the Treasury benches, but they have a complete policy anyway. The extra money is coming from a number of measures, including a higher top tax rate, abolishing negative gearing, increasing capital gains tax, some changes to high income super concessions and carbon pricing.

Now people can argue that capital gains tax concessions are more important than public transport infrastructure, but they can't just yell "Show us the Money", because that just indicates they haven't looked at the complete policy platform.

[Stillwater]

And all of the things listed there are going to be passed through the parliament?

[aldonius]

And all of the things listed there are going to be passed through the parliament?

You could make the same criticism of any party's election platform...

[OzGamer]

And all of the things listed there are going to be passed through the parliament?

Whatever happens in the parliament is a different story. I'm just saying it's an unfair criticism to say it's uncosted. The Liberal government's costings are completely shot because their policies can't get through the parliament so they've increased debt hugely, but somehow they keep getting called "good economic managers".

All parties should be held to the same account.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times 13th June 2016 page 7

Greens spotlight on Rail Extension

[ozbob]

^ now online

Queensland Times --> Greens spotlight on rail extension

[ozbob]

Quest South West News 15th June 2016 page 17

Greens favour rail extension

[ozbob]

http://greens.org.au/news/qld/greens-call-next-step-brisbane%E2%80%99s-clean-transport-future-%E2%80%93-brisbane-subway

Greens call for next step in Brisbane's clean transport future – the Brisbane Subway

Monday, June 27, 2016

The Greens are calling on the old parties to commit before the election to Brisbane's clean transport future beyond the north-south Cross River Rail by progressing an east-west Brisbane Subway.

Greens Senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, said Brisbane was expected to grow rapidly over the next 15 years and we needed to plan now for that growth with high-quality public transport.

"Following the Greens' call for $2 billion of federal funding for Cross River Rail, the other federal parties have started to make concrete commitments on this urgent priority infrastructure," Senator Waters said.

"But we need to plan into the future beyond the north-south Cross River Rail with a comprehensive plan including consideration of an east-west Brisbane Subway which has been discussed since at least 2011.

"As part of our balanced budget of election policies, which includes $2 billion over four years for Cross River Rail, we would invest $20 million in a comprehensive plan for Brisbane's clean transport future, including a Brisbane Subway.

"Our vision is for a high-frequency Brisbane Subway, running east-west, with services every few minutes.

"The route would connect Brisbane's two largest 'trip generators' - the CBD and UQ - with stations at Indooroopilly, University of Queensland, West End, South Brisbane, CBD, Kangaroo Point, Teneriffe, Bulimba and Hamilton.

"Unlike the ill-conceived "Brisbane Metro" proposed by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, which does not add new connectivity and replicates existing bus services, our proposal would connect previously disconnected areas and would add new river crossings between high density areas of our city," Senator Waters said.

Greens candidate for Brisbane, Kirsten Lovejoy, said the Brisbane Subway would operate similarly to the London Underground and the New York Subway in underground tunnels separate from the existing heavy rail system.

"A Brisbane Subway would fight congestion on major roads, and would take the pressure off other public transport services, boosting the capacity of Brisbane's entire network.

"Our plan is designed to help create a city where people living both in inner and outer suburbs have a choice to leave their cars at home, or where they are able to avoid the expense of owning a car.

"The Greens stand for a clean, connected, liveable city with thriving neighbourhoods built around frequent, reliable public transport powered by clean energy.

"The experience with Cross River Rail with eight years of discussion and still no completed business case underlines why we need to get started on the next steps in the planning process immediately," Ms Lovejoy said.

More information: http://greens.org.au/brisbane-subway

[#Metro]

This proposal would be around 14 km long from end to end.
Tunneling through the CBD will be very expensive.

Costs
We could have a rough ballpark at around 0.3 BN x 14 = 4.2 billion, but I would suggest it would be much much higher than this. We would have to see what the costs per kilometre for the Sydney Metro were. Anything underground will be ridiculously expensive, and because this is a brand new alignment rather than the repurposing of an existing one (i.e. SE Busway) costs will be higher.

A lot of these inner city areas well never ever be high density due to (a) local opposition and (b) character and heritage reasons. This is the contrast between the Paris Model of a metro and something like the Perth model of a regional high-frequency railway.

I think they have committed the same error as Blue Team and Red Team when they chose to run with Quirk Metro and LRT to West End. They chose the mode first and then tried to backwards fit that into the network/urban fabric. I understand that this idea is based on the TMR metro idea, which in turn featured in the Connecting SEQ 2031 document. But I had a major problem with that document where it says 'trips will double' or whatnot - they included walking trips, which is huge within the CBD area. I don't think they should have done that at all, I don't think it is valid to include, and I think it was only added like that to boost the size of the 'trips' number to retro-justify the idea of a metro in the CBD.

Where a metro could work is if the Springfield line were to be disconnected from the QR network and converted to metro. The line could be taken through the Centenary Suburbs (where the Greens CentenaryGlider was popular) and then into indooroopilly with a new station under Indooroopilly Shopping Centre.

