LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[BrizCommuter]

Ignoring the terrible use of photoshop and silly 'on street running' between the Cultural Centre and Adelaide St, the metro idea is passable.

No, it's not passable in the slightest:
For $1.5b the Brisbane Metro does not increase capacity.
It does not serve large busway trip generators of RBWH and UQ (forcing a change to access these destinations).
Whilst journey times along it's route may be faster, the changes will increase journey times for connecting bus passengers.
The frequency may be worse than the busway, especially at night - made worse by the use of drivers.
It has drivers - why??.
No detail has been provided on the interchange design at Wooloongabba, Normanby, and Herston.
No detail has been provided on the depot design.
It detracts from CRR and bus reform.
The bit around North Quay seems rather dubiously designed.
It would close the Inner SE and Northern Busways for 6 years. Congestion central - if you can remember Brisbane before bus ways, it was hellish trying to cross the city by bus!!!
It would push many bus routes onto congested roads through the CBD e.g. 444, 385, Maroon CityGlider.

It would be a huge waste of taxpayers money for something a little bit fancy (which proper 'world cities' would still laugh at), achieves nothing, adds to the transport network confusion, would cause chaos during construction, and detracts from well studies transport proposals. With such as poor value for money, it would economically damaging for Brisbane.

Post CRR, Brisbane will eventually need a metro system. This should be properly planned like the original CRR, not designed on the back of a napkin like Quirk and Harding's brain farts.

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/team-quirk-wins-brizcommuter-award.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-brisbane-metro-capacity.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-council-election-promises.html

[ozbob]

^ concur, absolutely ...

[#Metro]

A metro is feasible, but that has to come from proper analysis. Graham Quirk hasn't done that, and that's partly because its and election thing. Note, I only make a case against the proposal Quirk puts forward, not metro as a mode in general.

For $1.5b the Brisbane Metro does not increase capacity.

I already disagreed with this claim. It would both increase capacity and efficiency of existing operations.
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg168036#msg168036

If the metro is made automatic, it can be run every 1.5 minutes with moving block signalling.

This make the calculation (assuming Paris standards)

722 pax x 40 trains/hour = 28 880 pphd

and I provide a reference from the TTC in Canada which suggests it is possible.

90 second headways seem possible in general, perhaps on this proposed metro also.

Independent reference: TTC

http://alstomsignalingsolutions.com/Data/Documents/Train_Control_2011_12_Alstom_Catalog_May26-5.pdf

CBTC is the current generation of advanced train control technology using radio and
modern network technology. Alstom's solution allows for more efficient operation and makes
it possible to increase train frequency and transport capacity. The system is capable of
providing headway of 90 seconds or better under normal operating conditions, allowing
the TTC to run more trains, and therefore carry more passengers in less time

Conclusion: 30 000 pphd is about right. Particularly with rubber tyres, the train will be able to stop much more quickly.

If you have calculations or real-world examples that contradict this, I would like to see that.

[ozbob]

The ' metro ' that Quirk has proposed is nonsense LD.

Brisbane may well get a proper metro eventually, but it would be well researched and planned.  There are long range plans for a metro inside TMR.

[#Metro]

It does not serve large busway trip generators of RBWH and UQ (forcing a change to access these destinations).

I can't see a reason why a metro could not be extended along the busway to RBWH as a terminus point.

Whilst journey times along it's route may be faster, the changes will increase journey times for connecting bus passengers.

Perhaps, but only by a few minutes, and only in the initial stages. As the metro extends, time savings from frequency gains would increase patronage overall. Remember, this argument could also be used against the Gold Coast Light Rail. Frequencies on the Gold Coast Highway corridor were better before the Light Rail, than after the Light Rail went in PLUS it caused forced bus transfer at stations along the line. Yet patronage increased.

The frequency may be worse than the busway, especially at night - made worse by the use of drivers.

Potentially. Same criticism can be put against GC LRT.

It has drivers - why??.

Agree with you on this one. It would be ridiculous to have self driving buses and cars, but the metro still manual.

No detail has been provided on the interchange design at Wooloongabba, Normanby, and Herston.
No detail has been provided on the depot design.

These are valid concerns. Indeed, the most concerning is that the State Government needs to be in on this and co-operate, TMR really should be doing the reference case design work.

It detracts from CRR and bus reform.

