LNP: Brisbane Metro Plan

[ozbob]

Ratepayers invited to have a say on plans for the Brisbane Metro. https://t.co/mMLHpE5A3h @KateLJones7 #7News https://t.co/oM9z8L0aGA

— 7 News Queensland (@7NewsQueensland) September 28, 2016

[urbanplanr]

This is a thought bubble that got thrown into an election that was probably not even needed for the LNP to be re-elected, but because the ALP opposition in council had proposed a light rail solution, Quirk had to come up with something just to put it out there. Now it's going to be a political football kicked around until the next State Government election, where the State level LNP govt will promise to work with the LNP council on delivering a "practical" solution to magically fix Brisbane's public transport woes.

At State level CRR has been a big joke, and now we have to add to that this "Brisbane Metro" which is another joke itself. Meanwhile Sydney and Melbourne rapidly progress with some pretty amazing public transport projects.

[verbatim9]

The Bne Metro really needs to go from Lutwyche and Kedron Brook to Woolloongabba and Buranda, creating better terminating transfer points. That means the transfer points are spread out. Eastern buses Transfer @ Woolloongabba Northern Buses Transfer at Kedron Brook NW and Stafford services transfer at Lutwyche. Southern services transfer at Buranda.  It would mean there would be need for a new tunnel portion from Lutwyche portal via Windsor rail and a Metro, Bus and Train interchange built at Windsor rail with Apartments and Supermarket on top of the interchange. Then stage 2 and 3 can go to Chermside and Springwood respectfully.

[verbatim9]

Brisbane Development Article similar to what has been written in the Brisbane Times ---->
https://brisbanedevelopment.com/council-asking-brisbane-metro-plan-feedback/

[Gazza]

The Bne Metro really needs to go from Lutwyche and Kedron Brook to Woolloongabba and Buranda, creating better terminating transfer points. That means the transfer points are spread out. Eastern buses Transfer @ Woolloongabba Northern Buses Transfer at Kedron Brook NW and Stafford services transfer at Lutwyche. Southern services transfer at Buranda.  It would mean there would be need for a new tunnel portion from Lutwyche portal via Windsor rail and a Metro, Bus and Train interchange built at Windsor rail with Apartments and Supermarket on top of the interchange. Then stage 2 and 3 can go to Chermside and Springwood respectfully.

Agree that any potential metro would need to go further than the current stubby system proposed, but I think  having two southern terminus stations would be a bitch and divides the frequency.

[James]

The idea is a terribly thought-out idea written down on the back of a napkin to prevent Rod Harding (Rod who?) from scoring political points.

If it is using the busway alignment, it is a no from me. The busway is not built for conversion to metro in the inner areas and the Victoria Bridge simply won't cope with it, both in terms of loading and aesthetics. Can you imagine how lovely a chain fence is going to look along the bridge in order to prevent people from trespassing into the corridor and potentially electrocuting themselves? I can't either.

[#Metro]

Sorry, but this all looks like a big SCAM.

They put it on the Victoria Bridge because it really is a "fancy bus" after all - a tram on rubber tyres with perhaps one central rail.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

An open letter to Lord Mayor Quirk re ' Metro '

Dear Lord Mayor,

We at RAIL Back On Track sense your frustration with the slow pace of any significant development with respect to Cross River Rail and reforming the bus network.

We agree with Council that Victoria Bridge needs to made into a green bridge as soon as possible.  The bus-congestion (bus-jam) will get worse when construction commences for Queens Wharf Brisbane project and even more buses are routed onto the bridge.  The State Government needs to allow the transformation of Victoria Bridge in line with your plans which I know include an upgrade of the Cultural Centre bus station to greatly improve bus flow.

Deputy Mayor Schrinner has put forward a plan to the Minister For Transport to start a bus review/reform process. We strongly support this.  This review in conjunction with the changes for Victoria Bridge and the Cultural Centre bus station will reduce the bus congestion and give us some more time for measured progress with longer term solutions.

We commend you Lord Mayor for putting a ' metro ' on the table.  We support the notion of a metro for a longer term mass transit solution for Brisbane.  The problem though with your present proposal is that it does not deliver the required capacity, is grossly under-costed in our opinion and is not on a suitable alignment.

A metro for Brisbane needs to be able to truly deliver up to 30,000 passengers per hour per direction.  Using the figures supplied by Team Quirk during the last BCC election your proposal only delivers 9,000 passengers per hour per direction.  The present busway system delivers a steady 15,000 passengers per hour per direction in peak and on occasion even achieves close to 18,000 passengers per hour per direction.  An under capacity ' metro ' will completely disrupt our public transport network and is a waste of billions of dollars.

Our members would be delighted to meet with you and the  ' metro ' planning team to discuss our concerns and propose real solutions for future progress.

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.msg180638#msg180638 ]

[ozbob]

Latest: An open letter to Lord Mayor Quirk re ' Metro '
> https://t.co/AozDnhZSV2#qldpol@Team_Quirk @StirlHinchliffe @Schrinner pic.twitter.com/JBZLcOVuoL

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) September 28, 2016

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> State calls for council to fund trains after promo video appearance

The appearance of Queensland Rail passenger trains in a Brisbane City Council promotional video for its metro project has prompted the Transport Minister to call for council funding for the state government's trains.

In a tit-for-tat funding request, triggered by Liberal National Party councillors' calls in August that the state fund the council's CityHopper ferries after they featured in a state government video, Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe has sought some council funding of his own.

A Facebook video for Annastacia Palaszczuk features a free Brisbane City Council CityHopper and the caption "delivering frontline services".

The trains featured in a new video promoting the Brisbane Metro, which the council released on Wednesday.

Mr Hinchliffe has written to Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, saying if the council wanted to use the state government-funded trains in its promotional material then it should help fund them.

