LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[#Metro]

Here is a second image from one of the pre-New Bus Network crude drafts. Note the [M] symbols. The idea was to have metro stations there. Depot out at Rochedale. Note the large interchange at Griffith University.

[ozbob]

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.

Yo.  I wonder who thought it up, the latest Brisbane Metro?  Same clowns who thought up the Cleveland solution?

I was rather fond of the ' Cleveland Solution '  with the elevated light rail crashing into bridges and vents all over. 
It would have been smashing views tramming down the Brisbane river hey? 

[verbatim9]

I gather momentum is building re disliking the current metro alignmet proposal. I tend to agree.

[ozbob]

As we have stated publicly, longer term a real metro is probably a serious option for Brisbane.

I think the current proposal simply doesn't stack up.  Sometimes you need to dissect in detail to flush out the flaws.   Councillors seem more interested in getting their proposals on front pages of newspapers than really think about proper integrated public transport networks.

It is a major basket case BCC.  No doubt about it IMHO.

[verbatim9]

True

[ozbob]

This is beautiful.  One of Spencer Jolly's best efforts I reckon.

[petey3801]

I've got it!! I know what LM Quirk's proposal is! It is vasically the City to Suburbs Bus Tunnel, simply re-hashed as a metro. He knew he couldn't pull out the bus tunnel plan again, as it has been shouted down several times now, so all he had to do was turn it in to a Metro proposal and wha-la! New Metro for Brisbane!

[ozbob]

Tactically I think they have blundered badly.   Should have gone for the staged network reform, sorting out Victoria Bridge as a green bridge, and then introducing super-buses on key trunk routes.  Would have achieved good results for a lot less cost.

I think the others will move into this space now. 

[red dragin]

Labor could say, "we where being silly with the light rail, just to see what the LM could have bake".

Our real idea is.......

[James]

Here is a second image from one of the pre-New Bus Network crude drafts. Note the [M] symbols. The idea was to have metro stations there. Depot out at Rochedale. Note the large interchange at Griffith University.

The difference between your plan and Quirk's plan is that the metro here is extending out to the south and does not take over the busway in the inner sections. Forcing interchange at Griffith Uni makes sense, forcing interchange at Woolloongabba does not.

My personal opinion is that the busway between Buranda and RBWH should forever remain as just busway. It will work well as a funnel for routes like the 180, 120, 230 etc. for which the idea of interchange is daft unless there's been an accident on one of the major arterials.

Tactically I think they have blundered badly.   Should have gone for the staged network reform, sorting out Victoria Bridge as a green bridge, and then introducing super-buses on key trunk routes.  Would have achieved good results for a lot less cost.

I think the others will move into this space now.

You have more faith than I, Bob. The stupid is now all-consuming. People have gotten caught up in concrete mania now, and I think the LNP have taken the points here with Harding's "fancy buses" blunder and a plan which everybody can "see" more easily than Harding's LRT.

I'm not sure if the public at large actually see what is wrong with the network. Probably doesn't help that nobody uses the network in the first place because the fares are too expensive. That and the muddying of responsibilities. People still calling on BCC to reduce bus fares.

[kram0]

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.


Anna2 has no clue at all. All she is preparing is smoke and mirrors. They have a perfectly good project in CRR1 that just requires updating, not 2 years of money wasted on planning a project that won't go ahead with her in charge.

We can only hope CRR is built by 2024!!

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.

[#Metro]

The difference between your plan and Quirk's plan is that the metro here is extending out to the south and does not take over the busway in the inner sections. Forcing interchange at Griffith Uni makes sense, forcing interchange at Woolloongabba does not.

Hi James.

It is not correct to call it my "plan". It is not a plan, it is not a proposal. It is nothing. It was a crude concept and a pre-cursor to the New Bus Network Proposal. I didn't think that anyone would spend money to convert the SEB back then, so I deleted the subway from the alignment and looked at what I could do with buses and no funding only. I include it in this discussion thread for historical completeness, and so show that you can support both Metro and Bus Reforms. Bus reform can be taken with or without an infrastructure spend. It is your choice.

As for Wooloongabba, if you don't want to interchange there, you don't have to. Just keep running the bus on the busway to the CBD via South Bank. The busway will still be there (Wooloongabba-South Bank-Cultural Centre) if the metro is placed into a combined CRR/Metro tunnel. Though it would be quieter. I imagine the 230 BulimbaGlider would cover that quite well.

My personal opinion is that the busway between Buranda and RBWH should forever remain as just busway. It will work well as a funnel for routes like the 180, 120, 230 etc. for which the idea of interchange is daft unless there's been an accident on one of the major arterials.

