LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[BrizCommuter]

As an aside, I think it will be a bit of disaster for us here in the inner west.

Looks like:
- the maroon glider will be cut.
- the buses that currently use the busway from roma st will all be sent the long way around to adelaide st (why the 379/380/381 can take ages longer in peak).
- and the 385 BUZ will be off the busway doing the long north quay loop around to adelaide st as well.

With the lateral cross suburb glider gone it will be all buses to the city again....back to taking up to 1 hour to travel from Paddington into the city and back out to Ashgrove again (and vice versa). Currently takes 5 minutes cross suburb on the glider.

I guess those on musgrave/waterworks rd living in one of the most dense parts of suburban Brisbane have to be happy with the 380/381 pair bringing the dazzling off peak frequency of a bus every 30 minutes going round the houses just to travel to a city 2 to 4km away. Useless.

Agree, it'll back to bad old days of buses getting stuck in CBD traffic for some bus routes. A step backwards. This Metro idea causes more issues than what it solves.

[petey3801]

Just completed an interview with 7 News at Goodna Rail.  Just as about to start a mini-super-storm cell with a mini tornado of sorts came through.

I jumped up onto the seat in the bus shelter, managed to keep top half dry. If I make the cut, won't look like a drowned rat.

Must be an omen, the winds of change ..

See the things we have to go through?   

I got caught in that on the way to work! Was a pretty nasty little cell, that's for sure!

[Golliwog]

As an aside, I think it will be a bit of disaster for us here in the inner west.

Looks like:
- the maroon glider will be cut.
- the buses that currently use the busway from roma st will all be sent the long way around to adelaide st (why the 379/380/381 can take ages longer in peak).
- and the 385 BUZ will be off the busway doing the long north quay loop around to adelaide st as well.

With the lateral cross suburb glider gone it will be all buses to the city again....back to taking up to 1 hour to travel from Paddington into the city and back out to Ashgrove again (and vice versa). Currently takes 5 minutes cross suburb on the glider.

I guess those on musgrave/waterworks rd living in one of the most dense parts of suburban Brisbane have to be happy with the 380/381 pair bringing the dazzling off peak frequency of a bus every 30 minutes going round the houses just to travel to a city 2 to 4km away. Useless.

This is why I'm not a fan of the metro idea as it currently stands. You're knocking out all the benefits of the INB and inner SE Busway. Yes it would resolve the issues at CC, but so would restructuring the bus routes that use the busway to maximise the number of passengers per bus, unlike the current situation.

This also smells like a back of the envelope plan to me. Council/TMR just spent who knows how much widening/fixing up the Melbourne St busway portal, under this plan, that portal will get closed off. Excellent use of ratepayer/taxpayer $$ that was....

The other thing of course is that the busway corridor is entirely State controlled, so State can say get stuffed and that's this plan done for.

[#Metro]

This is why I'm not a fan of the metro idea as it currently stands. You're knocking out all the benefits of the INB and inner SE Busway. Yes it would resolve the issues at CC, but so would restructuring the bus routes that use the busway to maximise the number of passengers per bus, unlike the current situation.

This also smells like a back of the envelope plan to me. Council/TMR just spent who knows how much widening/fixing up the Melbourne St busway portal, under this plan, that portal will get closed off. Excellent use of ratepayer/taxpayer $$ that was....

The other thing of course is that the busway corridor is entirely State controlled, so State can say get stuffed and that's this plan done for.

If the metro went in a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, this problem would be less.

[#Metro]

With the lateral cross suburb glider gone it will be all buses to the city again....back to taking up to 1 hour to travel from Paddington into the city and back out to Ashgrove again (and vice versa). Currently takes 5 minutes cross suburb on the glider.

I guess those on musgrave/waterworks rd living in one of the most dense parts of suburban Brisbane have to be happy with the 380/381 pair bringing the dazzling off peak frequency of a bus every 30 minutes going round the houses just to travel to a city 2 to 4km away. Useless.

I remember a time when the INB did not exist. Shock horror!!

[verbatim9]

Yeah not keen on the alignment. We should be investigating LRT converted shared busways and also having a grade seperated underground driverless metro.
(When is CRR study going to be released?)

[#Metro]

We should be investigating LRT converted shared busways

We have been through this already - there is no benefit to installing LRT on the busway. The capacity is the same as what we have already.

