LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[Gazza]

Remember when BaT was in the consultation process and locals got upset at the loss of green space with the bus connection roads? Requiring redesign

[#Metro]

Remember when BaT was in the consultation process and locals got upset at the loss of green space with the bus connection roads? Requiring redesign

It would not be possible for Government to function if we adopted a no-upset rule. By that logic, the bus network should not be reformed because someone might oppose it.

Site Image

Road would be removed, site could be expanded. Note how the Northern busway already cuts through the site.

[BrizCommuter]

I think you might struggle to use golf course land for a depot, because of the loss of green space.

Are there any technical reasons why it cannot be sited there? Did you have an alternative depot location to suggest?

The current space appears to be cleared and already has a works depot of some description on it. I think it was also used as a construction staging area when the busway was under construction.

There will be no struggle. As one can see from Google maps, the Northern Busway already cuts through the Gold Course, which is the reason for the funny metal caging on the Northern Busway - Golf Ball Protection.

Most problems have solutions.

Serious LD? The Brisbane Metro is yet another ludicrous LNP plan designed to thwart Cross River Rail and public transport progress. You've fallen for it hook line and sinker!

[dancingmongoose]

Remember, a metro is both State Government and Brisbane City Council policy.

Yes, a metro is. But this metro is not. If you remember, the state government's plan had a metro running from Toowong to Newstead and entirely underground. Somehow I don't think this is a fair statement when both plans are so vastly different. The state's metro plan was developed as part of a 'rail revolution', a long term plan for public transport to grow to meet the need of the city. Quirks plan was a knee jerk reaction to Harding announcing he wanted light rail. We don't have a detailed route, from what little we do have we know that it will conflict with CRR at at least the Gabba site, travels over a bridge that can't support it, is completely unfunded and according to TMR costs are expected to blow out by 100%. Hell, we don't even have a flythrough animation. It's not a serious plan without a 3D animation

[red dragin]

Remember when BaT was in the consultation process and locals got upset at the loss of green space with the bus connection roads? Requiring redesign

It would not be possible for Government to function if we adopted a no-upset rule. By that logic, the bus network should not be reformed because someone might oppose it.

Site Image

Road would be removed, site could be expanded. Note how the Northern busway already cuts through the site.

Works items for Legacy Way and cricket grounds. Remnants of the northern section of Victoria Park (Cirque Du Soleil, Cats to name a few where staged there)

[#Metro]

Serious LD? The Brisbane Metro is yet another ludicrous LNP plan designed to thwart Cross River Rail and public transport progress. You've fallen for it hook line and sinker!

The specific proposal by Quirk is unworkable. I agree. But there a modified or different metro model could work.
If it is a Blue Team conspiracy, why does it appear in Connecting SEQ 2031, which was a Red Team plan?

There is no harm in doing a proper evaluation of all the options.

Yes, a metro is. But this metro is not. If you remember, the state government's plan had a metro running from Toowong to Newstead and entirely underground. Somehow I don't think this is a fair statement when both plans are so vastly different. The state's metro plan was developed as part of a 'rail revolution', a long term plan for public transport to grow to meet the need of the city. Quirks plan was a knee jerk reaction to Harding announcing he wanted light rail. We don't have a detailed route, from what little we do have we know that it will conflict with CRR at at least the Gabba site, travels over a bridge that can't support it, is completely unfunded and according to TMR costs are expected to blow out by 100%. Hell, we don't even have a flythrough animation. It's not a serious plan without a 3D animation

Hahaha. Yes. You are right that the routes are different. But I think a proper metro model could come out of this that would be worth considering.

It will all come out in the appraisal.

[#Metro]

Absolute Minimum Vehicle Size Calculation

It is possible to work out what the minimum vehicle size is for this. Assume that we use absolute state-of-the-art signalling and run it at absolute maximum frequency currently possible.

(30 000 passengers / hour) divided by 40 trains/hour = 750 passengers per train.

So, the absolute minimum vehicle capacity must be 750 pax per train or above. Anything less than this, it is not possible to reach the 30 000 passengers / hour quoted.

It also raises interesting questions about why Quirk Metro stops short at RCH rather than logically continue to RBWH. My theory is that the platform is constrained and would require extension. Probably have to demolish a section of the busway and rebuild the ramp to permit a metro train to stop.

[BrizCommuter]

If it is a Blue Team conspiracy, why does it appear in Connecting SEQ 2031, which was a Red Team plan?