You could tunnel underneath/beside Buranda busway with a metro. That would allow buses to travel from Carindale <> UQ to carry students to UQ, using the existing busway.

[Derwan]

As we have stated publicly, longer term a real metro is probably a serious option for Brisbane.

I think the current proposal simply doesn't stack up.  Sometimes you need to dissect in detail to flush out the flaws.   Councillors seem more interested in getting their proposals on front pages of newspapers than really think about proper integrated public transport networks.

It is a major basket case BCC.  No doubt about it IMHO.

I agree with this.  We should support the idea of a metro in the long term, but not now... and certainly not attempting to add the Metro to CRR (the MAT tunnel).  This is akin to running buses in the same tunnel.

As I understand it, a Metro should service the high-density population areas close to the city - not be something that replaces a trunk route, forcing those from the suburbs to change when they get within a couple of kilometres of the city.  While I agree with general concept of having to change services, changing en masse is a dumb idea.

We need to get the major/trunk routes sorted - with separate infrastructure where possible (e.g. extending the busway north, CRR, trouts Rd corridor, etc).  Then we need to provide proper cross-suburb buses to create a spiderweb of services.  Changes should be in the suburbs, not close to the city.

A metro should be considered (in the future) to service the high-density areas close to the city - not as a replacement for a trunk route.

[#Metro]

I agree with this.  We should support the idea of a metro in the long term, but not now... and certainly not attempting to add the Metro to CRR (the MAT tunnel).  This is akin to running buses in the same tunnel.

It is not, especially if the metro is driverless and can be extended further along the busway system. We would end up with something like Toronto, where buses drop passengers off at TTC subway stations. (Kipling Station, Toronto is standard suburbia, not high density)

As I understand it, a Metro should service the high-density population areas close to the city - not be something that replaces a trunk route, forcing those from the suburbs to change when they get within a couple of kilometres of the city.  While I agree with general concept of having to change services, changing en masse is a dumb idea

And yet, this is what Toronto did when it replaced the tram system up Yonge street with subway in 1954. It progressively extended the subway into lower density areas, using the bus network to feed it. Now, development has moved out into the suburbs along metro stations, and the feeder buses carry so many passengers, they are being upgraded into cross-town light rail services. The latest is to have Viva BRT services feed stations at the ends of the subway.

My point is: a mass transit system is there to move masses. Whether that is in the city or not - the SE busway is already pushing the lower bound of metro systems already, and an LRT upgrade wouldn't add capacity. To me, metro up the busway makes sense. The opportunity is there - perhaps we should grab it.

We need to get the major/trunk routes sorted - with separate infrastructure where possible (e.g. extending the busway north, CRR, trouts Rd corridor, etc).  Then we need to provide proper cross-suburb buses to create a spiderweb of services.  Changes should be in the suburbs, not close to the city.

I agree with bus reform. It costs virtually nothing . It can be taken with or without an infrastructure spend.
But when you have proposals like Eastern Busway - I think metro would be excellent to take that load.

[Jonno]

As we have stated publicly, longer term a real metro is probably a serious option for Brisbane.

I think the current proposal simply doesn't stack up.  Sometimes you need to dissect in detail to flush out the flaws.   Councillors seem more interested in getting their proposals on front pages of new wspapers than really think about proper integrated public transport networks.

It is a major basket case BCC.  No doubt about it IMHO.

I agree with this.  We should support the idea of a metro in the long term, but not now... and certainly not attempting to add the Metro to CRR (the MAT tunnel).  This is akin to running buses in the same tunnel.

As I understand it, a Metro should service the high-density population areas close to the city - not be something that replaces a trunk route, forcing those from the suburbs to change when they get within a couple of kilometres of the city.  While I agree with general concept of having to change services, changing en masse is a dumb idea.

We need to get the major/trunk routes sorted - with separate infrastructure where possible (e.g. extending the busway north, CRR, trouts Rd corridor, etc).  Then we need to provide proper cross-suburb buses to create a spiderweb of services.  Changes should be in the suburbs, not close to the city.

A metro should be considered (in the future) to service the high-density areas close to the city - not as a replacement for a trunk route.

+1

[ozbob]

Revolve --> Driverless Metros

Metro systems without drivers on board, referred to as unattended train operation (UTO), driverless, or automatic, are expanding. Today, over 40 lines across the globe function this way, and in the coming years this particular modus operandi is forecast to grow five times faster than in the last decade.

