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

[timh]

 Actually I spoke to the guy at the info session about that as well. He said no plans to remove the intersection in this project. He said in an ideal world, it would have been done, but it was probably a funding thing. Really should also be a state government job.

He did say signalling would give priority to the busway though.

[achiruel]

The more I think about this the more I am convinced Metro is yet another half-arsed solution. The proper solution should be to convert the busway to light rail. G:link trams have 309 pax capacity, twice the metro at 150. It will only take ~3 full buses to fill one metro vehicle. A tram will take 6.

Unfortunately the Qld/BCC "do it wrong the first time" attitude has permeated this project.

[SurfRail]

G:Link has a notional maximum capacity of 40 trams per hour from memory.  The main drivers for that are less about the vehicles than they are about the ability of the stations to clear crowds and the surrounding traffic network to cope (including pedestrian signals).

You can build longer vehicles than the 45m units on the Gold Coast - 90m trams are in use at street level in some places.  600 pax x tram every 2 minutes = the magical 18,000 pphpd the busway spruikers claim can be achieved (except it only applies between the Gabba and the CCB on and off ramps where every route passes but does not stop, as opposed to light rail which would serve every stop and be able to cope with the passenger exchange issues).

The current works are at least a necessary precursor to something like that happening, so I'm not too fussed.

[James]

The more I think about this the more I am convinced Metro is yet another half-arsed solution. The proper solution should be to convert the busway to light rail. G:link trams have 309 pax capacity, twice the metro at 150. It will only take ~3 full buses to fill one metro vehicle. A tram will take 6.

Unfortunately the Qld/BCC "do it wrong the first time" attitude has permeated this project.

The problem is there are parts of the busway network which are too steep/have inappropriate geometry for trams. Combine that with short platform stations (most of the network is, and will continue to have, 55m platforms) relative to longer LRT, and Brisbane 'Metro' (fancy buses) is the best you can get really.

RBoT would be better off lobbying for longer vehicles with capacity closer to 200, than trying to get LRT down the busway.

[timh]

RBoT would be better off lobbying for longer vehicles with capacity closer to 200, than trying to get LRT down the busway.

This I can get behind. 150 is too small, but light rail wouldn't work. As we've discussed before it would empty huge amounts of passengers from very successful BUZ routes onto already busy Garden City/Griffith stations. I'm all for scaling back the number of buses on the Busway in favour of larger, more train-like alternatives, but to completely remove the option by converting to light rail seeks like a bad move at this point.

[achiruel]

Is there some reason light rail and trams couldn't co-exist on the busway? I'm sure there's streets in Melbourne where trams and motor vehicles share lanes? or perhaps I was imagining that.

[verbatim9]

The more I think about this the more I am convinced Metro is yet another half-arsed solution. The proper solution should be to convert the busway to light rail. G:link trams have 309 pax capacity, twice the metro at 150. It will only take ~3 full buses to fill one metro vehicle. A tram will take 6.

Unfortunately the Qld/BCC "do it wrong the first time" attitude has permeated this project.

The problem is there are parts of the busway network which are too steep/have inappropriate geometry for trams. Combine that with short platform stations (most of the network is, and will continue to have, 55m platforms) relative to longer LRT, and Brisbane 'Metro' (fancy buses) is the best you can get really.

RBoT would be better off lobbying for longer vehicles with capacity closer to 200, than trying to get LRT down the busway.

RBoT would be better off lobbying for longer vehicles with capacity closer to 200, than trying to get LRT down the busway.

This I can get behind. 150 is too small, but light rail wouldn't work. As we've discussed before it would empty huge amounts of passengers from very successful BUZ routes onto already busy Garden City/Griffith stations. I'm all for scaling back the number of buses on the Busway in favour of larger, more train-like alternatives, but to completely remove the option by converting to light rail seeks like a bad move at this point.

Is there some reason light rail and trams couldn't co-exist on the busway? I'm sure there's streets in Melbourne where trams and motor vehicles share lanes? or perhaps I was imagining that.

There are only are few steep places. The steep section and curve prior to QUT Kelvin Grove and the steep section at Ernie's roundabout. I can't think of any other restrictive places except for the Victoria Bridge and the turn into the Eastern Busway. I guess in the future there will be a direct link via a tunnel under the river from the new Cultural Centre station to the tunnel portal at Adelaide street.

[timh]

Is there some reason light rail and trams couldn't co-exist on the busway? I'm sure there's streets in Melbourne where trams and motor vehicles share lanes? or perhaps I was imagining that.

