Brisbane: Bus Electric Rapid Transit (' Brisbane Metro ')

[SurfRail]

I'll say it again - extend every busway platform to at least 100 metres, install Calgary style light rail capable of operating with 800+ passengers per train, run at 2 minute headways.  24,000 pphpd.  Every vehicle stops at every stop and there is no need for heaps of conflicting at grade movements at junctions.  It would just be Springwood to RBWH (and gradually extended at either end), and every single busway bus would be feederised at the appropriate location.

Would require a new Adelaide Street bridge feeding these into the tunnel now under construction (a limited number of surface buses would continue to run over the Victoria Bridge eg West End services), underground Cultural Centre station and making the Gabba an online station, but so what?  This would be a vastly superior passenger experience and would enable a much more comprehensive mass redeployment of buses elsewhere to do what they should be doing - local feeders, and line-haul service only where rail is not practical.

Not a big fan of having to move up to 50 metres up or down a platform every time I go through the Cultural Centre because the vehicle could pull up anywhere depending on what is already on the platform and when it moves.  Much easier to have a single service take the whole platform face so the platform gets swept, people know exactly where the train goes and they know exactly where to get off for their connecting bus.  Those can operate much longer into the night and at better headways after you chop 10-15km off the CBD to Griffith Uni / Garden City part of each route.  The resources needed to run the 130, 140, 150 et al into the CBD from as far away as Parkinson is just nuts.

[Jonno]

Do you think a Brisbane Metro BRT rollout would be lower, higher or the same cost as a rail extension/subway implementation? Do you think it would be slower, faster or the same time frame to roll out?

Let us know.

Of course BRT will be lower costs and potentially quicker but in the corridors that need high-capacity aka 24k upwards, such as Busway (N-S), Old Cleveland Road-Indooroopilly (E-W), etc then it is the wrong solution.

It is like saying bandage is cheaper to stop bleeding when a tourniquet is actually what is needed

[#Metro]

Of course BRT will be lower costs and potentially quicker but in the corridors that need high-capacity aka 24k upwards, such as Busway (N-S), Old Cleveland Road-Indooroopilly (E-W), etc then it is the wrong solution.

You know that I agree with you that rail-based metro is the right option for the North-South corridor in Brisbane (Chermside-CBD-Eight Mile Plains). I have previously explored the concept of a North-South subway on this forum, but later also prepared one around 'Superbuses' at the time as there needed to be a fallback option should the rail option be too expensive or difficult to deliver. See https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.msg72940#msg72940

So our only real difference in positions Jonno, is over timing due to cost/low BCR and the need not being immediate.

I'm not confident BCC/TMR will fund a rail-based metro given the cost and disruption, the fact that that option was already looked at by LM Quirk, and that its probably not needed immediately either, hence the adoption of Brisbane Metro BRT in the short to mid-term time horizon.

[JimmyP]

However communication was one of the biggest failings of the 2013 bus network review, hency why I brought it up. Biting off too much at once was another issue, they should have broken it up in pieces. Still doesn't go against anything I said.

Why were you expecting my own response to automatically go against yours?

Change management was the biggest failing of the 2013 bus network review. A simple stakeholder mapping of impact vs influence would have revealed BCC and its councillors as a major stakeholder (along with us and unions) and thus engagement was necessary before just putting it all out there. The whole program seemed to focus on communication with the public, and seemed not to consider that there are more stakeholders than just that.

Literally everything you wrote there comes down to communication. Comms isn't just external, it is internal with affected stakeholders. You just decided to give a lecture earlier on change management because I only brought up one of the biggest failings of that review and failed implementation.

A regular (or maybe larger than normal) bus stop with good connection to the station is all that is needed, with the buses continuing on their route to terminate elsewhere.

When you say "good connection" at the station, what does that actually mean? I believe there are about ~ 10 different bus routes that continue past Indooroopilly Shopping Centre on Moggill Road. Are you suggesting to run all or most of that to Indooroopilly Train Station with just an ordinary bus stop? Assuming 4 buses/hr in peak x 10 routes, that would be a bus every 1.5 minutes at that stop. An ordinary pole and shelter stop would probably not be sufficient? There also needs to be space for layover and terminating services.

Good connection to the station means a good, accessible pathway to the station, preferably undercover. Quite simple stuff which seems to keep failing to be delivered in Brisbane and Australia.

Why would a regular (or slightly bigger) bus stop not be able to handle a bus every 1.5-2mins? Plus, is that frequency actually required after a proper network review?

Don't need layover facilities if it is just a stop along the route. That can be built later if need be, keeping new infrastructure costs down for the time being. Rationalise the routes, trimming the waste and making route work properly would likely mean less overall buses passing through there (some routes may go to other, closer stations instead). They can go to UQ, taking some pressure off Toowong and the 412, or be local routes terminating at Indro Shopping Centre via the station.

You have also been vocal in the past about rail not being extended/improved until after CRR is finished, yet you're well and truely on the bandwagon of the bendy bus needing to roll out in other areas before any sort of network reform can possibly be done. Only a little hypocritical...

We already had the rail-based subway proposal floated by LM Quirk and the Brisbane Subway proposal floated by Palaszczuk in 2010. These two proposals have gone nowhere. I'm not even sure they qualify as serious "planning", other than lines on a map and being a feature/talking point, what actual planning work has been completed on the subway proposal in the 14 years since it was released?

What does any of that have to do with my comment?

Do you think a Brisbane Metro BRT rollout would be lower, higher or the same cost as a rail extension/subway implementation? Do you think it would be slower, faster or the same time frame to roll out?

Let us know.

Please don't insult my (or other forum members) intelligence with a ridiculous comment like that. It's those sorts of comments that make other members angry and frustrated with you.

Of course BRT is going to be cheaper and faster rollout than rail based solutions (depending on infrastructure requirements). I'm not an idiot.
What I also said is that there also needs proper long term planning which will involve infrastructure. You cannot just look at today and plan for that only. It will end up costing more in the long run, vs having a good set of short term, medium term and long term plans being put in place (and no, those two random proposals you mentioned aren't this, as they haven't actually been properly planned, costed, put in to policy etc.etc).

BRT has its place, absolutely. But it can't do everything.


I wholeheartedly agree with SurfRail's post above. That's what we should be aiming for.

[Jonno]

Of course BRT will be lower costs and potentially quicker but in the corridors that need high-capacity aka 24k upwards, such as Busway (N-S), Old Cleveland Road-Indooroopilly (E-W), etc then it is the wrong solution.

You know that I agree with you that rail-based metro is the right option for the North-South corridor in Brisbane (Chermside-CBD-Eight Mile Plains). I have previously explored the concept of a North-South subway on this forum, but later also prepared one around 'Superbuses' at the time as there needed to be a fallback option should the rail option be too expensive or difficult to deliver. See https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.msg72940#msg72940

So our only real difference in positions Jonno, is over timing due to cost/low BCR and the need not being immediate.

I'm not confident BCC/TMR will fund a rail-based metro given the cost and disruption, the fact that that option was already looked at by LM Quirk, and that its probably not needed immediately either, hence the adoption of Brisbane Metro BRT in the short to mid-term time horizon.

It's not our role to accept solutions billed as "the future of SEQ transport" when car trips make up 90% of trips.  If we don't I am not sure who will.  The RACQ are happy for $ to be spent on public transport as long as more $$$ is spent widening freeways which results in "no change    I don't care how likely or unlikely a Govt is to fund it.  The requirement does not change. And especially when billions are spent creating congestion in the name of "congestion busting" then we must hold these Govt's to account.   

[#Metro]

It's not our role to accept solutions billed as "the future of SEQ transport" when car trips make up 90% of trips.

Are there members on this forum who are opposed to the expansion of Brisbane Metro BRT to Chermside, Carindale and Indooroopilly? I don't think there are, but just putting the question out there to check my understanding.