Taking the driver out of the equation, and putting technology in his or her place, opens up potential benefits for all – industry, transport operators, funding authorities, and passengers. All, that is to say, except the ousted drivers, of course! Having no drivers reduces payroll costs. Energy bills are lower since acceleration and deceleration patterns can be adjusted to reduce consumption, and maximize energy recovery. And while maintenance costs are marginally higher, due to the introduction of platform and track protection systems, these are expected to be offset by the aforementioned staff and energy savings.

In terms of operational flexibility, the systems are capable of tailoring service coverage to best meet the needs of the moment, for example by optimizing the running time of trains, adjusting the speeds of the system, squeezing headways, and reducing dwell times in stations. A further, nonnegligible advantage lies in the perceived quality of the driverless service – since it is generally more reliable, with shorter dwell times, passengers spend less time waiting at platforms. Understandably, they view this improvement in a favorable light.

There are currently over 600 kilometers of automatic metro lines in operation worldwide, with the first such systems – Lille in Europe; Vancouver, Detroit, and Miami in North America; and Kobe, Yokahoma, and Osaka in Japan – dating from 1980 to 1990. And between 2014 to 2025, growth is expected to be exponential and reach 1,888km, predicts the UITP's Observatory for Automated Metros.[1] A flourishing sector of activity indeed, yet one that comes with its fair share of challenges ...

[verbatim9]

Plus Sydney's NW rail link will be driverless. Makes sense to have a brand new driverless metro corridor in Brisbane and keep the busway corridor as is. I support a metro Tunnel with CRR. 👍☺

[Gazza]

With respect the LNPs plan to run only from Gabba to Herston, that might actually make some bus reform less effective.

Broadly speaking, we've advocated for more routes that finish at Chermside, Carindale and Garden City.
With the idea that people would change once at these locations and ride on a larger bus to the CBD.

If the metro started at Gabba/Herston, that becomes less attractive.
You'd have a double change.

Feeder bus to a Westfield>Trunk superbus>Finally metro.

If the metro made it as far as 8mp that would solve the issue of course, but that's not what is being mooted is it?

[aldonius]

That's certainly my issue with it (beyond opportunity cost). It's half-baked.

The thing is, most of the cost and most of the benefit comes from undergrounding the busway from the bridge to the convention centre. The obvious question is if you want to spend about a billion, why not just do that? Leave the metro thing to a separate, later project and do busway reform in the meanwhile.

[Gazza]

Perhaps the other thing I'd like to question..Why is the forecourt in front of the Science Center such a sacred cow? It's not like it's a place of significance, and you could quite easily rip it up and start from scratch.....There's literally 100m of width between the QAG building and QPAC....You could fit Central station in between there! Why does every plan that crops up for the area have to be so convoluted?

[ozbob]

Greens --> Nine Questions for Lord Mayor Quirk about his Metro plan

    In peak times, your proposal would force up to 400 busloads of people each hour to get off mostly full buses and get onto the Metro a few stops from the city. How much of the mooted time saving of 5½ minutes (from Woolloongabba) and 3½ minutes (from Herston) would be lost with this massive inconvenience for passengers? Do you know anywhere else in the world where this happens?

    Page 2 of the Final Report of the Lord Mayor's Taskforce Brisbane Mass Transit Investigation states: "Of particular concern is the ability of light rail to use the existing Victoria Bridge. It is unlikely the bridge could be modified to accommodate the load of light rail vehicles, tracks and overhead line equipment. A new bridge adjacent to the existing Victoria Bridge would need to be constructed and would add significant construction cost and delay the implementation." Has a full engineering analysis been done to ensure the Victoria Bridge is able to carry the weight of the Metro vehicles, track, power supply and associated equipment?

    Page 30 of Council's own Suburbs 2 City: A Better Run for Buses pre-feasibility study report says, "Engineering investigations showed that a ramp of at least 100 metres would be required to connect the underground platforms and the green bridge to achieve the correct gradients. Any shorter and the tunnel would be too steep for buses to use safely and efficiently." Has a full engineering analysis been done on the grade required for the proposed tunnel approaches? How far from the bridge will the underground Cultural Centre Station have to be to achieve the required gradient from 10 metres down?

    You've admitted council would borrow a "majority" of the $1.54 billion project. What is the exact amount of extra debt for Brisbane City Council?

    How do you plan to get grants from State and/or Federal Governments when no need or priority for any project like this appears in State or Federal planning documents?

    The proposed route does not take passengers within walking distance of much of the CBD, particularly north of Edward Street where most passengers want to go. How are you going to get commuters from the current underground bus stations to the rest of the CBD?

