LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[Gazza]

Basically what I was told re alternatives.
Saying that this is what people voted on at the election is no excuse.

People voted on a proposal where they stated it would be subject to future investigation, and anyway people vote on several issues at once at an election and ita bullsh%t to say people only get their say once every 4 years and nothing can be refined in the interim period

[ozbob]

Yes, total frog-sh%t from Quirk.

[ozbob]

Claims of secrecy & lack of consideration in planning the $1.5B Brisbane Metro have been made https://t.co/B5ZOScpHtS @QuestNewspapers pic.twitter.com/Cv9Rm3oTZw

— Ruth McCosker (@RuthMcCosker) October 26, 2016

[ozbob]

told it would deliver 30K pax/hour/direction
NONSENSE@Team_Quirk own data 9K pax/hour/d
Busways deliver up to 18K pax/hour/d#qldpol pic.twitter.com/nYaKYigwcp

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 26, 2016

[ozbob]

Basically what I was told re alternatives.
Saying that this is what people voted on at the election is no excuse.

People voted on a proposal where they stated it would be subject to future investigation, and anyway people vote on several issues at once at an election and ita bullsh%t to say people only get their say once every 4 years and nothing can be refined in the interim period

They completely misrepresented the capacity.  They lied in effect, dubious slimy political spin.  For this reason any notion that people voted on the ' metro ' is invalid.  They voted for a fraud ...

[Marshal]

They completely misrepresented the capacity.  They lied in effect, dubious slimy political spin.  For this reason any notion that people voted on the ' metro ' is invalid.  They voted for a fraud ...

Reminds me of some tunnels a certain city council built....

"They said, we wish we could look at alternative routes but unfortunately we were directed to only look at this one particular route because the Lord Mayor said this is what it's going to be and we were told when we started this business case this was the only route," Cr Cassidy said.

The $16 million business case will be finished by May next year.

So, we're spending $16 million on a business that is really just "whatever Graham Quirk says"? would he like to dictate the financial stuff as well? "It will have a BCR of 1.4 and you are not to explore any financial analysis that does not result in that BCR"

Red team, why did you have to implode so miserably last council election?

Anyone tried contacting Johnathan Sri directly about the Quack metro issues? I don't entirely agree with some aspects of his politics but he does a decent job popularising criticism of the current council

[ozbob]

Yes, whilst team red was out waving placards for ' Fare Free Fridays ' they should have and could have attacked the false promises made by Quirk with respect to the Quack Metro. 

It does appear that the state government is slowly starting to point out the many problems with the metro as proposed.

It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of $$$ would be spent on a system to reduce the capacity of the core public transport in Brisbane, and in so doing completely wreck the inner bus network.

Absolutely ludicrous ..

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th October 2016

Re: The Quirk Metro as proposed is nonsense confirmed, again ...

Good Morning,

Consider this for a moment.  Lord Mayor Quirk says the people voted for his proposed ' metro ' therefore it needs to go ahead.

Hold on a minute.  The people voted for a plan that was sold to them as 30,000 passengers per hour  on a suitable system.  Team Quirk's own data, disclosed to us during the BCC campaign showed that only 9000 passengers per hour per direction would be the capacity of the proposed metro.  The voters were grossly mislead.

The Quirk Metro as proposed is a transport absurdity.   It delivers around half the present busway capacity and would wreck Brisbane's public transport network.

Why is this nonsense still in play?  It is an outrage! As I have commented before, not only is it dumb, it is morally and fiscally irresponsible.

Time the Quirk Metro was called out for the nonsense and profligate waste it is.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ Attached: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg182335#msg182335 ]

[ozbob]

Latest media: @Team_Quirk Metro as proposed is nonsense
> https://t.co/TpkmbtK35X#qldpol
they lie to you baby ...@StirlHinchliffe pic.twitter.com/71AvfidKk0

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 26, 2016

[Gazza]

Ill preface this post by saying that I haven't considered the often mentioned E-W line running from UQ to Bulimba (Or Indro to Hamilton or whatever) Since that is a tangent to the issue at hand and can conceivably work with any future network configuration, so long as it logically interchanges with other stations.