 

[SilverChased]

At 8MP to catch a bertie again today and imagine my surprise when I saw the journey planner:


It wouldn't show up in Google Maps, and for good reason.
I figured it has to be a mistake. How could it know, before it departs, that it'll be half an hour late at the destination?
I checked AnyTrip to see if there was some congestion or accident, but nothing.


I checked other bus routes and they weren't delayed. I decided to chance it and ended up at Buranda in 10 minutes.

Have they messed up the estimated delay somehow? This stops Google Maps from recommending the bus in planning.

[STB]

Not sure if this has happened in other areas, but along Chatsworth Road/Samuel St/Winstanley St, new stops have been installed (white J pole with blue sign), presumably for the new all day Route 205 service, which seems like it will run a Cityexpress pattern (via the Captain Cook Bridge).  Just an interesting observation.

[GonzoFonzie]

It's not our role to accept solutions billed as "the future of SEQ transport" when car trips make up 90% of trips.

Are there members on this forum who are opposed to the expansion of Brisbane Metro BRT to Chermside, Carindale and Indooroopilly? I don't think there are, but just putting the question out there to check my understanding.

 

How does expanding this impact the 90% of car users?

[#Metro]

1. How does expanding this impact the 90% of car users?

Expanding the Brisbane Metro BRT to areas like Chermside, Carindale, and Indooroopilly can significantly impact the 90% of trips currently made by car users by providing a viable and attractive alternative to driving. This is due to its service characteristics -  high frequency and service span, which rail-based metro systems also have. Yes, it doesn't have the peak hour line capacity of a rail-based metro, but there is no suggestion that the conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro is so urgent that this project should have been cancelled and replaced with that.

Crucially, the high off-peak frequency allows mode shift to happen because systems with high mode share have high off-peak patronage. It is not just about big peak hour capacity, which only makes up ~ 20% of the day. It is consistent and growing off-peak patronage that is the key to high all-day system patronage, and thus mode share improvement. Hence RBOT's efforts to increase off-peak train frequency and expand BUZ services.

Brisbane Metro BRT will also catalyse bus network simplification, reorganisation and speed up ordinary buses through congestion reduction at Cultural Centre (and other busway chokepoints) so it has an indirect improvement effect on the rest of the bus network as well.

Worldwide, most cities have buses and upgrade them, even the ones with extensive metro networks, like London or Paris. The objections that appear in our discussions are phrased as being towards Brisbane Metro BRT, but really they are objections to the SEB being a busway and the extension of its service life through this project, which is seen as delaying the planning and/or conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro.

There is a suggestion that we might need a rail-based metro in say, 40 or 50 years. And there is good reason to think that might be true. But that argument is only an argument for building such a system in 40 or 50 years. It isn't an argument for building one right now, especially when there is an alternative SEB life-extension project that costs 10% of a rail conversion and has just become operational.

The Brisbane Metro BRT has strong and demonstrated ($) support from both BCC and the Queensland Government. Conversion of the SEB or a Brisbane Subway - currently - does not.

I believe that RBOT and its members support Brisbane Metro BRT and its expansion across Brisbane to Chermside, Carindale, Indooroopilly etc. However, if its members do not, perhaps on the basis that Brisbane Metro BRT expansion will delay or take funds or attention away from the planning or introduction of a rail-based metro or SEB rail conversion, then of course members can resolve to change the RBOT position to reflect that.

[Jonno]

It's not our role to accept solutions billed as "the future of SEQ transport" when car trips make up 90% of trips.

Are there members on this forum who are opposed to the expansion of Brisbane Metro BRT to Chermside, Carindale and Indooroopilly? I don't think there are, but just putting the question out there to check my understanding.

 

it makes sense to have the routes run to Chermside even Aspley in transit lane BUT (and is a really important BUT) not as a city-changing end solution costing billions.

It not going to be a game changer. It will improve things and allow more buses to run HF routes(aka BEEP).

It can't come at the cost mid-term of solutions that ARE a game changer!

The biggest challenge is that the busway will run as 100's of buses/10's of routes until converted so it is even hard to establish core-routes (1-5 routes) and get people very comfortable  to interchanging.

[#Metro]

Brisbane Metro Depot Visit - Running in Service

Some sort of covering such as shadecloth could be looked at. Queensland often has poor weather and hail.

[ilovebrisvegas]

1. How does expanding this impact the 90% of car users?

Expanding the Brisbane Metro BRT to areas like Chermside, Carindale, and Indooroopilly can significantly impact the 90% of trips currently made by car users by providing a viable and attractive alternative to driving. This is due to its service characteristics -  high frequency and service span, which rail-based metro systems also have. Yes, it doesn't have the peak hour line capacity of a rail-based metro, but there is no suggestion that the conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro is so urgent that this project should have been cancelled and replaced with that.

Crucially, the high off-peak frequency allows mode shift to happen because systems with high mode share have high off-peak patronage. It is not just about big peak hour capacity, which only makes up ~ 20% of the day. It is consistent and growing off-peak patronage that is the key to high all-day system patronage, and thus mode share improvement. Hence RBOT's efforts to increase off-peak train frequency and expand BUZ services.

Brisbane Metro BRT will also catalyse bus network simplification, reorganisation and speed up ordinary buses through congestion reduction at Cultural Centre (and other busway chokepoints) so it has an indirect improvement effect on the rest of the bus network as well.

Worldwide, most cities have buses and upgrade them, even the ones with extensive metro networks, like London or Paris. The objections that appear in our discussions are phrased as being towards Brisbane Metro BRT, but really they are objections to the SEB being a busway and the extension of its service life through this project, which is seen as delaying the planning and/or conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro.

There is a suggestion that we might need a rail-based metro in say, 40 or 50 years. And there is good reason to think that might be true. But that argument is only an argument for building such a system in 40 or 50 years. It isn't an argument for building one right now, especially when there is an alternative SEB life-extension project that costs 10% of a rail conversion and has just become operational.

The Brisbane Metro BRT has strong and demonstrated ($) support from both BCC and the Queensland Government. Conversion of the SEB or a Brisbane Subway - currently - does not.

I believe that RBOT and its members support Brisbane Metro BRT and its expansion across Brisbane to Chermside, Carindale, Indooroopilly etc. However, if its members do not, perhaps on the basis that Brisbane Metro BRT expansion will delay or take funds or attention away from the planning or introduction of a rail-based metro or SEB rail conversion, then of course members can resolve to change the RBOT position to reflect that.

I personally support Chermside and Carindale extensions but not Indooroopilly as I don't see the point of duplicating another rail route where there is so much potential through feeding high frequency routes to it.

[timh]

I've posted many times before that I'm in favour of building out the Eastern and Northern Busway as per the 2010-ish plans. I like the busways.

A busway to Indro is extremely unlikely to happen anytime in the next 20-30 years. Metro idk what kinda alignment you have in your brain but the only vague references I have EVER seen from any kind of official government source have been vague dotted lines on glossy brochures linking from UQ. I've seen versions that go to Toowong or Indro.
If you wanted to extend the busway through UQ, it'd have to be tunneled as UQ outright refuse to have it built through their land. To get to Toowong or Indro from there would require further tunneling as none of the roads are wide enough to accommodate it. Even if you just removed car lanes I don't think it would work. Since it would require such extensive tunneling, if an extension of the busway had to be built West, I would go to Toowong to save on cost.
As I said above in the thread, an East West link I'd much rather see built as proper underground Metro ala the Bligh govts "Brisbane Subway" idea.

I don't support converting the busway to rail, especially if it precludes buses from running along it. As much as a fully feederised hub and spoke network would be ideal, I think realistically routes like the 130 and 150 should stay as is and just run with artics full time. It'd be nice to have long C train like vehicles running on the busway long term but it would likely require a new Inner City tunnel from around Mater Hill to Normanby, so you're looking at billions and billions of dollars.