    Cross River Rail is by all accounts the most important infrastructure needed in Brisbane, if not Australia. Why don't you focus council efforts in securing funding for this?

    The cardinal rule of infrastructure planning is first to use to maximum efficiency what you already have. Why would you spend $1.54 billion and disrupt passengers for years when the central problem can be solved for $40 million?

    Why on Earth would you spend $1.54 billion on public transport infrastructure and not include any new destinations?

[ozbob]

Be interesting to see if Brisbane media pick ^ this up.

Reasonable questions.

[#Metro]

Strengthening
The Victoria Bridge would need to be strengthened, and I believe this should be possible to do.

See, Light Rail may be possible (with strengthening). Blue Team might claim that a metro does not need strengthening, but metro

obviously carries more people inside, and people actually have a weight! So both options (metro/LRT) would need strengthening.

Cost
First efficiencies would be from labour costs. It cost almost a billion per year to run the BCC bus network, introducing driverless

metro would be a massive efficiency, and that would grow as the system grew. In Toronto, for example, the TCC recovers 60-70% of

costs from fares. And fares are generally reasonable!

The second thing is that BCC has the power to levy rates and crucially these rates are linked to land value. Land values around

stations will be increased (and in Brisbane generally to reflect the higher amenity the city has) and this will mean greater revenue

over time. BCCs debt position is quite good, and there is good prospect of splitting the cost with the state and federal if the project is

combined with CRR.

Alignment
I think the Victoria Bridge is a poor and costly alignment. Much cheaper IMHO to combine with CRR and go directly into

Wooloongabba via a combined tunnel. Not building the CBD-Cultural Centre-South Bank-Mater Hill section also means that the metro

can be extended further down the busway, perhaps to Buranda, where it would link in really nicely with UQ and the Eastern Busway

at Buranda. This would also reduce the interchange intensity significantly by spreading the terminating buses over Buranda,

Wooloongabba and Park Road interchange/UQ lakes.

[ozbob]

Team Quirk's metro as it stands is nonsense.  It is not automated, too short and it guts the busway system for very little effective gain.

There is no way the State is going to give over the busway core and the site at Go print for this ' metro '.  The go print site is for CRR anyway.

Greens have risen to the occasion.  I have suggested the only way a metro will progress in Brisbane is with cooperation (dreaming?) between BCC and State and do it properly down the track. A true networked automated modern metro system.

CRR is a far higher priority.  Bus reform is deliverable today.

As far as I am concerned, these are the priorities for now. Bus reform includes fixing up Victoria Bridge/Cultural Centre and the portals.  Reducing the number of buses coming into the CBD by sensible reform.

CRR needs to begin this year.

[SurfRail]

^ Do we have any idea whatsoever about where CRR sits?

[#Metro]

There needs to be a joint planning team between State and BCC re: metro or combined metro/CRR.

Am I dreaming? 

[ozbob]

^ Do we have any idea whatsoever about where CRR sits?

I think there might well some progress in the not too distant future.

[#Metro]

In both these examples, platforms are short and the metro itself is driverless.
Note that some platforms on the Copenhagen system do not have platform screen doors.

Vancouver Metro

Copenhagen Metro

[verbatim9]

In both these examples, platforms are short and the metro itself is driverless.
Note that some platforms on the Copenhagen system do not have platform screen doors.

I like how the screen doors go floor to the ceiling and the doors for the metro are floor to ceiling.


Hawaii Honolulu is also building an elevated metro. Not sure of any underground sections though.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

29th February 2016

Team Quirk Metro is Fantasy

Greetings,

The Team Quirk Rubber Tyre Metro fantasy plan is being used as a distraction from the failure that is the Brisbane bus network, a failure compounded by the present Brisbane City Council and their lack of co-operation with the State transport authorities during the 2012/13 bus review.

Brisbane may well end up with a metro subway system, but it will be a proper connected networked system, automatic (driverless) and standard gauge rail, probably in a 15 to 20 year time frame.  Along the lines that TMR has proposed.

It is worth noting that Lord Mayor Quirk was a supporter of the failed ' Cleveland Solution ' (1).  This was a proposed light rail system from Cleveland to Ferny Grove with an elevated light rail section in the Brisbane River!  What happened to that fantasy plan?  Does Lord Mayor Quirk really expect us to swallow the latest ' Rubber Tyre Metro ' plan?

