Brisbane Underground Metro System

[Golliwog]

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/B/Brisbane-inner-city-metro.aspx

Brisbane inner city metro
Overview: The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore.

Location: South east – Brisbane inner city

Benefits: What is metro?

A metro system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and high frequency services. It is usually separated from other traffic and is unchallenged in its ability to transport large amounts of people quickly over short distances — making it perfect for urban areas like Brisbane.

The first metro was the London underground, which opened in 1863. Now more than 160 cities have metro systems and 25 cities currently have metro systems under construction.



Project info
Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro.

The proposal to build underground rail under Brisbane city over the next two decades would help south east Queensland cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

Comments? Do you think this will be a seperate metro system, or just another part of the current rail network? I'm hoping for the latter. I see no point in (at this stage at least) starting up a whole new network when the current rail network is underutilised.

[#Metro]

I'm coming around to this point of view. Why start buying more expensive infrastructure when the current one is poorly used?

Melbourne is not considering a metro. It has more people than Brisbane. They have a view to massively upgrade their rail network and move their tram system closer to light rail.  
Their vision is to run trains every 10 minutes all day.
Sydney has scrapped their metro. Same story. Rail upgrades, extensions, bus upgrades and major extension of the Light Rail System. And Sydney is double the density of Brisbane.
Perth, of all places in the country, effectively has a metro. Every 5-10 minutes in peak hour, every 15 minutes off peak. And unlike a metro, there are more seats!

I would like to see the costs of a metro vs an integrated package of:
1. A comprehensive inner city light rail network (either above or below ground or a mix of both), with a view to convert BUZ routes to LRT
2. Bus and rail upgrades and
3. The Cleveland-Newstead-Bulimba Rail tunnel which will finally correct the bent, windy, loopy indirect Cleveland line once and for all
4. Feeder buses to rail
5. Platform extensions to take 9 car trains
6. Signal upgrades to run trains at shorter headways

You can have all the infrastructure in the world, if you don't have the planning and co-ordination in place, like getting buses to train stations to meet trains, and so on, it just won't work.
The current infrastructure is grossly underutilised and has many bottlenecks in key places (single track sections and the like).

Fix the current system, and I might be swayed.

[#Metro]

The first metro was the London underground, which opened in 1863. Now more than 160 cities have metro systems and 25 cities currently have metro systems under construction.

Project info
Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

Sydney is double the density of Brisbane and has no metro.
Melbourne is also more dense and has no metro.

Hundreds and hundreds of cities worldwide have light rail and tram systems, the Gold Coast is getting it, and yet it seems a glaring omission that this option has no presence in any of their plans.
Light rail can also be put underground to run like trains. For the cost of a single metro line, we could have a comprehensive inner city LRT network.
http://www.lrta.org/world/worldind.html

[longboi]

Comments? Do you think this will be a seperate metro system, or just another part of the current rail network? I'm hoping for the latter. I see no point in (at this stage at least) starting up a whole new network when the current rail network is underutilised.

The plan has always been for it to be a separate system. I don't see how it is any different from the LR on the Gold Coast. If there are good interchange opportunities with buses and QR services, what difference does it make whether or not it is actually operated by QR?

[ozbob]

I doubt if we will ever see a true metro in any Australian city, least of all Brisbane.  I can see a light rail network (or equivalent) being rolled out instead.  A catalyst will be the light rail on the Gold Coast.  Folks will see what a excellent people mover light rail is.

Progressive extensions to the present heavy rail network, augmented by bus rapid transit, bus feeder network and a modern surface light rail network in inner metro regions will be the go IMHO.

[colinw]

I very much doubt we'll see any form of light rail in Brisbane while the current member for South Brisbane is the Premier.  She was on the record as opposing light rail through West End when Borbidge's 1997 BrizTram proposal was being planned, and likewise was not particularly supportive of Beattie's "Brisbane Light Rail" project.

More recently, Beattie proposed light rail for inner Brisbane in 2007, including conversion of the busways. When Bligh became premier these plans were quickly dropped.

