LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[#Metro]

Oh no it won't.  The 2 are unrelated.

A future projection is neither true nor false. Which is why I used the word risk.

A cheaper, single, combined project only needs to go through the political process once.

With two separated projects, you have to do it twice. (and the separated BCRs are likely to be lower as well, due to higher costs doing it separately)

It is difficult to get things through the process. Government at any of the 3 levels can change and then you lose or gain support.
You need all 3 to make it work.

Let's say the probability of getting a project through, any project, is 10%.

Getting one project through - 10% chance

Getting both projects through -  0.1 x 0.1 = 1% chance.

People can make their own case. But at the moment, I would favour a metro and have it combined with CRR in a double deck tunnel from W'Gabba to Roma street. Co-ordinated planning has to happen anyway. The metro will cross the CRR alignment at Adelaide Street or George St, depending on what the QLD Gov decides.

[ozbob]

There is a very significant issue with the Team Quirk metro plan.  And it is one I mentioned on the radio yesterday.  The State owns the busways and the proposed site for the  ' metro depot ' .  There has been nothing much about this at all.  The Go print site is where the ' Gabba station is going to be for CRR.  So Team Quirk might have to look for another site for the depot?

[#Metro]

There is a very significant issue with the Team Quirk metro plan.  And it is one I mentioned on the radio yesterday.  The State owns the busways and the proposed site for the  ' metro depot ' .

My hunch is that Team Quirk will use the metro as "in your face" to the State Government, who judging by previous reactions, will have a

knee-jerk response and reject the metro.

That is the key. Once it is rejected, the metro can escalate up the political chain. "Look, Red Team cannot build anything!, they have built

absolutely NOTHING in their term of office!" they will say.

You then have the State Level Blue Team use this as core election policy- elect us, and you get the metro. Given that seats in the State Parliament

are sitting on a knife edge, the Gov't could change colour. Once you do that, State Level approves use of the busway and the depot site.

That's how I think it will work. It might even be funded by asset sales / leases, so Quirk wouldn't have to increase rates. There are a

whole heap of assets (i.e. Power stations) that could pay for the metro outright.

It would also work on the Gov't side - Blue team at Federal level, Blue Team at State Level, and Blue Team at Council. Malcolm Turnbull

could even use it in his election campaign.

There are pretty wider and bigger things at play!!

[ozbob]

The State Government might however do something about the CRR before the Council Election hey?

That could be bit of a masterstroke of sorts.

Polyticks is a funny game  LD ... 

[#Metro]

The State Government might however do something about the CRR before the Council Election hey?

What, release another map and animated video? 

[petey3801]

You risk killing the entire metro project by building it separately,

If it doesn't stack up on its own merits, it shouldn't be built!

To be honest, I think this Metro foam is actually becoming a major distraction to what the real priorities are:

CRR and Bus Network Review.

Bus Network Review can do much of what this Metro will do in itself. Using those 150 pax superbuses, turn the SEB and Northern Busway (with bus lanes connecting the seperate parts, and bus lanes up to Chermside preferably) in to an effective metro. Buses from the suburbs feed in to the busway like they would for a railway/metro, with the superbuses running at high frequency along the SEB and Northern Busway taking the pax towards the City. Much the same as the metro proposal, but a hell of a lot cheaper. Then the busways become a trunk route instead of millions of low frequency buses from the suburbs clogging it up with air.

Plus, putting this Metro plan ahead of CRR will simply result in the entirety of the SEQ rail network hitting capacity so that a small number of people very close to the City can have a quick trip across the CBD, which is about all this Metro plan will deliver, while forcing all the SEB pax on to it basically a stones throw from the CBD. It is a multi-billion $$ solution ($1.5b is completely unrealistic) for a problem that can be fixed by a mostly cost neutral bus network review. So many higher priorities at this point in time.

Also, if having two modes of public transport in one tunnel for a significant distance (ala BaT) is such a fantastic idea, why has it not been done before? Answer: Most likely, bang for buck is a lot worse than having two corridors with interchange stations.

[#Metro]

If it doesn't stack up on its own merits, it shouldn't be built!

Both have merit, it's just more efficient to do both at once, with one tunnel.

Bus Network Review can do much of what this Metro will do in itself. Using those 150 pax superbuses, turn the SEB and Northern Busway (with bus lanes connecting the seperate parts, and bus lanes up to Chermside preferably) in to an effective metro. Buses from the suburbs feed in to the busway like they would for a railway/metro, with the superbuses running at high frequency along the SEB and Northern Busway taking the pax towards the City. Much the same as the metro proposal, but a hell of a lot cheaper. Then the busways become a trunk route instead of millions of low frequency buses from the suburbs clogging it up with air

Absolutely. Superbuses would extend the life of the SEB and busways. My tip is The Greens will announce this.