There are many issues with the Quirk Metro, but one of the biggest issues is that the State controls the busways and the proposed depot site location at Woolloongabba.  In fact,that site  is earmarked for the Cross River Rail Woolloongabba railway station.  Why would the State allow Cross River Rail and the inner busway network to be ruined by a half baked proposal?  It won't.

Lord Mayor Quirk is attempting to link bus reform to his metro proposal.  The two things are actually logically distinct.  We have shown how bus reform could proceed, now, for near neutral cost (2).  Why spend billions of dollars to achieve something that can be done today for little cost?

For the long suffering citizens of Brisbane, the question that needs to be answered is what does Lord Mayor Quirk propose now for sorting out the bus network today? He has now admitted it is broken ( he thinks a metro is needed to fix it! ) but can we wait for another 10 years or so?  No, action needs to be taken today. Hobart, Houston and Auckland are not building metros and that did not stop them from reorganising their bus networks.

Both the LNP and ALP candidates for Lord Mayor in the Brisbane City Council elections have completely lost the public transport plot.  The Greens Candidate, Mr Ben Pennings. has already put forward  some sensible public and active transport policies.  Both the LNP and ALP would be well advised to think long and hard about their respective mediocre policy positions and change tack.

The correct thing from here is bus network reform and Cross River Rail.  This would then give Brisbane time to properly plan a connected automatic subway system.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

1.  Scott Emerson Reveals New Light Rail Plans For Brisbane Over Labor's Cross River Project  >

2.  Brisbane - bus network proposal > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.0

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane council election: Quirk says all Metro funding models on the table

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1st March 2016

Re: Team Quirk Metro is Fantasy

Good Morning,

We support ALP Lord Mayor Candidate Rod Harding's comments in the media concerning the ' Quirk Metro '.  We agree it is a ' con ' and is nothing like a true metro system.  To suggest an isolated short section of rubber tyre metro is equivalent to the Paris Metro system is nonsense.

What needs to happen to reduce the bus congestion is to carry out network reform.  Had that been done in 2013 as the Transport Authorities wanted,  we would not be dealing with this ridiculous proposal from the Lord Mayor.

Billions of dollars on fantasy or near cost neutral bus reform?  Is there anyone left in Government that is prepared to take the correct and responsible steps.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

29th February 2016

Team Quirk Metro is Fantasy

Greetings,

The Team Quirk Rubber Tyre Metro fantasy plan is being used as a distraction from the failure that is the Brisbane bus network, a failure compounded by the present Brisbane City Council and their lack of co-operation with the State transport authorities during the 2012/13 bus review.

Brisbane may well end up with a metro subway system, but it will be a proper connected networked system, automatic (driverless) and standard gauge rail, probably in a 15 to 20 year time frame.  Along the lines that TMR has proposed.

It is worth noting that Lord Mayor Quirk was a supporter of the failed ' Cleveland Solution ' (1).  This was a proposed light rail system from Cleveland to Ferny Grove with an elevated light rail section in the Brisbane River!  What happened to that fantasy plan?  Does Lord Mayor Quirk really expect us to swallow the latest ' Rubber Tyre Metro ' plan?

There are many issues with the Quirk Metro, but one of the biggest issues is that the State controls the busways and the proposed depot site location at Woolloongabba.  In fact,that site  is earmarked for the Cross River Rail Woolloongabba railway station.  Why would the State allow Cross River Rail and the inner busway network to be ruined by a half baked proposal?  It won't.

Lord Mayor Quirk is attempting to link bus reform to his metro proposal.  The two things are actually logically distinct.  We have shown how bus reform could proceed, now, for near neutral cost (2).  Why spend billions of dollars to achieve something that can be done today for little cost?

For the long suffering citizens of Brisbane, the question that needs to be answered is what does Lord Mayor Quirk propose now for sorting out the bus network today? He has now admitted it is broken ( he thinks a metro is needed to fix it! ) but can we wait for another 10 years or so?  No, action needs to be taken today. Hobart, Houston and Auckland are not building metros and that did not stop them from reorganising their bus networks.

Both the LNP and ALP candidates for Lord Mayor in the Brisbane City Council elections have completely lost the public transport plot.  The Greens Candidate, Mr Ben Pennings. has already put forward  some sensible public and active transport policies.  Both the LNP and ALP would be well advised to think long and hard about their respective mediocre policy positions and change tack.

The correct thing from here is bus network reform and Cross River Rail.  This would then give Brisbane time to properly plan a connected automatic subway system.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

1.  Scott Emerson Reveals New Light Rail Plans For Brisbane Over Labor's Cross River Project  >

2.  Brisbane - bus network proposal > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.0

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> State memo warns Quirk's Metro could cost $3 billion

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk could have underestimated the cost of his rubber-tyred Brisbane Metro system by nearly $1.5 billion, according to an internal state government document.

