LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane Metro could be driverless under one option

The proposed Brisbane Metro could be fully automated, with no need for any drivers to operate the public transport system, under one option under active consideration by the Brisbane City Council.

Deputy mayor Adrian Schrinner, who was overseeing the project, said a driverless metro was one solution to the lack of a suitable stabling yard, after the state government declared the council's preferred Go Print site option off limits.

In a public transport committee meeting on Tuesday morning, Labor councillor Jared Cassidy noted that Lord Mayor Graham Quirk had conceded the Go Print site at Woolloongabba could not be used as a Brisbane Metro stabling yard and asked what other sites were being considered.

That led to Cr Schrinner's revelation that a driverless metro was being considered.

"We are acknowledging that, for stabling purposes, the site is out of bounds from a state perspective," he said.

"I can say, in terms of stabling, you can look at it in a couple of different ways. One of those is where is another sizable site to stable metro trains? Alternatively, you could ask what alternative options are there when it comes to stabling?

"I can say, while no decision has been made, there are opportunities for on-track stabling and that would require the metro trains to be fully automatic, so driverless trains.

"If you went to driverless trains, then you could do on-track stabling, so obviously we're looking at that option at the moment."

When Cr Cassidy questioned the additional cost of such an approach, Cr Schrinner said it could end up being cheaper over the life of the Brisbane Metro.

"For example with Brisbane Transport, paying drivers makes up around 40 per cent of our entire budget each year," Cr Schrinner said.

"So if you look at it in terms of capital costs, yes, maybe there is an up-front expense.

"The whole-of-life cost, or over the life of any contract, there could be significant reasons to go to driverless."

Comment has been sought from the Rail Tram and Bus Union.

While stabling at the Go Print site was off-limits to the Brisbane Metro, Cr Schrinner said a portion of the land would still be required for the Quirk administration's flagship project.

"We understand that the Go Print site won't be available for stabling, however a portion of the site will be required for a (metro) station," he said.

"Where the Woolloongabba bus station is at the moment, there will need to be modifications to accommodate the metro, so there will be some of the site required for the station."

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week linked $10 million in federal Cross River Rail funding to incorporating the Liberal National Party council administration's Brisbane Metro plan.

[Derwan]

Wow.... an epiphany!

[Gazza]

Im guessing they'd squeeze whatever maintenance shops are needed into the Countess St and Gabba layover areas?

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Brisbane City Council considers using driverless trains

BRISBANE'S public transport boss has revealed council are investigating the use of driverless trains in an effort to overcome a significant design hurdle.

Councillor Adrian Schrinner made the announcement during a public transport committee meeting today after he was asked what other locations council were considering after the State Government ruled out Woolloongabba's Go Print site for use.

Council had hoped to secure part of the land to use as a stabling yard for the Metro's rolling stock.

Lord Mayor last week conceded in the council meeting that the site was no longer part of council's plan to get the rapid-system off the ground.

At the committee meeting today, Cr Schrinner said he understood the state-owned land was unavailable for a stabling yard.

"However, we believe a portion of the Go Print site will be required for a station," Cr Schrinner said.

"Where the Woolloongabba bus station is at the moment, there will need to be modifications to that to accommodate the Metro."

The Metro project forms part of an LNP election commitment to build the rubber-tyred system between Woolloongabba in the city's south and Herston in the north. It would use part of the existing busway route.

Cr Schrinner said there were several options for stabling the Metro's rolling stock, including finding another large site, or using "on-track stabling".

"That would require the Metro trains to be fully automatic — so driverless trains," Cr Schrinner said.

"If you went to driverless trains, than you could do on-track stabling, so obviously we're looking at that option at the moment, and no decision has been made but we're investigating all the possibilities."

Cr Schrinner said the trains would be more expensive but it could be more economical if a whole-of-life cost analysis was performed because savings would be made on wages.

"This is something that's being used around the world in many situations," Cr Shrinner said. "It's not new. It's been tried and tested."

He said engineers were working on the plans after the project was floated during the March local election campaign.

"There were no engineers that had designed plans at that stage — just like there were no engineers that designed the light-rail system between Newstead and West End," Cr Schrinner said, referring to Labor's light-rail election proposal. "It was a concept plan."

He said it was all part of following due process as plans changed for major projects as they progressed through the business case.

[ozbob]

Becoming increasingly clear the Quirk metro as proposed was nonsense.