[newbris]

With the lateral cross suburb glider gone it will be all buses to the city again....back to taking up to 1 hour to travel from Paddington into the city and back out to Ashgrove again (and vice versa). Currently takes 5 minutes cross suburb on the glider.

I guess those on musgrave/waterworks rd living in one of the most dense parts of suburban Brisbane have to be happy with the 380/381 pair bringing the dazzling off peak frequency of a bus every 30 minutes going round the houses just to travel to a city 2 to 4km away. Useless.

I remember a time when the INB did not exist. Shock horror!!

Yes, it still doesn't exist for some routes (eg 380, 381)....and that unfortunately makes them far poorer than the routes that use it. Under this plan all the routes will be stuffed up instead of just some of them.

[#Metro]

All the bus routes are going to be stuffed up anyway because the entire bus system will collapse and block up from congestion.

[newbris]

All the bus routes are going to be stuffed up anyway because the entire bus system will collapse and block up from congestion.

Sure, this seems a silly solution to that problem...ruining existing infra to just shift it a few kms while still paying bus wages for same train competing services.

[#Metro]

If you have a perfect, flawless solution, let's hear it.

You have to remember, nothing in this world is perfect. Look at the Gold Coast Light Rail. There you had a bus system that went from one end of the Gold Coast, to the other end of the Gold Coast.

Now, you put in Light Rail. Suddenly, you get off the train, get on a bus, get off the bus on to a tram, then take the tram and get off the tram and catch another bus if you want to get to the other end of the GC.

The extension of the LRT to Helensvale will allow removal of one of these interchange steps, but not the other one.

A similar situation arises in the Brisbane case. Those buses may have to run along Roma St and terminate approaching King George Square.

I remember a time when the 345 was BUZzed. It stopped in Adelaide St. The 385 used to leave from the side of Albert St and Adelaide St.

Things change. Embrace it.

[verbatim9]

Couriermail -->  Bipartisanship a must when looking at future of Brisbane public transport -->

  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bipartisanship-a-must-when-looking-at-future-of-brisbane-public-transport/news-story/9a07c063100f7ef3b2566fc586a23809

[newbris]

If you have a perfect, flawless solution, let's hear it.

If I had a flawless solution I wouldn't be on here trying to learn things I would be making big bucks as a transport specialist. Appreciate if you skipped comments like this as I find them aggressive for no purpose but to bully an argument through.

You have to remember, nothing in this world is perfect. Look at the Gold Coast Light Rail. There you had a bus system that went from one end of the Gold Coast, to the other end of the Gold Coast.

Now, you put in Light Rail. Suddenly, you get off the train, get on a bus, get off the bus on to a tram, then take the tram and get off the tram and catch another bus if you want to get to the other end of the GC.

The extension of the LRT to Helensvale will allow removal of one of these interchange steps, but not the other one.

A similar situation arises in the Brisbane case. Those buses may have to run along Roma St and terminate approaching King George Square.

I remember a time when the 345 was BUZzed. It stopped in Adelaide St. The 385 used to leave from the side of Albert St and Adelaide St.

The buses are going to Adelaide St according to the map Quirk showed. I'm not really sure what your argument is in that lot of text. Inconvenience can happen when systems change. Sure, I'm not dim. I thought the discussion was whether this was a better plan than another one. Didn't realise you had decided it for us already.

Things change. Embrace it.

Again, just patronising for no reason. I'm happy to embrace a change that makes sense. Struggling to see the sense in this and thought people who knew something might be able to enlightenment me, rather than lecture me on change mgt.

[#Metro]

What is your alternative?

[#Metro]

Couriermail -->  Bipartisanship a must when looking at future of Brisbane public transport -->

  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bipartisanship-a-must-when-looking-at-future-of-brisbane-public-transport/news-story/9a07c063100f7ef3b2566fc586a23809

This sounds like a Peter Quick article, he writes good stuff. Don't have a CM subscription and won't be funding Murdoch anytime soon 

[newbris]

What is your alternative?

Listen and learn from people who understand transport, put in my 1.5 cents worth about my local area which is all I can contribute with much knowledge, and then support, spread and lobby for the ideas/amendments the group comes up with after they have been respectfully discussed and well argued for.

[#Metro]

Listen and learn from people who understand transport, put in my 1.5 cents worth about my local area which is all I can contribute with much knowledge, and then support, spread and lobby for the ideas/amendments the group comes up with after they have been respectfully discussed and well argued for.