Plus, putting this Metro plan ahead of CRR will simply result in the entirety of the SEQ rail network hitting capacity so that a small number of people very close to the City can have a quick trip across the CBD, which is about all this Metro plan will deliver, while forcing all the SEB pax on to it basically a stones throw from the CBD. It is a multi-billion $$ solution ($1.5b is completely unrealistic) for a problem that can be fixed by a mostly cost neutral bus network review. So many higher priorities at this point in time.

My hope is that the CRR is built as a double deck tunnel. Yes, superbuses will extend the life of the busways. And I think final cost (metro) would be around $2BN I suspect.

As a calculation: assuming 12 000 pax / 150 = 80 buses per hour, or one every 0.75 minutes (45 seconds).
Current frequencies at CC are a bus every 15-20 seconds. Some pax would be diverted to CRR from the routes 150 and 130.

If we double this, it becomes a superbus every 22 seconds or so, which is still above what Cultural Centre is doing now. So there is space for growth with superbuses.

Also, if having two modes of public transport in one tunnel for a significant distance (ala BaT) is such a fantastic idea, why has it not been done before? Answer: Most likely, bang for buck is a lot worse than having two corridors with interchange stations.

You're not criticising on technical grounds - I can't see any technical reason why a tunnel cannot be double deck and carry different modes, both being rail. And I think there is a tunnel in SF that does this. Also double deck or dual use bridges (i.e. Sydney - carries cars and trains).

[ozbob]

Our position is clear ..

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg168103#msg168103

...
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 ...

Watch this space!

[ozbob]

The only way a metro will ever come to fruition in Brisbane is if, and it is a very big if, the BCC and State get together and build a proper driverless system down the track.  The present Team Quirk proposal will never be built IMHO.

CRR remains the real infrastructure priority and I feel optimistic that something might happen about that in the not too distant future.

We will see more on bus network reform in this campaign I am sure. 

In a way it is good that the ' Metro ' has come out early.  It will fade away ..  What was that noise .. DING DING!   

[#Metro]

Double deck Rail/Rail tunnel has a precedent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Street_Subway

The Market Street Subway is a double-decker subway tunnel that carries Muni Metro and BART train traffic in San Francisco, California.[1][2] It runs under the length of Market Street between Embarcadero Station and Castro Street Station. The upper level is used by Muni Metro lines and the lower level is used by BART lines. BART does not run through the whole subway; it turns south and runs under Mission Street southwest of Civic Center Station.

BART is a regional heavy rail service, operating across many counties about every 20 min or so.
Muni Metro is a light rail system which combines lines in the inner city to form a high-frequency subway like service.

[petey3801]

You're not criticising on technical grounds - I can't see any technical reason why a tunnel cannot be double deck and carry different modes, both being rail. And I think there is a tunnel in SF that does this. Also double deck or dual use bridges (i.e. Sydney - carries cars and trains).

Ummm, what? That's because it's not an argument of whether it is technically possible or not! I never said it wasn't technically possible. My problem with it is I think it is a waste to have two PT modes stopping at the same stations for several kilometers, with exactly the same catchment as each other, competing against each other, instead of having the two modes in separate tunnels on different alignments, crossing at certain places for interchange reasons. That will increase catchment area for PT, will mean if something goes wrong in one tunnel, it won't shut down the other one and gives commuters more options.

Double deck Rail/Rail tunnel has a precedent.

Fair enough, there is one example. I just remember with BaT the pollies were praising that it was the first of its kind (not always a good thing). Still doesn't make me think it is a good idea though!

[Gazza]

But why couldn't CRR, with bus network reform (Eg imagine buses feeding Altandi because it'll now no longer be slow to do so) be enough for the time being?

I mean, I don't mind the idea of making the busway a metro at some point, but if CRR got up, that means the metro could be pushed back by a decade or more, because we'd have so much extra capacity.

Even if CRR took SOME of the busway routes, well then that's definitely making a huge difference.

CRR doesn't have to take ALL busway pax, just enough that the busway functions normally.

Asking the feds for another grant for another project 10 years after CRR is done is not really unreasonable.

[#Metro]

Ummm, what? That's because it's not an argument of whether it is technically possible or not! I never said it wasn't technically possible.

So you agree that a double deck tunnel is possible to construct. It also has precedent in San Francisco.

My problem with it is I think it is a waste to have two PT modes stopping at the same stations for several kilometers, with exactly the same catchment as each other, competing against each other, instead of having the two modes in separate tunnels on different alignments, crossing at certain places for interchange reasons.