Automated is a no-brainer for any metro these days.  The initial cost though will rise significantly but that can be justified on the much lower operating costs and better frequency.  My guess is there has been bit of seismic shift as the serious work highlights that to justify a metro big changes are needed from the original nonsense.

[HappyTrainGuy]

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

I was going to reply with a joke but I can't remember what it was that I said ie in reference to every time I visit every proposed media release has about 20 alterations sometimes across multiple threads and by the time I catch up its changed once again

[#Metro]

Well well well...

    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

How embarrassing. So after all that incessant questioning, it is dramatically revealed that the idea was originally yours.

I no longer have time for nonsense like this. Quit wasting my time.

Should I respond to your questions? No. The picking could go on forever.

I have my private proposal. It is not changing. I am going to stand up for it. I stand up for what I believe in.

And I have the courtesy to draw up what I am talking about.

Find someone else to annoy. People are free to disagree and promote their own alternatives.
Something I strongly encourage.

PS: And I can only wonder about projects that don't connect at Roma Street (double interchange required?), ignore the S1 sewer,
skyscraper foundations, and somehow ignore the fact that the tunnel as drawn intersects or tunnels through the Cross River Rail tunnel.



And for those who say DTMR looked at CRR and decided the route, so we should just keep it. Well, that same organisation
looked into that at a later time and decided that doing two projects separately wasn't a great idea.

"Significant savings could be realised by combining new inner city bus and train infrastructure into one project"

"Constructing separate heavy rail and bus projects had significant costs and construction impacts that made separate projects unfeasible"



I'll leave it at that. I really do not have anything further to say about this.

[ozbob]

Any more discussion in this thread is to relate to the proposed Quirk Metro.

Anything else I will remove.

Respect other views and just leave it at that thanks.

[OzGamer]

Does anybody know what the proposed interchange arrangements at Herston are supposed to be? Is RBWH station going to remain for buses and then all buses go around the corner and stop on Herston Road in front of the medical school so everyone can walk across to the metro platform? I can't really picture how it's supposed to work.

[ozbob]

^ no detail at all yet at least publicly.  They are making this up as they go along to a degree ..

It really needs to go further out IMHO.

[OzGamer]

^ no detail at all yet at least publicly.  They are making this up as they go along to a degree ..

It really needs to go further out IMHO.

I agree, why wouldn't you send it to Federation Street at least, then buses could stop on Gympie Road and continue towards the valley or people could interchange for the metro.

[ozbob]

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro-subway-system

BCC Brisbane Metro Subway System

Latest newsletter available .. and industry briefing ..

[aldonius]

Careful avoidance as per usual of any mention that the busways are State owned and State controlled...

[verbatim9]

I think that's kinda cool that a Driverless Metro can just stable on track mid tunnel as mentioned in the articles

[bcasey]

^ no detail at all yet at least publicly.  They are making this up as they go along to a degree ..

It really needs to go further out IMHO.

I agree, why wouldn't you send it to Federation Street at least, then buses could stop on Gympie Road and continue towards the valley or people could interchange for the metro.

Would the RBWH station be Metro only in this case, or would there be additional platforms for buses. I don't really see how there could be enough room for both modes to co-exist, it would require significant work to be done on the bus overpass and the station to expand the width and load-carrying capacity. Maybe that is why they are planning on having the metro terminate at Herston, since they are concerned about whether the overpass will be able to carry the extra weight. There is also a significant incline there as well, and some very tight bends.

I see one issue with having the interchange at the Federation Street stop, in that any bus that uses the Airport Link tunnel (like the 341) will not be able to interchange with the Metro. One solution would be to have stops on either side of Bowen Bridge Road near the RBWH for these express services, it just wouldn't be a proper interchange station to allow for easy transfers. Of course, hopefully the bus network would have a significant reform, and thus this might not be an issue if no routes are sent through the Airport Link tunnel.

[Gazza]

I see one issue with having the interchange at the Federation Street stop, in that any bus that uses the Airport Link tunnel (like the 341) will not be able to interchange with the Metro. One solution would be to have stops on either side of Bowen Bridge Road near the RBWH for these express services, it just wouldn't be a proper interchange station to allow for easy transfers. Of course, hopefully the bus network would have a significant reform, and thus this might not be an issue if no routes are sent through the Airport Link tunnel.