"Given the lack of financial support from Brisbane City Council since its formation in 1925 to the passenger rail network, I was surprised to see Queensland Rail trains feature prominently throughout the council's recently released video advertising the so-called Brisbane Metro project," he says in the letter.

"By showcasing the vital role of the QR CityTrain network in council's promotional video, the council is recognising the importance that rail transport plays in solving Brisbane's public transport issues.

"Through the video, your administration is providing a strong indication that it is at least partly funding Queensland Rail CityTrain services, which is clearly misleading."

Mr Hinchliffe said if the council was willing to use imagery of CityTrains in its promotional video, it should pour in some funding "or, at least, coming to the table with the Queensland government on Cross River Rail".

The letter was retaliation for the council's attempt to leverage the appearance of one of its CityHopper single hull ferries in a promotional video for Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.

Deputy mayor Adrian Schrinner, the council's public transport chairman, took the request in his stride and said he was pleased Mr Hinchliffe had taken an interest in the video and the project as a whole.

"The minister would have seen while watching the video that over two-thirds of all public transport trips were taken on buses, while just one third were taken on the state's rail network," he said.

"Unlike the state government's achievements video, certainly there was no suggestion in this video that council is paying for the state's rail network."

Cr Schrinner said Brisbane City Council was the only local government that contributed funding to public transport, with an annual $122 million subsidy.

"I trust that the minister also noted in the video that demand for buses is expected to grow, which is why the metro is a vital project to tackle CBD bus congestion," he said.

"Council has always said the Brisbane Metro would complement the state government's Cross River Rail.

"I'm looking forward to my meeting with the minister in the coming weeks, to talk about the Brisbane Metro, bus contract negotiations progress and other public transport matters."

How petty.  Why were 50 train services cancelled yesterday?   

[ozbob]

How petty this nonsense. Pax kms are > on rail. Different modes, different purposes. Buses are not trains a lesson yet to be learned#qldpol https://t.co/bTqY7K4Khh

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 1, 2016

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/tit-for-tat-political-stupidity.html
Fed up the tit for tat political stupidity?

[ozbob]

^

BrizCommuter: Tit for Tat Political Stupidity > https://t.co/E59QxrGqBG #qldpol
we really need to get on with CRR & bus network reform ! pic.twitter.com/kzQcAn2GUT

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 2, 2016

[Derwan]

I'll be heading to the German Club on the 18th.

I agree that this is a marketing exercise - desperately trying to get the uninformed public on side.  I'll be asking the obvious questions about capacity, etc - and I'll make sure I'm asking very loudly so that everyone hears just how ridiculous this proposal is.

[BrizCommuter]

Went to the public consultation in Queen St Mall today. Couldn't get a straight answer on how they managed to claim 30,000 passengers per hour. Get the feeling that even the project staff think that they are having to polish a (politically motivated) t%rd.

Still, the average uninformed Bruce and Sheila probably thinks it's a great idea. Until they need to get to RBWH!

If only Quirky would divert the $1.5b to CRR instead.

[Gazza]

Went to the public consultation in Queen St Mall today. Couldn't get a straight answer on how they managed to claim 30,000 passengers per hour. Get the feeling that even the project staff think that they are having to polish a (politically motivated) t%rd.

Still, the average uninformed Bruce and Sheila probably thinks it's a great idea. Until they need to get to RBWH!

If only Quirky would divert the $1.5b to CRR instead.

That was the exact vibe I got. Apparenty 30,000 per direction  is a long term aim, and in any case they havent  figured  out how theyll modify the  busway stations to fit that.

Ill write more when I get home

[Gazza]

OK, full post time.
For starters, encourage everyone to go along to the sessions. They take notes from everyone, so if you want to influence the direction of the project get into it.
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro-subway-system/brisbane-metro-subway-system-have-your-say

Saturday 15 October 2016   11am-2pm   Queen Street Mall, Main Stage (outside Myer), Brisbane City
Tuesday 18 October 2016   5-7pm   Brisbane German Club, 416 Vulture Street, East Brisbane
Friday 21 October 2016   11.30am-2pm   Community room, ground level, Brisbane Square Library, 266 George Street, Brisbane City
Tuesday 25 October 2016   11am-1pm   Glasshouse Room, QUT Creative Industries Precinct, Cnr Kelvin Grove Road and Musk Avenue Kelvin Grove
Thursday 27 October 2016   11am-2pm   King George Square, 100 Adelaide Street, Brisbane City
Saturday 29 October 2016   11am-1pm   Victoria Park Golf Course, Herston Road, Herston

The guys I spoke to were pretty reasonable (Though suprised how many unanswered questions there are!). They were willing to take onbard feedback, and actively asked how could they make it better, which is refreshing.
It was all planners, engineers etc there, so they were pretty knowledgeable, and willing to engage. A professional is not going to argue the sky is green against evidence like a pollie/councillor might, and are more willing to acknowledge flaws.

They asked my name and knew I was part of RBoT (They read these forums!), hopefully that doesn't mean my feedback is treated any differently.

Anyway, here are the points I raised.

30,000 per hour?
A long term aim of the system. They couldn't tell me what the opening day capacity would be which left me a bit  :conf
They are basing trains around 4 pax per sqm that could potentially carry 1000 pax.
So that would be something similar to an LU S8 train, which is 130m long, and holds 1003 pax at full load.
One of the people mentioned they were thinking they would get that many pax on a 100m long train so they can fit into the existing KGS...super wide body or something?

Fitting Said trains in the stations?
As I suspected they will build platforms up and onto the existing roadway,with the track running along where the passing lane is, and extending platforms into the throats at the ends of the platforms.
I mentioned that I'd thought this too, but it many cases the throats start to slope down so you wouldn't have a flat platform.
They acknowledged that stations like Mater Hill, Normanby etc would be challenging and would take a bit of surgery, and all this is subject to further investigation.
I quoted the $4.6 million cost on that little widening of the tunnel entrance at Melbourne St as to how costly these changes are going to be and if they can do it all for $1.5 bil?