Why criticise this, and not say, the fact that the Ipswich and Springfield lines do exactly this between Darra and the CBD. Or that trains on all lines do the Bowen Hills - Fortitude Valley - Central - Roma St section in common?

When you have a roughly circular city, and you have a CBD in the centre, then lines are going to come closer together as you approach the CBD. A metro from the CBD via CRR combined tunnel would only have Roma St, QUT and Wooloongabba in common, before it would veer off and go via the busway (after extension).

This is similar to Melbourne, where trains run into the CBD and then all stop at combined stations on The City Loop, or in Sydney where lines combine and wrap around The City Circle.

If you put the metro along the busway, then that's going to duplicate the Cultural Centre/South Brisbane stations and South Bank/South Brisbane stations.

How would you connect the SE busway to the CBD as a metro and not go along one of these corridors?

That will increase catchment area for PT, will mean if something goes wrong in one tunnel, it won't shut down the other one and gives commuters more options.

Which areas? I would urge caution - catchment for Metro and catchment for PT are not the same thing. One is talking about a

specific mode, one is talking about network coverage in general. Which areas would lose out on access to 15-minute or better public

transport if a combined tunnel were used?

[#Metro]

But why couldn't CRR, with bus network reform (Eg imagine buses feeding Altandi because it'll now no longer be slow to do so) be enough for the time being?

Bus reform and superbuses would work for now and would extend the life of the system. I agree. It would also be near-cost neutral so it

could be combined with any other infrastructure proposal, or stand alone.

I mean, I don't mind the idea of making the busway a metro at some point, but if CRR got up, that means the metro could be pushed back by a decade or more, because we'd have so much extra capacity.

Superbus conversion would mean a bus every 45 seconds or so, and that could grow to a bus every 20 seconds or so. So in the short-

medium term it would be possible. Metro would probably be good, because would have capacity for many many decades, possibly 50- 100

years. The busways only lasted about 16 years, now they are quite full!

Even if CRR took SOME of the busway routes, well then that's definitely making a huge difference.

CRR doesn't have to take ALL busway pax, just enough that the busway functions normally.

If CRR was built as double deck combined CRR/Metro, I would have no objection to that. I think building one tunnel, single mode is a missed

opportunity to do it once, and do it right!

Asking the feds for another grant for another project 10 years after CRR is done is not really unreasonable.

Why pass up the opportunity to do it all at once? We built the busway network, it lasted 16 years, now we are being asked go back and

rebuild sections of it again...

[Gazza]

Well it depends on how much money you could get.

If it wasnt much extra to go double deck (Without sacrificing QR approach track works) then awesome! bargain! Go for it.

But its a similar argument to "why didn't we build G link all the way to Helensvale" or "why did we stop duplicating at Beernurrum".

[petey3801]

I'm getting sick of this. LD, please stop putting words in other peoples mouths. You're telling people to back up claims that they have never actually made. Just because someone's opinion is different, doesn't mean it is wrong. I'm not saying yours is wrong, i'm just trying to find someone to tell me what benefit, apart from the initial construction cost, will come from having two modes of PT in the same tunnel for a significant distance across the city?

So you agree that a double deck tunnel is possible to construct. It also has precedent in San Francisco.

I. Have. Never. Said. It. Is. Not. Possible! FFS, stop making random statements to try and make up arguments.

I'll say it again, slowly:

I am NOT saying it is not possible, I AM saying that it is not BENEFICIAL.

Why criticise this, and not say, the fact that the Ipswich and Springfield lines do exactly this between Darra and the CBD. Or that trains on all lines do the Bowen Hills - Fortitude Valley - Central - Roma St section in common?

Ipswich/Springfield and Kippa Ring/Caboolture is a different matter when timetabled properly. The short lines running at higher frequency allow the longer lines to run express on the inner sections.
As I also said in the other thread, we're stuck with Roma Street to Bowen Hills now, and we'd be absolutely stupid to not make the most of that infrastructure that is already there. However, if we were to build the network as a whole now, we would avoid having all lines converging in this section by giving some lines different routing through the City.

A metro from the CBD via CRR combined tunnel would only have Roma St, QUT and Wooloongabba in common, before it would veer off and go via the busway (after extension).
...
If you put the metro along the busway, then that's going to duplicate the Cultural Centre/South Brisbane stations and South Bank/South Brisbane stations.

You've actually forgotten the CBD stop in there, btw. Some duplication, with what we have now, is inevitable. However, traveling several km along the same routing, stopping at the same stations, is more than what is inevitable IMO. The South Bank/South Bris duplicated part with the busway is unfortunate, however is only around 1km or so before taking a different route in to the City. Not the biggest deal, really.