Not really. It only adds. Bus Reform can be taken with or without infrastructure spend, and would happen earlier than metro construction.

It would close the Inner SE and Northern Busways for 6 years. Congestion central - if you can remember Brisbane before bus ways, it was hellish trying to cross the city by bus!!!

If a metro is designed to run in the tunnel with CRR, then this is not an issue. The SE Busway from Mater Hill through South Bank and to the Brisbane CBD would be untouched.

It would push many bus routes onto congested roads through the CBD e.g. 444, 385, Maroon CityGlider.

Not really seeing this.

It would be a huge waste of taxpayers money for something a little bit fancy (which proper 'world cities' would still laugh at), achieves nothing, adds to the transport network confusion, would cause chaos during construction, and detracts from well studies transport proposals. With such as poor value for money, it would economically damaging for Brisbane.

A proper in-depth study would clear this up. A longer metro is necessary to capture the main benefits IMHO.

Post CRR, Brisbane will eventually need a metro system. This should be properly planned like the original CRR, not designed on the back of a napkin like Quirk and Harding's brain farts.

Exactly.

[#Metro]

The ' metro ' that Quirk has proposed is nonsense LD.

Brisbane may well get a proper metro eventually, but it would be well researched and planned.  There are long range plans for a metro inside TMR.

I am aware of this, which is why I am careful to distinguish the proposal Quirk is putting forward as separate from the concept of a properly planned metro on the SE Busway generally.

The SE Busway is capable of supporting metro, if in operation today, it would be running trains every 5-6 minutes at peak hour.

Calculation
12 000 pphd / 1000 pax = 12 train loads
60 min / 12 = 5 minutes

[James]

No, it's not passable in the slightest:
For $1.5b the Brisbane Metro does not increase capacity.
It does not serve large busway trip generators of RBWH and UQ (forcing a change to access these destinations).
Whilst journey times along it's route may be faster, the changes will increase journey times for connecting bus passengers.
The frequency may be worse than the busway, especially at night - made worse by the use of drivers.
It has drivers - why??.
No detail has been provided on the interchange design at Wooloongabba, Normanby, and Herston.
No detail has been provided on the depot design.
It detracts from CRR and bus reform.
The bit around North Quay seems rather dubiously designed.
It would close the Inner SE and Northern Busways for 6 years. Congestion central - if you can remember Brisbane before bus ways, it was hellish trying to cross the city by bus!!!
It would push many bus routes onto congested roads through the CBD e.g. 444, 385, Maroon CityGlider.

It would be a huge waste of taxpayers money for something a little bit fancy (which proper 'world cities' would still laugh at), achieves nothing, adds to the transport network confusion, would cause chaos during construction, and detracts from well studies transport proposals. With such as poor value for money, it would economically damaging for Brisbane.

Post CRR, Brisbane will eventually need a metro system. This should be properly planned like the original CRR, not designed on the back of a napkin like Quirk and Harding's brain farts.

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/team-quirk-wins-brizcommuter-award.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-brisbane-metro-capacity.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-council-election-promises.html

- It does increase capacity
- Again, I said the concept was a good idea. Garbage that it is not serving RBWH, I would argue that you couldn't have the metro serving UQ without stuffing with the rest of the network anyway.
- I suspect there are drivers because it isn't all Class A ROW. Remove the section without Class A ROW, and it can be driverless.
- Agree re: depot design and interchange, the LRT has the same issue. Again, cat poo v dog poo here.
- There's no reason why certain roads could be modified into bus lanes in the mean time.
- Fair point re: 385 and 444, but I really don't think it is the end of the world having them out of the busway network. They could just do as the 412 does.

I'd like to quote myself on my position on the Metro.

The metro is fine in principle, it is just they put it in an absolutely awful alignment.

Put it in a tunnel between South Bank and KGSBS (possibly even RSBS North to keep the inner core intact) and then plan to extend it out along the SE Busway and you have a much better proposal. Again, the proposal is good in principle, but the details are pretty terrible.

LRT, in my opinion, has no place in Brisbane full stop. What happens to Adelaide St? Boundary St? What about the Story Bridge? How many buses per hour does it remove from CC? 30bph if we're optimistic, out of something like 120bph. For $1.2 billion. Every corridor worthy of LRT is either too narrow, too short or has a duplicate corridor (busway/train line) close by.

