Northern Link tunnel

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Brisbane City to go it alone on Northern Link tunnel

Brisbane City to go it alone on Northern Link tunnel
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Patrick Lion

September 04, 2009 02:42pm

UPDATE: BRISBANE City Council is to go it alone in building the Northern Link tunnel, mayor Campbell Newman announced today.
Cr Newman said Council had State Government approval for the project, with excavation to begin by the end of next year.

He said rates would not be affected despite council borrowing all but $500m of the funds needed for the project, which may cost up to $2.6 billion. The Rudd Government has committed to contributing $500m, but Cr Newman said he had not given up on receiving a further $350m of Commonwealth funds.

Cr Newman was unable to provide a toll amount for the tunnel, which is expected to be used by 34,000 cars a day.

The tunnel will link the Western Freeway and the Inner City Bypass.

Council plans for the project were delayed earlier this year after one of the would-be bidders had difficulties financing the project.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Northern Link to make Brisbane city of tunnels

Northern Link to make Brisbane city of tunnels
Article from: The Courier-Mail

By Patrick Lion

September 05, 2009 12:00am

BRISBANE is fast becoming a city of tunnels as it lays the foundations for the next 150 years, with the Northern Link the latest project to get the green light.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman promised the city's third major road tunnel would be built as early as 2014 after the State Government came to his rescue and guaranteed a loan for the troubled Northern Link project.

The green light for the 5km tunnel in Brisbane's inner west, linking Toowong with Kelvin Grove, comes after the private sector deserted the project as the global financial crisis crippled funding options over the past year.

The tunnel promises to save 20 minutes on the 30-minute trip between the Western Motorway and the Inner City Bypass for an estimated 34,000 vehicles a day.

But the go-ahead is a blow for nearby residents ? some in the city's most expensive suburbs ? who face hundreds of land resumptions, road closures and traffic changes.

Cr Newman has been forced to drive the Brisbane City Council budget into unprecedented debt levels to get the project back on track with a loan through Queensland Treasury Corporation.

While the Federal Government has promised $500 million for the estimated $1.8 billion project, the project will increase City Hall debt levels to more than $2 billion.

The toll, expected to cost between $4 and $5, and total project cost and details will not be known until the winning tender is unveiled in the middle of next year.

But City Hall will now own the tunnel and pocket the toll revenue instead of a private company under earlier plans, allowing BCC to pay the debt off over about 45 years.

Cr Newman yesterday said construction could begin as early as next year with the tunnel opened in 2014.

He admitted the funding arrangement was not his preferred option but promised the debt would not impact on annual rate increases for households.

"It won't have any impact on rates out of the ordinary that we have been delivering in the last few years," Cr Newman said.

"This is about finding a way to make things happen.

"This is very do-able, very affordable."

But Labor Opposition Leader Shayne Sutton said the change of plans was another example of Cr Newman wasting ratepayers' time and money.

Warning of higher household rates, Cr Sutton also questioned why $70,000 had been spent on an overseas road trip looking for private-sector funding when the money could be found around the corner from City Hall on George St.

"Rates could absolutely go up," Cr Sutton said.

"He has been wasting money. He has been wasting time. He needs to get this project in order."

Cr Newman will ask council on Tuesday to issue a new call for expressions of interest for builders of the project.

[ozbob]

The State Government is happy to loan the money for a road tunnel but baulks at funding public transport operators such that expensive assets such as busways and railway lines are properly utilised.   Sad and sorry state ...

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Northern Link to go ahead

Northern Link to go ahead
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
September 4, 2009 - 3:50PM

Brisbane City Council has announced it will push ahead with the Northern Link tunnel, intended to take traffic underground from the Western Freeway at Milton to the Inner City Bypass.

The project is one of Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's suite of TransApex projects, but has so far struggled to find a suitable number of companies willing to bid for the toll tunnel, hoped to be built by 2014.

In January Cr Newman instigated a "trouble-shooting" council trip to the UK, Europe and Asia in an attempt to attract additional bidders for the Toowong to Kelvin Grove tunnel, which has been dogged by delays that have cost ratepayers $200,000.

Cr Newman said today the Federal Government would contribute $500 million towards the project and the council would borrow the shortfall for the expected $1.7 billion project, with construction set to begin by Christmas next year. The remaining costs would eventually be paid back from tolls.

In contrast to the previous plan, the council would own the tunnel project and the toll money would go directly to the local authority.

Cr Newman said private firms interested in helping to finance the project had wanted the council to guarantee traffic flows - a proposition the Lord Mayor dismissed as "unacceptable".