Sorry my bad, I thought "light rail" would mean just train tracks only, like on Gold coast. If you could have both at the same time then yeah I guess why not. Modern trackless tram technology is the only reason why not that I can think of. If you can do it trackless for cheaper then go that way. If you can get a vehicle that's basically a tram, but it's a bus (even a catenary run bus) then why not do it that way.

I also (in my ignorance) assumed that the track in the road with would mean slower speeds (my experience with the trams in Melbourne is that they are Hella slow),. I'm probably wrong but that's just what I had imagined. If they go just as fast then yeah, that's a good thing to see. So yeah, sorry about that.

[James]

Is there some reason light rail and trams couldn't co-exist on the busway? I'm sure there's streets in Melbourne where trams and motor vehicles share lanes? or perhaps I was imagining that.

I guess you mean light rail and buses, as light rail and trams are more or less the same thing.

There's no reason why they couldn't run them both on the same corridor (aside from braking issues - steel on steel is harder to slow on than rubber on concrete, but that can be worked around) - the issue is there are sections of the busway which are LRT incompatible.

There are only are few steep places. The steep section and curve prior to QUT Kelvin Grove and the steep section at Ernie's roundabout. I can't think of any other restrictive places except for the Victoria Bridge and the turn into the Eastern Busway. I guess in the future there will be a direct link via a tunnel under the river from the new Cultural Centre station to the tunnel portal at Adelaide street.

There will never be a tunnel linking the future underground CC and Adelaide St - the sort of rises and falls you're talking about would be very steep and the benefits over the proposed arrangement would be minimal.

If you take a look at the long sections (https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/20180713-brisbane-metro-ddr-part-d-concept-design-drawings-04-longitudinal-sections.pdf), you'll see that there are grades of 10% both between the new Cultural Centre and the Victoria Bridge, and north of King George Square. This is at the very edge of the bounds for LRT running (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways). This is before you even account for:
- Clearances required to run overhead wires
- Potential weight issues on the Victoria Bridge
- 55m platforms at South Bank, Mater Hill, Greenslopes, Normanby etc.

Finally, re capacity:
Taking the GCLRT's figure of 300 people per 45m tram, a 55m tram could fit 367 people. 40 x 367 = 14,680 pax/hr.
Currently - assuming 65% are your standard 62 pax bus, 25% are your longer rigid HCV's and artics with 98 pax, and 10% are the newer artics carrying 110 pax or so, with current throughput at the Cultural Centre (180bph at its peak), you get a capacity of 13,644 pax/hr (and yes, this is only 60% utilised because bus waste, bus network reform fail etc.)
In the future, Metro will carry somewhere around 18,080 pax/hr.

If LRT was best - I'm sure council & the consultants would have recommended LRT.

[verbatim9]

Is there some reason light rail and trams couldn't co-exist on the busway? I'm sure there's streets in Melbourne where trams and motor vehicles share lanes? or perhaps I was imagining that.

I guess you mean light rail and buses, as light rail and trams are more or less the same thing.

There's no reason why they couldn't run them both on the same corridor (aside from braking issues - steel on steel is harder to slow on than rubber on concrete, but that can be worked around) - the issue is there are sections of the busway which are LRT incompatible.

There are only are few steep places. The steep section and curve prior to QUT Kelvin Grove and the steep section at Ernie's roundabout. I can't think of any other restrictive places except for the Victoria Bridge and the turn into the Eastern Busway. I guess in the future there will be a direct link via a tunnel under the river from the new Cultural Centre station to the tunnel portal at Adelaide street.

There will never be a tunnel linking the future underground CC and Adelaide St - the sort of rises and falls you're talking about would be very steep and the benefits over the proposed arrangement would be minimal.

If you take a look at the long sections (https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/20180713-brisbane-metro-ddr-part-d-concept-design-drawings-04-longitudinal-sections.pdf), you'll see that there are grades of 10% both between the new Cultural Centre and the Victoria Bridge, and north of King George Square. This is at the very edge of the bounds for LRT running (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways). This is before you even account for:
- Clearances required to run overhead wires
- Potential weight issues on the Victoria Bridge
- 55m platforms at South Bank, Mater Hill, Greenslopes, Normanby etc.

