Bus rail integration

[ozbob]

Discussion area of improved opportunities for bus rail integration.  Feeder route suggestions and so forth.

[Golliwog]

Bus/rail interchanges need to be built so that the bus can easily get to the interchange. For example the current FG interchange is on the southern side of the station which means that both the 397 and 398 which approach from Ferny Way have two sets of traffic lights to go through plus the rail crossing so if it's trying to meet a service it can easily end up getting caught at the lights and those on the bus will sit there and watch the train leave. This is being fixed up when they redo FG station but I'm sure there are similar problems at other stations on the network. The interchange at Oxley (not the bus stop being redone atm, but the actual interchange on the other side of the station from that) is a good example of how the bus can easily get in and out.

They should also have the buses aim to have a decent layover time and get to the station a minute or two before the train arrives so those getting off the bus have a chance to get the train, and those from the train can then get onto the bus. I caught a train to Oxley the other day and went down to the interchange to catch the 468, which pulled in right as I got there. Great for me but if there was anyone on the bus trying to go outbound on the trains they had just missed it. This is especially important if the trains are going to continue having a 30 minute off-peak frequency and probably even if they go to 15/20 minute too.

[#Metro]

Timing is important. Ideally bus interchanges would be located in a hollowed out area directly underneath the rail platforms.
You could catch a lift or escalator straight up to the platform, a nice direct transfer.

[stephenk]

Timing is important. Ideally bus interchanges would be located in a hollowed out area directly underneath the rail platforms.
You could catch a lift or escalator straight up to the platform, a nice direct transfer.

That idea would be prohibitively expensive, and construction prohibitively disruptive at existing stations.

[#Metro]

That idea would be prohibitively expensive, and construction prohibitively disruptive at existing stations.

Really? When 1.05 km of busway is being constructed at Buranda for $465 million dollars? Or when more money is being sunk into more and more buses? Or $777 million is being spent on the Northern Busway? Of course there is money going around, it's just not for rail.

I am not saying that the above mentioned projects are not worthy, my point is there seems to be cash around for the buses. Why isn't there cash for the rail network- something that should be the back bone of SEQ's transport system?

An interchange should have been put in at Indooroopilly. The good news is that an interchange could be retro-fitted to the site by using open land at the corner of Lambert Road and Railway Avenue, which is part of the Witton Barracks. Ideas have been floating around in the paper.

A bus-rail interchange here IS possible. And at low cost, by using existing land.
Here is a photograph of the site http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/tighnabruaich.htm

The riverside Witton Barracks, near the Indooroopilly train station, was recently included on a list of defence land to be sold.

With not a single cent of the $26.5 million Indooroopilly Railway Station revamp going toward parking, residents and commuters are demanding the State Government use available land nearby to build a parking facility and ease congestion in surrounding streets.

(Not car parking, but a bus-rail interchange!)

Rail Back On Track spokesman Robert Dow backed Ms Nolan but said buses should be added to the network similar to the City Loop style.
"This bus service should be from the station to the suburbs, different to the normal commuter run," he said.
"Building more car park spaces encourages people to drive. The bus service will take the pressure off parking."

http://westside-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/crammed-in-at-indooroopilly-station/
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-property/four-indooroopilly-bridges-enough-says-councillor-20100302-pgal.html
http://westside-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/park-n-ride-for-indooroopilly-train-station-ruled-out/

[#Metro]

It might also be possible to put bus stops on the side of the road for interchange. A low cost option.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indooroopilly&sll=-27.632479,153.136368&sspn=0.015931,0.031457&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indooroopilly+Queensland,+Australia&ll=-27.503061,152.976098&spn=0.000937,0.002988&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-27.503346,152.976522&panoid=6lXFv7zfPULJL5haDGh-uA&cbp=12,273.06,,0,10.77

Some land from the front of the barracks might be useful, but not essential.

[stephenk]

That idea would be prohibitively expensive, and construction prohibitively disruptive at existing stations.

Really? When 1.05 km of busway is being constructed at Buranda for $465 million dollars? Or when more money is being sunk into more and more buses? Or $777 million is being spent on the Northern Busway? Of course there is money going around, it's just not for rail.

I am not saying that the above mentioned projects are not worthy, my point is there seems to be cash around for the buses. Why isn't there cash for the rail network- something that should be the back bone of SEQ's transport system?

An interchange should have been put in at Indooroopilly. The good news is that an interchange could be retro-fitted to the site by using open land at the corner of Lambert Road and Railway Avenue, which is part of the Witton Barracks. Ideas have been floating around in the paper.

A bus-rail interchange here IS possible. And at low cost, by using existing land.
Here is a photograph of the site http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/tighnabruaich.htm

The riverside Witton Barracks, near the Indooroopilly train station, was recently included on a list of defence land to be sold.