I'll also point out that CRR remains the #1 priority, and building that could take the heat off the need for another line for a decade or two, in which time BCC could amass more funds to do this properly.

Basically, a line serving Eagle Street and Spring Hill could take on any of the following forms, subject to a corridor study.

If you built the BCCs metro as it stands, the network would look like the image on the left.
But if you built BCCs metro along an eastern path as per the image on the right (or one of the variants), plus CRR, you can see that the inner city would actually be pretty comprehensively covered by mass transit lines, and no further investment would be needed until all those lines were at capacity, which i reckon would be at least 30-40 years.

[SurfRail]

The east-west alignment possibilities are also pretty complementary - for instance, coming from the direction of either Toowong or UQ/Indooroopilly, you could go South Bank - Queens Wharf - Kangaroo Point - New Farm - Teneriffe, and then to one of a number of options (eg follow KSD, cross the river to Bulimba and on to Cannon Hill or cross the river again for Northshore).

[petey3801]

To be honest, IMO, the better option might be to actually start with an Indro/UQ - City - Hamilton/Bulimba/Cannon Hill/wherever, leaving the SEB as is. Once proper bus reform has been done, the SEB won't be carrying the amount of people that it does now (thanks to feeding to rail etc) and with high capacity buses, will be a lot less congested (especially if this also included work around the bottleneck at the intersections between the busway and Cultural Centre). Would add another high capacity corridor to the BNE transport network instead of replacing a medium(?) capacity corridor with a relatively higher one.

[Gazza]

To be honest, I'd be happy with either, but broadly that has been my line of thinking anyway.

Fix up the bus network, and build CRR, then it can be properly assessed how much pressure is on the busway, and that will inform any future decision making.

If it turned out that EW capacity suddenly became more of a concern (Be it Ippy overcrowding or Coro Drive bus congestion) then by all means do the EW line first.

[petey3801]

To be honest, I'd be happy with either, but broadly that has been my line of thinking anyway.

Fix up the bus network, and build CRR, then it can be properly assessed how much pressure is on the busway, and that will inform any future decision making.

If it turned out that EW capacity suddenly became more of a concern (Be it Ippy overcrowding or Coro Drive bus congestion) then by all means do the EW line first.

Yep, agreed.

[Marshal]

To be honest, I'd be happy with either, but broadly that has been my line of thinking anyway.

Fix up the bus network, and build CRR, then it can be properly assessed how much pressure is on the busway, and that will inform any future decision making.

If it turned out that EW capacity suddenly became more of a concern (Be it Ippy overcrowding or Coro Drive bus congestion) then by all means do the EW line first.

seems the most sensible way forward, so it obviously won't be happening #politicaloptimismisdead

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 28th October 2016 page 11

Beware the finer details in Quirk plan

[ozbob]

Sent to metro@brisbane.qld.gov.au

29th October 2016

Brisbane ' metro ' submission

Greetings,

Public transport must be fast, direct and frequent. The present Brisbane bus network is based on a direct service model that embeds poor service, poor frequency, poor connections, legacy routing and is becoming unaffordable. Other operators are treated as 'competitors' by BCC rather than as team players in an integrated network.

Many jurisdictions such as Auckland, Houston and Hobart have moved on with public transport network reform, delivering much better networks with more frequent service and significant patronage gains, without massive infrastructure costs.

In 2013, TransLink acting on Government direction, with the support of Transport Consultants, proposed a proper reform of the Brisbane Bus Network.  This review was not proceeded with as the then State Government lacked the resolve to do what was right in the end. What has changed since  then?  A token bus review done by BCC has just further compounded network failures.  There has also been an impact on regions outside Brisbane as cuts to services and spans, the consequence of BCC's intransigence.  Hardly equitable or decent is it? Band-aids on festering wounds just leads to rampant disease!

There is an excellent local example of how network reform benefits us all.  It is the Gold Coast.  Network reform has delivered frequent, connected bus routes to the light rail and has delivered patronage gains of over 20%.  There are lessons there for Brisbane. Passengers will transfer on a connected network.  It is how real frequency and excellent service is generated.

