Brisbane Underground Rail Loop (BURL)

[longboi]

Isn't the main problem with the Exhibition station no demand?  They seem to be able to run services there during the Ekka.  I presume this is largely making services stop there that would run through there anyway.

I think a large part of the problem is the targetted gradients and depth, which IMO are completely unreasonable, although the business of the Exhibition line could be a real issue.

Well theres very little surrounding Exhibition station most of the year.

Most of the ekka direct services are services which would run through anyway but they only operate during peak. During the Ekka, loop services operate around regular services and generally come every 10 mins however a trip around the loop can take as long as half an hour waiting for clear paths.

Also it is a must that UQ gets a station

Well it already has the Eleanor Schonnel (sp?) bridge.  This really provides better service than rail would to most people.  Why's it need 2 solutions to the same problem?

I agree, UQ not only has the bridge but also the Boggo Rd busway which connects with rail at Park Road and connect to the South-East busway at Buranda.

[Jon Bryant]

Isn't the main problem with the Exhibition station no demand?  They seem to be able to run services there during the Ekka.  I presume this is largely making services stop there that would run through there anyway.

there is plenty of demand from the hospital and surrounding areas.  It is the lack of service that is causing the lack of demand.  It is too easy to say there is no demand when there is no service.

[#Metro]

Of course there is no demand, there is no service, and only 1 station.
How can there be a dead station so close to the CBD, Hospitals and the Valley.

I don't wish to cause offence, but that comment shows that you have little understanding of rail operations.

IIRC the reasons for not using part of the existing Exhibition Line are:-
1)There is not enough track capacity for the extra services on the Exhibition Line. It is already a busy line!
2)Due to the alignment, it is more cost effective to duplicate part of the line with a tunnel than to add extra tracks and flyovers/unders near Spring Hill and around Bowen Hills.
3)The line would have restrictive gradients to be able to rise to the surface near Spring Hill.

Well I'm a non-expert.  Not sure about 'no capacity' as I'm sure I have seen wagons parked on the tracks.
If Mayne were moved somewhere else (past Bowen Hills) the capacity problems and demand issue would be both solved together. How does Melbourne, Perth and Sydney cope?
Spring Hill- Why not just put a station and and a pedestrian overpass? No expensive tunneling...

I don't quite agree with the ICRS alignment. I think it is an unnecessarily expensive proposal (pushing delivery out later)   that would be cheaper with a re-alignment or a bridge. A metro may or may not be a better solution because it is not affected by junctions/crossing conflicts on other parts of the network and is automatically sectorised.

[longboi]

Of course there is no demand, there is no service, and only 1 station.
How can there be a dead station so close to the CBD, Hospitals and the Valley.

I don't wish to cause offence, but that comment shows that you have little understanding of rail operations.

IIRC the reasons for not using part of the existing Exhibition Line are:-
1)There is not enough track capacity for the extra services on the Exhibition Line. It is already a busy line!
2)Due to the alignment, it is more cost effective to duplicate part of the line with a tunnel than to add extra tracks and flyovers/unders near Spring Hill and around Bowen Hills.
3)The line would have restrictive gradients to be able to rise to the surface near Spring Hill.

Well I'm a non-expert.  Not sure about 'no capacity' as I'm sure I have seen wagons parked on the tracks.
If Mayne were moved somewhere else (past Bowen Hills) the capacity problems and demand issue would be both solved together. How does Melbourne, Perth and Sydney cope?
Spring Hill- Why not just put a station and and a pedestrian overpass? No expensive tunneling...

I don't quite agree with the ICRS alignment. I think it is an unnecessarily expensive proposal (pushing delivery out later)   that would be cheaper with a re-alignment or a bridge. A metro may or may not be a better solution because it is not affected by junctions/crossing conflicts on other parts of the network and is automatically sectorised.

Where the wagons are sitting are sidings. Stephenk is talking about the movements in/out of Mayne and freight movements through Normanby which makes it quite busy.

Its not really a case of building either one. Cross River Rail (ICRCS) is necessary if we want to see the Citytrain network keep moving. The next step will be a metro will be be entirely different and separate to the Citytrain network and will primarily cater to people living within 5km of the CBD but will also be a means for visitors to be able travel within this 5km area without having to catch multiple buses/ferries/trains (i.e. Bulimba-Toowong).