Ambitious travel times.
I mentioned that the travel times quoted are a bit ambitious, especially if you have to have a long train slowing down to negotiate the multiple elbow turns through the inner city.....I said the trains will be doing 20km/h through those bits!
They took this onboard.

Passenger choice at Gabba
I mentioned at Gabba that passengers would have a choice between CRR or metro trains, but given that choice, most people will pick CRR because its faster, and only a single stop rather than four, and Albert St station is better located. They admitted they hadn't really considered that dynamic in terms of passenger utilisation.
They noted this.

How it will impact on journey times of routes that use the busway for a short distance, eg 444, 385 etc
Still being considered.

Corridor study?
I asked straight out if there was any high level background work that looked at multiple corridor options with justification for a busway conversion being the ultimate choice and if it could be published. They said they were't sure of such a document, but would try and look.

I also made the point that "If we are to build a metro, why aren't we doing it along a brand new alignment so we get a larger effective capacity increase through the inner city (rather than only a step increase on a busway that already moves a lot of people). And you'd get the added bonus of a greater distribution of new stations throughout the inner city, more people in walking distance to mass transit etc etc.
I framed it by saying you'd get CRR up and running first, and take advantage of , putting aside surplus funds, and then you'd have a bigger pot of money to build a proper metro with.

It was funny because a couple of other people were standing around and were nodding along with this line of thinking, and hearteningly the BCC staff I were talking to could see the logic and could put in their own words what I was trying to say.

But it was basicall indicated that this is what the Lord Mayor had tasked them with....
This set off alarm bells for me. I was kinda hoping Australia was beyond the point of planning stuff on napkins and applying more rigour.
But Brizcommuter seems to be on the money. It seems to be a case of the Lord Mayor making this announcement in the buzz of an election campaign, with the project team now tasked of solving unconsidered issues and within the budget. 

Depot?
They said whatever the site, it wouldn't be an exposed facility. I asked wether this meant something like HK or SG where they build apartment blocks etc above the depot and they said yeah that's the thinking.

Driverless?
Undecided, but they reckon the Lord Mayor would want a system with drivers. I made the point that in a brand new system with no cross traffic why wouldn't you use the newest tech to make it more reliable and cheaper to run?
Noted.

Using CRR to move people instead of metro, or at least for 10-20 years till CRR hits capacity
This is one thing where the project team seem to have the blinkers on. I said this, and they were like "Oh but CRR is for longer distance commuters not in the BCC area"
I was like "No, the construction of CRR frees up capacity on the established lines, and that's where we can start making a difference"
I think that woke up the person I was talking to a bit 

Again, the people standing around near me were in agreeance that utilising and integrating buses the existing rail lines better and just buying more trains is probably a better use of funds.

I also made the point that both the rail system and the bus system probably cost more to run than they need to because they aren't integrated as much as they could be. For buses, that means extra km they don't need to be running. For rail, this means passenger numbers are lower than they should be, so fixed costs cant be spread efficiently.

The Lord Mayor seems to have a perception that the rail system is an expensive thing to run (And I agree it is expensive, but it doesn't have to be that way!)

So anyway, this is where it was interesting to get the BCCs perspective.

-Even minor changes to buses often result in a lot of feedback to ward councillors, so they can only make change as fast as the community allows them. To me, that kind of strengthens the case as to why bus network planning should be at a state government level, so changes don't get bogged down by ward level turf wars....Most bus routes run across multiple wards, hence planning at that level is ineffective.

-In terms of feederising routes, they are reluctant to force transfers, and would rather people choose for themselves. Also some of the reluctance to transfer is due to the "spider legs" zoning anomalies creating a financial penalty to using a feeder bus instead of driving, though they acknowledged the fare changes coming in January will fix a lot of this, so that means revisiting the issue.
I acknowledged that some places transferring is probably a poor outcome (eg at Altandi it would mean a slower trip than staying on the bus) but at the same time I said there are plenty of places where it could do well. This is where the 10 point plan came up, and that they will start looking at this better.

-The 2 digit bus numbering. Yes they said more than 99 routes, so they would need to use letters. I asked how 2 numbers and a letter is any better than just 3 numbers. They didn't really have an answer to that one, but said you could have the letter at the front to indicate the part of the city (Eg N33 for a route that goes to the north or a W20 for a western route etc)...So it's not actually a bad idea, but at the same time probably a bit unnecessary at this point in time)

-Apparently extra funds for buses isn't forthcoming from the state, hence slow rate of improvement (I'd asked why areas that could support BUZes dont have them, whilst other areas get overserviced)
I made the point that BCC just needs to go through the same process the GC did and allocate existing resources better based on where development is and how the city is changing. Again, the guy I was chatting to said this is one thing the 10 point plan aims to address and rebalance.

[ozbob]

Thanks Gazza for that comprehensive summary.

I don't think it will withstand a rigorous business case.  Doesn't make sense as proposed and rather than improving the network wrecks it.

[SurfRail]

Alphanumeric route numbers are stupid.

TransLink should (and will) tell them to bugger off.

Their own destination displays aren't even capable of showing anything other than A-F from memory (at least very well), given their insistence in being the last operator probably in the world to install 7-segment route displays in new buses.

[#Metro]

Alphanumeric route numbers are stupid.
TransLink should (and will) tell them to bugger off.

100% agree with SurfRail here. It's just a BCC power grab. Not content with 80% control, they want 100% for their 20% funding share!

They are going to extend their power to route numbering (back to pre-1998 or thereabouts), put a tentacle on fares and ticketing (with their loyalty thing, obviously costs worn not by BCC but State Government).

There are more outrageous things, but I have already covered most I think, previously.

Honestly, the Transport minister should just bring a big bucket of cold water and ice and pour it on the Deputy Mayor or whoever has the balls to show up to this co-operation "meeting" because some of the things they are asking for are just plainly ridiculous.