Sure, I'm all for that. You are right that a metro is going to break journeys that go from say, Ashgrove to Stones Corner. I don't really see what can be done about that.

There will be sacrifices.

[newbris]

From reading on here over the years the things that seem odd in this plan:

- the metro line doesn't seem long enough...it forces the buses to go almost the whole way they are already going so bus driver wages will be almost the same.

- All the buses will still bypass feeding into suburban train/busway nodes and will still come right near the city competing with trains.

- Short, close to the city routes will be forced into transfers when transfers are more suited to longer routes.

- Large interchanges will need to be made on expensive inner city land and then when the system is extended out they will become useless. Short routes will no longer have the busway available as an alternative 1 stop route.

- Inner western buses can't interchange with the system despite it passing right past them (Normanby) but instead must perform a circuitous, extremely congestion prone loop due to removal of busway.

- Busway infra will be lost when in the long run it would seem far better to use that for buses as most of the future metro will be new alignments anyway and seems short termism to remove very useful inner city bus ROW for stage 1a of a large future system.

[newbris]

Listen and learn from people who understand transport, put in my 1.5 cents worth about my local area which is all I can contribute with much knowledge, and then support, spread and lobby for the ideas/amendments the group comes up with after they have been respectfully discussed and well argued for.

Sure, I'm all for that. You are right that a metro is going to break journeys that go from say, Ashgrove to Stones Corner. I don't really see what can be done about that.

There will be sacrifices.

I never mentioned the breaking of the journey from Ashgrove to Stones Corner as being a problem. I don't think it is. A transfer makes sense there.

I mentioned that the inner west would be degraded from these changes because we would return to all buses being to the city. The glider was the one cross town bus we had of any use. It traversed the north/south "massive" lateral hills we have throughout the the area. All other buses follows the west/east ridge lines into the city. Because the glider is probably going we would be back to the old days of catching the bus into the city and back again.  So what takes 5-10 mins would go to 45mins to an hour.

At the same time though these city routes would be stuffed up with CBD gridlock because the busway was being removed and they would all be doing the north quay loop to adelaide which in peak can take forever. Gets worse every year. Some of these routes are also plagued by bad offpeak frequency as they were cut by newman after the glider was introduced.

[#Metro]

the metro line doesn't seem long enough...it forces the buses to go almost the whole way they are already going so bus driver wages will be almost the same.

Metro is extremely expensive to build. So the initial line will be short, and then grow in stages. This is normal, as one has to start somewhere.

The busway system, for example, was a short line from Cultural Centre to Woolloongabba and opened in 2000. It was incrementally extened to 8 MP, UQ Lakes, Stones Corner, through the INB and to RCH then RBWH then to Lutwyche.

- All the buses will still bypass feeding into suburban train/busway nodes and will still come right near the city competing with trains.

That is the geometry of a radial city. Some duplication is inevitable as you approach the inner city, however density in these areas are higher also, so there is more demand to serve.

Short, close to the city routes will be forced into transfers when transfers are more suited to longer routes.

Which routes are you referring to?

Perth has interchange just 2 stops out of the CBD at Glendalough. Vancouver has a similar situation as well. And then there is the Gold Coast.  It is not clear how this is avoidable.

Large interchanges will need to be made on expensive inner city land and then when the system is extended out they will become useless. Short routes will no longer have the busway available as an alternative 1 stop route.

My understanding is that buses will still be able to use Cultural Centre busway. 199, 196, Blue CityGlider etc. QSBS will still be open, though I don't know what routes they want to put there.

- Inner western buses can't interchange with the system despite it passing right past them (Normanby) but instead must perform a circuitous, extremely congestion prone loop due to removal of busway.

Western suburbs buses should be interchanging at Indooroopilly. There would still be some going down Coro Drive (i.e. 412, 444, 400) these would probably have to go down Roma Street and terminate near KGS.

- Busway infra will be lost when in the long run it would seem far better to use that for buses as most of the future metro will be new alignments anyway and seems short termism to remove very useful inner city bus ROW for stage 1a of a large future system.

Not necessarily. These areas are high patronage generators, and the purpose of the busway is to move people, which it still does after conversion. Indeed, the busways were designed to be converted one day, which is why a stub tunnel exists between Cultural Centre and Mater Hill. That stub tunnel is available in the event that the busway needs to be upgraded.