As Gazza has said, if we are exceeding the capacity of the busway, rather than trying to retrofit it to work, just build new lines. Flagstone/Beaudesert line would take pressure off the 130/140/150.

A new relief underground metro line following the sorta Logan Road / Cavendish Road / Newnham Road corridor would take in a lot of rapidly densifying suburbs and serve population centres much better than some of the SE Busway stations.

My current foamer idea is an underground metro station on the site of the former Central Fair shopping centre at Mount Gravatt central. Sat abandoned for years, most of the area around it is zoned for 6-8 storey apartments, and would much better serve the area compared to Griffith busway station

Anyway I digress. Brisbane """Metro""" is just a slight upgrade to the Busway. You guys need to settle down a bit. Metro acts like it's gods gift to humanity and the way Jonno talks you'd think the world is going to end.
If they just called it "Busway Rolling stock Improvement Program", and didn't make such a political song and dance about it, you guys wouldn't be getting so riled up. All it really is, is better utilisation of the existing busway. Some minor infrastructure upgrades, new Rolling stock and an improved timetable. It's good in the short term and is very cheap in Australian public transport terms. But yeah, to really get mode shift and make a difference on car dependency, we need new rail lines, bus priority on main roads, better frequency of suburban routes, etc.

[GonzoFonzie]

1. How does expanding this impact the 90% of car users?

Expanding the Brisbane Metro BRT to areas like Chermside, Carindale, and Indooroopilly can significantly impact the 90% of trips currently made by car users by providing a viable and attractive alternative to driving. This is due to its service characteristics -  high frequency and service span, which rail-based metro systems also have. Yes, it doesn't have the peak hour line capacity of a rail-based metro, but there is no suggestion that the conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro is so urgent that this project should have been cancelled and replaced with that.

Crucially, the high off-peak frequency allows mode shift to happen because systems with high mode share have high off-peak patronage. It is not just about big peak hour capacity, which only makes up ~ 20% of the day. It is consistent and growing off-peak patronage that is the key to high all-day system patronage, and thus mode share improvement. Hence RBOT's efforts to increase off-peak train frequency and expand BUZ services.

Brisbane Metro BRT will also catalyse bus network simplification, reorganisation and speed up ordinary buses through congestion reduction at Cultural Centre (and other busway chokepoints) so it has an indirect improvement effect on the rest of the bus network as well.

Worldwide, most cities have buses and upgrade them, even the ones with extensive metro networks, like London or Paris. The objections that appear in our discussions are phrased as being towards Brisbane Metro BRT, but really they are objections to the SEB being a busway and the extension of its service life through this project, which is seen as delaying the planning and/or conversion of the SEB to a rail-based metro.

There is a suggestion that we might need a rail-based metro in say, 40 or 50 years. And there is good reason to think that might be true. But that argument is only an argument for building such a system in 40 or 50 years. It isn't an argument for building one right now, especially when there is an alternative SEB life-extension project that costs 10% of a rail conversion and has just become operational.

The Brisbane Metro BRT has strong and demonstrated ($) support from both BCC and the Queensland Government. Conversion of the SEB or a Brisbane Subway - currently - does not.

I believe that RBOT and its members support Brisbane Metro BRT and its expansion across Brisbane to Chermside, Carindale, Indooroopilly etc. However, if its members do not, perhaps on the basis that Brisbane Metro BRT expansion will delay or take funds or attention away from the planning or introduction of a rail-based metro or SEB rail conversion, then of course members can resolve to change the RBOT position to reflect that.

Whatever benefits the BCC claim the 'Bertie Beetle Bi-articulated Battery Buses' will achieve will not materialise, as the entire project was sold on a lie. Many members here have acknowledged this project was born from pure political bullsh%t just to counter Labor and its 'evil' light rail proposal. It was never about fixing or improving PT in Brisbane.

Unless the 66, 111 or 169 services are going to run the Bertie Beetles exclusively, then the project is a con. You expect a 'Bertie Beetle' to show up, but you might get an 'Artie' bus or a regular "Optimus' bus on these services. That is comparable to building the NBN and calling it a FTTP system, but end up using copper, co-axial, and wireless/satellite technology lumped together in some Frankenstein monstrosity claiming it can do the job cheaper and quicker; when in reality its the opposite. Its 'Fraudband on wheels'.

The BERT does not or did not cause bus network reforms. It was politics and denial of the state of the bus network that gave us BERT. BERT didn't cause 50c fares, or bus patronage to increase, it was the 50c fare that caused patronage to increase. The amount of gaslighting over its benefits is incredible.

I suspect the Bertie Beetle's will only ever operate on the busway and likely on a merged 111 and 333 service. You could also merge the 444 and 222, but unlikely to use Bertie Beetle's.

It costs more to cheap out than it is to build something properly using the best solution available. A rail-based solution is the next step, the bi-articulates are just a band-aid solution to what will inevitably be light rail. I do not advocate converting the entire busway network to light rail, that's just crazy.

From this, I don't see how using a longer bus, calling it a metro, will equate to car usage decreasing significantly.

[JimmyP]

I have no problems with the bi-artics being used to Chermside and Carindale from the city.
City to Indro is a big, fat NO.
UQ to Indro, depends. If it requires tunneling most of the way, then simply build it as rail based and be done with it. If it only requires minor tunneling works, sure.
Again, I just don't understand why certain people here continue to believe that network reform can only come with the bi-artic rollout. It's just not true. With proper network reform, we can solve most of the issues on the network with what we already have. There's already a driver shortage too, so  simply BUZing current routes while the network is such garbage simple isn't possible.
Proper network reform, including creating proper feeder routes will allow better coverage, a better network, thus higher patronage (on ALL modes) while using the same resources.
As many have already said, the Gympie Rd corridor doesn't even use normal artics (does anywhere on the north?), so is Chermside actually that critical of a need for the bi-artics yet? Maybe, maybe not.

[#Metro]

Again, I just don't understand why certain people here continue to believe that network reform can only come with the bi-artic rollout. It's just not true. With proper network reform, we can solve most of the issues on the network with what we already have.

Well, a direct approach to bus reform will likely trigger a mass public backlash (Brisbane 2013, Adelaide 2020). Packaging bus reforms together with Brisbane Metro BRT communicates to the public that they will be compensated for changes with a better service. This ensures the changes stick and achieves public acceptance. We know packaging works because BCC's latest bus changes for Brisbane's Southside has attracted almost no adverse public reaction.

It took about 10 years to revisit the idea of a bus review after the events of 2013. Who knows when Adelaide will revisit the idea of bus reform. Why risk it?

Metro idk what kinda alignment you have in your brain but the only vague references I have EVER seen from any kind of official government source have been vague dotted lines on glossy brochures linking from UQ. I've seen versions that go to Toowong or Indro.

Thanks for your comments Timh.

Brisbane Metro BRT is capable of running in bus lanes or on ordinary roads, in addition to busways (see video below). There is an opportunity to simplify the bus network by running Brisbane Metro BRT CBD-Coronation Drive-Indooroopilly and then potentially further to Centenary/Mt Ommaney or Darra.

This would compensate residents for the major network changes in their area, simplify the network, promote the return of the Coronation Drive bus lane (which will speed up standard buses also), and allow for services to interchange at Indooroopilly.

The improvements can be made through to Indooroopilly and beyond without being made conditional on a tunnel or a new busway IMHO.

I do not advocate converting the entire busway network to light rail, that's just crazy.

From this, I don't see how using a longer bus, calling it a metro, will equate to car usage decreasing significantly.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel towards conversion of parts of the inner QR network to rail-based metro, similar to what Sydney is doing with the Bankstown line? E.g. conversion of the Springfield line or inner parts of the Beenleigh line to rail-based Metro. Much of our discussion has focused on converting the busway, but really, the arguments made there could apply to any Priority or Class A ROW within the broader BCC area.