I suppose at Federation street you could squeeze in an interchange on that bit of park nobody uses between the stop and lutwyche rd.

Would there be much need for via Airport link route in the future. I'd hope down the track those routes would be interchanging with the Redcliffe Line....I mean if they are gonna interchange anyway, might as well do it further out.

it is dramatically revealed that the idea was originally yours.

Yes, but reversed my position when new information became available.

PS: And I can only wonder about projects that don't connect at Roma Street (double interchange required?)

Connect at Central, and Gabba.

and somehow ignore the fact that the tunnel as drawn intersects or tunnels through the Cross River Rail tunnel.

Lol, tunnels often go under and over each other. European and asian cities would be stuffed if they didnt do this.
The new rail tunnel in melbourne will go under the city loop tunnels.

[bcasey]

I see one issue with having the interchange at the Federation Street stop, in that any bus that uses the Airport Link tunnel (like the 341) will not be able to interchange with the Metro. One solution would be to have stops on either side of Bowen Bridge Road near the RBWH for these express services, it just wouldn't be a proper interchange station to allow for easy transfers. Of course, hopefully the bus network would have a significant reform, and thus this might not be an issue if no routes are sent through the Airport Link tunnel.

I suppose at Federation street you could squeeze in an interchange on that bit of park nobody uses between the stop and lutwyche rd.

Would there be much need for via Airport link route in the future. I'd hope down the track those routes would be interchanging with the Redcliffe Line....I mean if they are gonna interchange anyway, might as well do it further out.

I was more thinking about the buses that make use of the tunnel between the gympie road entrance and the bowen bridge road exit, and vice versa, as opposed to using the entire length of the tunnel from sandgate road to bowen bridge road. They are usually expresses that stop near Chermside Shopping centre, then goes straight through the tunnel and stops at the RBWH, avoiding all of the stops on the northern busway and several traffic lights on lutwyche road/bowen bridge road.

I personally tend to take the 341 in the morning if it comes before or soon after the 340 at Aspley. While it doesn't avoid the congestion on gympie road near the shopping centre, going through the tunnel makes up for that and I can usually make an earlier train at Roma Street after transferring to a bus from the RBWH. Not to mention it is less packed than the peak hour 340. The 341 doesn't come near the railway line until the very end/very start of the route, at Carseldine. I know the 330 also takes the tunnel, but I'm not sure if there are other routes that do.

Of course, if the bus network is significantly reformed as a result of the Metro, this is kind of a moot point, since it would be less likely that a bus would be sent through the tunnel if they miss the interchange assuming it would be at Federation Street.

Another issue with having an interchange at Federation Street would be the fact that it could work ok inbound, but doesn't really work outbound if buses cannot use the overpass that is currently there.

[OzGamer]

^ no detail at all yet at least publicly.  They are making this up as they go along to a degree ..

It really needs to go further out IMHO.

I agree, why wouldn't you send it to Federation Street at least, then buses could stop on Gympie Road and continue towards the valley or people could interchange for the metro.

Would the RBWH station be Metro only in this case, or would there be additional platforms for buses. I don't really see how there could be enough room for both modes to co-exist, it would require significant work to be done on the bus overpass and the station to expand the width and load-carrying capacity. Maybe that is why they are planning on having the metro terminate at Herston, since they are concerned about whether the overpass will be able to carry the extra weight. There is also a significant incline there as well, and some very tight bends.

It would mean RBWH and the whole overpass of Lutwyche Rd would be metro only. This is on the assumption that they are all capable of conversion which should be the case given how much they spent on it less than ten years ago.

I see one issue with having the interchange at the Federation Street stop, in that any bus that uses the Airport Link tunnel (like the 341) will not be able to interchange with the Metro. One solution would be to have stops on either side of Bowen Bridge Road near the RBWH for these express services, it just wouldn't be a proper interchange station to allow for easy transfers. Of course, hopefully the bus network would have a significant reform, and thus this might not be an issue if no routes are sent through the Airport Link tunnel.

The 341 and 331 are peak only rockets that are designed for single seat direct trips into the city and so are not candidates for connection anyway. The regular all day services (333, 340, 370 etc) would be the ones which would be designed for interchanging with metro. Note that I am not a fan of this whole concept but am trying to constructively think how it could work.

