LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[ozbob]

Brisbane is rapidly approaching ' failed city status ' with respect to transport.

A half baked metro is not going to do anything other than worsen the present cluster fuk ...

If state governments had done the right thing years ago and took public transport off BCC, we would have progressed. All we have now is a political failure that is compounding the transport failure and crisis.

[ozbob]

Peak hypocrisy this

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/labor-warns-of-brisbane-metro-financial-pain-rates-hike-20160526-gp4sgv.html

" But Cr Quirk said Cr Cumming was running a Labor "scare campaign" and that the high cost of delivering the Brisbane Metro was a necessity.

"Major infrastructure such as the Brisbane Metro would normally be the job of a state government, but since the state government has no intention of fixing our city's bus congestion issues, I'm getting on with the job," he said.

"There will be some financial pain in order to deliver the Brisbane Metro, however, I intend to keep any future rate rises as minimal as possible. ... "

Who blocked bus network reform?

PATHETIC ...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th May 2016

BCC: Lord Mayor Graham Quirks Transport Politics Isn't Working

Greetings,

Thank you Cr. Peter Cumming for finally raising concerns about Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Brisbane Metro in council.
Our members are up in arms about this half-baked proposal. We are absolutely against Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's 'Quack Metro'.

The response to our Information Request (March 21, 2016, 07:54:26 AM) reveals that Lord Mayor's metro will actually reduce busway capacity! http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg171172#msg171172

Using only 300 pax metro vehicles, we can mathematically show that the metro provides no capacity increase over the current busway. It would actually reduce busway capacity.

Why pay $1.5 billion plus to REDUCE busway capacity?

We reject the metro proposal on this ground. The absolute minimum vehicle capacity required is 750 passengers per train, and more realistically 1000 passengers/train.

Brisbane City Council has absolutely no authority to construct this metro on State Government controlled land or infrastructure. The Lord Mayor simply does not possess permission to rip up the busway. The busways are not Brisbane City Council property!

Evidence of cost cutting / corner cutting on this proposal deeply concerns us. For example, why is the metro not automatic? Why does it stop one stop short of a major hospital at RBWH? Why are the vehicles so under-capacity?

The Lord Mayor is confident that his metro will cost only $1.5 Billion. None of our members believe this! True costs will be in the order of $3 billion or more in our opinion.

RAIL Back On Track supports immediate bus reforms. We have even done up a review proposal for Brisbane City Council here ---> http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

It is time to stop listening to the nonsense that is emanating from City Hall.

If other cities such as Houston, Hobart and Auckland (NZ) can do bus reform, why can't Brisbane City Council? It has been avoiding bus reform since 2013!

Bus reform is cost neutral and can be achieved right now, and will solve the bus congestion.

The council opposition should absolutely pursue this issue ruthlessly. We would be more than happy to supply a long list of serious concerns to anyone who is interested. We can not and will not idly stand by while our city's bus network and bus patronage is actively destroyed by a council that simply doesn't want to do basic bus reform of Brisbane's bus network.

Best wishes
Robert

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


Reference:

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's 'Quack' Metro is a Dead Duck! > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg173638#msg173638

[#Metro]

"Major infrastructure such as the Brisbane Metro would normally be the job of a state government, but since the state government has no intention of fixing our city's bus congestion issues, I'm getting on with the job," he said.

This is such bullsh%t. I have to scream now!!

What did TransLink try to do in 2013.

[ozbob]

"Major infrastructure such as the Brisbane Metro would normally be the job of a state government, but since the state government has no intention of fixing our city's bus congestion issues, I'm getting on with the job," he said.

This is such bullsh%t. I have to scream now!!

What did TransLink try to do in 2013.

Brisbane is rooted ...

[ozbob]

Peak hypocrisy.  Rejected bus network reform because people do not like to transfer.

With his half-baked metro, he wants to force massive transfers!  And force more buses into CBD congestion because his metro has less capacity than the present busway system.

Absolute fool ...