Finally, re capacity:
Taking the GCLRT's figure of 300 people per 45m tram, a 55m tram could fit 367 people. 40 x 367 = 14,680 pax/hr.
Currently - assuming 65% are your standard 62 pax bus, 25% are your longer rigid HCV's and artics with 98 pax, and 10% are the newer artics carrying 110 pax or so, with current throughput at the Cultural Centre (180bph at its peak), you get a capacity of 13,644 pax/hr (and yes, this is only 60% utilised because bus waste, bus network reform fail etc.)
In the future, Metro will carry somewhere around 18,080 pax/hr.

If LRT was best - I'm sure council & the consultants would have recommended LRT.

Depends how deep the Cultural Centre station will be. Looking at the plans it's at least 1.5-2 storeys under the ground. The dive underneath the river will be significantly less because of the deep underground station box at the Cultural Centre. There have also been a lot of published designs previously for a mass transit tunnel from Adelaide Street to South Brisbane for buses or metro in the past.

Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[aldonius]

IMHO, capacity utilisation through the Cultural Centre is a bit of a furphy - the critical point is at Mater Hill, and also there's all the rockets via the Captain Cook Bridge.

I've come around to this iteration of the Metro project. Yes, it's a silly name. Yes, we could squeeze a bit more out with bus network reform. But I also take the view that if BCC weren't spending 600mil on this, they'd be spending it on another KSD or Wynnum Rd.

[verbatim9]

Now that the underground section is confirmed at Roma street; It will be easier to dive under the tracks, The Barracks and Caxton Street for metro to continue and terminate at Suncorp Stadium in the future. Seems like they have future proofed a possible line to Ashgrove?

[nathandavid88]

Is there even enough benefit in doing this to justify the massive cost of it? Last I checked, the patronage on the Maroon Glider isn't exactly bursting the bus at the seams.

[SurfRail]

I fully expect all they will do is remove the ramp up to the busway from the Countess St layover so that intersection can be at grade.  They aren't going to load unnecessary costs into this project especially now Uncle Bill is needed on his home planet.

[verbatim9]

Big construction crane in position today, coinciding with the closure of the busway this weekend.

[verbatim9]

Big construction crane in position today, coinciding with the closure of the busway this weekend.

Apparently site sheds were placed in preparation for demolition of the Transit Centre. Hence the closure of the busway this weekend.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/JoshBavas/status/1133154065993461760

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Lord Mayor reveals plan to transform Adelaide Street

A new vision for Brisbane's Adelaide Street will see the street turned into a "gateway" into the city centre, with a new walkable boulevard and pocket park, and a tunnel for Brisbane Metro.

The primary city street will see significant change when the Brisbane Metro tunnel connecting North Quay to the King George Square Bus Station is built, with Brisbane City Council planning a complete overhaul of Adelaide Street to coincide with the major project.

Lord mayor Adrian Schrinner released the draft Adelaide Street vision for community consultation on Tuesday morning.

"As part of this, the King George Square Station will be a new front door for many commuters coming into the city, [and] we're going to make sure that is a world-class arrival experience in Adelaide Street and a much more pleasant environment, a safer environment, for pedestrians as well."

Cr Schrinner said when Brisbane Metro was completed, there would be 50 fewer buses in peak hour on Adelaide Street as they would go underground alongside the Metro vehicles.

He said a priority for the council was also to "declutter" Adelaide Street by removing and streamlining the numerous bus stops along the road.

Visitation to Brisbane is predicted to increase by 30 per cent next year, primarily from domestic tourism visitors, with international visitors also contributing.

Cr Schrinner said the goal was for Adelaide Street to become a world-class entry to the city with a focus on pedestrian safety and amenity.

Plans for the construction and development of the street are still being considered, he said, and this  could include closing the street on one side at a time for months.

He said the council was trying to limit the impact on street users as the tunnel construction begins next year.

The council is still waiting for the state government to sign off on final approvals before construction on the $944 million Brisbane Metro can begin.

"Just in recent days we had a really constructive meeting with the state government talking about the way forward," Cr Schrinner said.

"Council has done everything that it needs to do to get this project up and running; it's fully funded, we are now waiting on two things to happen.

"Firstly, state government approvals, and secondly the tender process which is now under way to come to a conclusion.

"We need to start making decisions from the middle of the year on the tender process ... we can get cracking on this project later this year."

He said the meetings with the state government revolved around the Cultural Centre precinct and the designs currently under tender.

Brisbane residents can provide feedback on the draft Adelaide Street vision until June 24, after which the council will begin working on the "ultimate" vision coinciding with Brisbane Metro's construction timeline.