These lines currently do not support (as far as I know) bi-directional high-frequency (5 min or better) all day off-peak train service, but if they were converted, they would.

Notes

Brisbane Metro BRT to Indooroopilly (based on CentenaryGlider concept) as part of a wider reformed bus network. Option to extend to Darra train station. City portion of the route is indicative only as multiple options exist for routing.



HESS LighTram25 to Basel Airport, Switzerland - showing road and bus lane running.

[GonzoFonzie]

I do not advocate converting the entire busway network to light rail, that's just crazy.

From this, I don't see how using a longer bus, calling it a metro, will equate to car usage decreasing significantly.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel towards conversion of parts of the inner QR network to rail-based metro, similar to what Sydney is doing with the Bankstown line? E.g. conversion of the Springfield line or inner parts of the Beenleigh line to rail-based Metro. Much of our discussion has focused on converting the busway, but really, the arguments made there could apply to any Priority or Class A ROW within the broader BCC area.

These lines currently do not support (as far as I know) bi-directional high-frequency (5 min or better) all day off-peak train service, but if they were converted, they would.

An intriguing idea.

The only concept I have heard was the 'Cleveland Solution' which wanted to convert the Ferny Grove and Cleveland lines into a light metro line.

I would use another example from Sydney where they converted a freight rail line to light rail, the Dulwich Hill, L1. Of the rail lines in Brisbane, the weakest link lines on the network are the Outer Doomben Line, Shorncliffe Line, and possibly the Airport Line, though ask me again in 2035 on that one.

I can see part(s) of the busway been converted to whatever transport mode we desire, but a full-on blanket conversion is a waste. The only advantage of light rail is that it can use the same corridors as cars (roads), buses (busways), and rail (rail corridors), while a metro subway system needs a full ROW A.

Isn't the Beenleigh/GC Line getting line upgrades for better frequencies?

 

[#Metro]

Isn't the Beenleigh/GC Line getting line upgrades for better frequencies?

Yes, but not to the metro standard of say a train every ~ 5 min both directions all day. Off-peak frequency will be ~15 min.

[JimmyP]

Well, a direct approach to bus reform will likely trigger a mass public backlash (Brisbane 2013, Adelaide 2020). Packaging bus reforms together with Brisbane Metro BRT communicates to the public that they will be compensated for changes with a better service. This ensures the changes stick and achieves public acceptance. We know packaging works because BCC's latest bus changes for Brisbane's Southside has attracted almost no adverse public reaction.

Sigh, we're going round in circles again.

Proper change management, and proper communication (yes, internal and external before you jump on to any omitted implied information), along with a good, high quality new network, will go a long way to getting bus network reform over the line without Bertie buses. Other cities manage it just fine. Was it Auckland that had a successful network reform recently?
BCC's changes went through without much issue because it was literally tinkering around the edges, not actual network reform. They used a bandaid on an amputee and claimed the world's problems are solved.

Doing that on the rest of the network will just add to the bullsh%t of the network.

There is an opportunity to simplify the bus network by running Brisbane Metro BRT CBD-Coronation Drive-Indooroopilly and then potentially further to Centenary/Mt Ommaney or Darra.

Yay!! More pointless duplication and waste with even less feederisation!! Awesome.

Out of curiosity, how would you feel towards conversion of parts of the inner QR network to rail-based metro, similar to what Sydney is doing with the Bankstown line? E.g. conversion of the Springfield line or inner parts of the Beenleigh line to rail-based Metro. Much of our discussion has focused on converting the busway, but really, the arguments made there could apply to any Priority or Class A ROW within the broader BCC area.

I'm honestly surprised you haven't proposed converting the QR network to Bertie buses at this point.
The QR network is a lot different to the Sydney network. The Sydney heavy rail network is slower due to the double deck rollingstock taking long times to dwell and taking longer to accel/decell at stations. The QR network already has similar rollingstock performance to a metro, so the gains aren't really quite as high. Signalling is changing to ETCS Level 2 already (well, it is planned to, but lets see what happens with the LNP gov), so the signalling will be able to achieve high frequencies.
Considering your disdain for the cost of 50c fares etc., surprising you're now bringing up converting QR lines to metro at the cost of several billion $$, while the current network is fuked.

I also note you haven't touched on where the extra bus drivers are coming from (for a start) for Bertie overlaying the current BS network with tinkering like the south.
Proper full network reform would give the public a much better network, with higher frequency across many more areas, using similar resources as current. That is the sales pitch for the people.

[#Metro]

Thanks for your comments JimmyP, some responses.

Proper change management...

Well, packaging Brisbane Metro BRT and network changes to run together in the Brisbane Westside corridor, despite the possibility of doing them separately is good change management. It encourages public acceptance of the changes more than an unpackaged measure.

Yay!! More pointless duplication and waste with even less feederisation!! Awesome.

A simple way to see what the community prefers is to simply ask that BCC put the two options to them, side by side and ask them which one they prefer. Do they just want network changes feederising their buses to rail? Or do they want that plus Brisbane Metro BRT along Coronation Drive to Indooroopilly and perhaps beyond as well? That would resolve our differences on this point. I suspect the community would want Brisbane Metro BRT rolled out to them, but I am happy to be wrong on this point.

As a stakeholder, BCC is likely to be opposed to a rail-only interchange solution. We could make our points more forcefully, or negotiate a compromise. Unless BCC are no longer going to be involved in PT (doubtful), then IMO packaging changes up with Brisbane Metro BRT is a pragmatic way forward for all parties.

Last time feederisation was proposed for the Brisbane Westside I recall there were multiple community facebook pages set up to oppose it e.g. 'Save Route 411', 'Save Route 470 / Toowong Buses' or similar for that area. It did not land well with the community, suggesting a more substantial mitigation measure is required.

I'm honestly surprised you haven't proposed converting the QR network to Bertie buses at this point.

Well, you may want to visit the Doomben line thread then. There is the option to convert that to Brisbane Metro BRT and it also appears (in a different way) in a concept map jointly released by BCC and QLD Government. See here https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/101184

Although contentious for us as a group, it should probably go forward to a more detailed assessment comparing it against an upgraded rail option IMHO. Then we will have more certainty as to its merit (or lack thereof). Run a multi-horse race and then look at the results.

The QR network already has similar rollingstock performance to a metro, so the gains aren't really quite as high. Signalling is changing to ETCS Level 2 already (well, it is planned to, but lets see what happens with the LNP gov), so the signalling will be able to achieve high frequencies.

What are the acceleration values in m/s2 for QR vs Sydney metro stock? And on your point about signalling, will it be able to achieve 5-minute bi-directional train service all day on say the Springfield, Beenleigh, Cleveland lines etc, or inner parts of these lines?

Considering your disdain for the cost of 50c fares etc., surprising you're now bringing up converting QR lines to metro at the cost of several billion $$, while the current network is fuked.

There is a difference between merely exploring an option and holding a particular concept as a position.

A key question though is why should the SE busway be singled out for an expectation to achieve peak capacities of a metro (say 40,000 pphd) when lines of the aforementioned QR rail network are not yet capable of doing this either or sustaining metro-like levels of train service (e.g. a train every 5 min in both directions simultaneously) all day.

Is it because the SE Busway is a busway?

I also note you haven't touched on where the extra bus drivers are coming from (for a start) for Bertie overlaying the current BS network with tinkering like the south.

If network changes do not achieve community acceptance, they will simply be rolled back, no matter how effective they might have otherwise been.

In terms of sourcing more drivers, we will need more anyway for the Olympics and other service upgrades such as the expansion of the BUZ network. Labour shortages can be resolved by improving pay and conditions, and by freeing up resources when the bus network is re-organised.