[somebody]

Isn't the main problem with the Exhibition station no demand?  They seem to be able to run services there during the Ekka.  I presume this is largely making services stop there that would run through there anyway.

there is plenty of demand from the hospital and surrounding areas.  It is the lack of service that is causing the lack of demand.  It is too easy to say there is no demand when there is no service.

Are there many takers of this option during Ekka?  I only really see service from Roma St.  It might be too hard to service Exhibition from the Bowen Hills end.

[ozbob]

The medical precinct at Herston, staff, unions and visitors to and from the hospitals has always been very keen on rail into the Exhibition.  There are huge movements in and out each day.  If some could travel direct by rail it would be good.  I think with what is planned down the track we will see regular rail into there eventually.

[#Metro]

And considering that there is an freeway (ICB) along this alignment, the busway can't cope (bus full everywhere and 50 minute waitings) there is demand waiting to be unlocked.

[ozbob]

Check out this thread Tramtrain, I am sure you will find it interesting ...  --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=1013.0

[ozbob]

Thanks Tramtrain for this drawing of the BURL

--> Brisbane Underground Rail Loop PDF 58KB

[#Metro]

If anyone looks at the lesser known Wilbur Smith Public Transport Plan 1970 on p103, they will see something very interesting indeed!

p85 is interesting too...

All done 40 years before the ICRCS.

[#Metro]

The New Farm link could also be extended to the Cleveland line... but I won't go into that here.

[somebody]

The medical precinct at Herston, staff, unions and visitors to and from the hospitals has always been very keen on rail into the Exhibition.  There are huge movements in and out each day.  If some could travel direct by rail it would be good.  I think with what is planned down the track we will see regular rail into there eventually.

The problem is that I can't see how the movements could be direct.  There would need to be a change of trains at Roma St.  In theory, you could have Milton-Exhibition movements, but that still wastes a northbound train path through the CBD, or at least part of a path.

There's also little incentive to use the Exhibition station if coming from the north and your train is going to Exhibition via Roma St.  You'd be better off to get off at Bowen Hills and either walk or use the 393.

Perhaps this is somewhere that the planned Exhibition 2 station in the ICRS could serve.  Maybe.

If anyone looks at the lesser known Wilbur Smith Public Transport Plan 1970 on p103, they will see something very interesting indeed!

p85 is interesting too...

All done 40 years before the ICRCS.

Do you have a link?  Google reveals this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan
and some other things which hint at the Brisbane study.

[#Metro]

The report is really quite thin but its clarity is quite good. Only available in non-electronic format I am afraid.

Even if people don't like the Exhibition line, the ICRCS alignment could possibly be better (that's right, No Exhibition if you don't want it!)

The Wilbur Smith Plan doesn't use a tunnel to get to QUT and it features a connection from Roma St, which the current ICRCS lacks (I suppose tunneling under Central is to make up for that?). Indeed the Wilbur Smith Plan rejected the underground tunnel option on the grounds that it was very expensive and would need steep gradients.
One spur begins at Roma St. Another reaches across the Brisbane River from Pk Road Junction & Woolloongabba.
These two spurs then combine and turn underneath Queen St to a station in Albert Street Station (now Albert St mall). The alignment continues to Eagle Street (Riverside) Station and then joins the main lines at Fortitude Valley.

In 1970 it was recommended that this link be built between 1986 and 1995 with six stations.
The plan shows a final map of what the system would look like in the year 2000.

Although the plan is less likely to be possible (given the presence of the QSBS bus tunnel- unless you want to move that) the

- Bridge option would certainly be worth looking at
- The idea of a link between Roma St and QUT has merit
- Shifting the line to run underneath Elizabeth Street might work seeing that Queen St is less likely.

[#Metro]

Its not the only thing in the plan:

* Integrated Ticketing
* The formation of TransLink (didn't use that name)
* ICRCS (didn't use that name, they called it the "Central City Underground" and used a bridge
* Drawings of what we today call "The Busway", complete with low floor buses.
* Warnings that the CBD would become clogged with buses without rail improvements (right about that one)

Even trains crossing the Merivale Bridge (also proposed, and built), could from Roma St to Eagle St.

Contrary to popular belief, Wilbur Smith did propose many public transport options, even for places like Ipswich.
The Merivale Rail bridge is from the plan, pity that the other PT options were ignored.