"We're not there to line the pockets of the big companies," he told reporters.

"We're not about making profits on this. We want to build the infrastructure and then we want the toll to pay for the project."

Cr Newman refused to specify the price motorists would pay in tolls, saying the amount would be revealed when the winning tenderer was announced. He said a 30-minute journey would be slashed to 10 minutes.

Brisbane City Council is responsible for urban roads in Brisbane, building the $2 billion Clem 7 tunnel, the $370 million Hale Street Link bridge and the Northern Link tunnel.

The new plan will be officially considered at the next council meeting on Tuesday. The council is set to call for expressions of interest for companies to design, construct and operate the tunnel.

- with Daniel Hurst

[ozbob]

http://www.ats.org.au/images/stories/Brisnorthernlink.jpg

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Council's 45-year tunnel debt

Council's 45-year tunnel debt
DANIEL HURST
September 5, 2009 - 6:34AM

Brisbane City Council may take up to 45 years to pay off the money it borrows to build the $1.7 billion Northern Link tunnel, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has revealed.

The project to connect the Western Freeway at Toowong to the Inner City Bypass at Kelvin Grove is expected to take 1100 trucks off Coronation Drive and Milton Road when it is completed in 2014.

Cr Newman yesterday announced the council was scrapping plans to enter into a public-private partnership and would instead borrow money to pay for the project itself.

It will soon call for tenders for companies to design, construct and operate the tunnel. The costs will be recouped through tolls and a $500m Federal Government contribution.

"The project term is about 43, 45 years away," he told reporters, adding that the time frames may change.

Cr Newman likened the council's new approach to the way the Gateway Bridge was constructed, describing it as a necessary project to alleviate congestion for long-suffering motorists.

Forecasts released by the council suggest the project will cut travel times between the Centenary Bridge and the Inner City Bypass by up to 70 per cent.

The tunnel, due for completion by 2014, is forecast to carry 34,200 vehicles a day when it first opens.

The Lord Mayor, who had struggled to find adequate private sector support for funding the tunnel unless the council guaranteed traffic flows, said he was not prepared to wait five years to resolve the issues.

The sooner the council "put people out of their misery" the better, he said.

However, Opposition Leader Shayne Sutton accused the Lord Mayor of poorly managing the project from the beginning.

"Earlier this year Cr Newman embarked on a $70,000 trip around the world to drum up business for Northern Link, but failed to yield any results," Cr Sutton said in a statement.

Large infrastructure projects were important but the council should ensure ratepayers were not "unfairly burdened" by large debt and rates rises, she said.

Cr Newman brushed off suggestions the council's decision to go it alone would increase rates in coming years.

He said the council would ensure it was disciplined with its spending decisions and would keep "tight control" over the project to avoid cost blowouts.

"My biggest concern ... is to make sure we get the best possible competition during the tender process," he said.

Cr Newman would not reveal the anticipated toll amount, saying it would be revealed when the council announced the winning tender for the tunnel's construction and operation.

The council is set to borrow the money for the tunnel from the Queensland Treasury Corporation, with construction tipped to begin by Christmas next year.

Councillors will debate the new expressions of interest process at a meeting on Tuesday.

[beauyboy]

aHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
These governments are Driving me throught the roof

First off Council upgrades bus services then says it will only last 4 months because that is all they have money for forcing the State to pay from them on.
Then the State says they can't afford to build a proper Northern Busway until 2020 so the North gets stuck with the interime Northern Busway from 2012.

But hell we will build a road that will carry more people then those funds being channeled into a single road project.

For Crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!

Donald

[#Metro]

Brisbane Times, Northern Link Tunnel 45 year Debt.

Hmm. Its not uncommon to have long recovery times for big infrastructure. I guess what I'm perplexed about is this.

Brisbane City Council may take up to 45 years to pay off the money it borrows to build the $1.7 billion Northern Link tunnel, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has revealed.

The project to connect the Western Freeway at Toowong to the Inner City Bypass at Kelvin Grove is expected to take 1100 trucks off Coronation Drive and Milton Road when it is completed in 2014.

1.7 billion! And only 1100 trucks...

1.7 billion divided by 150 million/kilometre (see Western Busway thread) = 11.33 km of busway that could take up to 15 000 + pax/hr of people off the road, rather than 1100 trucks.
Thats 13x more efficient by PT!

Taking 15 000 pax/hr off Milton Rd and Coronation Drive would free up more space for trucks- perhaps a truck lane- on the said roads...Ok, they haven't said how many cars would go as well, but from previous (rough) estimates, for a road capacity to equal that of the SE Busway, it would have to be 4 lanes.