[James]

My guess is that they will try to kill the proposal by dumping it if Graham Quirk were to retire from BCC a la Ted Baillieu (VIC) style (he promised basically rail everywhere in an election, none was built of course) OR they figure out a way to dump the cost on the QLD Gov't and Federal Govt.

My guess is that the state Labor government will refuse them access to the busway corridor (the state built it after all), tears will ensue at BCC. This will be followed by a giant mudfight which leaves everybody with egg on their face (as well as media coverage which is blown well out of proportion), followed by the entire plan going in the bin and continuing with inaction to 2020.

Next!

[ozbob]

[Stillwater]

The state government has honed its political spin on anything to do with major transport infrastructure.  It's standard response about whether something will be built is this: "The [name of project] is among the priority projects that the state believes the federal government should fund."  It then controls the flow of business case submissions to Infrastructure Australia in the false belief that it can effect the roll-out of projects based on State Labor's political agenda.  The state government has 'outsourced' its major transport infrastructure management to a federal entity.  It has off-loaded the responsibility, or believes it has.

I am waiting for a journo to ask Mr Powell, the state Opposition spokesperson this question: "Would an LNP government put state transport infrastructure funding into the Brisbane Metro proposal advanced by Graham Quirk?"

[ozbob]

Well the LNP thought the Cleveland Solution, and the BaT con were the go hey?   

But I think in the cold hard light of reality, even they would bulk at the thought of completely wrecking public transport in Brisbane for many years ..

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th May 2016

Lord Mayor's Facts Wrong on Who is Holding Up Brisbane's Public Transport

Greetings,

We have long warned that Brisbane City Council has a tendency to usurp the State transport portfolio from the transport minister. We saw it with the 2013 bus review; we saw it with the CityGliders, and we are seeing it with the so-called Brisbane Metro.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said to the Brisbane Times:

"Major infrastructure such as the Brisbane Metro would normally be the job of a state government, but since the state government has no intention of fixing our city's bus congestion issues, I'm getting on with the job," he said.

This is a factually incorrect statement. The State Government had tried in 2013 to reform the bus network, however, the transport minister at the time botched the process and ended up handing the regulators job (TransLink) to the contractor (Brisbane Transport).

This is a clear case of 'regulatory capture' where "government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating." (1)

It is a matter of public record that it was actually Brisbane City Council that issued instructions to block its own staff from attending bus review meetings with TransLink staff on six separate occasions.

The State Government had tried and failed to reform the Brisbane bus network. We have tried also by doing our own review, which is here http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

Given that the Lord Mayor is factually incorrect, we ask him to issue a correction at the next council meeting stating that it was the deliberate actions of Brisbane City Council in resisting bus reform that is the main contributing reason as to why the Brisbane bus network is so dysfunctional today.

Abolishing Brisbane City Council's public transport functions has now become a matter of public urgency. We call on all parties in State Parliament to draft amendments to The City of Brisbane Act. Brisbane City Council's public transport functions must be abolished entirely, and functions transferred to the State Government.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

References:

Regulatory Capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Labor warns of Brisbane Metro financial pain
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/labor-warns-of-brisbane-metro-financial-pain-rates-hike-20160526-gp4sgv.html

[tazzer9]

The LNP's plan is to build some form of transit mode that is so ridiculous, that in itself becomes a tourist attraction.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

28th May 2016

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro vs Mathematics

Greetings,

Has the penny dropped at Brisbane City Council yet?

Why does the media and public continue to swallow the votebait that is Quirk's 'Quack' metro?

The absolute limit for rail systems is a train every 90 seconds, which is 40 trains per hour. This is an automatic operation.

Trains cannot be run more frequently than this because they need safe distances to stop.

Signalling systems will not allow more trains than this per hour.  Quirk's metro vehicles will carry 300 passengers each, comparable to a large tram!

The capacity of Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's metro is thus:

300 passengers/train x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers / hour/ direction (pphpd) maximum theoretical capacity.