With not a single cent of the $26.5 million Indooroopilly Railway Station revamp going toward parking, residents and commuters are demanding the State Government use available land nearby to build a parking facility and ease congestion in surrounding streets.

(Not car parking, but a bus-rail interchange!)

Rail Back On Track spokesman Robert Dow backed Ms Nolan but said buses should be added to the network similar to the City Loop style.
"This bus service should be from the station to the suburbs, different to the normal commuter run," he said.
"Building more car park spaces encourages people to drive. The bus service will take the pressure off parking."

http://westside-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/crammed-in-at-indooroopilly-station/
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-property/four-indooroopilly-bridges-enough-says-councillor-20100302-pgal.html
http://westside-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/park-n-ride-for-indooroopilly-train-station-ruled-out/

None of your reply justifies the extraordinary cost and disruption from building a bus interchange underneath an existing railway station as you suggested. It would a very difficult and expensive tunnelling challenge!

I've got nothing against cost effective construction of bus interchanges on the surface, or in some cases elevated structures. But beneath the station is another one for the "fantasy file".

[#Metro]

It might be too late for existing stations.
But for new stations, an interchange underneath the station can be incorporated.

A indooroopilly station interchange would probably best on the surface, and there is land to do this.
It's good to know you support surface bus-rail interchanges.

[stephenk]

It might be too late for existing stations.
But for new stations, an interchange underneath the station can be incorporated.

A indooroopilly station interchange would probably best on the surface, and there is land to do this.
It's good to know you support surface bus-rail interchanges.

Apart from cases where the rail line is elevated, with new stations it is far cheaper to build a bus interchange either on the surface next to  the station (cheaper), or elevated above the station (more expensive). There is no reason to build an underground bus interchange unless you want to completely waste tax-payers money.

[somebody]

Really? When 1.05 km of busway is being constructed at Buranda for $465 million dollars? Or when more money is being sunk into more and more buses? Or $777 million is being spent on the Northern Busway? Of course there is money going around, it's just not for rail.

Lobbying point here: I do not think it is helpful to our cause to be openly critical of spending on busses and busways.  The fact is that the gov't is far more pro-bus than pro-rail.  We will merely get them off side if we argue against buses.  Lobbying pro-rail frequency and even new lines is fine though.

(BTW, I'm not having a go at you TT.  It's a legitimate topic of discussion.)

But if you want to discuss bus vs rail, I would like to know where in the world a rail system meets its costs from fares outside Japan.  Moscow Metro maybe?  I'm pretty sure Curitiba & Bogota do meet their costs on their bus systems.

[#Metro]

Apart from cases where the rail line is elevated, with new stations it is far cheaper to build a bus interchange either on the surface next to  the station (cheaper), or elevated above the station (more expensive). There is no reason to build an underground bus interchange unless you want to completely waste tax-payers money.

I agree, it's surface for Indooroopilly then. Many of the Gold Coast stations have concourses below or underneath platform level.
If it were a bit wider, then maybe a bus-rail interchange would have worked.

While it might be cheaper for the government (the cheapest option is not to build any interchange at all, and impose the costs on commuters through the back door in the form of delays, parking difficulties and inconvenience), but this has to be weighed against passenger's time. Anything that makes the transfer easier should be looked at.

[#Metro]

Lobbying point here: I do not think it is helpful to our cause to be openly critical of spending on busses and busways.  The fact is that the gov't is far more pro-bus than pro-rail.  We will merely get them off side if we argue against buses.  Lobbying pro-rail frequency and even new lines is fine though.

(BTW, I'm not having a go at you TT.  It's a legitimate topic of discussion.)

But if you want to discuss bus vs rail, I would like to know where in the world a rail system meets its costs from fares outside Japan.  Moscow Metro maybe?  I'm pretty sure Curitiba & Bogota do meet their costs on their bus systems.

My posts are my own personal commuter view and not RailBOT's. I'm sorry, but the unit costs of these more recent busways are astronomical, probably more or similar to heavy rail, for something that has less capacity and development opportunity than heavy rail does, or even light rail in the medians of roads.

Why are they so expensive?

Cost is only one (but an important) dimension of providing public transport, most public transport operations do not make money, although in decades past before car became king many of them ran at a surplus. We already have a very good SEQ-wide rail network which stretches from Varsity Lakes to Gympie North and west to Rosewood.

(BTW, I'm not having a go at you TT.  It's a legitimate topic of discussion.)

This is fine  

[somebody]

I think the Boggo Rd busway made sense.  Now, the 139/169 do not need to do a ridiculous loop up to the Annerley Rd portal then come down.  I'm less comfortable with the Eastern Busway though, even though the 200/204 run through there at a pretty high frequency.

[stephenk]

I'm sorry, but the unit costs of these more recent busways are astronomical, probably more or similar to heavy rail, for something that has less capacity and development opportunity than heavy rail does, or even light rail in the medians of roads.