The Lord Mayors ' Metro ' proposal is nonsense. Brisbane might well need a ' real metro ' eventually, but the metro proposed by Team Quirk only delivers 9000 passengers/hour/direction (pphpd) but the busways move up to 15000 pphpd regularly during peaks with maximum 18,000  pphpd.  One does not spend billions of dollars to reduce the capacity of the existing public transport - it is an absurdity to put forward such a proposal. One of Brisbane's key public transport assets is the busway system.  It needs to be enhanced with proper network reform not wrecked.

What needs to happen now is bus network reform.  This will reduce the number of buses clogging up the CBD and allow more services out in the suburbs where they are really needed. It is essentially cost neutral.

Problems with the Quirk ' Metro ' as proposed:

1.  Delivers less capacity than the present busways - fatal flaw**.  Proposed metro is only a capacity of 9000 passengers/hour/direction.  Busways deliver up to 18,000 passengers/hour/direction.

2.  Is under-costed, grossly in our opinion. We challenge the Lord Mayor to sign a cost explosion indemnification agreement, guaranteeing that any cost overrun on the project ( over $1.5 BN) will be borne solely by BCC.

3.  Absolutely wrecks the inner-city busway network. Stops one station short of RBWH Hospital (to save costs?)

4.  Is very doubtful if Victoria Bridge can be used due to the significant weight of metro trains, track and electrical systems.  Use of Victoria Bridge precludes any further network improvements.

5.  Is not driverless as proposed. If changed to automatic then cost of stations etc. increases massively. Comparisons with Sydney Metro make this abundantly clear.

6.  State owns and controls the busway infrastructure.  It is unlikely that a State Government of any political persuasion would allow the busway system to be wrecked for a system that delivers less capacity than the current network!

7.  Proposed Quirk ' metro ' depot site is state owned and is actually earmarked for CRR.

The absolute minimum capacity for a train to reach the touted 30,000 passengers/hour quoted in the BCC election vote-bait material is 750 passengers per train. The Lord Mayor is suggesting trains with a capacity 2.5x lower, that is 300 passengers/train.

Bus reform, for example > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork is required, now. Bus network reform will allow time for a mature future vision and plan to be developed.

Bus network reform is essentially cost neutral, we do not have to waste billions of dollars on pipe dream schemes.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

** Quirk ' Metro ' Capacity Calculation

1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds. World's best practise train throughput is a train every 90 seconds. 3600 seconds / 90 sec = 40 trains per hour.

Therefore 30,000 passengers/hour divided by 40 trains/hour = 750 passengers per train (absolute minimum).

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro is 300 pax/train as proposed.

Run every 2 minutes (as announced in election) 30 trains / hour x 300 pax/train = 9000 passengers/hour/direction - a backward step for the network.

Even under the most extreme assumptions, the metro would have less capacity than the busway and be at capacity on opening day.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> LETTER: Beware the finer details in Quirk plan

[Marshal]

What is the actual source on the busway capacity? I'm planning to write to my local councillor and state/federal Mp's expressing my concerns (specific to their jurisdictions) regarding the proposed metro, having the direct source would be handy for that

[ozbob]

What is the actual source on the busway capacity? I'm planning to write to my local councillor and state/federal Mp's expressing my concerns (specific to their jurisdictions) regarding the proposed metro, having the direct source would be handy for that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busways_in_Brisbane#Capacity

https://translink.com.au/about-translink/media-releases/details/6391

The maximum is ~ 18,200 pphpd,  in practice it achieves  routinely ~ 15,000 pphpd,  which is a lot more than the proposed Quack metro ..

[Gazza]

which is a lot more than the proposed Quack metro ..

To be fair, they are now saying they want to do 30,000 per hour, which is more than what they said at election time,
(based on what they said at the info sessions)

Granted, they haven't actually said how they will run trains big enough to do so.