This 12 000 pphpd is less than what the busway already achieves - 15,000 pphpd. How is this an improvement? It is not!

It's not rocket science: the Lord Mayor's Metro doesn't stack up!  At best it will be at capacity on opening day, and at worst, it will reduce busway capacity.

Thousands of passengers will be forced onto more bus and traffic congestion in CBD as they will not be able to get on the metro!

No amount of politicking or public relations is going to change basic mathematical facts. The Metro proposal is nonsense. In fact it is so deficient as a proposal it is a serious waste of rate payers funds to launch the business case ($2 million) in our opinion. Surely these funds would be better spent on fixing up the present dysfunctional Brisbane bus network.

The Quirk ' Quack ' metro proposal is bunk and we will NOT support it.

Brisbane City Council needs to implement bus network reform, we have shown how > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork.

Brisbane City Council's Brisbane Transport cannot even meet minimum performance bus operating standards, that is demanded of all other operators.  A further indication of the flawed nature of the BCC bus network.

Why does BCC continue to resist the obvious, cost-neutral, solution?  BCC's intransigence has a flow on effect to the rest of the SEQ, who suffer because of the anti-network reform position of BCC.

Why does the State Government stand back and allow the BCC to plan to wreck Brisbane's and SEQ public transport and embark on profligate waste of rate payers funds?

Best wishes
Robert

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

[ozbob]

All the bus regions in SEQ apart from Brisbane, had essentially the 2013 TransLink review done - except where compromised by the Brisbane failure.  What this meant in effect was that in many cases outside Brisbane span and frequency, and lesser extent coverage was compromised as service kilometres restricted because much waste and duplication in the Brisbane region.  From a ticketing point of view SEQ is a single unit, from a network point of view there is the Brisbane bus region, rail + other bus regions operating as separate operational network essentially. It is no wonder that the network is a mess.  The councils apart from BCC really need to put some pressure on BCC, to become more of a team player.

Ideally public transport (at least any network control) should be removed from BCC.  SEQ is too big to suffer idiots.

Quirk is caught now.  On one hand he as said passengers don't want to transfer, the network is fine.  On the other hand he says the network is so stuffed he needs a metro and everyone can transfer.  Classic ' doublethink ' * ...

* Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. It is also related to hypocrisy, which BCC is displaying in spades.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

29th May 2016

Re: Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro vs Mathematics

Good Morning,

The good thing about the Quirk Metro dream is this:

LM Quirk is caught now.  On one hand he has said passengers don't want to transfer, the network is fine.  On the other hand he says the network is so stuffed he needs a metro and everyone can transfer.

Classic ' doublethink ' ...



All the bus regions in SEQ apart from Brisbane, had essentially the 2013 TransLink review done - except where compromised by the Brisbane bus region failure.  What this meant in effect was that in many cases outside Brisbane span and frequency, and lesser extent coverage was compromised as service kilometres restricted because much waste and duplication in the Brisbane bus region.  From a ticketing point of view SEQ is a single unit, from a network point of view there is the Brisbane bus region, and rail + other bus regions operating as separate operational network essentially. It is no wonder that the network is a mess.  The councils apart from BCC really need to put some pressure on BCC, to become more of a team player.

Ideally public transport (at least any network control) should be removed from BCC.  SEQ is bigger than the Brisbane bus region.

Brisbane and SEQ teeters on transport failure.

Even LM Quirk accepts the need for bus network reform - albeit via ' doublethink '.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

28th May 2016

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's Metro vs Mathematics

Greetings,

Has the penny dropped at Brisbane City Council yet?

Why does the media and public continue to swallow the votebait that is Quirk's 'Quack' metro?

The absolute limit for rail systems is a train every 90 seconds, which is 40 trains per hour. This is an automatic operation.

Trains cannot be run more frequently than this because they need safe distances to stop.

Signalling systems will not allow more trains than this per hour.  Quirk's metro vehicles will carry 300 passengers each, comparable to a large tram!