An alternative is to run a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, this would leave the QSBS-Mater Hill section for buses.

[#Metro]

I never mentioned the breaking of the journey from Ashgrove to Stones Corner as being a problem. I don't think it is. A transfer makes sense there.

I mentioned that the inner west would be degraded from these changes because we would return to all buses being to the city. The glider was the one cross town bus we had of any use. It traversed the north/south "massive" lateral hills we have throughout the the area. All other buses follows the west/east ridge lines into the city. Because the glider is probably going we would be back to the old days of catching the bus into the city and back again.

At the same time though these city routes would be stuffed up with CBD gridlock because the busway was being removed and they would all be doing the north quay loop to adelaide which in peak can take forever. Gets worse every year. Some of these routes are also plagued by bad offpeak frequency as they were cut by newman after the glider was introduced.

The bits I have highlighted in bold confuse me. Introducing a break in the MaroonGlider is not a problem, but then later you make comments stating that it is.

These buses (route numbers?) could just terminate at Roma St, approaching KGS on the surface. If most buses were feeding Indooroopilly, only a handful would need to make it to the CBD.

[newbris]

the metro line doesn't seem long enough...it forces the buses to go almost the whole way they are already going so bus driver wages will be almost the same.

Metro is extremely expensive to build. So the initial line will be short, and then grow in stages. This is normal, as one has to start somewhere.

The busway system, for example, was a short line from Cultural Centre to Woolloongabba and opened in 2000. It was incrementally extened to 8 MP, UQ Lakes, Stones Corner, through the INB and to RCH then RBWH then to Lutwyche.

Yes the busway didn't have the need for large interchanges though as the buses just drove onto it. The argument that they are expensive could be made for any proposed length, so not sure that it shows it is the ideal starting length.

- All the buses will still bypass feeding into suburban train/busway nodes and will still come right near the city competing with trains.

That is the geometry of a radial city. Some duplication is inevitable as you approach the inner city, however density in these areas are higher also, so there is more demand to serve.

Some inevitable but many could be removed with a bus review and/or longer initial metro.

Short, close to the city routes will be forced into transfers when transfers are more suited to longer routes.

Which routes are you referring to?

Perth has interchange just 2 stops out of the CBD at Glendalough. Vancouver has a similar situation as well. And then there is the Gold Coast.  It is not clear how this is avoidable.

People coming from The Grange for example....goes back to the length of initial metro I guess.

Large interchanges will need to be made on expensive inner city land and then when the system is extended out they will become useless. Short routes will no longer have the busway available as an alternative 1 stop route.

My understanding is that buses will still be able to use Cultural Centre busway. 199, 196, Blue CityGlider etc. QSBS will still be open, though I don't know what routes they want to put there.

Not sure. The map I saw had all the CCB buses running on the Suncorp side of the metro and then left/right into Adelaide so not sure if any left crossing off the Victoria bridge into the QSBS. KGS, Roma St, INB no longer available to routes either.

- Inner western buses can't interchange with the system despite it passing right past them (Normanby) but instead must perform a circuitous, extremely congestion prone loop due to removal of busway.

Western suburbs buses should be interchanging at Indooroopilly. There would still be some going down Coro Drive (i.e. 412, 444, 400) these would probably have to go down Roma Street and terminate near KGS.

Was talking about inner west, Paddington, Bardon, Red Hill, Ashgrove.

- Busway infra will be lost when in the long run it would seem far better to use that for buses as most of the future metro will be new alignments anyway and seems short termism to remove very useful inner city bus ROW for stage 1a of a large future system.

Not necessarily. These areas are high patronage generators, and the purpose of the busway is to move people, which it still does after conversion. Indeed, the busways were designed to be converted one day, which is why a stub tunnel exists between Cultural Centre and Mater Hill. That stub tunnel is available in the event that the busway needs to be upgraded.

An alternative is to run a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, this would leave the QSBS-Mater Hill section for buses.

Sure and a metro is of course great for moving people. But many routes still coming into the city can no longer connect to it as they once did and there will always be a need to move buses efficiently through a city as it grows larger.

[newbris]

I never mentioned the breaking of the journey from Ashgrove to Stones Corner as being a problem. I don't think it is. A transfer makes sense there.