[somebody]

Of course, 1970 was before electrification and the Merivale bridge.  Loco hauled diesels couldn't handle much in the way of grades, which is why it annoys me that the tunnel is being built to standards that those would require.  Perhaps the report also recommended electrification.

Supposedly, the 2016 ICRS tunnel wouldn't be much cheaper with a shorter tunnel.  Which is interesting.

[#Metro]

Electrification was canvassed. It was a big issue because they wanted to buy upgraded stock to run on all these new lines, but they needed to know whether they should be diesels or not.

Perhaps they want to run diesels on the ICRS alignment as a short cut to Pk Road.
This is the problem. Freight will balloon and we will have diesels & freight running around everywhere causing problems.

The bridge option really should be looked at. Maximum grade I can see is 2.5% for a short section of the descent off the bridge and into Parliament Station.

[O_128]

Electrification was canvassed. It was a big issue because they wanted to buy upgraded stock to run on all these new lines, but they needed to know whether they should be diesels or not.

Perhaps they want to run diesels on the ICRS alignment as a short cut to Pk Road.
This is the problem. Freight will balloon and we will have diesels & freight running around everywhere causing problems.

The bridge option really should be looked at. Maximum grade I can see is 2.5% for a short section of the descent off the bridge and into Parliament Station.

Firstly the Bypasses for freight that you have proposed should be built. Under no circumstances should freight use the CRR tunnels. It would probably be a health hazard aswell.

[frereOP]

I believe we are not thinking outside the square.  More rail crossings, interchanges etc etc etc.  We need a metro system - completely separate from the existing QR and running on dedicated lines like the Singapore MRT or London Tube. The reason being that the existing busways are reaching saturation.  As traffic increases buses will get slower and with more buses on the road each week, the Queen St bus station will become a car park before long with queues of up to 10 buses waiting to get out during peak hour already.

We need a Metro system to REPLACE our road transport (read buses) with bus/subway interchanges at the major suburban bus stations (Indooroopilly, Garden City, Chermside etc) and buses to feed other stations with subsurface Metro rail transport direct to the city.  eg a line from I'pilly could go via UQ to West End, QUT, Eagle St, King George Square then out to QUT or possibly Chermiside.  Trains would return the opposite route but would not switch lines.

What we don't need is a system that integrates the existing surface QR services with the underground Metro system.  They need to be separate but complimentary.

[#Metro]

What we don't need is a system that integrates the existing surface QR services with the underground Metro system.  They need to be separate but complimentary.

Well said. Brisbane is not that big a city.
Perfect for a metro underneath every main street.

[O_128]

What we don't need is a system that integrates the existing surface QR services with the underground Metro system.  They need to be separate but complimentary.

Well said. Brisbane is not that big a city.
Perfect for a metro underneath every main street.

Though eventually the "CBD" will come to swallow up the valley,Bowen Hills, The Gabba, South bank,South Brisbane and the strip betweem the rail line and coro drive.

[mufreight]

While the concept of a Metro system at some time in the future has obvious merit such a system at this time would draw resources away from the obviously needed at the present time underground rail system to ensure that the existing rail system does not strangle itself.
The construction of the undergroung cross river rail link will with new stations at Wolongabba, Parliament/Gardens Point/QIT, Spring Hill and Bowen Bridge Road/Exhibition not only provide the needed additional capacith through the CBD but will also by servicing areas not currently serviced by rail reduce the loading on existing public transport in those areas for a considerable time into the future over which time a Metro style system of public transport can be constructed in stages complimentary to the rail and bus public transport systems.

[somebody]

We need a Metro system to REPLACE our road transport (read buses) with bus/subway interchanges at the major suburban bus stations (Indooroopilly, Garden City, Chermside etc) and buses to feed other stations with subsurface Metro rail transport direct to the city.  eg a line from I'pilly could go via UQ to West End, QUT, Eagle St, King George Square then out to QUT or possibly Chermiside.  Trains would return the opposite route but would not switch lines.

Urghh, not Indooroopilly.  There's already a quad tracked rail line to there.  If you had said something like Everton Hills-CBD-New Farm-Carindale, then maybe, but probably not in this decade.