But Cr Quirk has insisted he can deliver his Brisbane Metro system for $1.54 billion, should he be re-elected on March 19, and has called on the government to apply similar scrutiny to Labor's light rail proposal.

A state government memo has warned the cost of Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's proposed Brisbane Metro could blow out to $3 billion. Photo: Supplied

The memorandum to Department of Transport and Main Roads director-general Neil Scales, dated February 2 and obtained by Fairfax Media, raises serious concerns about how the project would affect the state government's Cross River Rail.

Bureaucrats from the department's transport strategy and planning branch also warned the cost of the project could blow out to as much as $3 billion.

"It is unclear in what terms (nominal, net present cost, real) these numbers are stated and whether or not they are risk adjusted," the memo notes.

"Noting the level of planning undertaken, these costs should be considered pre-project estimates, which should be anywhere between about 35 per cent and 50 per cent risk allowance.

"Subject to the risk allowance, the cost of the scheme could be in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion."

Labor lord mayoral candidate Rod Harding seized on the TMR document.

"This punches a pretty big hole in Graham Quirk's costings," he said.

"We already know he oversold the project by comparing it with the Paris Metro.

"The truth is Graham Quirk has never been able to explain how he would pay for his so-called metro.

"Now it looks like it will actually cost double what he told us."

But Cr Quirk insisted his sums were correct and said TMR should publicly release its review of Labor's light rail proposal.

"I note that the state department completed a memo 24 hours after I made my Brisbane Metro announcement," he said.

"I assume they have done the same for Labor's light rail proposal and it should be publicly released.

"The Brisbane Metro is fully costed with a 50 per cent contingency built into the infrastructure component of the pricing and I have said that council will contribute the majority of funding, but will also be seeking state and federal government support."

Fairfax Media has been told a similar briefing note had not been prepared about Mr Harding's light rail plan, which was still very light on detail, as bureaucrats did not usually prepare assessments of non-elected candidates' plans.

Cr Quirk said the "first thing" his administration would do if re-elected on March 19 would be to commission a business case.

"We need to undertake detailed design and then we need to work with the private sector and other levels of government to achieve this outcome," he said.

"We have built a lot of infrastructure in Brisbane in the past decade and local residents want us to keep building the necessary infrastructure to keep Brisbane heading in the right direction."​

The TMR memo notes Cr Quirk's Brisbane Metro would "require wholesale reconfiguration of the bus network across the Brisbane contract area, especially across the south-east".

"There was previously very strong community and BCC opposition to a proposed network review that was much less disruptive," it notes.

The memo also raises serious concerns about the Brisbane Metro's reliance on existing state-owned infrastructure.

"It is unclear what the expectation or implications would be with regards to operations and maintenance of the corridor," it notes.

"It is unclear how buses would access the Queen Street Bus Station, Adelaide Street and Elizabeth Street.

"If passengers are required to relocate to the King George Square bus station, many people would be disadvantaged in terms of access to their destination, especially those heading to the Queens Wharf precinct, the Riverside and Eagle Street precinct and the southern CBD.

"It will provide significant challenges during construction and major disruption to the busiest part of the busway network."

The memo also notes the Victoria Bridge, which would act as the Brisbane Metro's river crossing, was "known to have loading capacity limitations".

"It is unclear if and how these limitations have been addressed with regards to this proposal," it notes.

Cr Quirk's office said that had been addressed (see below).

It also questioned how the Brisbane Metro's proposed rollingstock stabling facility at Woolloongabba, on the Go Print site, would impact on the proposed Cross River Rail station at that site.

Mr Harding said the memo showed the Brisbane Metro would have "serious implications" for the Cross River Rail project.

"Perhaps that's because Graham Quirk doesn't support Cross River Rail," he said.

The LNP Newman government appointed Mr Scales TMR director-general in 2012, after Michael Caltabiano was forced out of the role.
Cr Quirk's office was asked six direct questions arising from the TMR memo. The answers are provided below in full:

Is the Quirk administration satisfied the cost can be kept to $1.54 billion?

"Yes."

Has there been any risk allowance in coming up with that figure?

"Yes. Fifty per cent contingency built into the infrastructure component of the pricing."

Did the Quirk administration consult with TMR at all prior to the announcement? If not, why not, given the state-owned assets that would have to be modified?