It doesn't. The Brisbane Metro idea in Connecting SEQ 2031 (page 46) from the Red Team is along a Toowong, West End, CBD, Newstead alignment which is based on the 2nd CRR alignment from the Inner City Rail Capacity Study. Completely different alignment to the Quirky Metro! There is not mention of metro-izing the busways in Connecting SEQ 2031. 

It will all come out in the appraisal.

I am loathe that BCC are wasting my rates on such nonsense.
Also I am loathe that my taxes will be wasted on TMR having to assess such a steaming pile of BS from BCC.

Maybe this thread would be better off in Wacky Dude Corner?

[#Metro]

It doesn't. The Brisbane Metro idea in Connecting SEQ 2031 (page 46) from the Red Team is along a Toowong, West End, CBD, Newstead alignment which is based on the 2nd CRR alignment from the Inner City Rail Capacity Study. Completely different alignment to the Quirky Metro! There is not mention of metro-izing the busways in Connecting SEQ 2031. 

You are avoiding the very obvious possibility of a metro that is neither what Quirk or Annastacia have proposed, but one adapted to work.

I am going to perform some more calculations, happy to have feedback on that.

[#Metro]

In the previous post I calculated that under the most generous assumptions, the trains would need to hold at minimum 750 passengers to reach the 30 000 pphd target.

In this post I calculate the train lengths using a bit of math and geometry. Happy to have feedback on this.

Capacity to Length Calculation

We know that the train must hold 750 pax, and furthermore we also know that during peak hour the density of passengers would be around 6 passengers / square meter. From this we can calculate the area required for the train.

750 passengers x ( 1 meters squared / 6 passengers) = 125 square meters.

Now, we have an area but we want a length. From the Paris Metro we know that the width of a standard gauge train is 2.44 meters. From this we can make information about the absolute minimum train length fall out:

Paris Line 14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_14#Technology
Rollingstock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_05

Area = length x width. Rearrange this to be Length = area / width.

Minimum length: 125 meters squared / 2.44 meters width = 51.2 meters, lets round this up to say 52 meters.

Conclusion: Absolute minimum specifications are that the train would need to run every 90 seconds with state of the art signalling (likely 100% automatic), hold 750 pax at 6 passengers/m2 and be at least 52 meters in length, possibly a bit longer than this.

[Gazza]

You are avoiding the very obvious possibility of a metro that is neither what Quirk or Annastacia have proposed, but one adapted to work.

So basically, instead of building infrastructure in the order most needed from the long list of unfunded projects, we've decided we want a metro first up, and are now going to figure out how to make it 'work'.

[#Metro]

So basically, instead of building infrastructure in the order most needed from the long list of unfunded projects, we've decided we want a metro first up, and are now going to figure out how to make it 'work'.

Gazza, if you don't want a metro, then you don't want a metro. Fine.

Nobody has decided on anything.

I happy to have it looked at in detail. If it stacks up, it stacks up. It if it does not, then it does not. That's what an investigative process is about.

[Gazza]

Gazza, if you don't want a metro, then you don't want a metro. Fine.

I wouldn't mind one eventually, but not before CRR, trouts rd, doomben to north shore, bus reform/additional cost buzzings, cleveland duplication, beenleigh line quads/triples, shorncliffe duplication, indooroopilly station bus interchange....

[kram0]

This project won't even see the light of day. We need all levels of governemnt to work together to build the best solution for the long term.

[#Metro]

Plans change all the time. This is how it is done in Toronto.
What ultimately gets built might  be very different to what was originally proposed.

It is worth keeping an open mind...

[Gazza]

Plans change all the time. This is how it is done in Toronto.

Something being in Toronto doesn't make it automatically the best...The system has its strong points, but weaknesses too, like any city.

So cos Toronto has had paralysis we should too?

I'm not sure how chopping and changing (like what happened in NSW for years with the rozelle metro, the cutback EPRL, various other canned projects, or what has happened with CRR/BaT/??, or in WA with various projects on again/off again is productive?

[#Metro]

Something being in Toronto doesn't make it automatically the best...The system has its strong points, but weaknesses too, like any city.

So cos Toronto has had paralysis we should too?

I'm not sure how chopping and changing (like what happened in NSW for years with the rozelle metro, the cutback EPRL, various other canned projects, or what has happened with CRR/BaT/??, or in WA with various projects on again/off again is productive?