I mentioned that the inner west would be degraded from these changes because we would return to all buses being to the city. The glider was the one cross town bus we had of any use. It traversed the north/south "massive" lateral hills we have throughout the the area. All other buses follows the west/east ridge lines into the city. Because the glider is probably going we would be back to the old days of catching the bus into the city and back again.

At the same time though these city routes would be stuffed up with CBD gridlock because the busway was being removed and they would all be doing the north quay loop to adelaide which in peak can take forever. Gets worse every year. Some of these routes are also plagued by bad offpeak frequency as they were cut by newman after the glider was introduced.

The bits I have highlighted in bold confuse me. Introducing a break in the MaroonGlider is not a problem, but then later you make comments stating that it is.

These buses (route numbers?) could just terminate at Roma St, approaching KGS on the surface. If most buses were feeding Indooroopilly, only a handful would need to make it to the CBD.

I talk about the usefulness of the glider in the hills of Paddington and Ashgrove (nothing about Stones Corner) and how the consequence of removal means we will now need to go back to buses that traverse in and out, but at the same time this is happening, those buses  are on Quirks map as heading to Adelaide St (eg 385) and can no longer use the busway to get there which will lead to bad congestion and therefore a significantly reduced outcome from the status quo. Presumably as we go around the city we can see which parts are positively affected and which aren't to decide if overall it is worth it or better amending/changing plan.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

2nd February 2016

Rail Revolution: A Brisbane Metro has merit and our support in the longer term

Connecting SEQ 2031 Queensland Government

Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads Connecting SEQ 2031

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers supports bus reform and a metro for Brisbane.

Both the LNP and ALP have or have had a metro for Brisbane as policy. It is Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's policy, and it was Annastacia Palaszczuk's policy as a former transport minister. Indeed, she signed off on the Connecting SEQ 2031 plan under the Bligh administration, a plan that had a metro subway from West End to Newstead through the CBD.

Public transport is a mess because the Queensland Government refuses to take back the bus network off Brisbane City Council. Political rivalry between State Government and Brisbane City Council is what has led to the disintegration of both planning and operations.

RAIL Back on Track is happy to support a metro proposal, provided that:

1. Immediate bus reforms are proceeded with, see our New Bus Network Proposal ( http://tiny.cc/newnetwork )
2. Automatic trains are used and operating from day one (Not Negotiable)
3. Investigation is conducted into a combined Metro / Cross River Rail double deck tunnel option.

Metro is an appropriate mode for upgrading the busway should that proceed. There is no benefit to placing light rail transit (LRT) on the busway as doing so will mean the LRT would be at capacity on opening day. A higher capacity mode, such as metro, is required. However the impact on the existing busway operations will be significant. Longer term a separate metro, merging both the present Team Quirk Metro proposal with longer term plans in Connecting SEQ 2031 will be the best approach for future proofing Brisbane.

Immediate bus reforms are required. We expect a metro proposal will take about 10 years minimum to go from concept to completion. During this time, Brisbane's bus network will collapse along with the wider rail network because absolutely nothing has been delivered to fix either bus or rail network congestion problems. We are not interested in seeing another Cross River Rail animation or analysis report. The State Government needs to get serious after seven years of dithering, and actually build something for Queensland. The infrastructure priority for Brisbane is Cross River Rail, clearly.

Bus service poor 'Black holes' exist within suburbs such as Bulimba, Yeronga, The Centenary Suburbs and The Northwestern Suburbs. This is unacceptable. Bus network reform, such as a 400 Centenary High Frequency bus service, a Yeronga BUZ and a 230 High Frequency bus service are required to address this.

The State Government and Brisbane City Council must work together to make this happen. If this requires a joint commission or inquiry, so be it.

RAIL Back on Track is happy to support other projects that demonstrate merit. We have a good idea of transport policies for the LNP (Metro), ALP (Light Rail), and look forward to a comprehensive transport policy announcement by The Greens.

Contact:

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

References:

1. Calculation

Light Rail (300) coming every 1.5 minutes (40 services per hour) = 300 x 40 = 12 000 passengers/direction/hour (pphd). The current busway already is 12 000 pphd. There is thus no benefit in placing LRT on the busways, a higher capacity mode such as metro is required.