I'm not an engineer/consultant, so my calculations are rough estimates not to be relied on. Unless roads have some amazingly high benefits to those who will use them (greater than $1.7 billion in saved time), it would seem that PT is far better choice by a very wide margin. Might the Federal Gov'ts road programmes  be encouraging more roads to be built, since States and Councils know that they are likely to get amounts like ~$500 million subsidy if they build a road rather than $0.00 for a busway, rail, metro, light rail or even a bike path?

I know of no side-by-side comparison of busway/rail vs freeway for this, or indeed any other project, which makes it hard to judge.

[stephenk]

Both BCC and Queensland Government need to get their priorities right. More roads = more congestion and more pollution. More public transport = less congestion and less pollution.

[Derwan]

Major road projects like this should be coordinated and completed by the State Government.  It is ridiculous that the State and Local Governments run separate road projects - only to then have the State Government provide funding (in the form of a loan) for the Council project anyway.

How can you plan a major road network when two groups are deciding where to put the roads?  Where is the economic sense in having two sets of planners, designers, engineers and anyone else required to run these projects even before they dig the first hole?

With a coordinated approach under a single funding mechanism, initiatives such as a CityToll could be introduced to tackle congestion and reduce the tolls on the roads built to avoid the congestion.

Under the coordinated approach, Public Transport would be part of the planning process.  Unfortunately, Public Transport is in itself a disjointed operation - with the two levels of Government running what appear to be competing rather than complementary services.

How are we ever going to move forward in an environment of chaos?

[#Metro]

The use of consultants/engineering companies removes some, but not all of the duplication that might exist.

I'm sure that I read some article in the paper or a report saying that PT and Transport in general needed to be centralised to some higher authority. (This was after I read another article saying that PT and Main roads merging would be a good thing).

But to me it seems like a bad game of sliding tile puzzles: endlessly playing around and re-arranging departments, divisions, authorities, government pseudo-corporations, changing titles, changing ministers (how many transport ministers have we had in the last 5 years?), re-dividing responsibilities, BCC and QGov overlaps/bickering and "communication difficulties"... To give credit where credit is due, new trains and busway, and modest spur extensions/duplications are always welcome.

But is there any hard evidence to say that any of this re-arrangement is actually doing anything or will lead to improved outcomes? Or is it just speculation?

I'm sure that Northern Link will help (from the diagram). But it looks like a lost opportunity for even better PT. If you live in Bardon/Rosalie/Milton/Paddington, you can't use it, because it will be buried underneath your house. Even a buried metro would at least provide access for these residents.

[O_128]

The use of consultants/engineering companies removes some, but not all of the duplication that might exist.

I'm sure that I read some article in the paper or a report saying that PT and Transport in general needed to be centralised to some higher authority. (This was after I read another article saying that PT and Main roads merging would be a good thing).

But to me it seems like a bad game of sliding tile puzzles: endlessly playing around and re-arranging departments, divisions, authorities, government pseudo-corporations, changing titles, changing ministers (how many transport ministers have we had in the last 5 years?), re-dividing responsibilities, BCC and QGov overlaps/bickering and "communication difficulties"... To give credit where credit is due, new trains and busway, and modest spur extensions/duplications are always welcome.

But is there any hard evidence to say that any of this re-arrangement is actually doing anything or will lead to improved outcomes? Or is it just speculation?

I'm sure that Northern Link will help (from the diagram). But it looks like a lost opportunity for even better PT. If you live in Bardon/Rosalie/Milton/Paddington, you can't use it, because it will be buried underneath your house. Even a buried metro would at least provide access for these residents.

there is no reason why it cant be a metro

[mufreight]

Possibly the biggest problem is turf wars, people seeking to build empires not willing to look at the overall picture and seeking to expand their authority or perceived power in case it is proven that their position is not justified or achieves nothing rather than actually doing a productive job which would simplify all the bureaucratic crud and ensure their corperate value.

[Emmie]

If this is going to take 45 years to pay off, then it takes us past 2050, by which stage we will have passed peak oil long before.  So in theory, we (sorry, you young'uns, I'll be gone by then) could still be paying for this tunnel long after oil runs out, and presumably the cars that run on it.  Great.

[david]

If the council and state government were truly serious about tackling congestion, they would remove the tolls from the Gateway Motorway, Logan Motorway, Northern Link, Hale St Link and the Clem7 tunnel and instead, implement a CBD toll for anyone heading through the city (except for couriers possibly). If I am to believe Campbell Newman, the majority of trips through the city is cross-city travel anyway, so we would remove the problem almost instantly. For those who feel to be so elite that they must continue to travel in their cars into the city can then pay the toll.