Beattie's 1997 "return of trams" proposal :- click here.

Bligh dumps the plan :- click here.

There will be no light rail under Bligh.

[#Metro]

"Employment in the same area will double from 200,000 to 400,000 - double the number of people trying to get into the CBD just to get to work," she said.

This justification is completely undermined-- Perth, Melbourne, Sydney as said above.

In April last year, ARUP Global Rail director Colin Stewart told a Brisbane business forum that a "very frequent" underground light rail project was essential to tackle Brisbane's congestion.

Interesting but surface might be just as good. Brisbane seems to have a very negative attitude towards anything that might take a lane from a car.

A ball park cost for Metro is 200 million/km. A ballpark light rail (surface) cost/km might be $50 million.
So you can get 4x more route, and therefore coverage, than a metro system.

Metro: 800 pax x 30 trains/hour x 1 route = 24 000 pax/hour
LRT: 300 pax x 30 LRTs/hour x 4 routes = 36 000 pax/hour

Don't worry, Its a hunch of mine, but I don't think the current state premier will be returned come next election.
I also think the lord mayor will also find it much more difficult -- certainly after this "a car tunnel everywhere will save us" business.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the link Colinw.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/trams-back-in-brisbane/story-e6freoof-1111113964875

City Hall estimates the light-rail system will cost $250 million but Mr Beattie said the total figure would not be known until the route was chosen.

The light-rail network – likely to be the biggest in Australia after Melbourne – will link South Brisbane to New Farm and possibly Bowen Hills.

It could be extended because Brisbane's Southeast Busway, the under-construction Inner Northern Busway and the Eleanor Schonell Bridge, linking Dutton Park to St Lucia, can all take light rail.

So that $465 million 1km of Eastern Busway at Buranda could have wired up Brisbane with LRT twice over...

[colinw]

Indeed.  The 10 years since the scrapping of Brisbane Light Rail mark a decade of waste & lost opportunity, where the cost of doing something has increased many times over.  The original 1997 - 2000 proposal would have had light rail from Woolloongabba & West End through the CBD to the Valley & New Farm, with spurs to Roma St and QUT Gardens Point, for under $250 million estimated cost at the time.  The 1997 proposal included a light rail bridge from West End to UQ .

My own opinion is that light rail, combined with high frequency service on an upgraded & expanded CityTrain, is the way to go.

[ozbob]

Sydney light rail


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Metro_Light_Rail,_Hay_Street,_Sydney.jpg

Adelaide light rail


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Adelaide_Flexity.jpg/240px-Adelaide_Flexity.jpg


Melbourne light rail


http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/mel-lrt-vermont-st-ext-medres-20050723br_mal-rowe.jpg

Brisbane light rail -  Only a matter of time ...



For interest:  Brisbanetimes --> Light rail for Brisbane's CBD? July 18, 2007

[#Metro]

 

Brisbane Light Rail


Photo: Tony Moore, Brisbanetimes
http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/07/29/1723617/420tramlines-420x0.jpg

(still waiting for tram since 1969...)

[ozbob]

And a few more ..

Some photographs of the tram tracks still visible on Old Cleveland Road Carina.  These will go when the Eastern Busway is constructed.









Photographs R Dow 17th October 2009

[ButFli]

I don't agree with the whole "Sydney and Melbourne don't have it so Brisbane doesn't need it" line of thought. Sydney and Melbourne are being crushed by traffic congestion! Brisbane doesn't need to constantly play catch up with these two cities. We can lead the way for once!

If it was a game of football everyone would say that Brisbane could smash Sydney or Melbourne. Why not the same with infrastructure projects?

[Golliwog]

So if this was to go ahead (as metro or light rail) would you still be building the 2nd CRR tunnel seeing as it seems to be following the same route (the preferred one anyway)?

I don't agree with the whole "Sydney and Melbourne don't have it so Brisbane doesn't need it" line of thought. Sydney and Melbourne are being crushed by traffic congestion! Brisbane doesn't need to constantly play catch up with these two cities. We can lead the way for once!