From this point the metro could run along the Ipswich Railway line, through Toowong and then under West End through the CBD and beyond as per the Greens have it.

Eastern Busway
If The Greens are looking for a project that they can do as rail, there is the Eastern Busway. That could be done as light rail. You'd run the service from Carindale along Old Cleveland Road (either within the road median or underneath it in a cut and cover tunnel) to Dutton Park and into UQ Lakes, where it would then continue through to Indooroopilly. It would do something that cars at the moment cannot do. Light Rail this way would be versatile - being able to both run on the surface (keep costs down), offer high capacity and also run like a metro underground in the St Lucia part.

[OzGamer]

I don't really see how you can say these areas will never be high density. Just look at West End, South Brisbane, Teneriffe, and Hamilton. There are literally thousands of homes and offices within a few hundred metres of each of those with more on the way, and UQ is the second biggest trip generator in the city. It also connects with heavy rail and the south east busway.

If you are going to build a metro, it makes so much more sense to serve high density areas currently unable to access any type of mass transit, which describes West End, Teneriffe, and Hamilton perfectly. Spending millions converting a perfectly good rail line like Springfield seems like a great big waste of money to me.

[#Metro]

Hello OzGamer.

I don't really see how you can say these areas will never be high density. Just look at West End, South Brisbane, Teneriffe, and Hamilton. There are literally thousands of homes and offices within a few hundred metres of each of those with more on the way, and UQ is the second biggest trip generator in the city. It also connects with heavy rail and the south-east busway.

Yes, it is true that 'UQ is the second largest destination after the CBD'. However, people were saying this back in 2004, which is why in 2006 the Green Bridge got built and the busway extended to it. UQ is already part of the rapid transit network. Anybody can get a train to Park Road and get a bus over. Or catch the 66.

The majority of West End is protected from development, and this is rigorously enforced by locals in that area. Only the former industrial section near the river bank is for development. The CityGlider does that currently and based on a bus every 5 minutes, reaches 12 x 80 pax = 960 pphd. Compare this to a metro where you might have a 1000 pax train coming every 5 minutes - 12 000 pax. That's 12.5x the passengers there currently.

If we look at the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (others may be more expert at this than I am), much of the inner suburbs are zoned as character residential or low-medium density. Unless that zoning is going to change, densities in that area will be limited by the zoning. https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/v1_201406_zm001-29.pdf

In these areas one would have a better case for Light Rail or BRT than Metro I think.

If you are going to build a metro, it makes so much more sense to serve high-density areas currently unable to access any type of mass transit, which describes West End, Teneriffe, and Hamilton perfectly. Spending millions converting a perfectly good rail line like Springfield seems like a great big waste of money to me.

There are different ways to run rail systems depending on the situation at hand. Unfortunately, people go to Paris and come back and think we can just do the same here without adapting it to local conditions. Perth is a good example of how a railway can be adapted to local conditions to get high patronage. Perth is essentially running the same model as Toronto's TTC subway, but with much lower density.

Although the conversion of the Springfield line may surprise you, the Inner City Rail Capacity study in 2008 did identify another Cross River Rail tunnel requirement through West End from the Ipswich line. There is also an opportunity to run rail through the Centenary Suburbs which are a black hole at the moment and suffer from buses getting caught on the Centenary Motorway. The use of an existing railway, at least for part of the way has many advantages:

- It can be automated, reducing the operating costs / labour costs on the Springfield line dramatically. QR has some of the highest operating costs in the world, and this is due to lack of DOO and ATP.

- Frequency to Springfield (second CBD actually) can be increased massively, supporting the creation of a new sub-regional city.

- The right of way is already acquired so construction costs / land acquisition costs are minimised.

As I wrote before, it can go through West End, CBD and then off to Hamilton beyond that.

Anyway, that's just my 2c. Feel free to put your own thoughts, but I think if the Greens want a solid plan, they need to talk to us before they have come up with an idea for an election, rather than try and have us retro-justify it. What Brisbane really needs now is Bus Reform, Cross River Rail and Quack Metro scrapped. There are around 85 train stations already within the Brisbane area, if people want a 'metro' they can have one - simply buy lots more trains and run the whole thing more frequently.

[#Metro]

An oldie but a goodie when this 'Metro' idea comes up. This is what Melbourne and Auckland are doing.
It is not as sexy as a new metro, but it is faster and reaches more people using what we already have.

Australia: Pitfalls of Metro Envy
http://humantransit.org/2010/04/australia-the-pitfalls-of-metroenvy.html

The Public Transport Users Association of Australia has a great press release and analysis on the need to re-think the ideal of a "metro," and to question why Australians should wait decades for them.

Many of the major inner-city urban rail lines in Australia could easily run every 5 minutes or better if there were a commitment to fund operations and build connection opportunities.

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.  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.

(There is a precedent for conversion here - Sydney metro is repurposing a large part of the Bankstown line.)

[OzGamer]

I certainly agree that using the existing infrastructure more effectively is always preferable. That's why Cross River Rail is the first priority, because it enables higher frequency on all of the existing rail lines. Obviously bus reform is also a high priority but that is very much a planning/local matter and requires no infrastructure, so is a somewhat independent question.