Of course, public transport would need to be ramped up, but then, most buses would have a congestion-free ride into the city theoretically, so the attraction to PT would be there. It's fairly easy to increase CityCat services and extra train infrastructure could easily be paid for by the CBD toll.

Also, the state government would be sticking their head in the sand if they did not see the Northern Link as an opportunity to get a Western Busway constructed along side it. The savings would definitely be there, and since it would be running through an area not serviced by trains (unlike the Northern, Eastern and South-Easy Busways), it will be popular too.

EDIT: I'm in favour of this tunnel by the way. I can definitely see its advantages.

[Dean Quick]

There is absolutely no justification for building this road tunnel or any other freeway for that matter. The Gov't and council continue to bury their heads in the sand in the false belief that building more roads will somehow ease the traffic and congestion. You only have to look at freeway mad cities such as Los Angeles where the freeway building frenzy has only made matters worse. Decades on and those mistakes are now being made here. A recent study about to be released which looked at the situation in Melbourne has found that despite billions spent in recent times on freeways there has been little to no benefit at all in terms of easing congestion and reduced travel times. Why do the decision makers continue to ignore the warnings. Decades ago we lost our trams due to the power and influence wielded by the fuel and car companies, today it seems nothing has changed..

[WTN]

45 years to pay off and the council calls this "affordable".  Sounds ridiculous.  Add the issues of peak oil and it makes you wonder what will happen in that time.  Turn it into an trolley busway?  A light railway?  Perhaps in future we may look at recycling all our freeways and tunnels (which our council seems so keen on) into something else.

One thing I've noticed with our council's tunnel affection (and Hale St link) is that they all feed into/divert from one major route - the Inner City Bypass.  With a recent report that the ICB is crawling at times, I wonder how much congestion will be taken away, or added from the three extra routes.  The ICB clogged in one direction (fed from tunnels) and free flowing in the other (fed into tunnels)?

[ozbob]

There are number of things that I find very concerning re this project.

The Queensland Government is flogging off hard won assets in order to bank roll a road tunnel?  With no long term guarantees at all.  One of the reasons that the private finance collapsed is that the BCC is not able to guarantee traffic flows.  How can they?

The restrictions on public transport operators are perverse.  There is a clear and real need to shift funding from roads to sustainable public transport. Who really expects that with this financial millstone around it's neck how keen will BCC be in directing and supporting public transport?  Will there be attempts at funnelling traffic as was tried in Sydney?  

The other wild card is the considerable NIMBY forces that will muster around Toowong and so forth.   The BCC is already on the nose with many and this will be a factor I suggest.

The point that WTN makes about the ICB is spot on IMHO.  It is already a car park, the tunnel will just direct more vehicles into the congestion mire.

I have strong doubts that it will go ahead.

[WTN]

The Queensland Government is flogging off hard won assets in order to bank roll a road tunnel?  With no long term guarantees at all.  One of the reasons that the private finance collapsed is that the BCC is not able to guarantee traffic flows.  How can they?

Was there ever a feasibility study done? 

The point that WTN makes about the ICB is spot on IMHO.  It is already a car park, the tunnel will just direct more vehicles into the congestion mire.

I have strong doubts that it will go ahead.

Thanks Bob.  I'm with you on this one.  It's strange to me how they're dumping all the traffic in one place, like they can't think of anywhere else to put it. 

[O_128]

The ICB is what the government did with public transport funnel all traffic through a small are for example the merivale bridge. The new northen tunned really should continue with an exit at the ICB to the gateway motorway and a western busway needs to be included but the smae thing is happening with busways the northen and inner northen busways will soon be congested and KGS is almost at capacity.

[#Metro]

Western Busway: The lost link in Northern Link.

Alterations to the Northern Link Tunnel could make it bus friendlier.
Rockets could get a quicker ride into the city- this would require route alterations; Though most of the utility of a busway is lost because it is underground, and would have no stops in the suburbs of Bardon, Paddington, Rosalie, Toowong etc.
An exit for buses onto the INB/Roma St Rail Station would help.


The proposed route as an interactive map is here: http://www.northernlinkeis.com.au/projectdesign.html



The interesting thing about the Western Suburbs is how bus stops are located between off/on ramps, in sidings, on the Centenary Highway. These could be upgraded in the future to a busway/light rail/heavy rail if an alignment corridor was preserved. Busway stations do not necessarily need to be built at the same time as the busway; Springwood is a good example. Such "stand-alone" stations could be built at Toowong, and in the Western suburbs.