[HappyTrainGuy]

None of this is actually needed. Rockets on the northside should not even exist. Just fix the bus network. Establish proper city corridors for buses. Invest more into interchanges and invest more into heavy rail. Simple.

[OzGamer]

None of this is actually needed. Rockets on the northside should not even exist. Just fix the bus network. Establish proper city corridors for buses. Invest more into interchanges and invest more into heavy rail. Simple.

I tend to agree, but it's worth trying to understand how the metro proposal could actually work.

[HappyTrainGuy]

None of this is actually needed. Rockets on the northside should not even exist. Just fix the bus network. Establish proper city corridors for buses. Invest more into interchanges and invest more into heavy rail. Simple.

I tend to agree, but it's worth trying to understand how the metro proposal could actually work.

Not very good 

[ozbob]

Waaahaaaa "Metro interchanges will transfer bus passengers" said Lord Mayor Graham Quirk

Mr Anti-transfer has a bad case of double-think !

Meanwhile ..

Is this true @StirlHinchliffe @AnnastaciaMP @TimNichollsMP re bonuses for @QueenslandRail ?
If so I am appalled#qldpol
Today's Sunday Mail pic.twitter.com/thbgSPhu91

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) November 12, 2016

[Marshal]

I recently completed my under graduate project on equity in transit supply. Unsurprisingly one of the issues that arouse was that Brisbane City Council is significantly less equitable in it's distribution of transit supply compared to the surrounding councils. Unsurprisingly, the way they handle their bus services seems to be a major contributor (along side the smaller councils being arguably less centralised within their own borders).

So a very quick look at the bus routes show that of the 214 bus routes in the city, 138 are CBD based (about 64.5%).
In Logan it's 16 of 46 services (34.8%), and of that 16 four are actually BCC services that extend into Logan, and three are peak only.
Ipswich has just 2 of 18 (11.1%) with one of those being BCC (18 seems an awfully low number of routes though, so I need to go back over this)
Moreton Bay has just 3 of 51 routes (5.9%), all 3 being BCC routes that primarily serve Brisbane.
Redlands is a bit odd, as I think BCC may run all the routes, couldn't find a clear answer at this time, but 13 of 36 (36.1%) run to the CBD.

The non CBD bound routes all feed to either secondary centres within SEQ or too trunk routes, such as the rail lines or bus stations.

So yeah, not really a great vote of confidence in BCC's ability to utilise transfers. If Quirk really believes he can have the metro based on mass transfers at the Gabba and Herston, then surely that same logic could be applied to the entire BCC network, and we could have a far more efficient system altogether.

[verbatim9]

Brisbanedevelopment.com Calls for an East West Metro line for Brisbane - named the Blue Line ---->

https://brisbanedevelopment.com/brisbane-needs-an-east-west-mass-rapid-transit/

[kram0]

Brisbanedevelopment.com Calls for an East West Metro line for Brisbane - named the Blue Line ---->

https://brisbanedevelopment.com/brisbane-needs-an-east-west-mass-rapid-transit/

This is a great idea, shame we can't get a government to start the projects that we have been planning for 10+ years let alone the vision to start this.

[ozbob]

East <> West Metro is actually TMR's metro plan.

[ozbob]

No response received another than an acknowledgement of receipt on 31st October 2016 8.55am.

I have emailed again indicating no response received to my questions ..

Hey ho ...

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.

[#Metro]

The way transport is run mismanaged in this state by State and Local agencies is a terrible marvel.

[ozbob]

Waiting metro@brisbane.qld.gov.au - will not wait forever ... 

Quack!

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Brisbane metro could be taken over by state authority

BRISBANE City Council's Metro rapid-transit system could be taken over by the state authority set up to deliver Cross River Rail.

A state parliamentary committee report into the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Bill 2016, released on Thursday, stated it was possible the $1.5 billion Metro project could be declared as a "transport-related project" and fall under the control of the Authority once it was established.

But Acting Infrastructure Minister Mark Bailey said the Authority was unlikely to ever take over the council project.

"Brisbane Metro is a council-led project, it is their responsibility and we have no intention to take control of it," he said.

"The Brisbane Metro business case has only just commenced development and if the project stacks up, it is fundamental the two projects are complementary to one another."

However, the committee report stated the Authority could recommend taking control of the Metro to the Minister after the business case was completed.

Deputy Mayor Adrian Schrinner said the Metro would relieve bus congestion and was a project supported by voters at this year's council election.