[#Metro]

A long term aim of the system. They couldn't tell me what the opening day capacity would be which left me a bit

Not giving out any detail is a trick of politicians really - because there's nothing specific, there is nothing to criticise (as there is no actual defined proposal).

Pretty concerning here! Capacity, speed, operating hours and route are all BASICS, if they don't have this they are selling a puff piece IMHO.

I asked straight out if there was any high level background work that looked at multiple corridor options with justification for a busway conversion being the ultimate choice and if it could be published. They said they were't sure of such a document, but would try and look.

Of course not. Whole idea probably cooked up at Blue Team HQ in the dead of night by people huddled around a table in dim light by drawing lines on a napkin after shock polling revealed red team's LRT was gaining traction with voters is my guess.

Driverless?
Undecided, but they reckon the Lord Mayor would want a system with drivers. I made the point that in a brand new system with no cross traffic why wouldn't you use the newest tech to make it more reliable and cheaper to run?

Driverless is established technology that makes operating cost ridiculously cheap but initial 'headline' cost more expensive. As this is all about looking good, I'm not surprised they choose driver option because then there are no platform screen doors etc.

BUT that means the entire city's PT network can be shut down by strike action for days at a time AND it also means reduced service in evenings, weekends and public holidays.

This is one thing where the project team seem to have the blinkers on. I said this, and they were like "Oh but CRR is for longer distance commuters not in the BCC area"
I was like "No, the construction of CRR frees up capacity on the established lines, and that's where we can start making a difference"

This is one area where we have common disagreement, and this is not going to change any time soon. My view is CRR and metro, assuming we go metro, is that the corridors are combined into a single integrated alignment through the CBD and the projects are also combined into one.

-In terms of feederising routes, they are reluctant to force transfers, and would rather people choose for themselves.

This is what Alan Warren, former head of BT used to say. "We don't follow the textbook", and we give people the "opportunity" to transfer by driving past the train station, but not terminating at it.

Which is a ridiculous proposition really. Doing this is is incredibly costly and wasteful. Nobody is suggesting every single last bus be terminated at train stations for the sake of doing so. However, the new bus network proposal makes it clear that a selected set of buses would be terminated at key interchange points.

New Bus Network Proposal
http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

[Gazza]

This is one area where we have common disagreement, and this is not going to change any time soon. My view is CRR and metro, assuming we go metro, is that the corridors are combined into a single integrated alignment through the CBD and the projects are also combined into one.

You're missing my point.
My point is that if CRR gets built, then that is the only major inner city infrastructure brisbane will need for 15 years at least, because it opens up so much extra capacity and speed, which makes a trunk and feeder network even more of a no brainer than it is now.

A metro can have its benefits, but it's a distraction for the time being.

My preferred course of action in that respect is:
-Feederise as much as we can now, where it makes sense to do so.
-When CRR comes online, Gabba and Ekka can be used as transfer points. Also, the speed increase it will offer for the Beenleigh line will make feederisation more viable than it is today.
-Allow to simmer and let patronage grow.
-When it becomes clear that CRR is getting full in peak, and we have 10 min offpeak services on at least the inner portion of the existing QR lines (growth which hopefully comes about through this better integration), then I would say Brisbane has grown enough to warrant looking at a new metro line.

[#Metro]

You're missing my point.

My point is that if CRR gets built, then that is the only major inner city infrastructure brisbane will need for 15 years at least, because it opens up so much extra capacity and speed, which makes a trunk and feeder network even more of a no brainer than it is now.

We certainly can have a better network with CRR and buses running into that.

A metro can have its benefits, but it's a distraction for the time being.

Right now, provided the mayor isn't bluffing, he's willing to put money on the table. I have pointed out earlier that money isn't short - interest rates are at rock bottom for borrowing and heaps of assets to sell/lease/borrow against. Land tax also.

My preferred course of action in that respect is:
-Feederise as much as we can now, where it makes sense to do so.

Yes, agreed.

-When CRR comes online, Gabba and Ekka can be used as transfer points. Also, the speed increase it will offer for the Beenleigh line will make feederisation more viable than it is today.

I rather prefer the SEB is progressively replaced by metro. I have a precedent also to support my view - the Ottawa Transitway is being replaced by light metro (LRT in metro mode). It was consultants from the Ottawa transitway that brought the busway concept to Brisbane, mostly John Bonsall.

-Allow to simmer and let patronage grow.
-When it becomes clear that CRR is getting full in peak, and we have 10 min offpeak services on at least the inner portion of the existing QR lines (growth which hopefully comes about through this better integration), then I would say Brisbane has grown enough to warrant looking at a new metro line.

What matters is bums on seats. For me that is the bottom line. I do not care if it is low density, high density, middle density or if passengers live near it, cycle to it or a bussed into it. If you can get bums on seats enough to fill a metro train, then it should be approved.

The thing is, the SEB already pushes the lower bound of metro systems. 12 000 pphd is a 1000 pax train every five minutes. So the patronage is already there.

60 minutes / 12 train loads (i.e. 12 000 pphd) = 5 minutes         

I think the "do it later" option is inferior as we have the opportunity now to get it right, to get the synergies and efficiencies with single project management and alignment co-building with CRR and with the "do it later" option, vast number of buses will have to flood into Wooloongabba and Exhibition.

If some buses are terminating and others are not, then pax will preferentially choose the non-terminating ones, thereby packing those like sardines. There is also the issue of simply shifting the bus congestion further upstream from the CBD and Victoria bridge to Wooloongabba, Buranda junction etc.

I would like to see a proper study done, treating the co-build CRR + Metro option just as any other option gets treated. I want the BCR and NPV done and documented evidence - that way we can be confident that (a) it stacks up or (b) it does not.

We can actually test your theory to see if it works - just terminate the 111, 150, 130 at Park Road Rail station in a 12 month trial.