[Gazza]

Can I just ask something, why is there so much rallying around doing further Metro extensions when we haven't even got the first one open? We haven't seen how it holds up day to day. We don't know how much additional patronage it can draw in practice.

[#Metro]

Got an e-mail today saying BCC has released the finalised network for the southside.   

Website: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbanes-new-bus-network

Bus Network Guide: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/20241028-Brisbanes-New-Bus-Network-guide.pdf

There are quite a lot of changes.

Big highlight is Route 26, which is essentially a very similar proposal to my own for a route from the SEB to RBWH via the Story Bridge.

Interesting changes, including feeder bus services between Indooroopilly and Fairfield train station (Route 127). A lot of these are trial routes to evaluate the feasibility of feeder services and collect data.

[JimmyP]

Well, packaging Brisbane Metro BRT and network changes to run together in the Brisbane Westside corridor, despite the possibility of doing them separately is good change management. It encourages public acceptance of the changes more than an unpackaged measure.

And yet, you're not capable of seeing it doesn't need to happen together, for whatever reason, so if we go with this, we're stuck with the same sh%thouse network for the next decade or so, all because people apparently won't accept any sort of change unless there is a bertie bus involved. 

As a stakeholder, BCC is likely to be opposed to a rail-only interchange solution

BCC opposed to rail?! You don't say! Wherever did you get that idea from   
Precicely why BCC should have absolutely nothing to do with PT apart from being the bus contractor (if we must..).
There are always going to be NIMBYs when big changes happen. The southside changes with Bertie are not proper network reform, they are tinkering around the edges. Using a bandaid to heal an amputation.

I also said to have just one route running to town from Indro and feederising the rest qhere possible, not feederising everything. This also does not need bertie buses to achieve.

Well, you may want to visit the Doomben line thread then.

Seems I had purged this ridiculousness out of my memory. Instead of spending a relatively small amount of money on selective duplication enabling 15mins services and possible extention to Hamilton North Shore (and running it as a proper line rather than the ridiculousness it is currently), lets spend billions to rip up all the heavy rail infrastructure to replace it with roads and have to run buses every few minutes just to try and retain the same capacity that was just ripped up, while spending more on resources all round. Great plan 
The Doomben line being converted to BRT is about as likely as the subway proposals you mentioned further upthread from 10+ years ago. Lines drawn on a map with no actual planning done as part of an election campaign.

What are the acceleration values in m/s2 for QR vs Sydney metro stock? And on your point about signalling, will it be able to achieve 5-minute bi-directional train service all day on say the Springfield, Beenleigh, Cleveland lines etc, or inner parts of these lines?

Not detail I have at this moment, but i'm sure you could find it online somewhere.
ETCS is supposed to enable trains every 2-3mins. No reason it couldn't outside CRR if everything is fitted. Completely different scenario is whether the track layout and stopping patterns can handle it. If an express and an all stations share tracks, then no. If they are seperated, then yes.

There is a difference between merely exploring an option and holding a particular concept as a position.

Well your "option" that you won't actually take any sort of critisism about is that nothing can be done until Bertie is rolled out everywhere. That's more of a position than an option.

A key question though is why should the SE busway be singled out for an expectation to achieve peak capacities of a metro (say 40,000 pphd) when lines of the aforementioned QR rail network are not yet capable of doing this either or sustaining metro-like levels of train service (e.g. a train every 5 min in both directions simultaneously) all day.

Is it because the SE Busway is a busway?

The reason the busway is singled out is because there is an upper limit to how many buses can be efficiently run across it, at which point the required capacity moves in to the next mode up. A point where the busway is pretty close to already achieving (especially given the bus conga lines - will be interesting how it goes once the new tunnel is finished). Bertie gives a small reprieve, but it will only be short. Proper bus network reform (ie: feederise most buses and only have Berties running the busway where possible) should get some more as it will reduce the air parcles being driven along there doing jack all other than creating congestion.

If network changes do not achieve community acceptance, they will simply be rolled back, no matter how effective they might have otherwise been.

If the world never did anything that anyone opposed to, nothing would get done. Sometimes the loud minority simply needs to be ignored for the greater good, just like the GCLR. The network changes down on the GC with LR have had a lot of opposition, however it still went ahead and the PT usage soared.

In terms of sourcing more drivers, we will need more anyway for the Olympics and other service upgrades such as the expansion of the BUZ network. Labour shortages can be resolved by improving pay and conditions, and by freeing up resources when the bus network is re-organised.

Olympics are easy. Its only a couple weeks, drivers and buses will be brought in from across the state and other states, exactly the same as what happened in Sydney.
Long term expansion of bus services on wasteful networks are a lot more difficult if there simply aren't enough resources to run it, exactly as is happening now and has been since COVID. We don't have enough drivers now for the current sh%thouse network, we most certainly don't if we just BUZ what we have and don't streamline.
Saying 'oh we just get more drivers then' doesn't make it happen. Yes, better pay and conditions will get some more, but considering how long we have been dealing with shortages so far, how much longer are we waiting for that to happen?



Tbh, I go around in circles enough at work, I don't need to do it in my free time. If you keep coming back with the same old arguments of "but we can't until bertie rolls out", i'm done replying. Not worth my time and frustration.

[SilverChased]

Interesting. Route 26 might be another option for me to bypass the inner city until CRR. Right now I use Route 77 (requires a drive west) or Route 299 (riverside expressway, but doesn't run very frequently) to cross north to south.

The Merivale bridge and the busway (which Metro will use) add another 10 minutes (minimum, when not congested) to go out to Roma St and Cultural Centre. So, they aren't very useful when coming from the north-eastern side of the city.

However, connecting Fortitude Valley to the gabba with a bus will likely be unnecessary once the CRR is running.

It looks like I'll be getting a new Route 155 to replace 299 as well

Huge + for all the new feeder services, services combined, removal of route 28. I can think of several more that should be axed/combined but this is a good start.
Another huge + for the northern services stopping at city instead of cultural centre.

[#Metro]

And yet, you're not capable of seeing it doesn't need to happen together, for whatever reason,

Made clear in the second part of the first sentence that while they don't need to happen together, they probably should (bolded).

Well, packaging Brisbane Metro BRT and network changes to run together in the Brisbane Westside corridor, despite the possibility of doing them separately is good change management. It encourages public acceptance of the changes more than an unpackaged measure.

Precicely why BCC should have absolutely nothing to do with PT apart from being the bus contractor (if we must..).

BCC has run buses in Brisbane for 90 years. Unless it is incorporated into a larger single PT authority (not a bad idea), then they are a stakeholder and any changes will need to consider that going forward.

The southside changes with Bertie are not proper network reform, they are tinkering around the edges. Using a bandaid to heal an amputation.

BCC just today released the finalised network, there are quite a few changes and feeder services. See this guide: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/20241028-Brisbanes-New-Bus-Network-guide.pdf

Instead of spending a relatively small amount of money on selective duplication enabling 15mins services and possible extention to Hamilton North Shore (and running it as a proper line rather than the ridiculousness it is currently), lets spend billions to rip up all the heavy rail infrastructure to replace it with roads and have to run buses every few minutes just to try and retain the same capacity that was just ripped up, while spending more on resources all round. Great plan 

I'm happy to be wrong. Send it to an analysis along with the rail option(s) and let's compare them side by side. That is just good and responsible planning. Is the objection to such an analysis that it might knock out the rail upgrade option from consideration?

Completely different scenario is whether the track layout and stopping patterns can handle it.

So this is an issue then. We are expecting the busway to reach metro-level service standards, in particular both peak capacity and off-peak metro standards for frequency (~ 5 min, both directions), but not equidistant parts of the QR network.

Bertie gives a small reprieve, but it will only be short.

How short is short though? If the argument is that a rail-based metro is required in 40 years, then it is only an argument for building one in 40 years and not today. It has not yet been explained to members how the rollout of Brisbane Metro BRT today somehow removes/precludes that future option.