[#Metro]

- I suspect there are drivers because it isn't all Class A ROW. Remove the section without Class A ROW, and it can be driverless.

What? It must be class A all the way due to the frequency, inability to stop suddenly, and ground level hi voltage third rail.

Also, I forgot to address the not serving UQ thing. Once upon a time the busway did not exist, and access to UQ was via Dutton Park ferry or 407 Rocket to UQ from the CBD. There is nothing wrong with running (super) buses to and from Buranda Metro station. It would suffice.

Fair point re: 385 and 444, but I really don't think it is the end of the world having them out of the busway network. They could just do as the 412 does.

Pre-busway these ran on the surface. I think the 385 and 345 left from Adelaide Street, and the 444 from George Street.

[James]

What? It must be class A all the way due to the frequency, inability to stop suddenly, and ground level hi voltage third rail.

Quirk's proposal is not all Class A ROW because of the on-street running between CC and Adelaide St. Well, it could be. Again, the problems with discussing plans for plans done on the back of a napkin. We don't know how cars will access Brisbane Square, how buses will turn into Adelaide St from a variety of locations, how pedestrians cross North Quay and so on. All a bit of a mess...

I suspect if the proposal proceeded as-is, there would be overhead wires. They're just not included in the photoshop (much like Harding's LRT) because overhead wires are not sexy.

[BrizCommuter]

Also, I forgot to address the not serving UQ thing. Once upon a time the busway did not exist, and access to UQ was via Dutton Park ferry or 407 Rocket to UQ from the CBD. There is nothing wrong with running (super) buses to and from Buranda Metro station. It would suffice.



Pre-busway these ran on the surface. I think the 385 and 345 left from Adelaide Street, and the 444 from George Street.

The plans do not have a metro station at Buranda. Please don't confuse Quirk's plans with any other fantasies. Adding another change for students and staff to get to UQ is a step backwards on this very high growth route.

Pre busway when buses ran on the surface, they often got stuck in traffic. Roma St to Cultural Centre often took 30 mins. Quirk's metro would send many bus routes back to the dark days of slow journey times and unreliability.

[#Metro]

Quirk's proposal is not all Class A ROW because of the on-street running between CC and Adelaide St. Well, it could be. Again, the problems with discussing plans for plans done on the back of a napkin. We don't know how cars will access Brisbane Square, how buses will turn into Adelaide St from a variety of locations, how pedestrians cross North Quay and so on. All a bit of a mess...

I suspect if the proposal proceeded as-is, there would be overhead wires. They're just not included in the photoshop (much like Harding's LRT) because overhead wires are not sexy.

I agree, no funds should be released until it is demonstrated that proper process is followed, and that means all options and modes are considered. Process!!

The plans do not have a metro station at Buranda. Please don't confuse Quirk's plans with any other fantasies. Adding another change for students and staff to get to UQ is a step backwards on this very high growth route.

It is legitimate to suggest changes to a concept, particularly when it is at the concept stage. The proposal as it stands is not good, however it could be modified and refined to be something better. The alignment for starters, should be combined with CRR IMHO.

Pre busway when buses ran on the surface, they often got stuck in traffic. Roma St to Cultural Centre often took 30 mins. Quirk's metro would send many bus routes back to the dark days of slow journey times and unreliability.

It doesn't have to be this way. If *a* metro was put via CRR, it could emerge just after Wooloongabba and continue down the busway to Buranda and beyond. This would mean the section CBD-Cultural Centre-South Bank- Gabba would still be busway. In addition to this, even if the route to UQ via the busway were blocked, TransLink could just revert to the prior option which had the 109 travel express via Annerley Road and then down into Dutton park and across the Green Bridge.

Yes there are always problems. But I also often find that most problems do have solutions.

[SurfRail]

Why even bother with this discussion?  It's just the Cleveland "solution" again.  We all know it isn't going to happen regardless of who gets elected.

[BrizCommuter]

Why even bother with this discussion?  It's just the Cleveland "solution" again.  We all know it isn't going to happen regardless of who gets elected.

That is a good point!

[Gazza]

Just saying, but I agree with Briz commuter that the line wouldn't increase capacity for $1.5 bill, because they have stated they would only start with 4 min headways.

If you wanted to get 2 min headways, then you'd have to spend a few hundred million on extra sets and more stabling.