[Cazza]

Just some feedback I submitted in regards to a bus lane (southbound) along George St between Ann and Adelaide Sts.

There should be serious consideration (particularly once construction is underway for the tunnel portal between North Quay and George St) for a bus lane running south between Ann St and Adelaide St along George St. This is so routes that come out of the busway portal at Roma St, near Emma Miller Pl (such as the current 390), can easily access Adelaide St instead of running down to North Quay then back up again. Other routes (such as the 370/375/380 etc.) can also use this bus lane to avoid having to use North Quay and could save up to 10 mins of travel time, particularly during peak times. It would also allow Routes 470/475/476 (eastbound) to run down Adelaide St instead of Elizabeth St to provide more consistent CBD stopping patterns. There is enough space on the City Hall side of George St to add this bus lane and still have plenty of footpath space available.

[James]

Just some feedback I submitted in regards to a bus lane (southbound) along George St between Ann and Adelaide Sts.

There should be serious consideration (particularly once construction is underway for the tunnel portal between North Quay and George St) for a bus lane running south between Ann St and Adelaide St along George St. Thpeak is is so routes that come out of the busway portal at Roma St, near Emma Miller Pl (such as the current 390), can easily access Adelaide St instead of running down to North Quay then back up again. Other routes (such as the 370/375/380 etc.) can also use this bus lane to avoid having to use North Quay and could save up to 10 mins of travel time, particularly during times. It would also allow Routes 470/475/476 (eastbound) to run down Adelaide St instead of Elizabeth St to provide more consistent CBD stopping patterns. There is enough space on the City Hall side of George St to add this bus lane and still have plenty of footpath space available.

Nice idea, I think you would have a few problems though:
1. Getting enough separation between vehicles travelling in opposite directions (you would need at least a concrete divider)
2. Having enough room for the buses to manoeuvre buses in and out of the "wrong-way" bus lane.
3. You might also create a choke point here - there's already enough of an issue with the number of buses running in the left-hand lane along Ann St (Ann St P-rockets going down to North Quay, 412 on to REx), not to mention the volume of 4XX buses, and vehicles generally, turning on to the REx from George St in peak. Removing a lane and throwing in a wrong-way turning manoeuvre would lower the intersection's capacity quite markedly.

Like a lot of things, I think the solution is, yet again, bus network reform. These services should be using the busway, or be rationalised and terminated outside the CBD core.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Why traffic could be banned from Adelaide St

PRIVATE vehicles will be urged to steer clear of one of the Brisbane CBD's busiest thoroughfares under a major plan to shake up Adelaide St.

Brisbane City Council unveiled plans to transform the street into a "transit boulevard" when the $944 million Brisbane Metro project is completed.

Their draft plan, which is out for public consultation, reveals general vehicular access will be "de-emphasised" in favour of buses being the primary transport mode.

Pedestrian movement will also be prioritised with widened footpaths, build-outs and improved street crossings.

"To improve streetscape amenity and reduce congestion, general vehicular access is to be de-emphasised to cater primarily for local access needs, taxis, emergency and service vehicles," the draft plan says.

An underground tunnel entry for the Brisbane Metro is also part of the plan, with a new design revealed on Tuesday.

Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner said the council would consider a new pocket park on Adelaide St as well as more trees to make the street more walkable.

"Through the vision we've outlined the need for wider, uncluttered footpaths, redesign bus stops, improved laneways, enhanced wayfinding and new public spaces," he said.

"One of the opportunities is to activate (nearby) Clark Lane and the adjoining pocket park with an outdoor gallery and creative lighting as well as enhancements to Hutton Lane to improve connectivity to Central Station."

Cr Schrinner said Council was looking at ways to ensure construction of the Brisbane Metro tunnel did not impact on traffic, potentially closing down one side of the street while work is undertaken on the other.

[rusty83]

Hi all, first post.

I've been keenly following the Brisbane Metro developments and excited about the transformative affect this will on our public transport system.  While I'm a fan of the buses, it appears there's no doubt guided vehicles provide better rider comfort and more capacity.  I understand that light rail upgrades are not feasible for existing busway infrastructure, but is there any reason why they couldn't roll out rubber tyred systems such as those deployed by Translohr in Italy and France instead?  Do the same technical limitations exist?  The rubber tyred systems look amazing and provided many of the same benefits as light rail, and they are more than just glorified buses which is really what the current proposal is. 

[SurfRail]

I've ridden the Translohr in Venice and Mestre.  The ride quality was vastly inferior even to a standard bus on a substandard grade road.