I see that your UQ-West End-CBD route has some merit, but UQ already has the Eleannor Schonnel bridge, it's enough.  Would be nice to serve West End better, but I can't really see it being worthwhile.  Busway?

[frereOP]

Yes Indooroopilly as a bus/train/Metro Interchange.

Metros usually have smaller carriages and are often shorter (4 or 5 cars such as the Berlin or Paris Metros) with stations more closely spaced.  Stations are every 2 - 3 blocks or so, so they provide a more bus-like service.  I'pilly to UQ on a direct underground link would be about 2-3 mins compared to the current bus service of about 15mins.

From UQ to the city via West End, maybe 10 mins on a Metro.  Compare that to CityCat (~20) and buses via Coro Drive 20mins or from UQ Lakes about 15mins,

[stephenk]

Firstly the Bypasses for freight that you have proposed should be built. Under no circumstances should freight use the CRR tunnels. It would probably be a health hazard aswell.

It is not planned for freight to use the new passenger rail tunnels.

Yes Indooroopilly as a bus/train/Metro Interchange.

Metros usually have smaller carriages and are often shorter (4 or 5 cars such as the Berlin or Paris Metros) with stations more closely spaced.  Stations are every 2 - 3 blocks or so, so they provide a more bus-like service. 

Older metros such as the Paris Metro have short distances between stations, however due to the vast construction costs of underground stations they tend to be located further apart on most new metro systems. To keep station construction costs down, some newer metro systems have short 2-4 car trains, but very high frequency services. Examples being Copenhagen's mini-metro, and the many VAL and ART systems. In more populated cities, longer heavy-metro trains are required to cope with the expected passenger loads with a resulting increased station construction cost.

It should be noted that a metro will not replace all bus services paralleling the route. Buses can stop at much closer distances than metros, so bus routes tend to complement a metro's route, rather than be completely replaced by the metro. In London, most tube lines have at least one parallel bus route.

[frereOP]

If an underground rail system (for Brisbane) similar to this map ever did become a reality >>>> <<<< but could you imagine the timeframe and cost involved in boring out all of those tunnels......??

Who said it had to underground?  Metros run surface as well (London Tube, Tokyo subway) where appropriate just like Brisbane's Busways do now.

[#Metro]

Thanks, that is correct FrereOP. Did you know that the 1970 Wilbur Smith plan also had a Metro option beginning at Central Station and running a loop in the CBD which traces today's Free Loop bus route? However it was not recommended as the underground 1970 heavy rail bridge option from Woolloongabba was recommended instead.

Governments tend to give people what they want. If people value not seeing a rail line or associated noise etcetera, then this will show up in the engineering reports as "Environmental Impacts". So tunnels are now generally preferred- almost all the freeway options undertaken recently were all tunnels. This keeps the NIMBYs generally happy. Of course you have to be willing to pay the toll and sometimes a little extra when the rates bill comes around.

Yes the BURL could be done in an overground or elevated structure, for example, it could leave the Newstead portal and travel on an elevated viaduct (like Airtrain) directly in front of the Riverside precinct to Parliament. There is precedent for this- The Riverside Expressway does exactly this for cars, and in the Wilbur Smith 1965 plan (The car plan) a second expressway like the first was recommended to be placed in front of the Riverside area.

Now, I think these options (rail or car) would have had extreme visual and environmental impacts and would therefore be unacceptable (noise, seeing trains passing, wrecking a nice view).  

I think that a
Light Metro
Metro
ART system
Underground Heavy Rail
would be more suitable options for public transport circulation around the CBD and immediate environs.

Dare to dream!

[#Metro]

It is interesting to note that (IMHO) there appears to be a blending of land transport modes and options than there was say 20 years or so ago. The highlighted ones are those which are not so traditional in my view and are "emerging". In terms of capacity:

(Top)
Metro
ART
Light Metro
Heavy Rail
Dual Mode Light Rail
Light Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Bus/Trams
Flexibus
Taxi
Car
Motorbike + Sidecar
Motorbikes
Road Mopeds
Bicycle Cabs
Bicycles
Scooters
Walking
(Bottom)

ART is sort of between trams and heavy rail metros. The Canada line is ART, which is automated can be up to 50% cheaper than a metro. Light Metro is also emerging, which is making mass transport more affordable.
More info here: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/advanced-rapid-transit?docID=0901260d8000a648

[Markus]

Well since its a democratic country - so far - -im withholding my view till the author comes up with his cost benefit ratios. (CBRs)
i.e. what are the quantities of travellers wanting to travel in those directions. Unless ive missed the info, i think its impoertant to get the figs of WHERE PEOPLE TRAVEL FIRST and then suggest rail links. Lets not confuse the decision makers as they are important to us now. Lets give them juicy facts, rather than juicy ideas. We know they can only absorb so much info. 