It pretty much is the Cleveland solution though.... Wonder how much it would cost to just do a lobotomised version of that (Gabba, alongside the Rex, then to Roma St and onto the INB)

[BrizCommuter]

There is no theoretical increase in capacity even at 2 min headways. There is a calculation on my blog which I can't link to as I'm writing this from my phone.

[#Metro]

Calculation

60 minutes / 2 = 30 trains per hour

30 trains / hour x 722 pax / train (assuming Brizcommuter parameters) = 21 660

Current busway capacity is somewhere around 12 000 pphd. (Overload is handled by taking approx 50% of buses out of the busway and over the Captain Cook Bridge in peak hour)

Capacity increase of 9000+ pphd

If a metro were running today on the SEB, it would be running every 5-6 minutes at peak hour. and would be a massive labour cost saving, an improvement to legibility and network simplicity as well.

(Obviously capacity depends on ultimate design)

[SurfRail]

Certainly, but that isn't anywhere near what is being proposed.  In particular, if you end up at the Gabba (which is an inherent design requirement due to their proposed depot site), you have reduced your headway south of the Gabba junction considerably, to the point where there is little advantage to leaving it bus-only.  You end up with much more capacity through the Mater Hill to Victoria Bridge section than you actually need, and less capacity where it should be on the bits south of Buranda to absorb all the bus transfers.

[BrizCommuter]

Calculation

60 minutes / 2 = 30 trains per hour

30 trains / hour x 722 pax / train (assuming Brizcommuter parameters) = 21 660

Current busway capacity is somewhere around 12 000 pphd. (Overload is handled by taking approx 50% of buses out of the busway and over the Captain Cook Bridge in peak hour)

Capacity increase of 9000+ pphd

If a metro were running today on the SEB, it would be running every 5-6 minutes at peak hour. and would be a massive labour cost saving, an improvement to legibility and network simplicity as well.

(Obviously capacity depends on ultimate design)

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-brisbane-metro-capacity.html
It's 481 passengers/train x 30 tph = 14,430 passengers/hour
Assuming 60m 4-car trains based on Paris Metro MP05 stock.

BrizCommuter assumes that Quirk's 30,000 passengers an hour figure is looking at both directions, and is thus misleading.

[#Metro]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/quirky-brisbane-metro-capacity.html
It's 481 passengers/train x 30 tph = 14,430 passengers/hour
Assuming 60m 4-car trains based on Paris Metro MP05 stock.

Ok, I can see what the issue is with the Quirk proposal. Though a metro doesn't have to be done his way, there are other ways to route and design it that would have higher capacity, such as leaving Mater Hill etc as busway stations and only going metro from out at W'Gabba towards Eight Mile Plains along the busway.

It is worth asking Quirk how long the train will be and what the capacity is. We could discuss this capacity aspect all day and get nowhere without that information.

Worth a try?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

9th March 2016

Team Quirk ' Metro ' Information Request

Greetings,

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

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

Please send responses to admin@backontrack.org

Best wishes,
Robert

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

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 58m

The @Team_Quirk metro is an expensive non-solution to what should be basic bus network reform ..

#qldpol #bnevotes @Rod4Bris @BenPennings

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

9th March 2016

Team Quirk ' Metro ' Information Request

Greetings,

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

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

Please send responses to admin@backontrack.org

Best wishes,
Robert

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

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

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

Response to Rail Back on Track

Questions on the Team Quirk's Metro Plan for Brisbane

1. How long would the trains be in meters?

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

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

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

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

Power would be provided from the track system.

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

The route is set.

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

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

6. Why are the trains manual and not automatic?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ozbob]

Some of the responses concern me a lot.  There appears to have been not a real lot of thought or very detailed plans done about this proposal.

A metro system needs to be designed for automatic operation from the outset.  It is not an option to be added on, because of the particular Class A segregated and safe ROW required.  Not to mention safe station operation.

Capacity seems rather light. Super buses could equally achieve at a much lesser cost.

Busways are state infrastructure - fact.  I have been reliably informed that there is no way a depot could be co-located at Woolloongabba.  Our research suggests that Victoria Bridge would need modifications/strengthening.

Track power supply will need a lot of access protection.

They might well be ' determined to deliver the project '   but I think the costing is far under what it will actually cost.  Particularly if designed for full automatic operation.

Hmmmm ....

[Gazza]

At 30tph, with 300 person trains you get 9000 per hour.