[ozbob]

Oh dear @Team_Quirk the obvious flaws with the ' metro ' are being revealed hey
> https://t.co/8eiwmFmKx2#qldpol
absurd political con .. pic.twitter.com/3Wy1fAlypy

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 15, 2016

[Gazza]

No, we cant test my theory as you suggest, because there is no CRR, therefore not enough capacity across the Merivale, therefore not enough capacity to transfer people from Park Rd to the CBD via rail at present.

A combined project with synergies is not going to have the benefits you describe.

Basically, building infrastructure before it is needed is a dead economic weight. You're stuck paying and maintaining for infrastructure that few people are using.

By combining the projects you save some bucks, but end up losing net overall because there arent the pax numbers to fill a metro and a high capacity heavy rail limlne on top of each other.

[petey3801]

Without even mentioning another major problem in that if something goes wrong with the tunnel, it shuts down the whole lot again, just as if something goes wrong in the current core of the rail network, it shuts the entire network down.

[HappyTrainGuy]

-When it becomes clear that CRR is getting full in peak, and we have 10 min offpeak services on at least the inner portion of the existing QR lines (growth which hopefully comes about through this better integration), then I would say Brisbane has grown enough to warrant looking at a new metro line.

And that will still be a very very long time away given QR want to proceed with 9 car rollingstock (Gold Coast to Sunshine Coast via CRR/Trouts road). With more feeders increasing the railway line patronage it also gives inventive for the State Government to invest more into the railway. You'd find a lot of people would be happy for Nambour-Landsborough to miss out on direct services (excluding Gympie North services) if it means faster services Landsborough-Brisbane with a new line closer to the coast. CRR just opens up so much extra for locals and those that travel from the Sunshine or Gold Coast. This is something that you do not get with a Brisbane City Council metro.

And LD, please stop saying how good and how much patronage the busway carries as we all know its a load of bullsh%t as its flawed logic. We all know many buses that run very empty for peak hour loading. Its no different than including the Ferny Grove stats with passengers from the Caboolture line just because it shares Bowen Hills or the Brisbane city council claiming yellow bicycles painted on the roads as infrastructure. It just so happens that every single bus on the Southside happens to feed into it at some point. Be it a full 130 or one of the many many many empty rockets. Hence the problem we have now with too many buses feeding into it causing congestion across the bridge and into and out of the CC. Nothing irks me more than seeing a packed 130 with 2 empty 330/345's infront of it. I still maintain many buses that go onto the busway should be terminated where they join along with emphasis put on busway services ie extending the 330/333/345 to terminate further along the busway rather than blocking traffic at the cultural center and extending the 111 to the RBWH/Kedron as a pre paid only service (all busway stops should be pre paid only anyway).

[#Metro]

A combined project with synergies is not going to have the benefits you describe.

Basically, building infrastructure before it is needed is a dead economic weight. You're stuck paying and maintaining for infrastructure that few people are using.

By combining the projects you save some bucks, but end up losing net overall because there arent the pax numbers to fill a metro and a high capacity heavy rail limlne on top of each other.

I don't agree with that position at all.

1. The patronage is there. 12 000 pphd = trains every 5 minutes. The 12 000 pphd figure is a bit old now, probably much higher now. Ozbob can perhaps confirm this.

2. Short terminating huge numbers of buses at Exhibition and Wooloongabba is a grossly inferior solution that just pushes bus congestion upstream of the busway

3. I have precedent for a combined tunnel (but can also be parallel if necessary) in San Francisco

4. Department of Transport is already sitting in BaT combined tunnel plans, so there is a local precedent and information from that. We do not have to start from scratch.

5. I have a second precedent for conversion of a busway to light metro in Ottawa, Canada, which was the model that Brisbane used to get its busways.

6. With automatic metro, long term benefits are extremely high frequency with very low operation cost (Vancouver). Initial capital costs are higher but that is to be expected from a mass transit project that has long term benefits. Costs would be comparable to that of similar "transformational" projects in Melbourne Metro or Sydney Metro.

7. Combined project option will allow seamless transfer at Wooloongabba, CBD and Roma Street stations with CRR QR trains before the metro heads back into the busway.

Ideally any solution should double busway capacity to 30 000 pphd.

Let's assume that we put pax on a short terminating Woolloongabba bus. We want to increase the passenger capacity from 12 000 pphd to double that 24 000 pphd. We assume that 12 000 pphd continues down the busway via South Bank, and only half the buses are terminated at Wooloongabba.

What does the remaining 12 000 pphd terminating at Woolloongabba look like?

12 000 pphd / 150 pax per bus (superbus) = 80 buses per hour
3600 seconds in an hour / 80 buses = a bus terminating every 45 seconds at Wooloongabba.

Now if more usual buses are used:

130-pax buses ---> bus terminating every 39 seconds at Woolloongabba
80-pax buses ---> bus every 24 seconds terminating at Woolloongabba
65-pax buses ---> bus every 19.5 seconds terminating at Woollongabba

Your solution does not scale well, and causes problems at Woolloongabba. Remember we have sent 50% of the services / the other half down the busway, so in this scenario we still have bus congestion down at Victoria Bridge and Cultural Centre as well.

The problem with the busway as built is that it was built "outside in" because the CBD segment was very expensive to construct. Planner's logic was that they wanted the benefits now, and the CBD tunnel section they could put off and "think about it later".

That "later" is now.

A metro will initially be small, but can be incrementally extended to Eight Mile Plains down the busway with time. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were Melbourne's very extensive tramways. They grow piece by piece over time. But one has to take the first step.

This is that first step.



BTW, at this stage I don't think we need a UQ lakes metro. We can get away with superbuses Carindale <---> UQ Lakes with Buranda used as a transfer point.