2. Proposed Brisbane metro needs to be automated, lobby group
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2016/02/proposed-brisbane-metro-needs-to-be-automated-lobby-group.html

3. Sydney Driverless Trains

4. Bipartisanship a must when looking at future of Brisbane public transport
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bipartisanship-a-must-when-looking-at-future-of-brisbane-public-transport/news-story/9a07c063100f7ef3b2566fc586a23809

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 2nd February 2016 page 7

Brisbane needs to look closely at its network reform ideas

[Gazza]

What is your alternative?

Build CRR with bus interchanges at Wooloongabba and Ekka, and have turnbacks on the line to allow high frequency inner city trains.

Likewise, on the "Old route" via South Brisbane, also run high frequency trains.

The SEB wasn't really expanded in stages. There was only a few months between opening to Wooloongabba, and the rest to 8mp.

It was the one big project for all.intents and purposes.

[#Metro]

Build CRR with bus interchanges at Wooloongabba and Ekka, and have turnbacks on the line to allow high frequency inner city trains.

CRR could take some load, but it would already be running at 5 min frequencies just to take the bus pax. It also requires staff.
That idea will work - don't get me wrong - but I would prefer automated and dedicated rollingstock built for purpose, because it would allow
extension along the busway network, which is unsuitable for heavy rail.

Remember, there are problems all along the busway - at Buranda there are often queues also. Dedicated stock will allow extension all the way to 8MP, possibly Sunnybank also.

I disagree with your historical point. If you look at the whole busway system, that was built and opened in stages - CBD to Woolloongabba, then on to 8MP, then the INB, then the Eastern Busway, Northern Busway, small extension beyond 8MP.

The centre section - a dedicated bus tunnel from the busway to the CBD - is still not built. In a way you could argue that the project isn't finished, because the most critical part is missing.


In a way, the approach of having regional trains share the same track as inner city trains, all combining to make a 'metro' in the CBD has already been tried in Sydney. It was good for almost a century. But really, you need something dedicated that you can extend in the inner areas. Most European cities separate the local and regional functions - S-Bahn and U Bahn in Germany, for example. London Tube and National Railways in the UK, and so forth. TTC subway in Toronto and GO trains for Ontario in Canada.

[SurfRail]

I disagree with your historical point. If you look at the whole busway system, that was built and opened in stages - CBD to Woolloongabba, then on to 8MP

This needs to be called out.

The Gabba opened early solely because of the 2000 Olympics football matches being held at the Gabba.  If not for that, it would have opened at the same time as Eight Mile Plains.  It was one project all the way from the city to 8MP.

The other legs certainly were staged extensions (at enormous cost) but on different corridors.  The small 8MP extension is basically useless at present and was only done because it was cheaper to do it as part of the Gateway upgrade project now rather than in future - wasn't built on its own merit.

Honestly I think there is so much foam being sprayed around Brisbane it would be worthwhile everybody settling the phuk down for a few days.  Every minute of air being given to these plans detract from the main message, which needs to be you don't need mammoth capital outlays to fix the problem this is aimed at addressing.

[Gazza]

With your figure that CRR would need to run every 5 mins to take busway loads, is that based on 6 car trains or 9 car trains?

[ozbob]

Yes SR, there is a lot of froth and bubble around.  The fact is though people will react to the various  ' policies '  and it is reasonable to have an input otherwise it goes absolutely unchecked.

I have been attempting to get letters in main press, but it is proving difficult.  Use whatever tools are available.

[Gazza]

With your figure that CRR would need to run every 5 mins to take busway loads, is that based on 6 car trains or 9 car trains?

Perhaps the more pertinent point...how does doing CRR first preclude a metro on the busway as a separate project?

[#Metro]

The Gabba opened early solely because of the 2000 Olympics football matches being held at the Gabba.  If not for that, it would have opened at the same time as Eight Mile Plains.  It was one project all the way from the city to 8MP.

The original criticism raised by newbris was that the metro was 'too short'. My counterpoint was that all network start off 'short' and then incrementally extend and expand over time. Which they do. The busway started off with a section, and then that was later expanded in different stages. Even today, there are plans to expand it (Eastern busway to Carindale, Northern busway to Chermside).

I stand by my point and the example of the busway network (overall) which was built in stages, and is still being expanded in stages. And further to that, we should expect an initial short section, whatever the rail project is. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[#Metro]

With your figure that CRR would need to run every 5 mins to take busway loads, is that based on 6 car trains or 9 car trains?