[timh]

A high frequency, bi-articulated, low floor, multiple entry bus on its own grade separated road is essentially just a tram anyway. Theres no benefit to running on tracks. Would just cost more to rip up the busway

[SurfRail]

Well there is - capacity.  No bus will equal what the CTrain in Calgary carries without running a lot more of them which means higher labour costs.  The secret is running longer vehicles.  The issue is that the busway's geometry likely does not accommodate wheels on steel in the inner city so whatever runs in future probably needs to be rubber tired, but it does not necessarily have to be a bus.  On the whole that's why this is still a sensible project because it clears all the major impediments away to going beyond biartics.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane Metro project pushed back again

The $944 million Brisbane Metro project will be delayed again, lord mayor Adrian Schrinner has announced, after the state government required a planned underground station at the Cultural Centre to be moved.

Slamming the government for creating "Brisbane's Adani", Cr Schrinner said the council had met  the state government 276 times over 3½ years to get the massive public transport project over the line.

Speaking at the Queensland Media Club on Wednesday, he said that after a meeting on Thursday, the state government on Friday informed the council of the necessary design changes.

Cr Schrinner said this hurdle "wouldn't have been a problem" except the contract tenders deadline was on Friday.

In consequence, he said, the council had no choice: the project contracts would have to be put on hold and the design for the original Cultural Centre underground station moved and redone.

Cr Schrinner said once that process was done, his message to the state government was simple: "Get out of the way and let us get on with it."

[verbatim9]

I was hoping that this new station would be integrated into South Brisbane as one station. It would then provide new multiple entry and exit points for both modes of travel. It would provide seamless transfers without the need of passing through multiple ticket gates. I am sure Next Generation Ticketing could allow for an integrated approach at this station as well. The whole station should be renamed Cultural Centre station after the precinct, inline with the public transport station naming conventions after specific landmarks and precincts, e.g Southbank and Exhibition station. This would provide a easier and improved way finding solution for tourists and locals navigating to the appropriate stop for the precinct.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/team_schrinner/status/1143726457039908865

[aldonius]

The $944 million Brisbane Metro project will be delayed again, lord mayor Adrian Schrinner has announced, after the state government required a planned underground station at the Cultural Centre to be moved.

What. The Actual. F**k.

I was hoping that this new station would be integrated in South Brisbane as one station.

Putting the platforms under the intersection - as was the plan - was the best chance of that happening.

[kram0]

Does everything the state government touch get f%&ked up?

This is nothing but them playing politics. Give yourself an upper cut Palaszczuk, Trad and Bailey.

[verbatim9]

Here is an extensive ABC interview with Mark Bailey on the subject


ABC Facebook---------->https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2041922716103424&id=59944789668

[aldonius]

Note how the Minister carefully avoids answering why the Convention Centre location is better, and also why it took them so long to override Council.

[SurfRail]

If they are trying for worse than Newman, they aren't doing half bad.

You utter pillocks.

[Stillwater]

Minister, what specifically are the issues?  What are the 'unresolved matters' (they are not stated).  What are the 'better alternative plans'?

Seems like state didn't consider the interface issues, because Brisbane Metro was a council matter.  Then when the Mayor visited to say the project would go ahead, only then did the state stick its oar in. 

[James]

Absolute total dickheads.

This notion of moving the station to beside the Convention Centre is just daft. I can only see one feasible location under this plan, and that is just south of where the Convention Centre crosses over the railway line (the road is on a grade elsewhere, which naturally doesn't suit a station). The access arrangements would be worse, the opportunity to remove the inhospitable bitumen corner at Grey & Melbourne St is lost, and it provides a grossly inferior solution for anybody transferring from the West End buses to Inner Busway services. It's just a stupid idea.

Council has spent tens of millions on working through Brisbane Metro from concept design to the tender design phase. No doubt with the tender phase closed, the tender designs will, by and large, have to be significantly modified, costing a few million more per tenderer.

Grubs. I dearly hope this is just the State Labor government playing politics and will just grant an approval once Rod Harding loses the next council election a la Adani's approval, rather than a genuine station move. It might cost more, but at least we won't end up with a permanently stuffed-up solution.