If you don't want a metro*, then you don't want a metro. Fine.

[Gazza]

Something being in Toronto doesn't make it automatically the best...The system has its strong points, but weaknesses too, like any city.

So cos Toronto has had paralysis we should too?

I'm not sure how chopping and changing (like what happened in NSW for years with the rozelle metro, the cutback EPRL, various other canned projects, or what has happened with CRR/BaT/??, or in WA with various projects on again/off again is productive?

If you don't want a metro*, then you don't want a metro. Fine.

How does that response have anything to do with your comparison to Toronto chopping and changing plans for political reasons.
Stamping your feet doesn't do anything.

Ideally the plan should be clear, and followed through with

[error]

Remember, a metro is both State Government and Brisbane City Council policy. It's there in black and white in the Connecting SEQ 2031 document with Annastacia Palaszczuk's face and signature on it. The only disagreements are about exact timing, what proportions each level should pay and route.

^note - my emphasis

So basically they disagree on everything except that there should be a mode of transport called a metro?

[ozbob]

Media release 23rd March 2016

Why the Quirk Metro will never happen

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the Quirk Metro will never happen because it does not deliver the capacity required to replace the inner busway network.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"During the recent Council Election campaign it was touted by Team Quirk that their Metro plan would carry up to 30,000 passengers per hour.  Using Team Quirk's own figures we show that this claim is a falsehood."

"In their response to a series of questions we asked Team Quirk concerning the Metro during the campaign, one related to passenger capacity of the trains:

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 (1).

"The best then that can be achieved with non-automated metro system would be a train every 2 minutes.  This then gives a maximum passenger capacity of 300 x 30 = 9000 passengers per hour per direction. The busways in Brisbane presently transport between 12,000-15,000 passengers per hour per direction (2). "

"The Quirk Metro will not be able to cope with the passenger demands. There would be massive crowds waiting for transport at interchange points! Clearly the plan is not workable. This is the fundamental flaw in the proposed Metro and exposes absolutely the failed nature of the proposal."

"There are a myriad of other issues with the Metro as proposed (3), but basically why would the State allow the Brisbane bus network to be ruined for a sub-optimal solution? Why would they allow billions of taxpayers/ratepayers dollars to be wasted on something that causes chaos and public transport dysfunction?"

"They won't."

References:

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

2. 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

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg171274#msg171274

Contact:

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

[#Metro]

So basically they disagree on everything except that there should be a mode of transport called a metro?

That's a great way of putting it, Error. This is Queensland after all. Love the idea of a metro, but the two groups couldn't decide where to put it!

Personally I think the case for a Toowong West End Newstead metro is even worse than the busway proposal one.


PS: Great username you have!

The Transport minister should absolutely demand that BCC indemnify the State Government for any cost overrun over and above the stated project cost. Quirk has already said that the $1.5 BN proposal is fully costed and has 50% contingency, so there should be no problem with making any cost overrun BCCs problem.

Given that there is a suitable site on BCC land at Herston, there is probably no reason now to release the Woolloongabba land for Quirk Metro stabling.

[ozbob]

^ there isn't the money for a non-solution LD.  Maybe in 15 years or so a metro could realistically be considered.

This is dead.

[ozbob]

The overall reform strategy should be this.

When it suits BCC they say TransLink is responsible for the network etc.  Ok then.

TransLink has a new boss, it is time they earned their keep.

TransLink needs to start making changes to the Brisbane bus network to reduce the waste, duplication and inefficiency.  For a start, redeploy wasted service, eg. empty buses on the busways late at night into bus black holes during the day so people can actually use the services!

It matters not a great deal if BCC do not want to cooperate.  TransLink must start acting for the benefit of the community.

This can be an incremental process over the next two years.

^ this is the focus from here.

[ozbob]

We need to identify a series of incremental changes to the bus network that will progressively reduce the number of buses near empty into and out of the CBD/Victoria Bridge, improve services and start advocating for these.  TransLink has to start delivering, regardless of BCC.

Please have a think about it and post comments/suggestions here:

>> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12132.0

Thanks.

[#Metro]

Conclusion: Absolute minimum specifications are that the train would need to run every 90 seconds with state of the art signalling (likely 100% automatic), hold 750 pax at 6 passengers/m2 and be at least 52 meters in length, possibly a bit longer than this.