And as I wrote earlier, these objections to Brisbane Metro BRT on the SEB are more objections to the SEB being a busway than the actual Brisbane Metro BRT, which is a service that runs on it. This proposal has been around for ~ 24 months, there has been ample time to object to it on the grounds that it is not a rail-based metro.

Members are of course free to resolve to object to the expansion of Brisbane Metro BRT on the SEB or anywhere else if they believe it will impact the planning or construction of a rail-based metro.

If the world never did anything that anyone opposed to, nothing would get done. Sometimes the loud minority simply needs to be ignored for the greater good, just like the GCLR. The network changes down on the GC with LR have had a lot of opposition, however it still went ahead and the PT usage soared.

Well, do you hold the view that the Translink Brisbane 2013 bus network changes and the Adelaide 2020 bus network changes should have been forced, despite mass citywide community opposition? Why do that when there is an option to avoid that?

If you keep coming back with the same old arguments of "but we can't until bertie rolls out", i'm done replying. Not worth my time and frustration.

I've been civil and responded to your points and set out the reasoning. I acknowledge that we might not agree on many things in this discussion. Yes, you could just roll out the changes, but packaging it up is much lower risk. Thank you for your responses.

 

[achiruel]

I went for a ride on the BusMetro yesterday. While it is quieter than a typical diesel bus, I felt like the quality of the fit and finish was very much in line with a bus, rather than light-rail like. I ride the Gold Coast tram often enough, it feels like a small train inside. The BusMetro feels like a large bus.

I'm wondering if this is because it's expected to have a shorter lifespan than a tram? ~35 years vs 20 years.

[#Metro]

Bus changes associated with Brisbane Metro BRT network changes:

See the guide: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-10/20241028-Brisbanes-New-Bus-Network-guide.pdf

The guide is excellent because it has both the feedback and the responses to it in a table for each route. This is great stuff, well done BCC. 

Route 26: Garden City to RBWH via Kangaroo Pt.
Thoughts - could probably originate from UQ Lakes - Buranda then to RBWH. Should be all day frequency.

Route 105 - being feederised and removed from travelling to the CBD.

Route 107 - terminated at Yeerongpilly train station.

Route 108 - merged and removed completely.

Route 112 - feederised and terminated at PA hospital.

Route 113 - feederised and terminated at PA hospital

Route 115 - terminated at Griffith Uni Mt Gravatt

Route 125 - Merged with 124 and becomes 15 minutes daytime

Route 127 - New feeder service from Indooroopilly to Fairfield. IMO this probably should terminate at PA Hospital. Trial route for 2 years. I can see a problem in that it has 2 hour frequency and the rail connection will be low frequency (assuming it runs on a weekend)

Route 161
- Rerouted and terminated at Griffith Uni as a feeder service.

Route 172 - Removed from the CBD and terminated at PA Hospital. Passengers change at Buranda.

Route 174/175 - merged and 15 min all day frequency.

Route 192 - will now loop into UQ Lakes and then out again, terminating at Yeerongpilly.

Route 198 - Retained. Bit surprised to see this one still around given the services around it have been BUZzed.

Route 202, 203 - Feederised and terminated at Dutton Park station.

BUZ 345 - terminated at QSBS now, not Cultural Centre

590 - retained, no changes. Would have been good to see this incorporated into the GCL.

599/598 - No changes. This one probably should have changes - more frequency, more directness, will be one for next time.

 

* List of changes not exhaustive, as minor changes were skipped along with others.

[GonzoFonzie]

I went for a ride on the BusMetro yesterday. While it is quieter than a typical diesel bus, I felt like the quality of the fit and finish was very much in line with a bus, rather than light-rail like. I ride the Gold Coast tram often enough, it feels like a small train inside. The BusMetro feels like a large bus.

I'm wondering if this is because it's expected to have a shorter lifespan than a tram? ~35 years vs 20 years.

The European cities that use these vehicles probably have tram lines in them, but they don't use them in imitate trams services, its the aesthetics and curves of the bus that give it a feel of modernisation, not some pseudo-tram alternative.

A bus will always be a bus no matter how hard it goes to look like a tram.

[JimmyP]

There are some good changes in the bus review, yes. A few major issues though:
1) It is put out and has everything to do with BCC. BCC are NOT the Public Transport authority in QLD and should NOT be publishing things like this themselves. It should be on the Translink website and there only. It is yet more evidence of just how f#ked up PT is in Brisbane.
And excuse me if I don't jump for joy and personally go and thank every BCC Councillor for appeasing the State by adding Route 127, the brand new, solves everything feeder bus from Indro to Fairfield, running the wonderful hours of 10am - 4pm at the blistering frequency of 1 bus per 2hrs   

The layout is definitely a lot better than the 2013 review, much more information presented so people can have informed opinions and see what is happening. If the 2013 network review was presented like this, I would bet there would have been a lot less uproar about it (esp if broken down to regions and followed proper consultation).

There is still a whole lot of very little happening in this review though. Lots of "nothing is changing with this route". Still very much tinkering around the edges IMO.

Made clear in the second part of the first sentence that while they don't need to happen together, they probably should (bolded).

And yet, absolutely no reason why it should apart from "because it will involve big bendy buses". Not good enough when the network is broken and needed fixing over a decade ago.

BCC has run buses in Brisbane for 90 years. Unless it is incorporated into a larger single PT authority (not a bad idea), then they are a stakeholder and any changes will need to consider that going forward.

The PT authority is exactly what we are pushing for here FFS. BCC can go jump off a cliff. They shouldn't be anywhere near any of this planning. The only thing they should be doing is operating the bus network the way Translink (or whatever the name will/should be) tells them to.
I don't give a rats arse if BCC have been operating the buses for 90 years. Doesn't mean they're good at doing a Public Transport network.

I'm happy to be wrong. Send it to an analysis along with the rail option(s) and let's compare them side by side. That is just good and responsible planning.

And yet you're quite happy running around saying how good it will be and that it should be done, doing up plans etc.etc., before any sort of actual analysis has been done. But as soon as someone goes against what you're saying, all of a sudden what they say must absolutely go under full analysis before anything can even be talked about.

So this is an issue then. We are expecting the busway to reach metro-level service standards, in particular both peak capacity and off-peak metro standards for frequency (~ 5 min, both directions), but not equidistant parts of the QR network.

You're just trolling now, yeah?
The busway needs to run massive amounts of buses because the mode is a much lower capacity than heavy rail. Therefore, to have high capacity using buses, a massive amount of buses are needed. However at some point, its just not practical, efficient or even smart to run so many buses, so to get more capacity, a bigger mode is needed such as metro (actual metro). The reason metro rail is being put forward so much is because it has high capacity and can be build to be driverless in its own right of way, so cheaper in the long run.
Also, Surely you understand the concept that:
1) the QR network is a suburban heavy rail network, not actually a metro, although it does act like one already in certain areas and times
2) An express train is faster than an all stations train. Therefore, more tracks are needed if you want both at high frequencies.
The current signalling on most lines can already support trains every 5mins or so. In peak, the Ipswich, Springfield, Caboolture and Kippa Ring lines already have trains running every 6 minutes reliably, and every 3 in the core from Northgate to Roma St/Milton.
Out of peak, the Darra to the City section already runs 15min frequency all day, every day (apart from Sunday morning, an anomoly that really needs fixing). That is the regular 'turn up and go' standard. Why you've now turned around to argue the QR network needs to run at metro type frequency before even daring to talk of the SE Busway, I have absolutely no idea. The current patronage doesn't justify a train every 5 mins on most of the QR network at this point for various reasons, but a big one is that after 7.30am (if you're lucky), people can't get to the station outside walking distance because there are no carparks left and no feeder buses to get them there[/b].