So to recap
* Rockets altered to use the Northern Link Tunnel
* Consider bus priority measures for when it opens, or in the future
* An exit/escape for buses so they can use the INB/Roma St

[ozbob]

There seems to be little (none?) consideration of how it the proposed tunnel could be used for public transport (bus) in the documents I have read on the tunnel.

If it is to be built why not expand the tunnels to three lane, one lane being for bus and other priority vehicles.  Then have suitable entry / exits to integrate with the rest of public transport network as Tramtrain suggests.  Would be more likely to get additional funding then and more likely to be built!

[somebody]

There seems to be little (none?) consideration of how it the proposed tunnel could be used for public transport (bus) in the documents I have read on the tunnel.

If it is to be built why not expand the tunnels to three lane, one lane being for bus and other priority vehicles.  Then have suitable entry / exits to integrate with the rest of public transport network as Tramtrain suggests.  Would be more likely to get additional funding then and more likely to be built!

Have a look at this link.  It states that when (if) the Northern Link is built it will allow bus/transit lanes to be placed on Milton Rd and/or Coronation Dr.  Sydney did the same thing when the Harbour Tunnel went across.  Sydney simply couldn't live without the bus lane now, although every now and again the politicians do need to defend it against idiots.
http://wbtni.net.au/index.php?mod=Dynamic&id=69

[ozbob]

Thanks somebody.  I was referring more specifically to the tunnel.   The bus lanes on the other roads will be perceived by some no doubt as attempts at 'funnelling', although very necessary if view of the fact that there will be a very limited utility of the Northern Link in terms of direct public transport benefits.

There is an interesting comment by the Main Roads Minister in this article here --> Gateway Motorway e-tolls drive users away

Main Roads Minister Craig Wallace said he was not concerned by the drop in the number of motorists using the bridge, attributing it to fluctuations in traffic and higher public transport use.

Beautiful!   

[#Metro]

Have a look at this link.  It states that when (if) the Northern Link is built it will allow bus/transit lanes to be placed on Milton Rd and/or Coronation Dr.

This is not a firm commitment. It only points out that "maybe" they could use it for PT.
They might just leave it to be traffic lanes.

Bus lanes for Coronation Drive and Milton road would be excellent. It would not be the same standard of benefits/ station and transfer facilities/speed/right of way however, so I would have it as an interim/temporary measure until something better was sorted. Any improvement is better than none.

The NL tunnel should be altered to allow future bus use.

Re: Kenmore area. The fact that there is some form of corridor present in this area is good news for a Western Busway. But it is just land at the moment, you never know, it might be used for something else, like a freeway. http://wbtni.net.au/index.php?mod=Dynamic&id=69

[somebody]

This is not a firm commitment. It only points out that "maybe" they could use it for PT.
They might just leave it to be traffic lanes.
...
Re: Kenmore area. The fact that there is some form of corridor present in this area is good news for a Western Busway. But it is just land at the moment, you never know, it might be used for something else, like a freeway. http://wbtni.net.au/index.php?mod=Dynamic&id=69

Good point.

Re: Kenmore.  Given that at no point have they suggested the Karalee-Kenmore corridor would be used for PT, I think that the chance it would be is slim.  It's also not really suitable for PT, except for super-express busses to/from Moggill and Kenmore South.

Thanks somebody.  I was referring more specifically to the tunnel.   

Well, given that the residents have torpedoed more than a simple link to the ICB at the Normanby end, I can't see busses using this tunnel.  That decision would have to be reversed and a bus-only connection to the busway built.  I can't see what problem residents could have with this though.

I can't see any corridor for the Western Busway above ground east of Chapel Hill, so that means it would have to be in a tunnel.  Doesn't that make it very expensive and therefore improbable?  I think the best solution is a transit lane or bus lane between Kenmore & the city.  Probably should take the Western Freeway & Milton Rd though.  Sydney is going with mostly bus lanes lately, my theory is the reason for this is that Bus Lanes can be enforced by cameras, which is a little tricky for a transit lane.

[#Metro]

Doesn't that make it very expensive and therefore improbable?

These are good points somebody. Tunnelling is generally more expensive than surface works. However, expense hasn't stopped NL which are two parallel big tunnels and Clem 7 which is another pair from digging a big underground X underneath Brisbane.