Which areas? I would urge caution - catchment for Metro and catchment for PT are not the same thing. One is talking about a

specific mode, one is talking about network coverage in general. Which areas would lose out on access to 15-minute or better public

transport if a combined tunnel were used?

....What? I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here.

So, in your mind, if CRR was built with heavy rail and Metro in the same tunnel, stopping at the same stations, they would have different catchment areas? Ummm, no. They will have the same catchment area through the City, as they have THE EXACT SAME STATIONS! And why is any area going to lose out on 15min frequency? You're just making crap up now!
If they are built in separate tunnels on separate alignments, it doubles the catchment area in the City for Metro and CRR. Having them in the same tunnel means they both have the same catchment area.

I would urge caution - catchment for Metro and catchment for PT are not the same thing. One is talking about a

specific mode, one is talking about network coverage in general

For crying out loud, get over it. Pretty sure every single person here, except you, know what i'm talking about. Stop with the pety semantics when we all know what is actually being referred to.

I think building one tunnel, single mode is a missed

opportunity to do it once, and do it right!

But why is building two modes in to one tunnel "doing it right"? Apart from saving some construction cost, what other benefits are there, over having two alignments? Also, Metro is designed to have shorter station spacing than heavy rail. Having it on a different alignment can take advantage of that, whereas having them on the same alignment ala BaT does not, as the stations will be in the same place for both modes.




Apart from construction cost, what benefits are there in having both Metro and Heavy Rail (or Bus and rail, for that matter) in the same corridor through the CBD? And remember, CRR isn't being built to have only one single line running through it and will easily be able to have short running if/where required (ie: Yeerongpilly to Exhibition/further north).

[Gazza]

Just to back up Petey, cast your mind to CRRs planning stages, where they looked at going via south Bris.

Cheaper, but the CBR/NPV was lower than a new route via Gabba and QUT.

In an ideal world, I'd route a metro via eagle street and creek street, with interchange at central, I think maybe Petey had something like that in mind.

But on the other hand I wouldn't be too put out if it ran with CRR.

Basically to sum up, a double deck CRR might be cheaper than other options, but the benefits might be lower

[#Metro]

I'm getting sick of this. LD, please stop putting words in other peoples mouths. You're telling people to back up claims that they have never actually made. Just because someone's opinion is different, doesn't mean it is wrong. I'm not saying yours is wrong, i'm just trying to find someone to tell me what benefit, apart from the initial construction cost, will come from having two modes of PT in the same tunnel for a significant distance across the city?

Claims can be implicit or explicit. More than happy for people to disagree or propose their own thing. People criticise my ideas, and I criticise others ideas. This is normal. I steer clear of character attacks.

Specifically, why ignore the initial construction costs?

A combined tunnel would also concentrate passengers around stations, the larger combined patronage would also mean a stronger case for development at those stations. For example, student housing at South Bank with Urbanest (access to both rail and busway there) and also Buranda (access to both rail and busway there also). Wooloongabba is perfect for massive student development of this kind (provided the depot is out of the way).

You also increase the mobility from a single station - more different destinations can be reached from the one facility. For example, rather than QUT students having to catch CRR and then change at Wooloongabba to a bus, they could just catch the metro directly and then down the busway to 8MP. It is a small convenience, but a convenience nonetheless.

However, if we were to build the network as a whole now, we would avoid having all lines converging in this section by giving some lines different routing through the City.

Okay, show me where you would route it then. Do you have a map of this?

Some duplication, with what we have now, is inevitable. However, traveling several km along the same routing, stopping at the same stations, is more than what is inevitable IMO. The South Bank/South Bris duplicated part with the busway is unfortunate, however is only around 1km or so before taking a different route in to the City. Not the biggest deal, really.

This isn't being consistent.

Let's look at route 111. That duplicates rail at Buranda, Mater Hill and South Bank (South Bank Rail), duplicates at Cultural Centre (South Brisbane Station), stops at KGS (not duplicated, but central is within 500m) and then continues to Roma St (duplication).

That is like 6 km of "duplication" from Buranda - Roma St!

Even if we measure from Mater Hill - Mater Hill can be accessed from South Bank Station (it is 450 m of South Bank station, well within the 800m walk-up radius) so that is a good 2.5km of duplication from Mater Hill to Roma St. The distance between Roma St and Wooloongabba is about 2.6 km via the Captain Cook Bridge.

We are talking about ~ 100m difference here. I can't agree that it's different. It looks more like that's the way it is because stuff gets closer together as one converges on the CBD, and just geography.

Look, people can make up their own mind about a combined CRR/Metro tunnel. That's fine. At the moment, going combined is the option I prefer.