How short is short though? If the argument is that a rail-based metro is required in 40 years, then it is only an argument for building one in 40 years and not today.

And what if it's 10 years? The bertie buses are only marginally bigger than the current artics, so if the busway is already nearing capacity (or over, going by the conga lines in peak), its doubtful it will be very long before more capacity is needed again. How long exactly? I don't know. I'm not a transport planner, as far as I know neither are you, so both or guesses are equally valid as much as they're equally invalid.
The biggest issue most people have is we have just spent well over $1b to gain a minor capacity boost. If capacity is reached again in a decade, and a proper solution is needed, that's $1b+ that could have gone to a much more future proofed solution instead of only thinking about the here and now. Penny wise, pound foolish, kicking the can down the road often ends up costing much more in the long run.

And as I wrote earlier, these objections to Brisbane Metro BRT on the SEB are more objections to the SEB being a busway than the actual Brisbane Metro BRT, which is a service that runs on it. This proposal has been around for ~ 24 months, there has been ample time to object to it on the grounds that it is not a rail-based metro.

Are you kidding me?! Have you been hiding under a rock somewhere? There have been a lot of concerns voiced for quite some time around this project! Definitely has not just begin, may have just become louder as the BCC political spin has been ramped up (along with the price tag), but the concerns have been around quite some time.
The rest of that I have already debunked. Most people believe the busway has done a good job, but it is reaching capacity and needs something more. Or something to ease it's burden. OR, and I know this will be contentious, but hear me out... maybe, just maybe, we could have some of the bus routes feed both the busway AND the railways around it instead of the routes going in to the city all the time clogging everything up!!

Well, do you hold the view that the Translink Brisbane 2013 bus network changes and the Adelaide 2020 bus network changes should have been forced, despite mass citywide community opposition? Why do that when there is an option to avoid that?

I don't know anything about the Adelaide bus system, so I won't comment on it, but for the Brisbane review - honestly, yes. Many times yes. For the most part it was a very good review and had a massive amount of positives. People would have gotten used to it and completely forgotten about the old network within 12 months.

I've been civil and responded to your points and set out the reasoning. I acknowledge that we might not agree on many things in this discussion. Yes, you could just roll out the changes, but packaging it up is much lower risk. Thank you for your responses.

Civil, yes. But mostly just continually regugitating the same tired arguments and often not actually responding to what I actually said.
Rolling out more berties will take a hell of a long time. There is simply no need to wait that long when a new network can be built around current resources, packaged up nicely, communicated properly, broken down in to regions (and presented seperately, ie: do one region at a time, implement that then present the next one). Why wait 5-10 years to get the northside done when it can be done within 12 months? Then once new berties arrive, they can be put on the trunk routes where needed.

[timh]

Can I just ask something, why is there so much rallying around doing further Metro extensions when we haven't even got the first one open? We haven't seen how it holds up day to day. We don't know how much additional patronage it can draw in practice.

I carefully said I support extensions to the busway. The Class A ROW and station infrastructure is much more important to me than the kind of bus that runs on it. I would hope that busway extensions would come from the State Govt as we've seen with the extensions south to Rochedale / Springwood, and the planned further expansion to Loganholme.

And @JimmyP, you're better off just doing what I do and ignore him for the most part. At the end of the day he's just some dude on a forum who likes to "eRm aCtUaLLy" and throw opinions around. BERT is starting soon, we'll see how it goes and how the new LNP council/gov combo go. Once the new Transport Minister is in place we'll see where his priorities lie. In the meantime let's just wait and see how it goes once the new bus network changes happen

[#Metro]

Thanks for your responses JimmyP.

It is put out and has everything to do with BCC. BCC are NOT the Public Transport authority in QLD and should NOT be publishing things like this themselves. It should be on the Translink website and there only. It is yet more evidence of just how f#ked up PT is in Brisbane.

Like them or loathe them, BCC exists and is the PT provider within the BCC LGA. RBOT is advancing the idea of a single combined authority, and I think most members are onboard with that (excuse the pun).

And yet, absolutely no reason why it should apart from "because it will involve big bendy buses".

This point was responded to elsewhere.

And yet you're quite happy running around saying how good it will be and that it should be done, doing up plans etc.etc., before any sort of actual analysis has been done. But as soon as someone goes against what you're saying, all of a sudden what they say must absolutely go under full analysis before anything can even be talked about.

Please, I would welcome a full analysis of both extending Brisbane Metro BRT to the Western Suburbs (e.g Indooroopilly) and for an upgrade of the Doomben line. No complaints from me on either point - proposals should be evaluated according to merit.

The busway needs to run massive amounts of buses because the mode is a much lower capacity than heavy rail.

The current QR network gets 55 million pax/year, less than Perth. The BCC bus network gets about 70 million passengers p.a. About 40 million of those passengers are trips that pass on some portion of the SEB.

So in reality, it is already doing 70%+ of what the rail network is achieving, and the key to this high patronage is the high off-peak frequency which the QR rail network does not have. You continue to avoid the point about inner parts of the QR rail network potentially not being able to achieve 5 min frequency - metro level standards - in both directions by referring to one-way peak capacity. Let's be clear, we are talking 5-min trains in both directions, not one direction, and not just in peak times but all day.

The current patronage doesn't justify a train every 5 mins on most of the QR network at this point for various reasons

Sydney is converting their Bankstown train line to a rail-based metro and I expect will run metro trains on it every 5 mins in both directions, not just during peak. Busways and railways are all Class A or Priority A corridors.

And what if it's 10 years? The bertie buses are only marginally bigger than the current artics, so if the busway is already nearing capacity (or over, going by the conga lines in peak), its doubtful it will be very long before more capacity is needed again.

This is about the SEB being a busway and objections to having the life of the busway extended through the Brisbane Metro BRT project. Again, this project does not prevent a rail-based metro going ahead in the future. If members want to propose a rail-based metro - they can!

The biggest issue most people have is we have just spent well over $1b to gain a minor capacity boost.

Yes, this point gets put often, but the rail-based metro option is 10x the cost at around $10-14b. The main aim is decongestion of the inner parts of the busways.

Penny wise, pound foolish, kicking the can down the road often ends up costing much more in the long run.

If you need a metro in the future, then build it in the future. At just 10% of the cost of a metro rail option, this is a good interim solution.

maybe, just maybe, we could have some of the bus routes feed both the busway AND the railways around it instead of the routes going in to the city all the time clogging everything up!!

I've spent this afternoon looking through the Southside network changes, and many BCC bus routes will do this now by terminating at PA Hospital. Its not perfect but very good considering what happened in 2013.

For the most part it was a very good review and had a massive amount of positives. People would have gotten used to it and completely forgotten about the old network within 12 months.

It was a very good review. Elected members have to represent the concerns of their ward and seat electors, and act in accordance with those... or face being replaced. This is what made it impossible IMHO.

But mostly just continually regugitating the same tired arguments and often not actually responding to what I actually said.

Well, if you don't like the Brisbane Metro BRT service, you can always take it up with the minister and chair of PT at BCC. Personally, I am happy that it is here. I have lived near both train stations and busway stations, and the busway is far more convenient.

Why wait 5-10 years to get the northside done when it can be done within 12 months? Then once new berties arrive, they can be put on the trunk routes where needed.

You are welcome to put this view to the new minister and chair of PT at BCC. Actually, why don't you do that and share their response? I think you might find their response will be similar to the points made in this thread.

Nobody in government - state or local - wants a rerun of the 2013 bus review experience. They also don't see why they should cancel Brisbane Metro BRT and spend 10x.

Thanks again for your replies.

[GonzoFonzie]

Can I just ask something, why is there so much rallying around doing further Metro extensions when we haven't even got the first one open? We haven't seen how it holds up day to day. We don't know how much additional patronage it can draw in practice.