There are also different kinds of tunnels- I think cut and cover ones are generally easier/cheaper than deep underground tunnelling which requires specialised machines (roadheaders, TBMs). The Boggo Rd busway contains a number of tunnels and stations; very rough calculations in the Western Busway thread take this into account. The 1.7 billion (NL tunnel $) could give 11 km of busway (we only need half that at 5 or 6km) based on the stated costs for construction of the Boggo Rd busway. (But see disclaimers in thread).

When governments choose and decide which projects are worthwhile, one thing they consider would be the benefit level with respect to costs. This is usually called the "business case". A more expensive project might also have higher absolute (social, environmental, economic) benefits. These can be converted and quantified in $ (making a few simplifying assumpions/modelling etc). Among other things, these benefits in turn depend of how many cars are diverted, how much trip time is saved, density, future growth etc... For an example, see chapter 12 of BCC's 2007 Mass Transit Report. These are always guides though; as the future is never certain and uncertainties can be managed but never be excluded from an estimate.

[mch]

Actually the Airport Link should not have been built.
The Northern Link Tunnel should have got priority.
But again, more road, more cars more pollution.
Heard today that we had been good people and saved 3 million tonnes of green house gases over winter.  They compared it to taking 3 million cars off the road.
The easiest way to take cars off the road is to run more trains (each six car set saves about 600 cars at peak time and about 250 off peak).

Still it is harder to get funding for rail projects than it is for a camel to go through the eye of the needle.

And yes you could get a camel through the eye of the needle.

Noel Haynes

[david]

I can't see any corridor for the Western Busway above ground east of Chapel Hill, so that means it would have to be in a tunnel.  Doesn't that make it very expensive and therefore improbable?  I think the best solution is a transit lane or bus lane between Kenmore & the city.  Probably should take the Western Freeway & Milton Rd though.

Very true. The terrain past Chapel Hill would be very difficult to construct on. Besides, based on demand, a bus lane is only required in the inbound direction from Kenmore Village towards Indooroopilly (where it would connect with any form of a Western Busway).

[Jon Bryant]

This project is just sheer madness as is all the tunnels being built.  It goes against all modern transport planning principles.  It is a 1960's soution to a 21 centry problem.   There is no benefits from it waht so ever.  Any new road space will be congested in less than 3 years.  The ICB and our freeway are proof of this.  The project will simply result in more cars, more pollution, more congestion. 

Clem Jones knee capped Brisbane when he removed the trams and Campbell Newman is now finishing the job off with his tunnels.  Brisbane is slowly becoming an ugly, dangerous, polluted city that is not enjoybale to live in.  I got out of Town Planning 14 years ago because I could see that we were creating the exact mess we are in. How long can our Government's keep their car first blinkers on for?

Every dollar spent on more roads will cost us 10 fold to fix later on.



   

[#Metro]

Hi Jon,

I've tried to find some information with an alternative view to help me understand what reasons may be behind roads vs PT, especially when it can be shown easily that PT transports more people. I think we do need more PT.

An article I found in The Australian :Public Transport can't save the planet


My *guess* would be that:

* There are roads everywhere- easier to connect
*There are subsidies and more opportunities for road funding (e.g. Ipswich motorway gets federal funding, adjacent Ipswich line does not).
* Tolls can be imposed on roads and tunnels; This is relatively rare for PT, but there are exceptions (e.g. Airtrain fare could be considered a "toll"). If the proposed cityglider is not within the Translink network, and the fares were higher, any extra cost in the ticket price could be considered a "toll" too.
* Lower ongoing costs (road maintainence vs buying buses and hiring drivers). But upgrading a congested road might take away from this...

Hmm. So why does public transport run at a loss? If it made money, there wouldn't be a shortage of funds when more services were needed. And any delay by Translink would mean lost revenue, so they wouldn't be so slow in getting extra services put on. Especially when buses are absolutely bursting with people and we can't get enough buses built fast enough. Its a similar story for trains and ferries.
Brisbane's trams were apparently profitable- even during the Great Depression (NB: Could not find reference).

Taxis are profitable, and they only carry one person and a driver. A bus Link to BT Fleet carries up to 62 people and one driver.


It might be helpful to do a scenario to get an estimate:

Route 199 takes 30 min to travel from West End Ferry terminal to New Farm Pk. So in an hour, there will be two trips: forward and backwards. Simplifying assumptions: Assume that (a) the bus is 50% full for each run, (b) only adults catch the bus, and that everyone pays a 2 zone fare ($2.40).

So in an hour: 31 x 2.40 x 2 = $148.80.
It seems a lot. So is it the CNG? Are buses really that expensive to make?