One reason I don't like the idea of converting the Springfield line to metro is that there is plenty of capacity on the existing Ipswich/Springfield line to support metro-like frequencies on both, so extending one through Centenary seems like doing something because you can. I agree that the Centenary suburbs need public transport improvement (first hand as I live there), but as much as I would like a metro running past my house I don't think it is really justified as almost the whole area is suburban residential.

In contrast, West End itself is projected to have more people in it than all of the Centenary suburbs put together. Just stand on Coronation Drive and look across the river and it is astonishing the level of construction over there. I think the CityGlider will not cut it fairly soon, or else there will be high capacity buses every three minutes, at which point higher capacity modes seem like a good investment.

As to UQ, of course there is the Eleanor Schonell Bridge, but there are also hundred of overcrowded buses a day heading to Indooroopilly and down Coronation Drive and the campus is actually still growing. UQ Lakes Station is approaching capacity even with the upgrades a few years ago. Once you are moving tens of thousands of people a day by bus metro or alternatives start to make sense.

I don't think it's up to RBOT to endorse a political party's position or not, but you have to acknowledge that this one makes much more sense than Quirk's metro that messes up the busway for billions of dollars and probably makes things worse.

[#Metro]

One reason I don't like the idea of converting the Springfield line to metro is that there is plenty of capacity on the existing Ipswich/Springfield line to support metro-like frequencies on both, so extending one through Centenary seems like doing something because you can.

QR train = 2 staff
Metro train = 0 staff

Sinnathamby wants a whole new city out that way, it already has a university, hospital, heaps of houses, a shopping centre. If you're aiming for hi-density, that's one to consider. A concern I have about inner areas is the density restrictions due to heritage zoning, I heard that they limit surrounding buildings to around 2-3 storeys. It may be more appropriate to apply light rail in those areas, given that LRT can reach up to 9000 pphd and skip the cost of underground stations. For similar money LRT might give you more places covered.

This is the thing. It is awkward because The Greens have decided 'Metro' is the answer, and now we have conversations about where to shove it on the map. This is doing PT planning backwards. Mode choice selection should be the last thing in the process, not the first.

As to UQ, of course there is the Eleanor Schonell Bridge, but there are also hundred of overcrowded buses a day heading to Indooroopilly and down Coronation Drive and the campus is actually still growing. UQ Lakes Station is approaching capacity even with the upgrades a few years ago. Once you are moving tens of thousands of people a day by bus metro or alternatives start to make sense.

412 bus every 10 minutes: 60/10 = 6 buses/hour x 85 pax = 510 pphd.
66 bus every 5 minutes: 60/5 = 12 buses/hour x 85 pax = 1020

This is one train load or just over it. It looks crowded, but I think that is more to do with how the bus network is being operated (i.e not using Superbuses) than solely high demand. And again, a possible East-West LRT for the Eastern Busway/UQ Lakes has been overlooked.

I don't think it's up to RBOT to endorse a political party's position or not, but you have to acknowledge that this one makes much more sense than Quirk's metro that messes up the busway for billions of dollars and probably makes things worse.

Actually, it commits exactly the same errors that the Quirk Metro and Rod Harding Light Rail from West End to Teneriffe commit. They've decided on the solution first, and then try and retro-justify it.

The Greens actually had an excellent policy going into the BCC council elections. In previous years, they did what I call "Light Rail Everywhere" which was to convert all the busways to LRT and then LRTs shooting pretty much at every point of the compass. It was a bit like a rainbow spider. This year, they did buses and red team copied them. There was a lot of support for CentenaryGlider. Because it made sense, was affordable, environmental and deliverable.

I think all political parties should discuss their ideas with RBOT. We can't endorse them, but that said, it is much better to be told where the holes are before an election than during it!



PS: I will not stop anyone from promoting a metro from Hamilton to UQ or whatever. I just am not at that stage where I would lend support to it. But anyone should feel free to go ahead if that's what they want to do. If the Greens want a big issue to tackle, the Eastern Busway from Carindale to UQ would be worth looking at - either as busway, LRT or something else.

[OzGamer]

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I do agree that putting the technology before the need is the wrong way around but I don't think that is the case here. This metro serves a number of purposes that are not served at the moment, including fast direct access from Hamilton and the Bulimba peninsula to the city, high capacity access from Indooroopilly to UQ and from UQ to West End and the city, distribution function from the southern rail lines and the south east busway to other parts of the city, and general network effect improvements. If you look at the map it essentially works with the existing inner city rail lines and cross river rail to form a high frequency grid, rather than competing with CRR as Quirk's metro does.

Brisbane is still a growing city and I believe the total transport task will grow substantially, particularly in public transport, so solutions like metro will in general be needed over the next generation or so. I think something like this route makes the most sense.

[Gazza]

The thing these debates always miss is that capacity is not the only factor in modal choice...speed is too.

Multiplying vehicle size by frequency ignores this crucial factor.