Perhaps the more pertinent point...how does doing CRR first preclude a metro on the busway as a separate project?

Hi Gazza. The Cross River Rail project was cancelled, and then replaced by BaT, which was also cancelled. The Queensland Government now is working on "something", but we don't know what it is - there is no alignment, no costing, no idea what trains will be used or what their capacity will be.

I have used 1000 pax per train in my calculation. Some metros use more, some use less. If you used 1500 pax per train, that figure would be a train every 8 minutes to deal with busway pax. As I stated earlier, yes, CRR alone could handle pax initially, but the drawback there is you are still using the QR system. Metro is a separate system, dedicated for mass transit, and is extendible along the busways and can be automatic, whereas using the QR network is not suitable for extension along the busways, and is not automatic.

This "division of labour" between networks is going to be imporant if you want to extend this metro to Chermside, for example, and other places. QR trains cannot run along the busways.

[ozbob]

1000 is reasonable for 6 car.  QR trains 6 car have a 1000 service capacity.

>>  http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/aboutus/organisation/citytrain-fleet

[#Metro]

Perhaps the more pertinent point...how does doing CRR first preclude a metro on the busway as a separate project?

It is possible, but not desirable, to do both projects separately. Two projects both going forward for federal funding will COMPETE against each other at the federal level. This is true, even if one project is approved before another project - asking for TWO big expensive projects is a bigger ask than asking for ONE big expensive project.

If the projects are combined, such as in a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, then it will be ONE project. There are also savings by doing only one set of design, one project team, digging one tunnel etc.

It doesn't preclude being done separately, but from my perspective, it is a good idea to do both at the same time, using a modified BaT as a starting point.

[petey3801]

When you talk of the 'busway pax', are you stating the actual patronage figures, or simply the capacity figures, which we've all said several times, is far beyond what the actual patronage figure is (mucho air being carried).

[petey3801]

Perhaps the more pertinent point...how does doing CRR first preclude a metro on the busway as a separate project?

It is possible, but not desirable, to do both projects separately. Two projects both going forward for federal funding will COMPETE against each other at the federal level. This is true, even if one project is approved before another project - asking for TWO big expensive projects is a bigger ask than asking for ONE big expensive project.

If the projects are combined, such as in a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, then it will be ONE project. There are also savings by doing only one set of design, one project team, digging one tunnel etc.

It doesn't preclude being done separately, but from my perspective, it is a good idea to do both at the same time, using a modified BaT as a starting point.

As I said in another thread: Yes, building a double deck tunnel will save money, however it will also result in much less catchment as well as two modes doing exactly the same thing, stopping at exactly the same places. Building it as two projects, while costing more, will generate many more pax due to a much greater catchment area.

[#Metro]

When you talk of the 'busway pax', are you stating the actual patronage figures, or simply the capacity figures, which we've all said several times, is far beyond what the actual patronage figure is (mucho air being carried).

TransLink literature states it is 12 000 pphd. Other literature (i.e Hensher) has theoretical capacity up to 18 000 pphd for the SEB, but I suspect that is if special buses are used.

South East Busway turns ten
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5884.0

[#Metro]

As I said in another thread: Yes, building a double deck tunnel will save money, however it will also result in much less catchment as well as two modes doing exactly the same thing, stopping at exactly the same places. Building it as two projects, while costing more, will generate many more pax due to a much greater catchment area.

You risk killing the entire metro project by building it separately, which would result in total bus network collapse. How do I know this? The Queensland Government has had 7 years to build CRR, and 7 years down the track there isn't a single sleeper laid for it.

How much confidence should we have in the Queensland Government to deliver two major and expensive projects, if it cannot even get the first major project off the ground?

If the metro is done in a combined CRR/Metro tunnel, the busway would be retained between Mater Hill and the CBD. Pax at those locations Mater Hill - CBD would not be on the metro, but would still be on the busway network, and still get to their destinations. Some overlap is unavoidable - even the SE busway 'duplicates' at South Bank and South Brisbane, so no matter what option you choose, in the inner city, you will have some overlap.

Where the overlap disappears is after Wooloongabba. Extending the metro along the busway to 8MP is not duplicated by other infrastructure.

[SurfRail]

You risk killing the entire metro project by building it separately, which would result in total bus network collapse.

Oh no it won't.  The 2 are unrelated.