[petey3801]

Just to back up Petey, cast your mind to CRRs planning stages, where they looked at going via south Bris.

Cheaper, but the CBR/NPV was lower than a new route via Gabba and QUT.

In an ideal world, I'd route a metro via eagle street and creek street, with interchange at central, I think maybe Petey had something like that in mind.

But on the other hand I wouldn't be too put out if it ran with CRR.

Basically to sum up, a double deck CRR might be cheaper than other options, but the benefits might be lower

Yep, that basically is what I am getting at, but written a lot more eloquently A wordsmith, I am not!

If it came to it that having the CRR tunnel as double deck was the single deciding factor as to whether or not it got built, I would support it simply to get CRR built. I wouldn't be overly happy, but it would be better than CRR not being built at all (IF it was the SINGLE deciding factor). Apart from that, there are still a lot of questions I would like to see answered, such as the one I repeated a couple times in the last post: What are the benefits, other than cost, of having it as a combined tunnel vs separate alignment?

[#Metro]

For crying out loud, get over it. Pretty sure every single person here, except you, know what i'm talking about. Stop with the pety semantics when we all know what is actually being referred to.

It is not semantics. Mobility means access to service - that could be existing service running on busways or new service such as metro. You have not demonstrated which areas would miss out if  the metro went through a combined CRR/Metro tunnel.

So, which areas would miss out on access to frequent PT if the metro were combined with CRR?

[Gazza]

For crying out loud, get over it. Pretty sure every single person here, except you, know what i'm talking about. Stop with the pety semantics when we all know what is actually being referred to.

It is not semantics. Mobility means access to service - that could be existing service running on busways or new service such as metro. You have not demonstrated which areas would miss out if  the metro went through a combined CRR/Metro tunnel.

So, which areas would miss out on access to frequent PT if the metro were combined with CRR?

Eastern side of the CBD.

[#Metro]

So, in your mind, if CRR was built with heavy rail and Metro in the same tunnel, stopping at the same
stations, they would have different catchment areas? Ummm, no. They will have the same catchment area
through the City, as they have THE EXACT SAME STATIONS! And why is any area going to lose out on
15min frequency? You're just making cr%p up now! If they are built in separate tunnels on separate
alignments, it doubles the catchment area in the City for Metro and CRR. Having them in the same
tunnel means they both have the same catchment area.

Which area(s) would miss out on access to frequent PT if the metro was placed in a combined tunnel?
Pretty sure the people at QUT, a large university, would appreciate direct access to the busway via the Metro alignment

But why is building two modes in to one tunnel "doing it right"? Apart from saving some construction
cost, what other benefits are there, over having two alignments? Also, Metro is designed to have
shorter station spacing than heavy rail. Having it on a different alignment can take advantage of
that, whereas having them on the same alignment ala BaT does not, as the stations will be in the same
place for both modes.

Why are you ignoring construction and project cost efficiencies from combining the construction at the same time? I don't think you can just discount that because it is an efficiency.  Again, you allude to the benefit, but without a concrete map or alternative alignment to point to, I can't tell whether I should change my position or not.

[#Metro]

Eastern side of the CBD.

Take a look at the Wilbur Smith Plan 1965.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3304.0

There is no reason why a combined tunnel would prevent an eastern metro alignment from being done through the CBD, if that's what you wanted. If you imagine that junction under Queen St was actually the metro coming out of the combined tunnel, you can see how that could work.

Indeed I think the combined Rail/Rail tunnel in San Francisco does something similar - the BART and Muni Metro lines are combined, but the BART alignment peels away part way.

It would have to be combined tunnel from Wooloongabba into the Brisbane CBD, with the metro component leaving the tunnel upon landing in the CBD to travel to the Eastern part of the CBD, while the CRR component travelled to Roma St. There is even scope to possibly get rid of QSBS and make that a metro station.

Though I would rather have it proceed along the busway to RBWH and then allow for extension to Chermside. (Personal preference)

[#Metro]

I think this discussion, though tough, shows that the State and BCC absolutely MUST work together. There are many possibilities and some exciting ones.

Doing the things in silos because of political rivalry between different levels is not going to help. BCC and Queensland Government need to

look at joint planning - this is expensive and very durable (100 years) infrastructure, it makes sense to work together. What is the hope of

that co-operation happening?

Combined options should be looked at.

[SurfRail]

I'd put the council back in its box and tell them to get stuffed.

The board has been hi-jacked with this sideshow.

It's a massive concrete fest, none of which improves network coverage or fixes the capacity of the rail system or even the bus system!

[petey3801]

Claims can be implicit or explicit. More than happy for people to disagree or propose their own thing. People criticise my ideas, and I criticise others ideas. This is normal. I steer clear of character attacks.