"No. The leaking of this memo shows that any consultation would have been likely to result in the Labor opposition being provided with details of our plan."

Is the Quirk administration satisfied the Victoria Bridge's load capacity limitations will not adversely affect the scope of the project?

"Yes. The 2009 Queensland Transport Technical Investigations of Inner City Metro and Busway Conversions Options report: 'It should also be noted that the Metro option does not require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge, whereas the LRT co-location option would require the reconstruction of Victoria Bridge.'"

How would buses access Queen Street bus station given the metro would cross access paths?

"Buses into Queen Street Bus Station can access via the Elizabeth Street on ramp from the west (Riverside Expressway from Coronation Drive) and from the south (Riverside Expressway), which they are able to do now."

Had the impact on the state government's proposed Cross River Rail been considered in the metro plan, particularly in regards to the proposed rollingstock stabling at the Go Print site at Woolloongabba?

"Yes. A metro station on the Go Print site still allows volumetric title to be created to facilitate redevelopment of the Go Print site, which the memo refers to."

Sprung!  bullsh%t project Quirk ..

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

5th March 2016

Greetings,

Finally, the charade that is the Quirk ' Metro ' is exposed.

Brisbanetimes --> State memo warns Quirk's Metro could cost $3 billion

You're welcome!

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

1st March 2016

Re: Team Quirk Metro is Fantasy

Good Morning,

We support ALP Lord Mayor Candidate Rod Harding's comments in the media concerning the ' Quirk Metro '.  We agree it is a ' con ' and is nothing like a true metro system.  To suggest an isolated short section of rubber tyre metro is equivalent to the Paris Metro system is nonsense.

What needs to happen to reduce the bus congestion is to carry out network reform.  Had that been done in 2013 as the Transport Authorities wanted,  we would not be dealing with this ridiculous proposal from the Lord Mayor.

Billions of dollars on fantasy or near cost neutral bus reform?  Is there anyone left in Government that is prepared to take the correct and responsible steps.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

29th February 2016

Team Quirk Metro is Fantasy

Greetings,

The Team Quirk Rubber Tyre Metro fantasy plan is being used as a distraction from the failure that is the Brisbane bus network, a failure compounded by the present Brisbane City Council and their lack of co-operation with the State transport authorities during the 2012/13 bus review.

Brisbane may well end up with a metro subway system, but it will be a proper connected networked system, automatic (driverless) and standard gauge rail, probably in a 15 to 20 year time frame.  Along the lines that TMR has proposed.

It is worth noting that Lord Mayor Quirk was a supporter of the failed ' Cleveland Solution ' (1).  This was a proposed light rail system from Cleveland to Ferny Grove with an elevated light rail section in the Brisbane River!  What happened to that fantasy plan?  Does Lord Mayor Quirk really expect us to swallow the latest ' Rubber Tyre Metro ' plan?

There are many issues with the Quirk Metro, but one of the biggest issues is that the State controls the busways and the proposed depot site location at Woolloongabba.  In fact,that site  is earmarked for the Cross River Rail Woolloongabba railway station.  Why would the State allow Cross River Rail and the inner busway network to be ruined by a half baked proposal?  It won't.

Lord Mayor Quirk is attempting to link bus reform to his metro proposal.  The two things are actually logically distinct.  We have shown how bus reform could proceed, now, for near neutral cost (2).  Why spend billions of dollars to achieve something that can be done today for little cost?

For the long suffering citizens of Brisbane, the question that needs to be answered is what does Lord Mayor Quirk propose now for sorting out the bus network today? He has now admitted it is broken ( he thinks a metro is needed to fix it! ) but can we wait for another 10 years or so?  No, action needs to be taken today. Hobart, Houston and Auckland are not building metros and that did not stop them from reorganising their bus networks.

Both the LNP and ALP candidates for Lord Mayor in the Brisbane City Council elections have completely lost the public transport plot.  The Greens Candidate, Mr Ben Pennings. has already put forward  some sensible public and active transport policies.  Both the LNP and ALP would be well advised to think long and hard about their respective mediocre policy positions and change tack.

The correct thing from here is bus network reform and Cross River Rail.  This would then give Brisbane time to properly plan a connected automatic subway system.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

1.  Scott Emerson Reveals New Light Rail Plans For Brisbane Over Labor's Cross River Project  >

2.  Brisbane - bus network proposal > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.0

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

5th March 2016

Cost Explosion Engulfs Quirk's Vote Bait ' Metro '

Greetings,

Today the media reports Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro may be twice previously reported costs. Metros are complex and international experience on large 'mega projects' suggests that costs are likely to escalate. Our main concern with this proposal is the fact that it is not automatic, no doubt because that would raise the construction costs to more 'realistic' levels. We are also concerned about the alignment, which should have been chosen through a public options analysis, similar to the process for Cross River Rail.