I think its defintley possible to at least match the current capacity....but you're spending $1.5 billion to do so.
And a lot of routes would continue to use the CCB and QSBS.
But jeez that's going to be a messy and inefficient way of doing things.

[ozbob]

30,000 per hour !!! Vague and designed to spin and obfuscate.

Do they really mean 15,000 pphpd or 30,000 pphpd?  That is a very critical point.

The only thing about capacity so far from them publicly is what they proposed, and tried to deceive by throw away spin ie. 9,000 pphpd. Don't forget it was their own data email to us that confirmed that (below).

Even  if they now say 15,000 pphpd that is no real improvement and as you say hardly warrants billions of $$$, plus we still have a network mess of mega proportions.

To get to 30,000 pphpd (something I support) you need a real metro ...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

9th March 2016

Team Quirk ' Metro ' Information Request

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track wishes to make further assessment of the ' metro ' proposal. We ask for the following information:

1. How long would the trains be in meters?
2. What passenger capacity (pax) would the trains have?
3. Will the trains be powered using overhead wires or high voltage third rail?
4. Is the route set or indicative (i.e. will other alternative alignments be considered?)
5. How would the service fit at stations with short platforms/constraints such as Mater Hill?
6. Why are the trains manual and not automatic?
7. The planned depot site at Woolloongabba is the site for the Cross River Rail station. What other locations for the depot are available?
8. Busways are not Council infrastructure.  What is the alternate plan if the busways are not able to be utilised?
9. Victoria Bridge is not of sufficient strength to carry a metro.  What is the alternate plan?
10.  Is this ' metro ' just like the ' Cleveland Solution ' .  A thought bubble for now?

Please send responses to admin@backontrack.org

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Response received 9.22am 16th March 2016, thank you.

===============================

Response to Rail Back on Track

Questions on the Team Quirk's Metro Plan for Brisbane

1. How long would the trains be in meters?

Rolling stock will be custom built to suit Brisbane's existing infrastructure. It is expected that on
opening, the metro trains will have three carriages and will be approximately 50 metres long. The
number of carriages will increase in accordance with demand.

2. What passenger capacity (pax) would the trains have?

It is expected that a nominal load for a metro train with three carriages would be approximately 220
passengers. During peak periods, it would be expected that a full load could expand to
approximately 300 passengers.

3. Will the trains be powered using overhead wires or high voltage third rail?

Power would be provided from the track system.

4. Is the route set or indicative (i.e. will other alternative alignments be considered?)

The route is set.

5. How would the service fit at stations with short platforms/constraints such as Mater Hill?

All existing bus stations, including those currently with short platforms, will require varying degrees
of conversion to accommodate the metro.

6. Why are the trains manual and not automatic?

It is envisaged that the metro will operate with a driver but will also be designed for future
automatic operations.

7. The planned depot site at Woolloongabba is the site for the Cross River Rail station. What other
locations for the depot are available?

We believe that the metro infrastructure and the cross river rail station can be collocated at the
Woolloongabba site.


8. Busways are not Council infrastructure. What is the alternate plan if the busways are not able to
be utilised?

There is no apparent reason why the busways could not be used – they are certainly designed to
accommodate a mass rapid transit system.

9. Victoria Bridge is not of sufficient strength to carry a metro. What is the alternate plan?

We disagree with the opening premise of this question. A technical report investigating inner city
metro and busway conversion options was prepared for the State Government by Aurecon on 14
August 2009.

In relation to the Victoria Bridge, the report states "It should also be noted that the Metro option
does not require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge, whereas the LRT co-location option would
require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge with a significant bridge reconstruction costs allowed for
in the SEB."

10. Is this ' metro ' just like the ' Cleveland Solution ' . A thought bubble for now?

If re-elected, a Quirk Administration will be determined to deliver the project.

[ozbob]

Brisbane City Council needs to come clean and spell out the proposed capacity in the correct units.

That is passengers per hour per direction.  They are attempting subterfuge if they do not do that.

[Gazza]

At the info session they said 30,000 per direction, which seems a bit optimistic.

[ozbob]

At the info session they said 30,000 per direction, which seems a bit optimistic.