The capacity of Lord Mayor Graham Quirk's metro is thus:

300 passengers/train x 40 trains/hour = 12 000 passengers / hour/ direction (pphpd) maximum theoretical capacity.

This 12 000 pphpd is less than what the busway already achieves - 15,000 pphpd. How is this an improvement? It is not!

It's not rocket science: the Lord Mayor's Metro doesn't stack up!  At best it will be at capacity on opening day, and at worst, it will reduce busway capacity.

Thousands of passengers will be forced onto more bus and traffic congestion in CBD as they will not be able to get on the metro!

No amount of politicking or public relations is going to change basic mathematical facts. The Metro proposal is nonsense. In fact it is so deficient as a proposal it is a serious waste of rate payers funds to launch the business case ($2 million) in our opinion. Surely these funds would be better spent on fixing up the present dysfunctional Brisbane bus network.

The Quirk ' Quack ' metro proposal is bunk and we will NOT support it.

Brisbane City Council needs to implement bus network reform, we have shown how > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork.

Brisbane City Council's Brisbane Transport cannot even meet minimum performance bus operating standards, that is demanded of all other operators.  A further indication of the flawed nature of the BCC bus network.

Why does BCC continue to resist the obvious, cost-neutral, solution?  BCC's intransigence has a flow on effect to the rest of the SEQ, who suffer because of the anti-network reform position of BCC.

Why does the State Government stand back and allow the BCC to plan to wreck Brisbane's and SEQ public transport and embark on profligate waste of rate payers funds?

Best wishes
Robert

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

[tazzer9]

I would be looking into who will be conducting the business case.  It has to be the LNP helping a mate out and finding an excuse for it.    For something like this even using the most generous numbers in each factor won't give the metro a go ahead recommendation.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

30th May 2016

Sorting out the bus network

Good Morning,

Does anyone seriously think the Quirk Metro will do anything for our public transport network?  No it will not, we have shown clearly it is a seriously deficient proposal.

Can we wait for years and years hoping that something will fall from the sky to sort out the bus network failure?  Or should we, as a community bite the bullet and get on with it, as they have in many other jurisdictions.

Sorting out the bus network is a basic fundamental reform that will save billions of dollars.  We have shown how this can be achieved as follows:

Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11175.0

Brisbane Bus Reform: RAIL Back on Track Launches New Bus Network Proposal
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11046.0

A service quality map of Brisbane City Council's Bus services:
http://tiny.cc/checkyourbus

A service quality map of RAIL Back on Track's Hi Frequency Bus Network proposal
http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

'Frequency is Freedom' Guide to Brisbane City Council Bus Network Problems
http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/BusReformBlueprint.pdf

Brisbane City Council's bus network must be reformed. Bus Reform will give Brisbane Australia's best bus network within 2 years, at near-neutral cost.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Attached: [ http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg174652#msg174652 ]

[ozbob]

Twitter

Team Quirk ‏@Team_Quirk 13 minutes ago

LM: #Brisbane Metro will create jobs for the city and boost our economy #qt #qldpol #bnepol

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

Twitter

Team Quirk ‏@Team_Quirk 7 minutes ago

LM: Our busways were always built with intent of a future mass transit system like the #Brisbane Metro #qt #qldpol #bnepol

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

[ozbob]

^

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now

. @Team_Quirk what happened to the ' Cleveland Solution ' and the BaT ? #askingforafriend #qldpol

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Lord Mayor Quirk and Opposition Leader Peter Cumming face off over future of city's public transport

[ozbob]

^

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 29m

. @Team_Quirk @CrPeterCumming rejected bus reform & refused to cooperate in 2013 TQ made this mess. Hang your head in shame .. #qldpol


===========

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 50m

. @Team_Quirk @CrPeterCumming start reforming the bus network would be a start - cost neutral, why waste billions on a toy? #qldpol

===========

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 24m

. @Team_Quirk Metro vs Mathematics > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11952.msg174652#msg174652 ... #qldpol

@CrPeterCumming Brisbane is being shafted!