If it runs at the intial 4 min frequency then that's 4500 per hour.

It is stated that 200bph will be terminated.
Let's say they carry 50% air as at present (25 per bus)

5000 passengers per hour interchanging.

It is unclear how the 200 bph terminating is split between Herston and Gabba, but I assume most will be at Gabba?

[SurfRail]

This plan is finally shown up for the nonsense it is.

300 passenger capacity trainsets = same capacity as a single G:Link tram.

Max headway of 30 services per hour is 33% less than G:Link's notional maximum headway of 90 seconds, which does not require anything more than driving on sight using conventional traffic signals.

In other words, this thing will be capable of carrying 9,000 compared to G:Link's 12,000 pphd, unless they spend a LOT more money on it.

It gets better.  That 9,000 is in fact a degradation on the busway's existing capacity.

Conclusion:

[#Metro]

WOW. It's like they just needed something knocked up quickly.
And the lack of bus reform indicates that once the metro fell over, we would have --- nothing.

Honestly, what is their problem with fixing up the bus network? They can't say that it is all TransLink's responsibility because when TransLink exercised that power in 2013, BCC blocked it. Nothing has changed to prevent that happening again. And if BCC wanted a review done, it could absolutely do it itself and then recommend upwards.

What is the purpose of blocking much-needed change? There is no benefit to anyone, it is a pointless exercise. Do they actually believe the problem will go away by itself?

300 x 40 trains per hour (being very optimistic here) = 12 000, the same capacity as the busway now.

If built under these parameters, Brizcommuter is correct. The trains need to be much longer to have gain on them, should hold 800 - 1000 pax

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

16th March 2016

#BNEVOTES: Votebait Detect: NO BENEFIT From LNP Metro, ALP Light Rail!

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track does not support the Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro or Rod Harding's Light Rail. We base our assessment on 'cold merit' and this process has turned up critical flaws in both policies to the extent we could not support them. The media could be far more critical of these projects than simply reporting emotional and aesthetic aspects of what the vehicle looks like. These proposals are completely lacking in substance!

Light Rail - Rod Harding (ALP)

* No benefit to The University of Queensland
* Slower than existing route 66 bus (bus takes 17 mins to reach UQ from KGS)
* Less reliable than route 66 bus (bus runs on exclusive busway, tram does not)
* No new destinations added to network (areas already well served)
* West End residents can catch CityCat for 5 min trip to UQ already, no need for tram
* Duplicates existing busway, citycat, and railway infrastructure and services (i.e. Blue CityGlider, UQ already has a green bridge, busway and ferry terminal)
* Light Rail capacity not required on corridor (CityGlider peak hour patronage would have to increase about 5x to require trams)
* Unclear as to how it will fit into Montague Road - no images showing widths
* Unclear as to whether it will run on the street or in its own exclusive lane
* Effectively, places steel wheels on the existing CityGlider for $1.2 Billion. Crazy!

Metro - Lord Mayor Graham Quirk (LNP)

* No increase in busway capacity after construction. Even with the best signalling possible (40 trains/hour) a 300-person metro train would carry 300 people x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers/hour at best, which is what the busway carries already.
* Not automatic
* Route is set, not indicative. Basically we don't know if the route is optimal. Potential construction efficiencies if co-located and built with Cross River Rail tunnel precluded.
* Not clear how the metro will fit at Mater Hill between a steep, curving busway ramp and a tunnel entrance.
* Effectively paying $1.5 Billion plus for NO increase in capacity. Crazy!

Both major parties are guilty of avoiding or stalling the 2013 bus reform. This helped escalate fare increases and is a reason why Brisbane City Council's bus network does not meet State Government mandated 'bus on time' standards. Bus reform along the lines of our New Bus Network Proposal http://tiny.cc/newnetwork is the way forward.

We call on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to terminate this circus immediately and introduce amendments to The City of Brisbane Act (2010). All general public transport operations should be stripped from Brisbane City Council, and the bus network uploaded to the State Government. The games have gone on for far too long.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

No Benefit to UQ from Light Rail (two posts)
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11894.msg170201#msg170201
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11894.msg169967#msg169967

*Calculation Existing CityGlider 13 buses in peak hour x 65 passengers/bus = 845 passengers / hour
(A) Upgraded CityGlider 150-pax superbus, running every 2 minutes. 30 buses x 150 passengers/bus =
4500 passengers / hour (B)

Factor: Divide B into A: 5.3x

Team Quirk Metro Information Request
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170890#msg170890

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

KGS = King George Square

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th March 2016

Re: #BNEVOTES: Votebait Detect: NO BENEFIT From LNP Metro, ALP Light Rail!