"Lord Mayor Graham Quirk has committed to deliver this project and people want us to keep building the necessary infrastructure to keep this city moving," he said.

The Metro project includes converting sections of the South East and Northern Busways to provide high-frequency services ­between Herston and Woolloongabba, using rubber-tyred train carriages.

The Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, released a report into the Bill but could not determine whether it should be passed.

The two LNP committee members – Cleveland MP Mark Robinson and Warrego MP Ann Leahy – said the Bill should not pass because it was an "interventionist approach to planning". Katter's Australian Party committee member Dalrymple MP told The Courier-Mail he had concerns about the $50 million cost of setting up the Authority.

Committee chair and Mirani MP Jim Pearce along with the two fellow government members – Keppel MP Brittany Lauga and Baron River MP Craig Crawford – supported the Bill being passed.

more nonsense I am afraid ...  Brisbane is really rooted hey? 

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

3rd December 2016

Brisbane ' Metro ' unable to explain the sham

Good Morning,

On the 29th & 30th October 2016 I submitted a serious of questions and observations concerning the proposed Brisbane ' Metro ' (copy below).

I received an acknowledgement of receipt on the 31st October 2016.

I emailed again on the 21st November 2016 requesting a response.

As of writing today no response received.

This shows that the Brisbane ' Metro ' as proposed is a sham and a profligate waste of public funds.

Are they unable to provide satisfactory responses to our queries? Is this proposed Metro a case of making it up as they go along?

I think the non response confirms the Brisbane ' Metro ' as proposed is an absolute nonsense.

Best wishes

Robert

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

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

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

No response received another than an acknowledgement of receipt on 31st October 2016 8.55am.

I have emailed again indicating no response received to my questions ..

Hey ho ...

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]

Media: &#39; Brisbane &#39; Metro &#39; unable to explain the sham &#39;
> https://t.co/n3BgxhVNyl#qldpol@Team_Quirk @Schrinner @StirlHinchliffe pic.twitter.com/bmkHRitj2U

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) December 2, 2016

[#Metro]

We know from math that the train must carry at least 1000 passengers.

If we assume that each passenger is 85 kg, then that is 85 000 kilos (85 tonnes). Add in tracks and the carriage weight, you are looking at

around 170 tonnes. Can the Victoria Bridge sustain that kind of load? What are the engineering specs for the Victoria Bridge?


This whole setup is starting to look like a French rubber tyre bus-tram. They haven't denied it. Maybe we have to push them to rule it out or not.

Note: It is not possible to disprove an ill-defined thing. No doubt that they will be as vague and light on detail as humanly possible for as

long as possible. 'Metro' could mean anything depending on how it is defined. Just look at Adelaide, whole system is called "Metro".

Melbourne has the "Metro" tunnel, despite the fact that it is a commuter rail tunnel. Hobart's buses are operated by "Metro" (perhaps

infringing on MTR Melbourne's IP there).

[ozbob]

They are making it up as they go along.  It is an absurdity I am afraid.

[SurfRail]

Hobart's buses are operated by "Metro" (perhaps infringing on MTR Melbourne's IP there).

I can guarantee there is more chance that you are than Metro Tas is.

[verbatim9]

We know from math that the train must carry at least 1000 passengers.

If we assume that each passenger is 85 kg, then that is 85 000 kilos (85 tonnes). Add in tracks and the carriage weight, you are looking at

around 170 tonnes. Can the Victoria Bridge sustain that kind of load? What are the engineering specs for the Victoria Bridge?


This whole setup is starting to look like a French rubber tyre bus-tram. They haven't denied it. Maybe we have to push them to rule it out or not.

Note: It is not possible to disprove an ill-defined thing. No doubt that they will be as vague and light on detail as humanly possible for as

long as possible. 'Metro' could mean anything depending on how it is defined. Just look at Adelaide, whole system is called "Metro".

Melbourne has the "Metro" tunnel, despite the fact that it is a commuter rail tunnel. Hobart's buses are operated by "Metro" (perhaps

infringing on MTR Melbourne's IP there).

They are making it up as they go along.  It is an absurdity I am afraid.

It might need to be tunnelled under the river in the end? The info session informed me at the Gabba that alignments are still being looked at and the preferred one was over the bridge due to costs. Yet nothing has been ruled out. Information and emails from the public, I was told were being collated and the final draft alignment released in March/April for public/community consultation, prior to a construction date.