[Marshal]

And that will still be a very very long time away given QR want to proceed with 9 car rollingstock (Gold Coast to Sunshine Coast via CRR/Trouts road).

have you got a source on that? not that I'm being sceptical but if there are semi firm plans for the trout road corridor I'd love to read more

[HappyTrainGuy]

And that will still be a very very long time away given QR want to proceed with 9 car rollingstock (Gold Coast to Sunshine Coast via CRR/Trouts road).

have you got a source on that? not that I'm being sceptical but if there are semi firm plans for the trout road corridor I'd love to read more

No plans for trouts road but its been mentioned before that on the longer lines such as the sunshine coast/gold coast that they would cut frequency in favor for longer rollingstock when the network allows for it ie CRR. IIRC CRR plans had Gold Coast trains exiting onto the mains and continue as Caboolture/Nambour services - with a trouts road corridor they would more than likely be thrown onto that instead of using the slow and twisty track until Northgate. CRR platforms were to be long enough for 9 car trains but the cost cutter came along and said "hey, for CCR2/CCR3/BAT1/BAT2/CCR4 lets make it long enough for 7 stupid carriages as that's been the go to line for pollies for the last 15 years. As too has plans for the Strathpine station interchange upgrade and tod development where there are to be 6 car platforms and 2x 9 car platforms with provisions for an extension to 12 carriages.

[HappyTrainGuy]

A combined project with synergies is not going to have the benefits you describe.

Basically, building infrastructure before it is needed is a dead economic weight. You're stuck paying and maintaining for infrastructure that few people are using.

By combining the projects you save some bucks, but end up losing net overall because there arent the pax numbers to fill a metro and a high capacity heavy rail limlne on top of each other.

I don't agree with that position at all.

1. The patronage is there. 12 000 pphd = trains every 5 minutes. The 12 000 pphd figure is a bit old now, probably much higher now. Ozbob can perhaps confirm this.

2. Short terminating huge numbers of buses at Exhibition and Wooloongabba is a grossly inferior solution that just pushes bus congestion upstream of the busway

3. I have precedent for a combined tunnel (but can also be parallel if necessary) in San Francisco

4. Department of Transport is already sitting in BaT combined tunnel plans, so there is a local precedent and information from that. We do not have to start from scratch.

5. I have a second precedent for conversion of a busway to light metro in Ottawa, Canada, which was the model that Brisbane used to get its busways.

6. With automatic metro, long term benefits are extremely high frequency with very low operation cost (Vancouver). Initial capital costs are higher but that is to be expected from a mass transit project that has long term benefits. Costs would be comparable to that of similar "transformational" projects in Melbourne Metro or Sydney Metro.

7. Combined project option will allow seamless transfer at Wooloongabba, CBD and Roma Street stations with CRR QR trains before the metro heads back into the busway.

Ideally any solution should double busway capacity to 30 000 pphd.

Let's assume that we put pax on a short terminating Woolloongabba bus. We want to increase the passenger capacity from 12 000 pphd to double that 24 000 pphd. We assume that 12 000 pphd continues down the busway via South Bank, and only half the buses are terminated at Wooloongabba.

What does the remaining 12 000 pphd terminating at Woolloongabba look like?

12 000 pphd / 150 pax per bus (superbus) = 80 buses per hour
3600 seconds in an hour / 80 buses = a bus terminating every 45 seconds at Wooloongabba.

Now if more usual buses are used:

130-pax buses ---> bus terminating every 39 seconds at Woolloongabba
80-pax buses ---> bus every 24 seconds terminating at Woolloongabba
65-pax buses ---> bus every 19.5 seconds terminating at Woollongabba

Your solution does not scale well, and causes problems at Woolloongabba. Remember we have sent 50% of the services / the other half down the busway, so in this scenario we still have bus congestion down at Victoria Bridge and Cultural Centre as well.

The problem with the busway as built is that it was built "outside in" because the CBD segment was very expensive to construct. Planner's logic was that they wanted the benefits now, and the CBD tunnel section they could put off and "think about it later".

That "later" is now.

A metro will initially be small, but can be incrementally extended to Eight Mile Plains down the busway with time. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were Melbourne's very extensive tramways. They grow piece by piece over time. But one has to take the first step.

This is that first step.



BTW, at this stage I don't think we need a UQ lakes metro. We can get away with superbuses Carindale <---> UQ Lakes with Buranda used as a transfer point.

There's no need for any sort of bus tunnel/rail tunnel combo if the rail network and bus network were properly designed. There's no need for this metro full stop. All this money you are mentioning is just p%ssing into the wind. Buses can do the job on the existing infrastructure if they are properly routed and run with the correct rollingstock. No need to terminate at the Gabba. No need to terminate at the ekka. None of that. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a 336/337/338 doing a peak hour run with a high capacity bus. Why is it doing this type of run when it should be on a main corridor route. Just run the right buses where they are needed on key city corridor routes.

Its the BCC designing and running bus routes that compete against the railways that have brought on and exploded this problem to the point where we need to terminate buses on the fringe of the city to transfer onto a metro - which has no guarantee of it actually being faster. And for the northside most of these overcrowding issues come only during peak hour and once again its a result of how the network is designed. The qut issue is also solvable by simply extending the 111 service where a lot of the higher capacity buses are running. Use some of the land outside the rbwh and turn it into a proper lay over area. Throw the 330/333/345 into the Gabba/Mt Gravat instead of blocking the road at the CC. But no. Let propose terminating most of all the buses on the fringes for the cbd with an expensive metro foam idea as a kicker.

[Gazza]

The patronage is there. 12 000 pphd = trains every 5 minutes. The 12 000 pphd figure is a bit old now, probably much higher now. Ozbob can perhaps confirm this.

All day? I'm curious as to the payback period of the expenditure of building the metro versus the cost savings compared to multiple buses and drivers.

2. Short terminating huge numbers of buses at Exhibition and Wooloongabba is a grossly inferior solution that just pushes bus congestion upstream of the busway

But currently that's all the BCC have put on the table. The fact they haven't even gotten the metro a few hundred meters further to a more useful termnius at RBWH shows the budget clearly isn't there for a proper metro out to Garden City or wherever that you seem to be thinking is going to happen.