If it was a game of football everyone would say that Brisbane could smash Sydney or Melbourne. Why not the same with infrastructure projects?

I suppose it depends on what you define as a "metro". Is it just having trains come at a high frequency? Do the trains have to have a certain look? Does it have to be heavy rail or light rail? Can the current rail network be upgraded to be a "metro" in the inner city areas, or do we need to build a seperate metro network?

[ozbob]

Nice to think a metro might be an option down the track.  The fact is, metro pie in the sky will be an excuse to do nothing.  Australian cities don't have the critical mass for metros IMHO, if they did metros would have been in place already.  Proper surface light rail (or the equivalent) is more than adequate, plus the planned extensions for the heavy rail network CRR phase two etc. Automated light rail systems are far more likely IMHO than metros.  Sydney killed its tram system as did Brisbane.  Melbourne's trams survived and it is now evolving into the worlds best tram/light rail system.  Sydney is starting to rebuild a light rail network.  Adelaide is well placed now to expand its network.  Brisbane had a good plan.  Who knows what is around the corner?

Metro:  my understanding is a grade separated railway, usually underground, electric, distinct network for mass transit in cities. Frequent services, high capacity rail vehicles, close station spacing.  More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane all have underground heavy rail.  Heavy rail can be 'metro like' but is not a pure metro.

[#Metro]

I don't agree with the whole "Sydney and Melbourne don't have it so Brisbane doesn't need it" line of thought. Sydney and Melbourne are being crushed by traffic congestion! Brisbane doesn't need to constantly play catch up with these two cities. We can lead the way for once!

If it was a game of football everyone would say that Brisbane could smash Sydney or Melbourne. Why not the same with infrastructure projects?

I don't agree with the premise used to justify having a metro. Yes there is a problem, but there are many ways to solve it- the correct solution must be picked. My gripe was that the density/more people argument just does not wash. Unfortunately, every problem is seen as a engineering and technical problem, and the biggest, most expensive solution takes precedence over simpler, cheaper, faster solutions like feeder buses to rail stations, trams or busway upgrades. If this problem is so bad, why are LRT or busway conversion/upgrades not also on the menu?

We have a railway system that is incapacitated/disabled in key parts. Rather than fix this up (a huge cost in itself), the solution is "let's just build a brand new system" at astronomical cost, that will further compete with funds that could be used on the QR Citytrain network.

Fixing up QR Citytrain will impact the whole of SEQ. Building a metro will benefit people in a select inner city area.
Even an inner city LRT network would have more coverage.

A metro, by itself, will not solve our traffic problems. LA has a metro, and 91% of the people there drive to work.
Their mode share is extremely poor. Even Brisbane is doing better in this regard. The key is co-ordination of rail with buses all over SEQ that can serve the low density areas and trams that can penetrate into the suburbs. Why are planning solutions like feeder buses to rail ignored in favour of engineering megaprojects?  

For this metro to work, it has to connect to something. What is that something? Is it buses in the inner city? Will buses terminate at Toowong to feed the metro? Are we expecting people to change to metro at Cannon Hill and Toowong rail stations?

[Emmie]

I can't see the point of a metro reaching Toowong, and not going on to University of Queensland. Why duplicate the heavy rail system that already exists to Toowong, then expect people to switch to a bus for the rest of the journey. Last Friday afternoon, buses from UQ were taking an hour to reach Toowong!  No doubt there are similar examples elsewhere in this proposed metro system. Daft, IMHO. 

[#Metro]

Does Zurich have a metro? IIRC they don't.
I hope that, unless this is intended as a trunk for feeder buses, that the patronage on it is new passengers rather than previous bus and train riders.

[mufreight]

What Metro? None officially proposed and no funds to build one anyway, another one for the fantasy file for the next 30 years, lets fix what we have at present and use Bertie bus to fill in the gaps.