Wow!   Sydney North West Metro is 32,500 pphpd, now we are cooking with gas!! 

Very optimistic but that really is the sort of capacity capability that is needed in the end.  So much for a $1.5 billion budget though.

No way Victoria Bridge can be used - trains will need to accommodate 800-1000 pax crush. 

Need to get a much better alignment.

Span covered needs to be longer.

Starting to move into the TMR metro proposal stuff.

[Marshal]

9. Victoria Bridge is not of sufficient strength to carry a metro. What is the alternate plan?

We disagree with the opening premise of this question. A technical report investigating inner city
metro and busway conversion options was prepared for the State Government by Aurecon on 14
August 2009.

In relation to the Victoria Bridge, the report states "It should also be noted that the Metro option
does not require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge, whereas the LRT co-location option would
require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge with a significant bridge reconstruction costs allowed for
in the SEB."

Might have to dig this report up, because that really doesn't make much sense. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the standard light rail car is heavier then the standard metro car, but we'd be talking about 3 metro cars compared to 1-2 light rail cars. add in the fact that your metro will be set up to carry 3 times as many people per vehicle, the conclusion that the bridge CAN support Metro but CANNOT support LRT seems inconsistent

Thanks for posting this up here Ozbob, will be handy when I get around to writing those letters.

[ozbob]

I have been pondering over the revelation that Team Quirk is now pedalling 30,000 pphpd for the metro ..

I hope they are serious but I somehow feel it is just more cover spin.  They will need to run 1000 pax trains very 2 minutes ( or equivalent say ~750 pax trains every 90 seconds - which implies automation ) ... this is a very substantial system, probably in the order of $8 billion or so depending on length.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

30th October 2016

Copy of correspondence sent to metro@brisbane.qld.gov.au

Brisbane ' metro ' submission

Greetings,

Some of our RAIL Back On Track Members have attended the consultation sessions for the Brisbane ' Metro '

They have reported that they were told the proposed capacity is now 30,000 passengers/hour/direction (pphpd).

Can you please confirm if this is case?  A metro of that capacity is a rather substantial system of course.

To get to that capacity 1000 pax trains would have to run every two minutes, or 750 pax trains every 90 seconds - this implies automation.

Victoria Bridge and proposed alignment would not be suitable. What is your new proposed alignment?

The cost of the project would increase significantly to deliver 30,000 pphpd, probably in the order of 8 to 9 billion dollars.

We wait your response.

Thank you.

Robert Dow

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Sent to metro@brisbane.qld.gov.au

29th October 2016

Brisbane ' metro ' submission

Greetings,

Public transport must be fast, direct and frequent. The present Brisbane bus network is based on a direct service model that embeds poor service, poor frequency, poor connections, legacy routing and is becoming unaffordable. Other operators are treated as 'competitors' by BCC rather than as team players in an integrated network.

Many jurisdictions such as Auckland, Houston and Hobart have moved on with public transport network reform, delivering much better networks with more frequent service and significant patronage gains, without massive infrastructure costs.

In 2013, TransLink acting on Government direction, with the support of Transport Consultants, proposed a proper reform of the Brisbane Bus Network.  This review was not proceeded with as the then State Government lacked the resolve to do what was right in the end. What has changed since  then?  A token bus review done by BCC has just further compounded network failures.  There has also been an impact on regions outside Brisbane as cuts to services and spans, the consequence of BCC's intransigence.  Hardly equitable or decent is it? Band-aids on festering wounds just leads to rampant disease!

There is an excellent local example of how network reform benefits us all.  It is the Gold Coast.  Network reform has delivered frequent, connected bus routes to the light rail and has delivered patronage gains of over 20%.  There are lessons there for Brisbane. Passengers will transfer on a connected network.  It is how real frequency and excellent service is generated.

The Lord Mayors ' Metro ' proposal is nonsense. Brisbane might well need a ' real metro ' eventually, but the metro proposed by Team Quirk only delivers 9000 passengers/hour/direction (pphpd) but the busways move up to 15000 pphpd regularly during peaks with maximum 18,000  pphpd.  One does not spend billions of dollars to reduce the capacity of the existing public transport - it is an absurdity to put forward such a proposal. One of Brisbane's key public transport assets is the busway system.  It needs to be enhanced with proper network reform not wrecked.