3. I have precedent for a combined tunnel (but can also be parallel if necessary) in San Francisco

For your one example in San Fran, I can point to a whole list of projects where cities aiming to increase throughput on a particular axis have opted to build a brand new, parallel line positioned to take pressure off the old one, as well as broadening the catchment area of the system...All across Europe and Asia.
Did you know there are even recent examples in Australia where a brand new allignment was favoured over piggybacking on an existing one, even though the brand new alignment cost more.

4. Department of Transport is already sitting in BaT combined tunnel plans, so there is a local precedent and information from that. We do not have to start from scratch.

No budget to do both properly. CRR got lobotomised to pay for the additional costs associated with the bigger double deck tube and bigger station boxes.

5. I have a second precedent for conversion of a busway to light metro in Ottawa, Canada, which was the model that Brisbane used to get its busways.

Ottowa isn't a light metro.

6. With automatic metro, long term benefits are extremely high frequency with very low operation cost (Vancouver). Initial capital costs are higher but that is to be expected from a mass transit project that has long term benefits. Costs would be comparable to that of similar "transformational" projects in Melbourne Metro or Sydney Metro.

See my earlier point that in Syd and Mel, these new projects have opted to follow new allignments rather than piggybacking.

7. Combined project option will allow seamless transfer at Wooloongabba, CBD and Roma Street stations with CRR QR trains before the metro heads back into the busway.

There is no evidence to suggest that alternative projects built in the future couldn't be equally as well integrated.

Your solution does not scale well, and causes problems at Woolloongabba. Remember we have sent 50% of the services / the other half down the busway, so in this scenario we still have bus congestion down at Victoria Bridge and Cultural Centre as well.

Actually, if CRR got built, very few buses would need to terminate at Ekka or Gabba, most would be terminating at key stations across the QR network.
Perth manages to move a lot of people using this approach, and haven't had to build a metro, and such as project isn't even on their radar.

A metro will initially be small, but can be incrementally extended to Eight Mile Plains down the busway with time. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were Melbourne's very extensive tramways. They grow piece by piece over time. But one has to take the first step.

And why does this first stage of a metro have to be a piggyback on CRR?

[#Metro]

All day? I'm curious as to the payback period of the expenditure of building the metro versus the cost savings compared to multiple buses and drivers.

I am too. Let's have a proper business case done comparing the different proposals and options.

But currently that's all the BCC have put on the table. The fact they haven't even gotten the metro a few hundred meters further to a more useful termnius at RBWH shows the budget clearly isn't there for a proper metro out to Garden City or wherever that you seem to be thinking is going to happen.

It is a concept at the moment, and concepts can change and be refined. As it has been with Cross River Rail.

Did you know there are even recent examples in Australia where a brand new allignment was favoured over piggybacking on an existing one, even though the brand new alignment cost more.

And yet the Sydney metro recycles part of the existing rail network. And their Dulwich light rail is also along an existing former freight alignment.

Here it is in black and white. Your assertion is simply false.
http://www.sydneymetro.info/citysouthwest/project-overview

The project includes seven new modern metro stations that will be fully accessible for people with a disability, prams and children, including level access between platforms and trains. The existing Bankstown Line will be  upgraded and converted to metro standards, increasing services from eight an hour in the peak to 15 new metro trains every hour with real time information at metro stations and on board trains.

I have the precedent, both international and local. Engineering wise it can be done, just needs to go through due process and be treated on a level field as with any other option considered.

Council's own material also makes this logic clear (June 2016):
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160610_communications_-_tagged_newsletter_-_brisbane_metro_subway_system.pdf

"By using existing infrastructure, Brisbane Metro Subway System
can be delivered in a more cost effective way than metros in many
other cities."

(Bottom of Page 2)

No budget to do both properly. CRR got lobotomised to pay for the additional costs associated with the bigger double deck tube and bigger station boxes.

Both Sydney and Melbourne metro are around $11 BN. Funding being short is purely a political thing, Queensland has assets to borrow, sell or lease and interest rates are low. I have pointed that out many times. In addition, political factors are open to change, unlike geometric or mathematical ones.

Ottowa isn't a light metro.

Disagree. Alignment is Priority A ROW, underground station feature platform screen doors and on capacity:

"The 180 meter long platform will be built with future growth in mind, capable of accommodating future growth in mind capable of accomodating trains with up to six cars"

180 m long platform, six car trains, Class A ROW, and platform screen doors. Looks like a light metro to me.

See my earlier point that in Syd and Mel, these new projects have opted to follow new allignments rather than piggybacking.

See my earlier point that in Syd, part of the alignment proposed recycles an existing corridor.

There is no evidence to suggest that alternative projects built in the future couldn't be equally as well integrated.

Yes, and here is a proposal that is well integrated. And it is actually defined so we can see it and assess it unlike "other" proposals which do not yet exist.

Actually, if CRR got built, very few buses would need to terminate at Ekka or Gabba, most would be terminating at key stations across the QR network.

Perth manages to move a lot of people using this approach, and haven't had to build a metro, and such as project isn't even on their radar.

The whole area south of Old Cleveland rd to Garden City and South East Brisbane is without rail access.

And why does this first stage of a metro have to be a piggyback on CRR?

The opportunity is there to do it and it should be taken. Do the business case!

[Gazza]

And yet the Sydney metro recycles part of the existing rail network. And their Dulwich light rail is also along an existing former freight alignment.