[colinw]

No, there is an official proposal. Bizarre as it seems, this isn't a fantasy idea off the forum. Read the original post, it comes from a serious proposal on the QLD Department of Transport & Main Roads website.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/B/Brisbane-inner-city-metro.aspx

So if anyone is foaming, it is the Government itself!

The comparison with LA that tramtrain made is, in my opinion, not valid.  Most of the so called "Metro rail" system in LA is actually conventional light rail.  The only part of it that is metro is the Red/Purple lines, which traverse a part of LA which is very high density and has a lower than average rate of car ownership.  The rest of the LA "Metro" is LRT (Blue, Green, Yellow lines, Expo line under construction).  The Orange line is a busway.

I've ridden the system in LA. My impressions - while the Long Beach blue line is technically LRT, in reality is actually a fairly normal electric suburban rail service with comparable station spacing, speed & length of line to something like the Ipswich line, but with a couple of short on street sections.  Green line is entirely in freeway median, and joins nowhere to nowhere, managing to both stop short of LAX at one end, and stop short of interchanging with the MetroLink heavy rail at the other end.  Red line is a true metro, but is a tiny system.  The Yellow wasn't open yet when I was last in LA, but I understand it to be LRT built on an old freight alignment.  Most of LA's rail transit is LRT on reconstructed Pacific Electric & ATSF alignments.

cheers,
Colin

[Golliwog]

What confused me though is that the metro proposal follows the route of the preferred 2nd CRR tunnel, so either they're relabeling it as a metro, duplicating the Newstead to Toowong section, or proposing to not build the 2nd CRR tunnel and build this instead.

[longboi]

What confused me though is that the metro proposal follows the route of the preferred 2nd CRR tunnel, so either they're relabeling it as a metro, duplicating the Newstead to Toowong section, or proposing to not build the 2nd CRR tunnel and build this instead.

That second CRR tunnel was and still is tentatively the metro proposal. It was just lumped in together as 'stage 2' of CRR.

I think I've mentioned this before.

[somebody]

That means that it doesn't increase capacity for trains from Ipswich & Springfield, doesn't it?

[Golliwog]

No, if this is just a re-naming of the 2nd stage of CRR, then it still would. The map on the website did show it continuing past Toowong but didn't show it connecting to anything. Although interestingly enough they don't have it connecting to the main northern line, its either terminating at Newstead of continuing on to Bulimba (don't tell TT ) or Hamilton North Shore.

[#Metro]

its either terminating at Newstead of continuing on to Bulimba (don't tell TT Tongue) or Hamilton North Shore.

Aarrgh!!!!

Newstead-Bulimba-Cleveland now! Save 15 minutes off Cleveland line travel and speed up travel at all stations from Cannon Hill to Cleveland. Why re-invent the wheel???

[mufreight]

So if they build this now they do not have the cash to build the CRR that will potentially carry about five times as many passengers, not that is in keeping with the priorities of the so called Smart state.

[#Metro]

Mufreight, if they are proposing to put a metro tunnel here at a cost of $200/million km ballpark or so,
I would like to see it weighed against the alternative to be the Newstead-Bulimba-Cleveland line.

Yes there is a permanent shortage of money, there always has and there always will.
This is no different to any other project, even CRR will have to find funds somewhere and so will the Gold Coast Light Rail extensions.
It also hasn't stopped the government from spending money on $465 million dollar 1km busways.

This has not however stopped the discussion about what things can be done.
Assuming that something is going to get built and funded for this metro idea, it wouldn't hurt to discuss alternatives.

[Golliwog]

mufreight, it you actually read the Department of Transport and Main Road's page on the project (or even what is quoted in the OP) it clearly says this is the highest priority after CRR. They know what the priority is.

[somebody]

mufreight, it you actually read the Department of Transport and Main Road's page on the project (or even what is quoted in the OP) it clearly says this is the highest priority after CRR. They know what the priority is.

It's not clear that is referring to CRR1 + CRR2.  It may be CRR1 only.  I still think the last thing we need is two types of rail networks.