[tazzer9]

Twitter
Team Quirk ‏@Team_Quirk 7 minutes ago
LM: Our busways were always built with intent of a future mass transit system like the #Brisbane Metro #qt #qldpol #bnepol

Weren't the busways supposedly meant to be able to be converted to light rail.  Not a rubber metro.   Anyway, only south of woollongabba is this even possible.  How does quirk suppose the metro gets around the turn from KGSBS to Queen St station when even a normal size bus struggles to the point of it being one lane at a time.
The turn radius is less than 20 metres.   Using the QR standards for turn radius speed for a QR train, it would travel at less than 5km/h around this bend.

[ozbob]

They are in fantasy land ... 

[#Metro]

Honestly, you would think the LNP are on some kind of kamikaze mission to cause as much dysfunction and problems as humanly possible.

The announcement of the hi-waste, personalised home rocket P332 Zillmere to UQ Lakes should have removed ALL doubt. Now we have this ridiculous Quack Metro being pushed that doesn't mathematically stack up (and might even break the Victoria Bridge) and BaT which had BCR and NPV below that of the original CRR.

I mean, WTF? What is this all about? The election isn't even near!

Weren't the busways supposedly meant to be able to be converted to light rail.  Not a rubber metro.   Anyway, only south of woollongabba is this even possible.  How does quirk suppose the metro gets around the turn from KGSBS to Queen St station when even a normal size bus struggles to the point of it being one lane at a time.

The turn radius is less than 20 metres.   Using the QR standards for turn radius speed for a QR train, it would travel at less than 5km/h around this bend.

Tazzer9, my understanding is Quack Metro would turn into North Quay and go down a ramp into Adelaide street. The metro would not go via QSBS.

[ozbob]

Vic Bridge will never be used for a metro.  A rubber tyre metro is heavier than light rail ...

TQ claims Vic Bridge is not strong enough for light rail ... errr   .... 

I don't think TQ realise that rubber tyre metro uses heavy guide rails and then there is the power rail etc. 

I have sent them lots of vids of real metros but they continue to live in fantasy ..

[Stillwater]

The mad scramble for transport solutions by State Government and BCC, seemingly competing against each other, and in circumstances where there is no money, or desire to raise money, endless finger-pointing between council feds and state, churn of 20-year strategic plans that do not last a three-year election cycle, a backlog of business case analysis, re-do of EIS studies due to unacceptable delays on major projects and gross political interference .....  It all shapes up to a massive transport fail.  There must be a circuit-breaker.  TMR-TransLink-QR must combine to take a leadership role, but they cannot liaise with each other, as TransLink's failed bus reform project shows and the fiasco of TMR side-lining QR on the MBRL fiasco so spectacularly shows.  It is not a time for politicians to interfere, or for the transport bureaucracy to await instructions, it is time for the department and transport agencies to take charge of the situation and manage the ministers and government who are only too willing to play the politics of transport, not identify and implement solutions.

[ozbob]

Yep. An appalling situation in effect.  A succession of very weak state governments have allowed BCC to run rampant.

At least I stand up to them and for the punters ... lol   

[ozbob]

Team Quirk touted 30000 passengers per hour.

Their rolling stock capacity according to them is 300 passengers.

So this is 100 trains per hour (30000/300 = 100)  so that is 50 trains each hour per direction. 

That is a train every 1 min 12 seconds.  An absurd nonsense ...

[ozbob]

A real rubber tyre metro

8 car trains 35,000 pphpd ...

Alstom unveils Paris metro train design

>> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/alstom-unveils-paris-metro-train-design.html

THE design and internal layout for the fleet of MP14 rubber-tyred metro trains which Alstom is building for Paris Transport Authority (RATP) was unveiled at Alstom's Paris headquarters by the company's chairman and CEO Mr Henri Poupart-Lafarge.