Greetings,

The way forward for public transport in Brisbane, and SEQ is simple in strategy.

Reform the Brisbane bus network.  Advance Cross River Rail.  Complete the fare review.

It is absurd that Brisbane City Council is allowed to continue to disrupt public transport outcomes for SEQ, with their refusal to do the necessary reform processes, and float projects that have no likelihood of surviving rigorous cost benefit analysis and business case development.

What a sad transport mess Brisbane and SEQ has become.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

16th March 2016

#BNEVOTES: Votebait Detect: NO BENEFIT From LNP Metro, ALP Light Rail!

Greetings,

RAIL Back on Track does not support the Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro or Rod Harding's Light Rail. We base our assessment on 'cold merit' and this process has turned up critical flaws in both policies to the extent we could not support them. The media could be far more critical of these projects than simply reporting emotional and aesthetic aspects of what the vehicle looks like. These proposals are completely lacking in substance!

Light Rail - Rod Harding (ALP)

* No benefit to The University of Queensland
* Slower than existing route 66 bus (bus takes 17 mins to reach UQ from KGS)
* Less reliable than route 66 bus (bus runs on exclusive busway, tram does not)
* No new destinations added to network (areas already well served)
* West End residents can catch CityCat for 5 min trip to UQ already, no need for tram
* Duplicates existing busway, citycat, and railway infrastructure and services (i.e. Blue CityGlider, UQ already has a green bridge, busway and ferry terminal)
* Light Rail capacity not required on corridor (CityGlider peak hour patronage would have to increase about 5x to require trams)
* Unclear as to how it will fit into Montague Road - no images showing widths
* Unclear as to whether it will run on the street or in its own exclusive lane
* Effectively, places steel wheels on the existing CityGlider for $1.2 Billion. Crazy!

Metro - Lord Mayor Graham Quirk (LNP)

* No increase in busway capacity after construction. Even with the best signalling possible (40 trains/hour) a 300-person metro train would carry 300 people x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers/hour at best, which is what the busway carries already.
* Not automatic
* Route is set, not indicative. Basically we don't know if the route is optimal. Potential construction efficiencies if co-located and built with Cross River Rail tunnel precluded.
* Not clear how the metro will fit at Mater Hill between a steep, curving busway ramp and a tunnel entrance.
* Effectively paying $1.5 Billion plus for NO increase in capacity. Crazy!

Both major parties are guilty of avoiding or stalling the 2013 bus reform. This helped escalate fare increases and is a reason why Brisbane City Council's bus network does not meet State Government mandated 'bus on time' standards. Bus reform along the lines of our New Bus Network Proposal http://tiny.cc/newnetwork is the way forward.

We call on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to terminate this circus immediately and introduce amendments to The City of Brisbane Act (2010). All general public transport operations should be stripped from Brisbane City Council, and the bus network uploaded to the State Government. The games have gone on for far too long.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

No Benefit to UQ from Light Rail (two posts)
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11894.msg170201#msg170201
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11894.msg169967#msg169967

*Calculation Existing CityGlider 13 buses in peak hour x 65 passengers/bus = 845 passengers / hour
(A) Upgraded CityGlider 150-pax superbus, running every 2 minutes. 30 buses x 150 passengers/bus =
4500 passengers / hour (B)

Factor: Divide B into A: 5.3x

Team Quirk Metro Information Request
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170890#msg170890

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

KGS = King George Square

[#Metro]

RBOT has been given advice that the route is set.
But this map says that it is indicative. They don't seem to know their left hand from their right hand.

See the words at the bottom: INDICATIVE only.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-transport-lord-mayor-graham-quirk-154b-brisbane-metro-plan/news-story/db38fe6f9fe05fcb7463c196e97a82f1

[ozbob]

ROFL!! 

They haven't a clue.  This is a thought bubble of equivalency to the - boom boom - ' '   

It is a real concern that this purports to be the transport future for Brisbane with these inept clowns at the wheel of the ' metro ' that might be driverless or whatever  ..