I am wondering why their vehicle holds 300 when it is 50 m long. Assuming 2.44m train width, (area = 125 m2) that is a loading of only 2.4 passengers / m2.

[ozbob]

They have no idea. Election vote-bait thought bubble.

Yope, trains would need to carry 700-800 pax which means Vic Bridge is out. Very significant works busway stations.

Massive costs...

[ozbob]

^ there isn't the money for a non-solution LD.  Maybe in 15 years or so a metro could realistically be considered.

This is dead.

[BrizCommuter]

I would advise Rail BOT members to write to their councillors, including specifying how the metro will make travel worse for their ward (e.g. All bus passengers on route x which serves your ward will have to change from bus to metro at x to get to the CBD.)

[#Metro]

This is going to be my last post in this thread for a while.
If people don't want a metro, Quirk or just any metro, that is fine.

The only way I see a metro working is if:

1. It runs trains that carry at least 750 pax per train
2. Is automatic/driverless from day 1 and capable of 30 trains / hour (every 2 mins), better if it can do 40 trains/hour with best available signalling.
3. Avoids using the Victoria Bridge, South Bank and Mater Hill altogether (route goes via a combined CRR tunnel)
4. Has a metro depot at Herston on BCC land (Gilchrist Avenue area)
5. Is electric third rail (no overhead power as storms will snap the wires and cut the system when it is needed most)
6. Runs on rubber tyres (to keep to busway alignment).
7. Is well thought out with public consultation and State Gov't involvement

If that is done, then I think such a proposal would be entirely workable and within funding reach. Believe it or not.

I cannot see any technical reason why two different types of train cannot use the same tunnel. They can. A CRR/Metro combined tunnel is worth looking at.

So that's my 2c. Best of luck.

[tazzer9]

This is going to be my last post in this thread for a while.
If people don't want a metro, Quirk or just any metro, that is fine.

The only way I see a metro working is if:

1. It runs trains that carry at least 750 pax per train
2. Is automatic/driverless from day 1 and capable of 30 trains / hour (every 2 mins), better if it can do 40 trains/hour with best available signalling.
3. Avoids using the Victoria Bridge, South Bank and Mater Hill altogether (route goes via a combined CRR tunnel)
4. Has a metro depot at Herston on BCC land (Gilchrist Avenue area)
5. Is electric third rail (no overhead power as storms will snap the wires and cut the system when it is needed most)
6. Runs on rubber tyres (to keep to busway alignment).
7. Is well thought out with public consultation and State Gov't involvement

If that is done, then I think such a proposal would be entirely workable and within funding reach. Believe it or not.

So that's my 2c. Best of luck.

Considering the metro is largely underground and away from any tree's (the busway is also enclosed north of Normanby due to the golf course) overhead coming down is not issue.   In todays age we need to build tunnels that are a lot larger than the train anyway due to ventilation requirements so having overhead wouldn't even increase tunnelling costs.  Its just a choice of whether to have it using AC or DC power.   (third rail also means plenty of substations)

Having a depot at herston would be a large misuse of valuable land.

If it goes by the CCr alignment for some of it, why bother using the busway alignment for further noth.  why not just make a better system that doesnt use it at all.

At 750 pax per train, that is also a rather large metro train.  Most do not approach this except under crush load conditions.  better off having two metro systems serving different areas .  also helps for redundancy .

[ozbob]

Most real metros handle 1000 to 1200 pax per train at peak loadings.  Typically around 36,000 pphpd.  MTR Hong Kong gets up to 80,000 pphpd.

The Quirk Metro is a thought bubble ..

[ozbob]

For interest ...

Railway Gazette --> Stacked depots in Singapore

SINGAPORE: Land Transport Authority has awarded GS Engineering & Construction Corp a S$2bn civil works contract for the East Coast Integrated Depot, which LTA says will be the first in the world to integrate three train maintenance depots and one bus depot in a single site.

The 36 ha site with space for 220 trains will house depots for the East-West Line, Downtown Line and Thomson-East Coast Line, which will be stacked on top of each other, saving 44 ha. A bus depot with space for 550 buses will be built alongside. Construction is expected to start by the second quarter of 2016 and completion is due in 2024.

LTA has also awarded civils contracts for three metro stations. A joint venture of China Communication Construction Co subsidiaries John Holland and Zhen Hua is to build Siglap station on the Thomson-East Coast Line under a S$176m contract. Bayshore station on the same line is to be built by a joint venture of Woh Hup and Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co under a S$296m contract. Both stations are due to be completed in 2023.