Here it is in black and white. Your assertion is simply false.
http://www.sydneymetro.info/citysouthwest/project-overview

Not false.
In the case of the northern section from Chatswood to the CBD there is actually already a surface corridor where provision is for quading, and North Sydney of course has 4 platforms as part of these provisions (the only bit ever done):
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Artarmon+NSW+2064/@-33.8218727,151.1940484,121m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b12aed99eedb20d:0x5017d681632abd0!8m2!3d-33.80894!4d151.18292

This option was studied, but it was found to be more beneficial to build a brand new alignment between Chatswood and the CBD that could have stations in new areas.

In Melbourne, the early stages of the project looked at adding a 3rd level of tunnels in the City Loop. It was found instead that the new alignment via Domain, Swanston St and Parkville was more advantageous.

In Perth the Mandurah rail line was changed to follow a new alignment via the narrows, rather than running along the Armidale line and branching at Thornlie, as the Liberals had planned.

And in Brisbane, CRR follows a new alignment because it was found to have higher benefits than going via South Brisbane and a 2nd merivale bridge.

Thus to me it is clear if we want to metrofy busways, a new alignment through inner brisbane that complements the existing QR lines, CRR, and the busway would have immense benefits. Why sell yourself short just for expediency?

We should be doing what other cities have done and build new lines where possible so you get a proper spiderweb type rail system.

If we don't metrofy the busway straight away, its not like its going to spontaneously explode. Bus reform and CRR wil be enough relief for many years, and the part of the city without rail could easily progressively become hi capacity bus territory (with standard buses cascaded to other parts of the city)

It is a concept at the moment, and concepts can change and be refined. As it has been with Cross River Rail.

Show me the money!
Interesting you mention CRR. Over its life it has gotten shorter rather than longer.

I have the precedent, both international and local. Engineering wise it can be done, just needs to go through due process and be treated on a level field as with any other option considered.

Why? The idea has gotten zero traction which demonstrates where peoples values lie.

The whole area south of Old Cleveland rd to Garden City and South Brisbane is without rail access.

Equally large areas of Perth don't have rail either. They aren't needing a metro at this stage.

The opportunity is there to do it and it should be taken. Do the business case!

Hows that going in terms of getting a response from MPs etc?

[#Metro]

This option was studied, but it was found to be more beneficial to build a brand new alignment between Chatswood and the CBD that could have stations in new areas.

I gave you an example where a corridor is being recycled over a new alignment. All you have demonstrated is that a proper and full study of a combined option vs separate option is necessary to get the best outcome. Sometimes it will make sense, other times it won't.

BCC's publications make it clear they want to recycle the busway alignment to save on costs. They can do the same by combining the project with CRR IMHO.

Do you support a proper and full study?

In a sense the alignment of the busway with CRR is somewhat new, as the existing busway between Woolloongabba and Cultural Centre will be retained. A new metro station will be opened up at CBD where the CRR station is to be located.

Hows that going in terms of getting a response from MPs etc?

Well, I am yet to see your "alternative" metro proposal.

Never mind. I don't need to convince you - I just put all the thoughts down on paper and send it to BCC's Metro Project team now.

Good luck!

[petey3801]

Do you honestly think the original CRR team didn't have a look at a combined style option when they did the full business case study? They looked at every alternative and came up with CRR.
The light rail and metro projects in Sydney are using old infrastructure to help the new project. Not one of those projects has anything to do with building double deck tunnels or running two high capacity systems along the exact same alignment, stopping at the exact same stations. When the metro takes over the Bankstown line (and if it does the same to Hurstville), the heavy rail trains from the City to Sydneham (or however it is spelt) (and possibly later Hurstville) will run express past the metro stations, only connecting at major interchanges, giving the heavy rail a much faster run and letting the metro take care of the inner sections. Even then, the metro is taking a new route through the CBD to open up new areas to high capacity transport.
None of this has anything to do with spending boatloads more money to put two hugh capacity modes of transport through the same tunnel through the greater CBD area, stopping at all the same stations, giving no benefits to one or the other.
Recycling infrastructure is one thing. Building a new tunnel with two high capacity transport modes stopping at all the same stations is a complete other situation. There is a very good reason why you only have one example of this happening throughout the world while everywhere else has different modes running different routes with key interchanges.
And all this is completely disregarding the fact that Brisbane does NOT need a metro! And won't need one for many, many years! Bus reform, CRR and some other strategic rail expansion, bus lanes etc is all Brisbane will need for the medium-long term future.

[BrizCommuter]

Never mind. I don't need to convince you - I just put all the thoughts down on paper and send it to BCC's Metro Project team now.

They probably need some entertainment. 

[#Metro]

Do you honestly think the original CRR team didn't have a look at a combined style option when they did the full business case study? They looked at every alternative and came up with CRR.

No business case for a metro and CRR combined has been prepared and publicly released. If you have it, post it.

They probably need some entertainment.

Good comment, have to give credit there. But I think they get enough from your blog already Briz. 

I'm proud that I actually have proposals with detail. Unlike critics - who have nothing!

Criticism is easy. Actually putting together something original and workable is not.

I have runs on the board. Fact.

[petey3801]

What an absolute load of s###.
Business cases cost a LOT of money to formulate, as well as quite a lot of time. Just because a business case was not developed, does NOT mean it was not explored back when the original CRR team was working through looking for the best solution.
Just because ONE city in the world has a short combined mode tunnel, does not mean it is a success. The thousands of other major cities in the world obviously think seperated routes, while more expensive, give more bang for buck.

[#Metro]

What an absolute load of s###.
Business cases cost a LOT of money to formulate, as well as quite a lot of time. Just because a business case was not developed, does NOT mean it was not explored back when the original CRR team was working through looking for the best solution.

Ah, so you have nothing. How sad!

If the case has been done, it should be public. If it hasn't been done, then it should be done.

Just because ONE city in the world has a short combined mode tunnel, does not mean it is a success. The thousands of other major cities in the world obviously think seperated routes, while more expensive, give more bang for buck.

Yes. But we think that but we don't know that.

Precedent exists. It's there. Seems to work well. Have to do the due process work in a business case. Quirky can pay for it.