No, because you keep making crap up that people haven't actually said. Implicitly or explicitly. Please, do find, ANYWHERE, where I have even hinted at the possibility that it isn't technically doable to make a double deck tunnel.

Specifically, why ignore the initial construction costs?

Because construction cost isn't everything? That's what a BCR/NPV study is for. Everything is counted. Yes, construction costs will be more expensive for two routes than for a single double deck tunnel. That doesn't mean that it is automatically better. Construction cost of a single dwelling is lower than for an apartment block. Does that make the single dwelling automatically better?

A combined tunnel would also concentrate passengers around stations, the larger combined patronage would also mean a stronger case for development at those stations. For example, student housing at South Bank with Urbanest (access to both rail and busway there) and also Buranda (access to both rail and busway there also). Wooloongabba is perfect for massive student development of this kind (provided the depot is out of the way).

But having several Metro stations and heavy rail stations will give more development possibilities than having them as the same station. At the distance from the City that we're talking about, it's going to be busy either way and high rise development will be quite popular either way.

You also increase the mobility from a single station - more different destinations can be reached from the one facility. For example, rather than QUT students having to catch CRR and then change at Wooloongabba to a bus, they could just catch the metro directly and then down the busway to 8MP. It is a small convenience, but a convenience nonetheless.

This is true, but it is also the problem that we have with the current bus network 'one seat to everywhere'. Plus, why can't the QUT station be the interchange point with CRR? Many people have to make connections already, this is a strawman's argument.
Personally, I would prefer to catch the metro from the station 50m away and connect to heavy rail down the line than having to walk, for example, 500m to get to the combined station.

Okay, show me where you would route it then. Do you have a map of this?

Nope, because I don't have the time nor the inclination at this point to do so. But surely it is common sense, and something that you have been saying for a long time yourself now: Something has to change, as we can't keep having the entire network shutting down when something goes wrong in the core.

Basically, if we were building the whole heavy rail inner network from new today, we might have the sector 1 corridor along the current lines, Beenleigh/Ferny connecting with it at roughly 90 degrees at Central, continuing up around Spring Hill, Exhibition/Bowen Hills area and continuing to Ferny Grove, Gold Coast/Airport possibly following that alignement and junctioning around the Bowen Hills area and continuing towards Albion, Cleveland would likely go through Bulimba, K Point, Valley and around towards Albion from there. Whatever the alignments, if we were doing it now, it certainly wouldn't have every line converging on the Roma Street to Bowen Hills section, that's a given. It was also mean we wouldn't need this conversation as there wouldn't be a need for a metro, as we would have the city basically covered already!

This isn't being consistent.

Let's look at route 111. That duplicates rail at Buranda, Mater Hill and South Bank (South Bank Rail), duplicates at Cultural Centre (South Brisbane Station), stops at KGS (not duplicated, but central is within 500m) and then continues to Roma St (duplication).

That is like 6 km of "duplication" from Buranda - Roma St!

Even if we measure from Mater Hill - Mater Hill can be accessed from South Bank Station (it is 450 m of South Bank station, well within the 800m walk-up radius) so that is a good 2.5km of duplication from Mater Hill to Roma St. The distance between Roma St and Wooloongabba is about 2.6 km via the Captain Cook Bridge.

We are talking about ~ 100m difference here. I can't agree that it's different. It looks more like that's the way it is because stuff gets closer together as one converges on the CBD, and just geography.

As far as i'm aware, it also takes a different route to the rail from Buranda to South Bank. Also, has more stops. Which gives more connectivity for people. Plus, it is, once again, infrastructure that we already have. Would be pointless to not use it now that we have it. Also, in the City, 500m difference is more than enough in the City. It opens up more catchment for PT in general.
I do argue that it is different, to an extent, as the busway has more stops than the rail line in the area, allowing more people to use it. Also, to be quite honest, if we were building the whole network again now (like the rail), I wouldn't personally put it through there either.
IMO, just because duplication has happened and is currently in place with current infrastructure, doesn't mean we have to keep going down that path.

So, pros and cons for separate vs combined:

Combined:
Pros:
Construction cost is less;
Denser stations (personally, i'm not convinced this is a pro, but i'll put it in anyway), allows development at stations;
Able to catch different routes from the same station

Cons:
No increase in general PT catchment area;
If something goes wrong in the tunnel, everything shuts down (ie: Fire alarm);
Increases duplication;
Stations are in the same place for both PT modes,
- Greater distances between stations for people to walk
- Difficult (possible? Too expensive to do?) to have different stations for each mode in the tunnel;


Separate:
Pros:
More catchment area for PT in general, using interchange, covering the city much better;
Works independently;
Allows different stop spacing, more stops for Metro, less for heavy rail;
Allows more development at all different stations;
Reduces immediate duplication;

Cons:
Higher construction cost;
Requires interchange to catch different lines;


That's just a quick 'off the top of my head' list, welcome for suggestions for any section of the list to get more comprehensive.