Samsung C&T Corp has been awarded a S$834m contract to build Xilin station on the Downtown Line, with a target completion date of 2024.

[James]

" ... Quirk isn't going to scrap a major election promise .. "

It will be scrapped on the basis of the Business Case and CBA.  It simply does not stack up, even our preliminary analysis shows that.

If it is to ever come to fruition it will need a lot of changes to what is presently proposed.

Exactly, which is why we need to push for changes - regardless of how broad they may be. We need to say that if this thing is to get our support, it needs a better alignment, it needs to serve different trip generators, the government needs to look thoroughly into what parts use current alignments and what parts use tunnels.

As it stands, the project is crap, but instead of coming down on it like a pile of rocks, it is worth being constructive at least until consultation finishes. All the points I am raising just become attack points should Quirk decide to pursue with the metro along the alignment currently planned.

Lapdog's position is similar to mine here, aside from the part about sharing a tunnel with CRR. The plan's a good start. If we just blankly oppose, oppose, oppose, we risk any constructive criticism from this group going totally unnoticed. Heck, the chances aren't good to start with given we never got a formal offer of peace from Quirk after he declared 'war' on us in 2013.

[ozbob]

We have pointed out the issues as we see them. Main concerns similar to what the leaked memo said. They have been noted I assure you. It is up to TMR etc. to sort from here.

Been some good media that has highlighted the fact that it is not right.  I am no longer concerned about it.  It is up to the authorities.

[ozbob]

NB:  >> http://www.4bc.com.au/news/public-transport-the-hot-topic-for-upcoming-election-20160208-gmp1e1.html

[Jonno]

In asset intensive industries I would be required to assess all options and show which investment delivers the best outcome. In politics it is think of an idea and show that investing in it makes sense (usually by dodging up the business case)!!! Which is why country is broke!

[Derwan]

It seems quite simple to me.

• Quirk knows that he would never get funding for a metro.  (At least not until after CRR was built.)
• Quirk promises a metro as vote bait.
• Quirk wins the election and pushes ahead with the Business Case.
• Business case proves Quirk's metro is a dumb idea and/or State Government refuses to fund Quirk's metro.
• Quirk blames Labor and the State Government for not delivering his metro, claiming that he kept his promise only for it to be undone by the nasty Labor State Government.

It was completely disingenuous for Quirk to promise the metro in the first place.... but I guess that's politics.

[ozbob]

It seems quite simple to me.

• Quirk knows that he would never get funding for a metro.  (At least not until after CRR was built.)
• Quirk promises a metro as vote bait.
• Quirk wins the election and pushes ahead with the Business Case.
• Business case proves Quirk's metro is a dumb idea and/or State Government refuses to fund Quirk's metro.
• Quirk blames Labor and the State Government for not delivering his metro, claiming that he kept his promise only for it to be undone by the nasty Labor State Government.

It was completely disingenuous for Quirk to promise the metro in the first place.... but I guess that's politics.

Yope.  Sad reality.  Time to get cracking with what is achievable hey?  Staged bus reform ...  onwards!

[ozbob]

Onwards!!

[#Metro]

Response to Information Request Received 24/03/2016
Sydney Metro
----

Thank you for your interest in the project.

The length of the train will vary to accommodate passenger demand. We will start with 6 carriages per train, but the platforms will be long enough for eight carriage trains like the rest of Sydney. Each carriage is approximately 22 metres in length. A 6 carriage train has the capacity to carry approximately 1150 passengers.

It will be difficult for a person or animal to enter onto the tracks as the Sydney Metro City and Southwest will be in tunnel. At platforms, screen doors will keep people, objects and animals off the train tracks. Security cameras will be installed to watch the inside of the tunnels to keep customer safe.

State-of-the-art signalling and communications systems will control the trains, the tunnels, the tracks, the platforms and the platform screen doors to ensure we deliver a safe and reliable journey to our customers. All these systems will be talking to each other and controlled by the expert train controllers back in the operations centre.

The Sydney Metro City and Southwest Line from Chatswood to Sydneham is 15km long. We're currently working on the project's business case – and we'll come back to government when we've finished that work. The current estimate for the project is between $9.6 billion and $11 billion, as outlined in the State Infrastructure Strategy released late last year.

Kind regards,
[redacted]

Sydney Metro City & Southwest
Transport for NSW