The new design was shown to Mr Valérie Pécresse, president of Ile-de-France regional council and president of Ile-de-France Transport Authority (Stif), Ms Elisabeth Borne, CEO of RATP, and Mr Philippe Yvin, chair of Société du Grand Paris (SGP).

Alstom awarded a €2bn 15-year framework contract by RATP last year for up to 217 MP14 trains. The first confirmed order within the contract is for 35 trains worth €520m funded entirely by Stif. These are for Line 14 which is being extended 5.8km north from St Lazare to Mairie de Saint Ouen. The new eight-car trains will replace the existing six-car fleet increasing capacity from 30,000 to 35,000 passengers per hour. The MP14 trains will then enter service on lines 4, 11 and 14 when the latter is extended south via Villejuif to Orly Airport at which time it will become part of the Grand Paris express metro network.

The design of the MP14 trains is the result of collaboration between Stif, RATP and SGP. The train will have streamlined contours, and the exterior design will be consistent with that of the platform screen doors at stations. Internally, the trains will have what Alstom describes as vast reception areas to improve access and boomerang-shaped seats to increase capacity for standing passengers. The air-conditioned trains will be fitted with LED lighting and a video-protection and dynamic information system.

The MP14 will have an entirely electrical braking system to recuperate energy and feed it back into the network as electricity. Electrical braking will limit the emission of fine particles caused by mechanical braking systems. Alstom says this system should reduce the energy consumption of the trains and air pollution by up to 20% compared with the MP05 rubber-tyred trains currently operating on the Paris metro.

[Gazza]

That is a train every 1 min 12 seconds.  An absurd nonsense ...

Again, it comes down to BCC only knowing about buses, so they can only view solutions through those glasses.
They probably think that because buses can come that often through CCBS a train could too.

* * * * *

Also, my previous thoughts about them being able to use the throats either end of stations to lengthen platforms might not actually work.
This is because often the throats are on a slope (the strongest example on the busway network is at Stones corner, but the southern end of Southbank, and the northern end of Mater Hill have the same issue.

[ozbob]

They really have no clue ...

Worth revisiting ....

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.

[#Metro]

Quack! Quack!

Just follow the leader....


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Ducks_army_marching.jpg

[#Metro]

Team Quirk touted 30000 passengers per hour.

Their rolling stock capacity according to them is 300 passengers.

So this is 100 trains per hour (30000/300 = 100)  so that is 50 trains each hour per direction. 

That is a train every 1 min 12 seconds.  An absurd nonsense ...

Actually, it is worse than this because it is 30 000 per direction (i.e. one way), so you do not divide by 2.

so it is actually 30 000 pax / 300 pax / train = 100 trains per hour/direction

Given that 60 minutes x 60 seconds/minute = 3600 seconds

the train frequency is 3600 seconds / 100 trains/hour = train every 36 seconds, or 100 trains/hour.

90 seconds is the absolute minimum. 36 seconds is about 3x lower than this absolute lowest value and is about the same time it takes the train to stop, open the doors, allow pax to board, close the doors and take off. The doors would barely be closed before the next train crashed into it.

This isn't the first time Brisbane City Council has invented its own mathematics. We saw this absurdity with the 2000 daily express buses down legacy way where we calculated that if BCC kept their promise, that it was one bus every 30 seconds all day!

[aldonius]

This isn't the first time Brisbane City Council has invented its own mathematics. We saw this absurdity with the 2000 daily express buses down legacy way where we calculated that if BCC kept their promise, that it was one bus every 30 seconds all day!

Ahem. One bus every 43.2 seconds, thank you very much! (although if you assume 18-hour span then it does come down about 30 seconds).

[BrizCommuter]

A real rubber tyre metro

8 car trains 35,000 pphpd ...

Alstom unveils Paris metro train design

>> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/alstom-unveils-paris-metro-train-design.html

THE design and internal layout for the fleet of MP14 rubber-tyred metro trains which Alstom is building for Paris Transport Authority (RATP) was unveiled at Alstom's Paris headquarters by the company's chairman and CEO Mr Henri Poupart-Lafarge.