[petey3801]

So, which areas would miss out on access to frequent PT if the metro were combined with CRR?

Umm, all the places where the metro doesn't go if it is combined? I thought this would be pretty logical actually! More stations (through separate alignments) = greater access to transport via interchange.

[ozbob]

I'd put the council back in its box and tell them to get stuffed.

The board has been hi-jacked with this sideshow.

It's a massive concrete fest, none of which improves network coverage or fixes the capacity of the rail system or even the bus system!

It is one thread.  Been a useful discussion from my view point.  Has confirmed in my mind it is a dead duck.

People will discuss this.  Pointing out ramifications, issues, benefits etc. helps clarify the actuality.

But it does highlight the base issue, BCC has unusual   ' powers ' which sadly is leading to poor outcomes. 

LD poised the question.  Will the State Government (s) really cooperate with the BCC and vice versa?   Past performances suggest no.  Even the Newman Government couldn't drive successful bus reform with a blue council.

The State Government has to get control here.

[#Metro]

Because construction cost isn't everything? That's what a BCR/NPV study is for. Everything is counted. Yes, construction costs will be more expensive for two routes than for a single double deck tunnel. That doesn't mean that it is automatically better. Construction cost of a single dwelling is lower than for an apartment block. Does that make the single dwelling automatically better?

Poor example. Obviously it depends on what the goals of the builder/owners are, and circumstances. Obviously where land costs (or any costs) are high it makes sense to put as much on the land as possible, which is why the CBD has skyscrapers and not single family homes or  single level offices - the land is expensive.

Likewise, tunneling and installing line haul infrastructure is incredibly expensive. We are talking 100s of millions of dollars per km. It pays to be efficient, both in terms of line length and time (benefits are worth more when realised today, than say in 10 years time).

[#Metro]

But having several Metro stations and heavy rail stations will give more development possibilities than having them as the same station. At the distance from the City that we're talking about, it's going to be busy either way and high rise development will be quite popular either way.

Which locations you are proposing to place these stations? Stations cost tens of millions each.

The longer a line is, the more it will cost. The more stations there are, the more it will cost.

This is true, but it is also the problem that we have with the current bus network 'one seat to everywhere'. Plus, why can't the QUT station be the interchange point with CRR? Many people have to make connections already, this is a strawman's argument.

Not a strawman, unfortunately. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

Nope, because I don't have the time nor the inclination at this point to do so.

Right. Without a map, we cannot say anything - it might have benefits, it might not. Reasonably, this is really something the engineers and

planners in TMR need to nut out.

[error]

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.

If we are going to compare the practicality of the transfers onto 'the metro' from buses its worth noting that Glendalough station is 5km as the crow flies from the city centre and has bus routes that do continue to the city centre. The Gabba is only around 3km via busway (and a heck of a lot less as the crow flies); RBWH is around 4km by the busway (and a bit less as the crow flies).
Granted there are similarities in that these interchanges would occur outside the CBD proper but the distance seems to be a bit too close the provide a whole lot of benefit.

If we were to look at some similar distance interchanges in Brisbane they would need to occur at (roughly) Morningside, Coorparoo, Greenslopes, Fairfield, Indooroopilly, the far side of Ashgrove, Newmarket, Albion, or Hamilton.

(I'm not familiar with the way that Vancouver works, and I'm not too sure how well the Gold Coast fits with the Brisbane model (spine vs radial cities etc)).

[SurfRail]

Oh no it won't.  The 2 are unrelated.

A future projection is neither true nor false. Which is why I used the word risk.

What I was referring to was your (let's face it) unfounded contention that a metro is needed to fix the bus network instead of just, I don't know, FIXING the bus network.

[ozbob]

For interest, this was how TMR and QLD Government saw a metro in 2010 ..

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/B/Brisbane-inner-city-metro.aspx

Brisbane inner city metro
Overview: The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore.

Location: South east – Brisbane inner city

Benefits: What is metro?

A metro system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and high frequency services. It is usually separated from other traffic and is unchallenged in its ability to transport large amounts of people quickly over short distances — making it perfect for urban areas like Brisbane.

The first metro was the London underground, which opened in 1863. Now more than 160 cities have metro systems and 25 cities currently have metro systems under construction.



Project info
Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro.