I think that is a very sweeping (and probably false) statement given that there hasn't been much heavy rail infrastructure in new PT corridors for many years.

Most of the recent busway construction has been on already developed or brown-field sites which significantly adds to construction costs. Also, the busways (and LRT) can be built with sharper curves and steeper gradients than heavy rail, which puts comparative costings in favour of busways (and LRT). Constructing heavy rail along some of the busway alignments would be much harder, with alignment alterations resulting in more expensive construction techniques such as tunnelling.

[#Metro]

http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Projects/CompletedProjects/NewMetroRailProject/tabid/77/Default.aspx

* $1.66 billion dollars, doubling Perth rail network,
* 72 km of double track, 11 stations
* 774 metres of twin bored tunnel under the Perth CBD
* 20 Bridges and structures

Unit cost: ~ 23 million/km

Mandurah Line
Trains every 15 minutes in the off peak, every 10 minutes in the peak
Trains every 15 minutes on Sunday until 8pm

[Jonno]

If I look at successful rail/metro, tram/bus integrated networks overseas (the usual candidates of  Berlin, Zurick, Vienna, Prauge) the rail-bus/tram connections are not built as "interchanges" rather the bus/tram routes run along major routes that run across/between the tain/metros lines.  The services of both bus/tram and train/metro are very frequent (which we all know is the key) and one just jumps off the train/metro and walks to a bus/tram stop outside the station.  They are not feeder services rather routes that interconnect the transit routes with more local service.   The large 'interchange' stops such as Kepperra and the like create an unattractive, non-pedestrianfriendly, over-engineered  environment. 

Our city roads are fairly easy to navigate along and we need to have bus routes that just run along these roads so that you know you can jump on and off services to make your way across or around town.  The routes need to stick to the major roads and make a network of lines.  So my answer to the question is where ever a major or through road passes a station we have a interchange.

[stephenk]

http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Projects/CompletedProjects/NewMetroRailProject/tabid/77/Default.aspx

* $1.66 billion dollars, doubling Perth rail network,
* 72 km of double track, 11 stations
* 774 metres of twin bored tunnel under the Perth CBD
* 20 Bridges and structures

Unit cost: ~ 23 million/km

Mandurah Line
Trains every 15 minutes in the off peak, every 10 minutes in the peak
Trains every 15 minutes on Sunday until 8pm

Comparing the constructions costs of a railway mainly built in either a motorway reservation or in rural green-field sites, with a busway mainly built through previously developed urban land with multiple tunnels and elevated structures is a rather pointless exercise.

Just to show the difference in cost depending on construction techniques, Epping-Chatswood has been estimated at approx $177m/km.
http://melbpt.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/issues-with-epping-chatswood-in-my-recent-rail-construction-costs-post/

[#Metro]

Just to show the difference in cost depending on construction techniques, Epping-Chatswood has been estimated at approx $177m/km.
http://melbpt.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/issues-with-epping-chatswood-in-my-recent-rail-construction-costs-post/

But your example, even it is still comparable to busway per km costs. And that link in unit costs is roughly 2x cheaper than the 1.05km link at Buranda. And that is a railway completely in a tunnel with steep gradient, 13 km and with three stations (North Ryde, Macquarie Pk and and Macquarie University).

The Perth line includes stations and 20 bridges/structures and an underground tunnel in the Perth CBD.

Let's look at the AirTrain. Elevated railway 8.5km cost $220 million to build.
Unit cost ~ 26 million/km in 2001, in $ 2009 this would be ~33 million/km.

Or Vancouver's (BC, Canada) automatic, driverless, elevated light metro system, the Evergreen Line. 11km for $1.4 billion (estimated) works out to be $127 million/km CAD (at today's exchange rates of 1 AUD = 0.91 CAD) this is about $140 million AUD per kilometre. And this is for a metro, which also can operate on small curves and steep grades.  (apparently TransLink Vancouver is also running operational surpluses too)

TransLink's SkyTrain system has drawn international attention because of its capacity – the current lines are the equivalent of ten lanes of roadway – its flexibility in terms of adjusting capacity to match demand, and its operating efficiencies.

SkyTrain is also one of the few systems anywhere to recover its operating costs at the fare box. And another advantage of SkyTrain is that it can operate at much higher speeds than the other systems.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Previous-Consultations/2010-10-Year-Plan/Background-Information/Accomplishments-and-Efficiencies.aspx

http://evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/facts.htm

All I'm trying to say is, IMHO it's really expensive for what we are getting- buses. If it were rail I would be more understanding. Busway costs were a side point, I was more arguing for more money for rail upgrades.  I'd like to see money for rail upgrades, more rollingstock, staff, interchanges, removing single track sections and more trains more often so that it can become the backbone.

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/advanced-rapid-transit?docID=0901260d8000a648