What needs to happen now is bus network reform.  This will reduce the number of buses clogging up the CBD and allow more services out in the suburbs where they are really needed. It is essentially cost neutral.

Problems with the Quirk ' Metro ' as proposed:

1.  Delivers less capacity than the present busways - fatal flaw**.  Proposed metro is only a capacity of 9000 passengers/hour/direction.  Busways deliver up to 18,000 passengers/hour/direction.

2.  Is under-costed, grossly in our opinion. We challenge the Lord Mayor to sign a cost explosion indemnification agreement, guaranteeing that any cost overrun on the project ( over $1.5 BN) will be borne solely by BCC.

3.  Absolutely wrecks the inner-city busway network. Stops one station short of RBWH Hospital (to save costs?)

4.  Is very doubtful if Victoria Bridge can be used due to the significant weight of metro trains, track and electrical systems.  Use of Victoria Bridge precludes any further network improvements.

5.  Is not driverless as proposed. If changed to automatic then cost of stations etc. increases massively. Comparisons with Sydney Metro make this abundantly clear.

6.  State owns and controls the busway infrastructure.  It is unlikely that a State Government of any political persuasion would allow the busway system to be wrecked for a system that delivers less capacity than the current network!

7.  Proposed Quirk ' metro ' depot site is state owned and is actually earmarked for CRR.

The absolute minimum capacity for a train to reach the touted 30,000 passengers/hour quoted in the BCC election vote-bait material is 750 passengers per train. The Lord Mayor is suggesting trains with a capacity 2.5x lower, that is 300 passengers/train.

Bus reform, for example > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork is required, now. Bus network reform will allow time for a mature future vision and plan to be developed.

Bus network reform is essentially cost neutral, we do not have to waste billions of dollars on pipe dream schemes.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

** Quirk ' Metro ' Capacity Calculation

1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds. World's best practise train throughput is a train every 90 seconds. 3600 seconds / 90 sec = 40 trains per hour.

Therefore 30,000 passengers/hour divided by 40 trains/hour = 750 passengers per train (absolute minimum).

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro is 300 pax/train as proposed.

Run every 2 minutes (as announced in election) 30 trains / hour x 300 pax/train = 9000 passengers/hour/direction - a backward step for the network.

Even under the most extreme assumptions, the metro would have less capacity than the busway and be at capacity on opening day.

[ozbob]

Latest media: Brisbane ' metro ' submission - con continues
> https://t.co/41xEKOYxE2#qldpol@Team_Quirk @Schrinner @StirlHinchliffe pic.twitter.com/YC3L19c3hn

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 29, 2016

[mufreight]

Quirk's version of a Metro is doomed to failure given that it uses buses and even using triple articulated units could not provide the claimed capacity.
A light rail based Metro operating over a separate route away from the existing and proposed rail and bus routes, such a Metro could be fully automated but even then it would be stretching to meet the capacity figures that are being quoted by Quirk.
Time to stop flogging a dead horse and scrap the idea of a Metro for the next 30 or so years and build CRR, it may well be the case that in possibly 15 or 20 years time with CRR in place that there will be no need or justification for a Metro.

[ozbob]

^^ 4KQ News have followed up.  They too are very intrigued as why a system that was proposed as 9,000 pphpd is now 30,000 pphpd.

We are surprised which is why we are seeking clarification from BCC as to what they are actually proposing.

[Gazza]

given that it uses buses

Not quite, they are proposing Montreal/Paris/Lyon style rolling stock.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRysVHR4GYcXBpVsilJ_ZISqvi3FB2BrfZ9Y-desW5HhW45GoRUHg3ug70fOA

[ozbob]

I don't have any major issues with rubber-tyre metro trains as such.  In fact we suggested that would be needed to be considered in the B of BaT if it was ever going to be a long term success.