[Jon Bryant]

Well since its a democratic country - so far - -im withholding my view till the author comes up with his cost benefit ratios. (CBRs)
i.e. what are the quantities of travellers wanting to travel in those directions. Unless ive missed the info, i think its impoertant to get the figs of WHERE PEOPLE TRAVEL FIRST and then suggest rail links. Lets not confuse the decision makers as they are important to us now. Lets give them juicy facts, rather than juicy ideas. We know they can only absorb so much info. 

We know exactly where the trips are.  The key problem is that our transport planning approach makes an assumption that public transport can only grow by small % on currently low levels.  Thus the potential of PT is being killed off before the ink is even dry on the plan.   Lets start challenging these unsustainable assumptions and set bold targets (upwrd of 45%).  Once these tartegts are set then the juicy ideas have a place to hook into.

[#Metro]

Long post warning

BURL was one suggestion of many. We shouldn't read too far into posts.  
Accurate engineering and feasibility studies are the domain of engineering consultants,
and are both expensive and time consuming to do.

The government or a government agency usually takes care of the "weeding out"
of options and assessment as such detailed and careful studies are both well outside of
ordinary folks' time, technical expertise and financial capacities.
E.g. The ICRCS pre-feasability study.

Often government collects many ideas and then subjects them to assessment.
But they have to be proposed in the first instance by someone for this to work...
 

I highlight some relevant excerpts from the ARUP CAMCOS 2001 study regarding cost/benefit.

...Mode choice selection involves many competing interests.
Financial and economic considerations, while important
must be recognised as only part of the decision making process...

...Examples elsewhere indicate that passenger forecasts can be underestimated when a good transport
link is provided...

None of the options considered certainly in the short term, are financially or economically viable
in purely monetary terms. Therefore the basis of the preferred mode ought to depend on the
results of multi criteria assessment.

http://www.arup.com.au/camcos/document.htm

They do have to be efficient, but this is only one criterion of many.

Indeed, history shows that if such an approach had been taken, it is highly questionable whether BUZ services or Nightlink
services would have come to fruition in the first instance as these were risky (and costly) initiatives.

Where people travel now may be very different to where they might travel when a project is put in.
At the outset, it seems ridiculous to run lots of buses every 5-10 minutes (444, 345 etc) when the current route is half-empty.
Even the literature would suggest something like a modest 20% increase with higher frequency.
Not something like ~150 - 250% increases which we have seen.

At the outset, it also seemed ridiculous to run late night services  on Friday and Saturday when people happily pay for taxis, and all other buses/trains are empty.

BURL was a concept idea along with things like 109+66, regular ekka loop services and the trouts road corridor.
Suggestions are good, as is discussion
As the ICRCS has been refined and is moving ahead, I doubt if the BURL would be built.  

[somebody]

At the outset, it also seemed ridiculous to run late night services  on Friday and Saturday when people happily pay for taxis, and all other buses/trains are empty.

Who told you that?  I assure that it's standing room only constistently on the 12:20am 444 on Friday and Saturday nights, and good loads on the Ipswich line trains, in both directions with the exception of the 4am train. 

It also seems hard to believe that less than 2 years ago there wasn't a 9:35pm Ipswich train Mon-Thu.  How'd all those pax fit on the 10:05pm train?  Some pax could have been robbed from the buses, I guess.

[stephenk]

Well since its a democratic country - so far - -im withholding my view till the author comes up with his cost benefit ratios. (CBRs)
i.e. what are the quantities of travellers wanting to travel in those directions. Unless ive missed the info, i think its impoertant to get the figs of WHERE PEOPLE TRAVEL FIRST and then suggest rail links. Lets not confuse the decision makers as they are important to us now. Lets give them juicy facts, rather than juicy ideas. We know they can only absorb so much info. 

I'm glad to read a sensible comment amongst a sea of dreamers!