[verbatim9]

Nice video simulation on Brisbane Development Facebook page re (East West Link Blue line)

[ozbob]

Some of our members were told that the capacity will be ' 30,000 pphpd '.

They have not confirmed my questions on that point.   This is the critical issue.  We all know a metro that will achieve 30,000 pphpd is a real metro and will certainly cost a lot more than $1.5 billion, more like $8+ billion. 

Just nonsense the Quirk metro as proposed.

A real East<>West metro makes a lot more sense.

[Marshal]

It might need to be tunnelled under the river in the end? The info session informed me at the Gabba that alignments are still being looked at and the preferred one was over the bridge due to costs. Yet nothing has been ruled out. Information and emails from the public, I was told were being collated and the final draft alignment released in March/April for public/community consultation, prior to a construction date.

It's already looking like an expensive, disrupted project to barely match the current capacity of the existing infrastructure it will replace (if we are being generous). If they have to tunnel under the river the cost gets crazy.

On the bright side we'd retain more of the busway for busses, so less of a killer on the capacity, but if you have to build an entirely new river tunnel, an entirely new cultural centre station and an entirely new Queen street mall station, at what point do you acknowledge that there is no significant advantage to using the existing busway infrastructure at all?

What are some basic criteria we can use to determine if the busway infrastructure is worth co-opting for a metro?
1: Improve capacity (Claimed to be better, failed to demonstrate how, seems likely to be less, so that's a no for now)
2: Improve efficiency (an argument I've seen is that while the metro may not improve capacity directly, the ease of running it compared to multiple buses may indirectly improve the system through efficiency....not entirely convinced myself, but this is exactly dependent on using the busway so call it a wash)
3: Lowered construction cost (if we need a full tunnel under the river then it seems highly unlikely the savings will be worth it)
4: Transport resources freed up (as in the busses no longer needed to service inner city areas. Question is, does using the busways free up more bus resources then using a new corridor and if so, is it enough more to justify it?

I'll be interested to see what State LNP has to say on the issue (linked with CRR prob) this coming election. If they had any sense they would not act as if it is their own project just because they are also LNP, but I expect they will support it purely on the basis of it being a Council LNP project. Don't wanna get to political, but in the current political environment, politicians putting their parties ahead of actually serving the public has been a death knell for those politicians. The best thing the State LNP can do is offer real opinions and criticisms on the Metro and criticise the ability of labor to produce CRR while promising the they will actually deliver CRR rather then attacking CRR itself and dumping it. The core idea of increasing inner city transport capacity is clearly bipartisan, its time to agree on the method and argue about who can actually deliver instead.

[#Metro]

It might need to be tunnelled under the river in the end? The info session informed me at the Gabba that alignments are still being looked at and the preferred one was over the bridge due to costs. Yet nothing has been ruled out. Information and emails from the public, I was told were being collated and the final draft alignment released in March/April for public/community consultation, prior to a construction date.

This is great! There is only so long BCC can hide behind "we are thinking/consulting/blah" about it. At some point people will ask how it will cross the Brisbane River.

I think the metro, as proposed, will break the Victoria Bridge. When BCC did the LRT assessment in 2007 Mass Transit Report, they included a new bridge (Adelaide St Bridge) as they claimed that the current Victoria Bridge could not handle the loads. So why would a metro be any different (perhaps it is not a real metro then but a French Bus-Tram?)

On the bright side we'd retain more of the busway for busses, so less of a killer on the capacity, but if you have to build an entirely new river tunnel, an entirely new cultural centre station and an entirely new Queen street mall station, at what point do you acknowledge that there is no significant advantage to using the existing busway infrastructure at all?

They don't want to look at other options because an assessment of that might tell them something they don't want to hear. That's why the alignment was "chosen" at the start by fiat rather than assessing multiple potential alternative alignments and then selecting the top two or three. BCC has never ever publicly released an alternative alignment options study, and my guess is they haven't done this because there isn't one!

They can't hide behind "Oh, when we said 30 000 passengers/hour, we really meant 15 000 passengers in two directions" because that capacity is the CURRENT busway capacity. Why spend $3-6 BN on replacing rubber tyres with steel wheels and no overall increase in capacity? Almost as crazy as replacing the Blue CityGlider with trams.

Should also look at just putting the metro with CRR in the same tunnel or parallel to it.