And while I was trying to look for answers, I stumbled upon this: Veitch Lister Consulting: Brisbane Bus Network Review.

To conduct the study Brisbane was subdivided into seven (7) major corridors. The services in each were then rationalised and, following comprehensive community consultation, the finally recommended operating strategies were implemented.

The study sounds interesting and well-intentioned, but how come I have never heard of it? Or the report? Or the "extensive community consultation?"

[somebody]

Re: Profitability.
I can't imagine that the 199 doesn't make a profit.  That's why I think BCC wants to remove it from the translink network and pocket the profit.  It's the other runs which lose money.  Look at the 435, 430, 433 and 445.  I'm sure all of these buses lose money as they only have a few people on them (well, at least when I've been on them).

Sydney buses are rumored to roughly break even.

One of the other reasons that the Brisbane buses lose money is that they are very cheap.  4 years ago, a green travel pass in Sydney would cost $40/week.  That's roughly equivalent to a 3 zone ticket.  It wasn't available in a daily.  The equivalent ticket in Brisbane would be $27.20/week in 2009.  That's a big gap.  I really see why Riccardo made those statements on Railpage.

[#Metro]

It's the other runs which lose money.  Look at the 435, 430, 433 and 445.  I'm sure all of these buses lose money as they only have a few people on them (well, at least when I've been on them).

Hmm. This seems like a bit of a complicated bind. On one hand you want to service people who live far away from the city, on the other hand this means that things like extra 66s and 333s are delayed- buses which are bursting full. To reduce overcrowding you could (a) get another bus (with a delay as you find more cash) or (b) increase ticket prices (but you'd get a lot of complaints and this would shift the problem by putting more people in cars).

Both (a) and (b) are pretty ugly solutions.
There might be another solution though (these are just brainstorming ideas, not necessarily my position):

* Keep toll roads toll roads: Rather than have the NL tunnel toll phase out after 40 or 45 years, just keep it tolled- forever. This would get people to pay for their own congestion they cause.This solution could be applied to any of the road tunnels being put in place. When congestion threatens, just up the toll price! Any surplus can fund other road/bikeway/PT projects. You'd have to contract this out to Translink or a business, as it would be all to easy for someone who wanted votes to say "Vote for me, and I will remove the tolls on the xxx roadway".

* Fix up GoCard:and all it's faults and phase out most paper tickets. People with monthlies or weeklies should be able to trade them in for an equivalent credit on the goCard. Paper tickets could be limited to daily or single trip tickets only. This would give backup to people who lose their card, run after the bus while late, visitors etc.

* Fix up the GoCard fare structure once and for all. GoCard fare structure is just bizzare and isn't intuitive.

* Short Shuttles: Consider converting the 435/430/433 and 445 into higher frequency shuttles which terminate at Indooroopilly. Passengers would then transfer to BUZ444. This will probably make it a little less convenient for some people who live far away from the CBD (2 buses), but more convenient and fairer on the many more people who catch 333 and 66 and can't get on. This would also alleviate bus jam in the CBD.

* Run more BUZ services and routes. It is likely that fuller buses mean less loss.

* Build more busways (might need to be double lane as well). Buses caught in traffic waste time and money for everyone.

* Have Translink specify minimum standards. If operators want to run extra services or stop at extra bus stops on occasion and otherwise exceed the minimum standard, they should be allowed to.

* Have sensible routes. Ones that are long, loopy and windy or duplicate for no reason (i.e. 105 in Yeronga. 476 etc) should be reviewed.

[somebody]

Hmm. This seems like a bit of a complicated bind. On one hand you want to service people who live far away from the city, on the other hand this means that things like extra 66s and 333s are delayed- buses which are bursting full. To reduce overcrowding you could (a) get another bus (with a delay as you find more cash) or (b) increase ticket prices (but you'd get a lot of complaints and this would shift the problem by putting more people in cars).

Both (a) and (b) are pretty ugly solutions.

(b) isn't that ugly, so long as it's combined with (a).  I'd be happy to pay more for a properly run service.

* Keep toll roads toll roads: Rather than have the NL tunnel toll phase out after 40 or 45 years, just keep it tolled- forever. This would get people to pay for their own congestion they cause.This solution could be applied to any of the road tunnels being put in place. When congestion threatens, just up the toll price! Any surplus can fund other road/bikeway/PT projects. You'd have to contract this out to Translink or a business, as it would be all to easy for someone who wanted votes to say "Vote for me, and I will remove the tolls on the xxx roadway".