I was hoping that this new station would be integrated into South Brisbane as one station. It would then provide new multiple entry and exit points for both modes of travel. It would provide seamless transfers without the need of passing through multiple ticket gates. I am sure Next Generation Ticketing could allow for an integrated approach at this station as well. The whole station should be renamed Cultural Centre station after the precinct, inline with the public transport station naming conventions after specific landmarks and precincts, e.g Southbank and Exhibition station. This would provide a easier and improved way finding solution for tourists and locals navigating to the appropriate stop for the precinct.

There's still the issue as to how you will resolve Metro touch-offs vs. bus touch-offs, NGT technology etc. At the current level of service, I doubt having to go through two gates will be much of an issue. It is the existing 'double cross' to get between CC and South Brisbane stations which makes transfers difficult currently, and will be eliminated through Brisbane Metro. Putting the new station directly under South Brisbane Station also causes issues with tunnelling - as is it's going to be quite difficult digging under an operational railway line.

Station names etc. are just cosmetic matters - could easily be changed once Metro is operational.

[Gazza]

I think the only issue with the proposed location at the intersection is that there was no direct access between the south brisbane platforms and the new underground platform, an out of system transfer was proposed, with everyone going through the gateline at south Brisbane.

But that all said, holding up the project and redesigning at this stage is f%cking stupid, it was a pretty good solution that slotted well into the space.

So what's the proposal instead? Putting it under the loading dock at the convention center and having a steeper incline coming from the south? The only advantage i can see here is that such a design would make it easier to build a 2nd green bridge to Adelaide st at some point in the future.

[verbatim9]

Absolute total dickheads.

This notion of moving the station to beside the Convention Centre is just daft. I can only see one feasible location under this plan, and that is just south of where the Convention Centre crosses over the railway line (the road is on a grade elsewhere, which naturally doesn't suit a station). The access arrangements would be worse, the opportunity to remove the inhospitable bitumen corner at Grey & Melbourne St is lost, and it provides a grossly inferior solution for anybody transferring from the West End buses to Inner Busway services. It's just a stupid idea.

Council has spent tens of millions on working through Brisbane Metro from concept design to the tender design phase. No doubt with the tender phase closed, the tender designs will, by and large, have to be significantly modified, costing a few million more per tenderer.

Grubs. I dearly hope this is just the State Labor government playing politics and will just grant an approval once Rod Harding loses the next council election a la Adani's approval, rather than a genuine station move. It might cost more, but at least we won't end up with a permanently stuffed-up solution.

I was hoping that this new station would be integrated into South Brisbane as one station. It would then provide new multiple entry and exit points for both modes of travel. It would provide seamless transfers without the need of passing through multiple ticket gates. I am sure Next Generation Ticketing could allow for an integrated approach at this station as well. The whole station should be renamed Cultural Centre station after the precinct, inline with the public transport station naming conventions after specific landmarks and precincts, e.g Southbank and Exhibition station. This would provide a easier and improved way finding solution for tourists and locals navigating to the appropriate stop for the precinct.

There's still the issue as to how you will resolve Metro touch-offs vs. bus touch-offs, NGT technology etc. At the current level of service, I doubt having to go through two gates will be much of an issue. It is the existing 'double cross' to get between CC and South Brisbane stations which makes transfers difficult currently, and will be eliminated through Brisbane Metro. Putting the new station directly under South Brisbane Station also causes issues with tunnelling - as is it's going to be quite difficult digging under an operational railway line.

Station names etc. are just cosmetic matters - could easily be changed once Metro is operational.

True it could be a logistical issue in reference to touching on and off. Just an idea. Thought that Next Generation ticketing could automatically assume a correct touch off from a mode geographically from the start point of the journey? Especially when Gps enabled phones and peripherals are used sending location data during a journey to the Translink or Cubic ticketing server.

[timh]

I had a gut feeling this was coming but am still p%ssed  off. I can't access the interview with Bailey at the moment because I'm in china with limited data but I can't see any logical sense behind this decision. Its like the state government is actually trying to actively sabotage the project. There's no way the additional problems this will cause will in any way be outweighed by any potential benefits of the new location (of which there are none IMO)

[verbatim9]

If there is a proposal to move the station deep underneath the BCEC? The costs will blow out. Integrating the station with South Brisbane Station and the Cultural precinct will require expensive underground concourses and walkways hundreds of metres longer. What's the motivation behind this? Is this because of the Grey street closure and the pedestrian friendly open space it would create? The only advantage I guess of moving it further  South is the future potential of a tunnel connecting the station from under the river and Adelaide Street tunnel portal.

[#Metro]

I wonder if this is the Red Team version of "The Cleveland Solution".