The new design was shown to Mr Valérie Pécresse, president of Ile-de-France regional council and president of Ile-de-France Transport Authority (Stif), Ms Elisabeth Borne, CEO of RATP, and Mr Philippe Yvin, chair of Société du Grand Paris (SGP).

Alstom awarded a €2bn 15-year framework contract by RATP last year for up to 217 MP14 trains. The first confirmed order within the contract is for 35 trains worth €520m funded entirely by Stif. These are for Line 14 which is being extended 5.8km north from St Lazare to Mairie de Saint Ouen. The new eight-car trains will replace the existing six-car fleet increasing capacity from 30,000 to 35,000 passengers per hour. The MP14 trains will then enter service on lines 4, 11 and 14 when the latter is extended south via Villejuif to Orly Airport at which time it will become part of the Grand Paris express metro network.

The design of the MP14 trains is the result of collaboration between Stif, RATP and SGP. The train will have streamlined contours, and the exterior design will be consistent with that of the platform screen doors at stations. Internally, the trains will have what Alstom describes as vast reception areas to improve access and boomerang-shaped seats to increase capacity for standing passengers. The air-conditioned trains will be fitted with LED lighting and a video-protection and dynamic information system.

The MP14 will have an entirely electrical braking system to recuperate energy and feed it back into the network as electricity. Electrical braking will limit the emission of fine particles caused by mechanical braking systems. Alstom says this system should reduce the energy consumption of the trains and air pollution by up to 20% compared with the MP05 rubber-tyred trains currently operating on the Paris metro.

FYI - Paris Line 14 currently runs 90m long driverless trains at up to 85sec timetabled peak headway. This is the highest frequency "heavy" metro in the world. 

[#Metro]

FYI - Paris Line 14 currently runs 90m long driverless trains at up to 85sec timetabled peak headway. This is the highest frequency "heavy" metro in the world.

Do you have a link / proof of this? I imagine that the signalling system is incredibly advanced / expensive and it is automatic?

[SurfRail]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_14

Reference comes from a Siemens document, which has fallen victim to linkrot.  It will be out there somewhere.

Suffice to say that 42tph is about the best you will see and that involves no driver operation at all.  Even at that level, with the other known constraints you still end up with less than the capacity of the busway and approximately the same as G:Link's theoretical maximum (approx 12,000pphpd given about 50 trams on the current Stage 1 route and 60 on the Stage 1+2 route).

[#Metro]

Suffice to say that 42tph is about the best you will see and that involves no driver operation at all. 

Yup. It is still crappola: 42 trains/hr x 300 pax/train = 12 600 

Grammar remark: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crappola&defid=2262335

Crappola

crap that has delusions of grandeur.
This new cell phone is crappola. It takes pictures and plays music, but it does not make phone calls because it can't get a signal!

[Gazza]

signalling system is incredibly advanced / expensive and it is automatic?

Would it actually be that expensive to go for an automatic system in a brand new line?
And could you say automatic trains are incredibly advanced, given they were being done in 1985?

The thing is, on a new metro line, you need some form of signalling system. I wouldn't have thought there would be much of cost penalty for going automatic....perhaps some additional costs in the software, and track sensors, but certainly less costs in lineside signalling.

The choice of signalling could often be down to legacy issues and what is compatible with existing systems (Exhibit A, the Kippa Ring line!)
It's very rare that cities actually get to build a brand new fully separated line where driverless operation is possible.
In Australian cities our rail systems are too tangled together, with level crossings etc to make it possible.
Sydney managed it with the NWRL precicely because it is being detached from the rest of the Sydney Trains network.
Theoretically WA could have made the Mandurah to Bulter corridoor driverless, but I think at the time they wanted the flexibility to through route trains onto the legacy lines 

[#Metro]

I honestly don't know and perhaps ColinW could explain that further as he is the expert in that.

Clearly expense is an issue, apparently by choosing the incompatible system, the Queensland Government saved c.a. 7 million.