==================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro#Advantages


Rubber-tyres have higher rolling resistance when compared to traditional steel wheels, which leads to some advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages

Compared to steel wheel on steel rail, the advantages of rubber-tyred metro systems are:

    Smoother rides (with little jostling around).[4]
    Faster acceleration and higher speed, along with the ability to climb or descend steeper slopes (~gradient 13%) than would be feasible with conventional rail tracks, which would likely need a rack instead.[1]
        For example, the rubber-tyred Line 2 of the Lausanne Metro has grades of up to 12%.[5]
    Shorter braking distances, allowing trains to be signalled closer together.
    Quieter rides in open air (both inside and outside the train).[citation needed]
    Greatly reduced rail wear with resulting reduced maintenance costs of those parts.

Disadvantages

The higher friction and increased rolling resistance cause disadvantages (compared to steel wheel on steel rail):

    Higher energy consumption.
    Possibility of tyre blow-outs - not possible in railway wheels.
    Hotter operation.
    Weather variance. (Applicable only to above-ground installations)
        Loss of the traction-advantage in inclement weather (snow and ice).[2]
    Heavier as steel rails remain for switching purposes, to provide electricity or grounding to the trains and as a safety backup.[3]
    Tyre replacement cost; contrary to rails using steel wheels, which can be easily repaired at little cost. [4]
    Creation of air pollution; tyres break down over time and turn into particulate matter, which can be dangerous.[citation needed]

Notes

    ^ Rubber-tyred wheels have better adhesion than traditional rail wheels. However, modern steel-on-steel rolling stock using distributed-traction with a high-proportion of powered axles, have narrowed the gap to the performance found in rubber-tyred rolling stock.
    ^ In order to reduce weather disruption, the Montreal Metro runs completely underground. On Paris Métro Line 6, upgrades of tyres (as used with cars) and special ribbed tracks have been tried out. The southernmost section of the Sapporo Municipal Subway Namboku Line is also elevated, but is covered by an aluminum shelter to reduce weather disruption.
    ^ In effect, there are two systems running in parallel so it is more expensive to build, install and maintain.
    ^ Since rubber tyres have higher wear rates, they need more frequent replacement. Although steel wheels set is more expensive than tyres, the frequency of their respective replacements makes rubber tyres the more expensive option. Rubber tyres for guidance are needed.

Although it is a more complex technology, most rubber-tyred metro systems use quite simple techniques, in contrary to guided buses. Heat dissipation is an issue as eventually all traction energy consumed by the train — except the electric energy regenerated back into the substation during electrodynamic braking — will end up in losses (mostly heat). In frequently operated tunnels (typical metro operation) the extra heat from rubber tyres is a widespread problem, necessitating ventilation of the tunnels.

[Gazza]

Re the bridge supporting Metro but not LRT, isn't to do with individual axle loads? Anyway, seems a bit odd to me, maybe something else the BCC can shed some light on.

[Gazza]

Wasnt my proposal for routing a future metro another way supposed to be roasted by now  :conf

[aldonius]

Wasnt my proposal for routing a future metro another way supposed to be roasted by now  :conf

Past You...

I cant be bothered digging up the post I made, but basically the idea ive had for a while is to do CRR as double deck,
with a 1.5km tunnel linking Greenslopes busway to Park Road, with everything south of Greenslopes as Metro.

The old busway north of that would be retained, and would exist only for buses to UQ and Carindale and Wooloongabba

[Gazza]

I think since then when projects like the Sydney metro have firmed up to follow new routings I've gotten onboard with routes servicing new markets wherever possible. The possible construction cost savings outweigh the loss in benefits.
Back in Jan the quirk metro wasn't a thing either.

[aldonius]

Back in Jan the quirk metro wasn't a thing either.

There's an indicative route for the proposal on the first page of this thread, and I've quoted you from the second page (later that day)...

[ozbob]

Deputy Mayor Adrian @Schrinner has revealed in a BCC committee meeting the council is considering a driverless Brisbane Metro. #bnepol

— Cameron Atfield (@CameronAtfield) October 31, 2016