In fact, all options, including improved buses, should have been on the table.

It is becoming very clear that Brisbane City Council risks overstepping its authority. No matter who is elected on March 19, there is likely to be a power grab to alter fare levels or build infrastructure on State Government controlled infrastructure and land. It brings into sharp focus the simple reality that transport planning and operations can no longer be performed in isolated fiefdoms. Sunshine Coast transport writer Peter Quick raised these issues in a Courier-Mail article in 2012.

Neither the Lord Mayor's Metro nor challenger Rod Harding's Light Rail stack up, and are vote bait, in our opinion. What Brisbane needs are the bus reforms Lord Mayor Graham Quirk dumped in 2013. Brisbane Transport is now failing to meet basic State Government bus on time standards, patronage has fallen catastrophically, and there are gigantic 'black holes' in the bus network in Yeronga, Bulimba, The Centenary Suburbs, and The Northwest. UQ students and staff living in Mitchelton, Enoggera, The Gap, Ashgrove, Bardon, and West Toowong who attend UQ St Lucia Campus also have a hard time getting to work and study.

That is more than enough evidence for the State Government to act and upload Brisbane City Council's transport responsibilities to the State Government.

On a more technical note, we reject the idea that only a metro can use the Victoria Bridge. Both Metro and Light Rail would probably require major bridge strengthening. We present a Brisbane City Council commissioned engineering report that shows Victoria Bridge strengthening is a viable option for Light Rail. Rod Harding's Light Rail is however doomed because it essentially amounts to putting steel wheels on the existing CityGlider for $1.2 BILLION and does not bring anything new to the table in terms of service quality or access to new destinations. It duplicates existing rail, ferry and busway infrastructure gratuitously. Capacity on the CityGlider could be increased five times before Light Rail capacities were required.

A Brisbane City Council report already comprehensively and conclusively blew apart the case for Light Rail along the CityGlider alignment in 2007.

This very sorry fiasco should serve as a strong warning that elected officials must listen to community feedback and take it seriously, even if it is saying things they do not agree with or it is inconvenient for their politics.

Bus Reform is the fastest, cheapest and simplest way to fix Brisbane's bus network. Everything else is a sideshow.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References

RAIL Back on Track New Bus Network Proposal
http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

City's Public Transport Will Never Improve While Run By Opposing Sides,
Peter Quick, The Courier Mail 11/04/2012
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg161037#msg161037

Quirk Metro Could Cost $3 billion
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-council-election-state-memo-warns-quirks-metro-could-cost-3-billion-20160304-gnb38g.html

Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report (2007), Brisbane City Council
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/sept07_final_report_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf

Report on Victoria Bridge light rail investigation, Nick Stevens Consulting
http://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/SLQ:SLQ_PCI_EBSCO:slq_alma21133875470002061 (SLQ reference: Q 388.42 NIC)

[kaykayt]

Brisbane council election: State memo warns Quirk's Metro could cost $3 billion

>http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-council-election-state-memo-warns-quirks-metro-could-cost-3-billion-20160304-gnb38g.html

[BrizCommuter]

Team Quirk wins BrizCommuter Award for...
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/team-quirk-wins-brizcommuter-award.html

[#Metro]

^ I have an objection to that post. The Metro is not the worst idea - the worst one surely is Fare Free Friday from Red Team, 2011 Fare 'Price Shock' from the Greens and 2009 Fares Reset by Blue Team.

They may as well be promising free unicorn with those offers.

[aldonius]

Silliest is not necessarily worst though.

[James]

I still think the light rail is a worse idea. The metro is fine in principle, it is just they put it in an absolutely awful alignment. LRT is not fine in principle, and I argue that Brisbane should never put in LRT (at least within BCC's boundaries) as it is not suited to the layout/BRT already exists and does a good job of it anyway.

Ignoring the terrible use of photoshop and silly 'on street running' between the Cultural Centre and Adelaide St, the metro idea is passable. I don't see how you're going to fit LRT in along most of the alignment without either making the alignment inaccessible to cars (nice in theory, but this is Brisbane, most people will still drive) or running it in Class C ROW, essentially a waste of $1.2bn.

Regardless, arguing the merits of one over the other as the projects stand is akin to arguing that cat poo is worse than dog poo.