Because those making the most noise about think that using the word 'metro' is some sort of Harry Potter-esque incantation that magically turns a bus into a rail line and it will solve all of the transport problems in Brisbane.

The reality is that the 66 and 111 services were/are already high frequency and high-capacity in terms of buses. I call it a con because unless the 66 and 111 are exclusively using the 'Bertie Beetles' and the frequency and capacity exceeds what we have now vs regular and articulated buses in operation, then its just another bus route and does not deserve rebranding. Does anyone remember the fanfare and hype when articulated buses were added to the 66 and 111 routes?

Also this had come up alot in the Brisbane 2032 Olympics discussion when venues are concerned. Public transport planning at its dumbest when we start saying "Just extend the Metro to... <insert location>!" despite not existing at the time. Many have fallen for this type of thinking because its now just a buzz-phrase that means nothing, while others should know better.

[timh]

The reality is that the 66 and 111 services were/are already high frequency and high-capacity in terms of buses. I call it a con because unless the 66 and 111 are exclusively using the 'Bertie Beetles' and the frequency and capacity exceeds what we have now vs regular and articulated buses in operation, then its just another bus route and does not deserve rebranding. Does anyone remember the fanfare and hype when articulated buses were added to the 66 and 111 routes?

When the """"Metro"""" project comes online properly, both the 66 and 111 will operate with exclusively BERT buses, and they will be running every 5 minutes in peak. I think it will still be every 15 off peak at this stage which is disappointing, but regardless these are facts so there is definitely a considerable uplift there.

[ozbob]

Discussion on the New Brisbane Bus Network please go here:

>> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=289219

[JimmyP]

I'm pretty much done responding now, my sanity needs a break, except for this one:

You continue to avoid the point about inner parts of the QR rail network potentially not being able to achieve 5 min frequency - metro level standards - in both directions by referring to one-way peak capacity. Let's be clear, we are talking 5-min trains in both directions, not one direction, and not just in peak times but all day.

Sorry mate, you're the one that constantly deflects. I've gone over this stuff many tunes already. The QR network already supports trains every 6mins in peak, off peak the capacity of every 6mins is not currently required, but I don't see why it couldn't happen in many areas with a bit of extra infrastructure at choke points. It also depends on if everything runs on the same stopping pattern. As much as you like to make everything black and white, the world doesn't operate that way. Why this actually matters when the discussion is actually about the busway, I have no idea. Seems like more deflection.

Put words in people's mouths all you want Metro, doesn't mean you're right. People are calling for the busway to get proper upgrades due to the SE Busway being too successful. Building something for 10% of the price (even though you've pulled that from thin air) when it only gets 10% of the benefits and will need the big project soon anyway is a waste of money. Buuut, bendy buses will solve the worlds problems, so I shouldn't worry about that.

[#Metro]

People are calling for the busway to get proper upgrades due to the SE Busway being too successful. Building something for 10% of the price (even though you've pulled that from thin air) when it only gets 10% of the benefits and will need the big project soon anyway is a waste of money.

Well, IMHO the 10% figure is on point. It has not been pulled "from thin air". See below.

Parramatta-CBD Metro

1. About Sydney Metro West
https://www.sydneymetro.info/west/project-overview

"The Sydney Metro West project is a new 24-kilometre underground metro railway..."

2. Report on the Sydney Metro West project 
Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, Parliament of NSW.

"In April 2023, when the independent review into the Sydney Metro program was announced, the NSW Government also announced that the estimated cost of the Sydney Metro West project was $25.32 billion and that this was an 'overrun of at least $12 billion'." (Page 5)

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/inquiries/2982/Report%20on%20the%20Sydney%20Metro%20West%20project%20-%20February%202024.pdf

Brisbane Metro

3. About Brisbane Metro
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro/about-brisbane-metro

"The expected cost to deliver Brisbane Metro is $1.4 billion. Brisbane Metro is funded in partnership between Brisbane City Council and The Australian Government."

(Note how there is no mention of QLD Government capital funding, because AFAIK there was not any).

Working

Rail-based Metro Unit cost: 25.32 billion / 24 km = $1.055 billion per km.

SE Busway distance: Queen Street Busway to Eight Mile Plains – say 16 km

Estimate for the Brisbane Case of a Rail-Based Metro:

16 km x 1.055 billion/km = $16.88 billion.

Cost of Brisbane Metro project: $1.4 billion

Results

Expressed as a percent: $1.4 billion / $16.88 billion = 8.29% (lets round to 10% because it's an estimate)

Expressed as a multiple: $16.88 billion / $1.4 billion = 12x

Comments

I acknowledge that members want a rail-based metro. However, the following points need to be mentioned:

- The Brisbane Metro BRT costs about 10% of what a rail-based metro would cost, for a similar route length.

- A reasonable ballpark cost for a rail-based metro on the SEB is 12x what the Brisbane Metro BRT project would cost to deliver.

What explains the great difference in cost?

- A rail-based metro represents an infrastructure-based approach. Its high cost is primarily due to the requirement for tunnelling into the Brisbane CBD under the Brisbane River and engineering works to convert the corridor.

- A bus-based Brisbane Metro BRT represents a service-based approach. It too requires infrastructure works (e.g. Adelaide St tunnel, busway station platform extensions or reconstructions). However, it mostly leverages existing infrastructure and does not need tunnelling under the Brisbane River as buses can use the Victoria Bridge and Captain Cook Bridge which are already there.

So, that's where the 10% figure came from. And we are going to need something in the time between now and when we might have a rail-based metro (if it does eventually get to that). This is why the Brisbane Metro BRT project, which extends the service life of the SEB, was chosen.

[Gazza]

You continue to avoid the point about inner parts of the QR rail network potentially not being able to achieve 5 min frequency - metro level standards - in both directions by referring to one-way peak capacity. Let's be clear, we are talking 5-min trains in both directions, not one direction, and not just in peak times but all day.

Im not sure if im missing something, but the QR network already is doing 10tph off peak.

Remember, Albion is only served by services using the subs:

[#Metro]

Im not sure if im missing something, but the QR network already is doing 10tph off peak.

Thanks for this Gazza. I'm curious if something similar is possible on the Springfield line, Beenleigh and Cleveland line (both directions, at the same time, daytime off-peak). Or if the track layouts currently prevent this from happening. It would be great to have all modes frequent all day.

As we know, Perth has trains every 10 minutes in both directions off-peak on parts of the Fremantle line, and it would be great to know if something similar (or closer to metro frequency of say 5 min) is possible also on the QR network.

[SilverChased]

When the """"Metro"""" project comes online properly, both the 66 and 111 will operate with exclusively BERT buses, and they will be running every 5 minutes in peak. I think it will still be every 15 off peak at this stage which is disappointing, but regardless these are facts so there is definitely a considerable uplift there.

Yep, this is exactly right. There has never been a plan to run frequently in the opposite direction that I've seen? It is 5 minutes in peak direction only for Metro. Maybe if you combine with other buses that are clogging up the busway, you could say there's a bus every minute.

Someone was comparing this to trains. Well, the Redcliffe and Springfield line is already doing 6 minute frequency in the peak direction. So when you go to inner-city, of course you are far more frequent than this. Granted, it's a very short peak period.
(7.39 too)
Just looking at Northgate station right now. It's technically after peak right now and there is a Park Road train in 2 minutes, Cleveland in 6 minutes, Cannon Hill in 9 minutes, Ipswich in 11 minutes, Springfield in 13 minutes. Gazza captured this above as 18tph including express trains and 10tph for subs.

Well, IMHO the 10% figure is on point. It has not been pulled "from thin air". See below.

That busway already existed and was already paid for. We just got different rolling stock but you are comparing it to an entirely new underground build, rather than adding tracks to an existing busway.
Technically they could have just used the busway as-is and run existing artics on it at a cost of $0 and had a very similar result. Would you then say Brisbane Metro costs 0% of Sydney Metro?