I think you've shown the problem with this.  Also, tolling the Northern link isn't the best idea as it's a road that we WANT people to use.  It would be better to have a congestion charge.

* Fix up GoCard:and all it's faults and phase out most paper tickets. People with monthlies or weeklies should be able to trade them in for an equivalent credit on the goCard. Paper tickets could be limited to daily or single trip tickets only. This would give backup to people who lose their card, run after the bus while late, visitors etc.

* Fix up the GoCard fare structure once and for all. GoCard fare structure is just bizzare and isn't intuitive.

The ridiculous thing is that it's more expensive for most people to use a GoCard.  Also, the existing zone system has a high flagfall, but low incremental rates for distance.  It would be better to reduce the flagfall from $1.52 to more like 20c, and have an exact distance charge.  Also give the GoCard a discount in off peak times.  Then increase the cost of paper tickets by something like 50%.

* Short Shuttles: Consider converting the 435/430/433 and 445 into higher frequency shuttles which terminate at Indooroopilly. Passengers would then transfer to BUZ444. This will probably make it a little less convenient for some people who live far away from the CBD (2 buses), but more convenient and fairer on the many more people who catch 333 and 66 and can't get on. This would also alleviate bus jam in the CBD.

On weekends, this is exactly what the 435 does.  I don't like this idea, I'd much rather have the service properly integrated.  Buses coming all at once?  Ridiculous.  Also 3 places in the city they leave from which are within 5 minutes walk of each other? Also stupid.  There's really no excuse for not having at a minimum a 10-minute frequency service between the city and Indooroopilly school.

* Run more BUZ services and routes. It is likely that fuller buses mean less loss.

You are assuming that such services are popular.  The current BUZ network isn't too bad, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the 160/162 servicing almost exactly the same route as the 111.

* Have sensible routes. Ones that are long, loopy and windy or duplicate for no reason (i.e. 105 in Yeronga. 476 etc) should be reviewed.

Does the Yeronga loop of the 105 pick up/drop off many pax?  If so, it serves a purpose.

[somebody]

One more thing: Couldn't the problems of the 333 inbound PM peak and outbound AM peak be solved by putting the buses which are now returning empty from the 332 service into revenue service on the 333 run.  Same for 331/330 & 341/340.  Not much expense in that.

[#Metro]

I think what has been highlighted is that PT planning isn't always easy!!

On weekends, this is exactly what the 435 does.  I don't like this idea, I'd much rather have the service properly integrated.  Buses coming all at once?  Ridiculous.  Also 3 places in the city they leave from which are within 5 minutes walk of each other? Also stupid.  There's really no excuse for not having at a minimum a 10-minute frequency service between the city and Indooroopilly school.

Well I would like it integrated too, this could be done during peak hour when they would be full anyway. The idea was to have 444 as the trunk line with one stop in the city, rather than three all over the place. Shuttle buses seem to work fine for buses like 468 Indro Shopping Centre-Oxley Station. Why not the others you have mentioned?

Western Busway would speed all of the above up, make time savings and attract more passengers, so it may be less of a consideration if a WB was built.

[somebody]

Well, I think that whoever plans the bus routes in Brisbane should be either replaced or guided by the team that runs Sydney buses!!  They can do basically everything I have suggested should be done in Brisbane.  Perhaps there is high level interferance in the planning.  It certainly shows signs of this.

I have a problem with the 468 terminating at Indooroopilly shops, which I have posted on before.  I've been told that this is not a popular run, could that be because pax despise changing services?

[#Metro]

Really? It had quite a few people when I caught it, and that was after 6pm on a weekend afternoon!
There was no wait for a city bus when I got off at Indro, and the trip only took 10 mins.

IMHO Sydney buses aren't good at all. I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. 

[somebody]

IMHO Sydney buses aren't good at all. I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. 

They're good in the Eastern suburbs, but poor in a region with private buses i.e. A service provider other than "Sydney Buses".  I think on the Northern Beaches they aren't too bad, but people I knew who used them complained a lot.

Back to the 468, if a lot of people use it, then why can't it continue to the city?

[O_128]

IMHO Sydney buses aren't good at all. I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. 

They're good in the Eastern suburbs, but poor in a region with private buses i.e. A service provider other than "Sydney Buses".  I think on the Northern Beaches they aren't too bad, but people I knew who used them complained a lot.

Back to the 468, if a lot of people use it, then why can't it continue to the city?

when i am in sydney i get a bus to teh city from warringah mall, the entire way to the city is a bus lane and in peak there is a bus every minute.