The proposal to build underground rail under Brisbane city over the next two decades would help south east Queensland cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

[ozbob]

In the longer term a proper metro is a possibility.  The present Team Quirk proposal is not going anywhere I reckon.

I too have concerns with the interchange proposed as well Error.  I can't grasp how it will work in this situation at all. Too many buses impacting on one point at peaks.

[petey3801]

But having several Metro stations and heavy rail stations will give more development possibilities than having them as the same station. At the distance from the City that we're talking about, it's going to be busy either way and high rise development will be quite popular either way.

Which locations you are proposing to place these stations? Stations cost tens of millions each.

The longer a line is, the more it will cost. The more stations there are, the more it will cost.

This is true, but it is also the problem that we have with the current bus network 'one seat to everywhere'. Plus, why can't the QUT station be the interchange point with CRR? Many people have to make connections already, this is a strawman's argument.

Not a strawman, unfortunately. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

Nope, because I don't have the time nor the inclination at this point to do so.

Right. Without a map, we cannot say anything - it might have benefits, it might not. Reasonably, this is really something the engineers and

planners in TMR need to nut out.

On the phone now so this will be short and sweet.
Everything costs money. If its going to be built in the same alignment that there is another line being put in, there's really no point in doing it.
Regarding the map, you want me to waste my time by drawing a map that has absolutely no correlation to this discussion apart from making a specific point that I wouldn't put every single heavy rail line in the same corridor RST-BHI as it is now, as it creates a massive choke point. Something which you have agreed to in the past, so why the hell are you arguing this point, and why on earth are you insisting I draw a pointless map showing where I would put an imaginary network?

Oh, and by the way, i'm actually not ignoring/discounting the construction costs, as I already know that they are a plus for the combined alignment. I was looking for any other benefits without being bombarded about how much less it will cost.
With regards to the cost and my earlier house comparison, while not the best comparison, it showed what I wanted it: ie: Construction cost isn't everything, there are a multitude of other factors that sway one way or the other, construction cost being just one of those factors.
Another comparison: Starting the CRR tunnel at Dutton Park vs Yeerongpilly. The former costs less, but the latter delivers a hell of a lot more benefits and is actually the better option.

[#Metro]

What I was referring to was your (let's face it) unfounded contention that a metro is needed to fix the bus network instead of just, I don't know, FIXING the bus network.

Odd argument, since I actually drove the proposal to fix the bus network in the first place, and collaborated with others on this forum to

make it. Perhaps some clarification is in order?

=====
There is no contradiction with the New Bus Network or a Metro. In fact, having the two together will actually realise

the original vision of having a TTC-style bus network feeding a TTC-style metro. That would be good for Brisbane for the

next 100 - 200 years IMHO. The New Bus Network can be taken by itself, and immediately provide relief. It would

provide relief for quite a while. But in the longer term, the greatest efficiency comes from not having buses on the

busway at all, and copying Toronto.


By chance, the Cross River Rail is an excellent opportunity to build a combined tunnel to do just that, and at low cost.

There is no contradiction. The two proposals are meant to be compatible - indeed, they are separate components of the

one larger proposal. One bus, one rail, just like in Toronto. There may be some argument about short term and long

term, and at what time we should get what. But as Quirk surprised us this week, if we want to grab it, we probably could do so now.

It just needs to be combined with CRR.

=====


I hope this clarifies things for you. The precursor to the New Bus Network Proposal, while it was in crude / draft form DID feature

a subway on the SE busway, just like the TTC in Toronto. It was removed as the Queensland Government didn't seem interested

in funding anything at the time, and I realised that a proposal was required to do the absolute bare minimum possible, with low or

no resources. Thus the bus reorganisation could be done by itself, sans subway, which would come later, if ever.


Well, we now have a subway proposal, so the two components of a larger idea looks like it might finally come together.

Remember, bus reform costs virtually nothing, so it can be taken by itself or with an infrastructure spend.

[#Metro]

Here was one of the pre-New Bus Network crude drafts. Note the [M] symbols. The idea was to have metro stations there.



Image: A sample 'concept' precursor to the New Bus Network Proposal. It was very crude, but featured SE Busway stations converted to Subway stations (just like the TTC in Toronto). Given the funding un-likelyhood of converting the busway, the metro was removed, and capacity increased by using superbuses.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Council discuss logistics of mayor's 'fancy bus proposal'

.. as both sides accused the other of producing nothing more than thought bubbles by way of policy ..

[ozbob]

BCC has to get out of transport.  This is getting worse ..

Stick to what other councils do. Roads, rates and rubbish essentially.

[SurfRail]

This State is a transport policy free zone north of the Coomera River.

This "proposal" is no more a proposal than the Cleveland Solution.  It really beggars belief that people can't see this.