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 8s

What happened to the ' Cleveland Solution ' @Team_Quirk @scottemerson ?

> ... #qldpol #bnevotes

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th March 2016

Team Quirk Metro is a nonsense

Good Morning,

Yesterday we received a response to the questions below.

With respect to Question 4. Is the route set or indicative (i.e. will other alternative alignments be considered.

We received this response:

' The route is set. '

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170890#msg170890

Errr  ... here is the map that was published with this article > http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-transport-lord-mayor-graham-quirk-154b-brisbane-metro-plan/news-story/db38fe6f9fe05fcb7463c196e97a82f1



NOTE WELL : MARKED INDICATIVE ONLY !

It is clear to us that the Team Quirk ' Metro ' is nothing but a pipe dream.  It is a nonsense.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

9th March 2016

Team Quirk ' Metro ' Information Request

Greetings,

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

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

Please send responses to admin@backontrack.org

Best wishes,
Robert

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

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now Brisbane, Queensland

. @Team_Quirk Metro is a nonsense ..

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170939#msg170939 ... #qldpol #bnevotes

More proof @Rod4Bris @BenPennings

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th March 2016

Numbers on Graham Quirk's Metro don't stack up!

Greetings,

The numbers on Graham Quirk's metro do not appear to stack up. Look at this equation:

300 passengers/train x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers/direction/hour

The South East Busway carries approximately 12 000 passengers in peak hour already. This equation means that Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's metro would not add any extra capacity to the South East Busway. Even if it were run at 90-second frequencies far beyond the announced train every two minutes.

Even if the train size was doubled to 600 passengers, and run at 40 trains/hour (a train every 90 seconds) it would still fall short of the touted 30 000 passengers/hour claimed in election material. A larger train may also have problems fitting into constrained platforms such as Mater Hill without extensive reconstruction works.

Most metro systems around the world run trains every 2-3 minutes. As the Lord Mayor wants to run his metro every 2 minutes (30 trains per hour), the actual capacity in real life would be even less, at around 9000 passengers/hour!

The Lord Mayor needs to explain what the purpose of spending $1.5 billion for metro infrastructure with a design that does not add any extra capacity is.

This isn't the first time Lord Mayor Graham Quirk has floated pie-in-the-sky (pie-in-the-face?) schemes.

His former 'Cleveland Solution' [ ], where trams would replace Queensland Rail trains on the Cleveland line as an alternative to Cross River Rail, ignored obstructing bridges such as the Kurilpa bridge, Goodwill bridge, and the Riverside Expressway viaduct.

Do the numbers on Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's metro stack up? Our evaluation says NO.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

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

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170890#msg170890

Mayor Graham Quirk's $1.5b rubber wheeled metro
"This will be a 2-minute high frequency subway system linking Wooloongabba to Herston"


Busway Turns Ten
"Busways can carry more than 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction."
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5884.msg54344#msg54344

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now Brisbane, Queensland

Numbers on @team_Quirk Metro don't stack up!

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg170943#msg170943 ...

#qldpol #bnevotes @Rod4Bris @BenPennings

[Derwan]

After posting the map to Facebook today, I had a thought...

Perhaps the route is set, but the map is indicative.  For example, QR's network map is "indicative" because it doesn't follow the actual route of the rail line.

[ozbob]

I don't think it really matters much 

But I get your point, but it is not stylised, it is as it really is, even the street grids.  My take is they really don't know what they are doing.

At this stage any proposed route would in reality be indicative, serious detailed planning etc. would need to be done.  The point is that we asked if the route was set and they said it was.  The map clearly indicates it is really an indication.

Never will be built as proposed. Brisbane may well end up with a metro but it will 15 to 20 years away at least, and a proper system, not a thought bubble .. IMHO

[#Metro]

Perhaps the route is set, but the map is indicative.  For example, QR's network map is "indicative" because it doesn't follow the actual route of the rail line.

There is absolutely no doubt that the map is showing the metro going along the busway. It is showing the route within the street grids/busway.

And it is not stopping at RBWH, how on Earth are they going to get massive transfers to happen at RCH Herston?

[Derwan]

Oh I wasn't defending the plan... I was just posing a possible reason for the apparent "contradiction". 

[#Metro]

Oh I wasn't defending the plan... I was just posing a possible reason for the apparent "contradiction".

This proposal is disaster on wheels. Enough said!