[Golliwog]

mufreight, it you actually read the Department of Transport and Main Road's page on the project (or even what is quoted in the OP) it clearly says this is the highest priority after CRR. They know what the priority is.

It's not clear that is referring to CRR1 + CRR2.  It may be CRR1 only.  I still think the last thing we need is two types of rail networks.

nikko was saying this IS the second CRR. It certainly has the same route through the CBD, but theres no connection to the north (or at least none marked).

[somebody]

Well, at least they are trying to think of something better than CRR2!  I don't think this is it though.

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter has spoken
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/08/cross-river-rail-2-vs-brisbane-inner.html

The photo is from Prague Metro.

[colinw]

BrizCommuter, good piece.  I like your reasoning. 

[ozbob]

From the South East Advertiser 29th September 2010 page 9

Subway queries
Bulimba Halt: Lobby group has doubts on the viability of the proposed rail system

Subway queries
Bulimba Halt: Lobby group has doubts on the viability of the proposed rail system
Alex Strachan

A PUBLIC transport advocacy group has questioned the viability of a proposed subway system which would include a station at Bulimba.

Premier Anna Bligh announced an 8km subway from Toowong to Newstead as part of the $123 billion Connecting SEQ 2031 plan. Due to its proximity to the CBD, Bulimba was flagged as a possible "longer term" extension to the subway network under the 20-year transport plan.

Rail Back on Track's Robert Dow backed the plan but had doubts about the proposed subway system. "Having a separate metro system for Brisbane is just not achievable," he said. "It would involve using a completely different rail system and would cost in the many billions of dollars."

Mr Dow said a tunnelled extension to Bulimba off the existing Cleveland heavy rail line could be an option, but he backed surface light rail as the best solution for inner suburbs without major public transport links.

He pointed to the existing light rail system in Melbourne and soon to be completed system on the Gold Coast as prime examples of how it could work.

"When people see the light rail system on the Gold Coast in operation, they'll twig to what a great idea it is."

[#Metro]

CBD Metro will run almost empty
http://www.smh.com.au/national/cbd-metro-will-run-almost-empty-20090503-argd.html?page=-1

THE CBD Metro will run as much as 87 per cent empty during the height of the morning rush hour when it opens in 2015, the Transport Minister, David Campbell, has conceded.

Although the $5.3 billion metro between Central Station and Rozelle will have a capacity of 30,000 passengers an hour, as few as 4000 to 5500 passengers will use it, the Government estimates.

That means the equivalent of 26 of the 30 trains running each hour in the peak will be empty. Off-peak passenger loads are likely to be half again.

The alternative rail plan, pledged by the former premier Bob Carr in 2005, included a second CityRail line through the city between Redfern and Chatswood at a similar cost, but which would have carried 16,000 passengers an hour - four times as many as the proposed metro.

The projected patronage is so low that Sydney Metro Authority officials are considering extending the CBD Metro from Central to Broadway and Camperdown, where Parramatta Road buses could be forced to terminate, to boost passenger numbers.

I can see why they want a metro, but unless it is linked to a Toronto-style bus interchange system, on its own a metro will be too short to get good patronage. I suspect that the same is true for Brisbane...

[ozbob]

The surface rail network is defined and is unlikely to get CRR for a while.  There will be improvements, track amplifications and so forth.

To clarify, CRR is needed and is the priority.  This is just looking ahead after CRR etc.

So been thinking that a more probable longer term scenario will be a true metro  - no doubt state of the art and automated.

[ Metro:  passenger transport system in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency, and grade separation from other traffic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit ]

First line.

1.  Indooroopilly, St Lucia, Park Road, Woolloongabba, Albert St, Eagle St, Valley,  Bowen Hills, Windsor, Lutchwyche.

Any ideas?

[ozbob]

Present thinking at TMR  ... 

Brisbane inner city metro 

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/B/Brisbane-inner-city-metro.aspx

[minbrisbane]

I always thought a line roughly E - W and N - S would be well received.


River Line:

Indooroopilly
St.  Lucia
West End
South Brisbane (Cultural Centre)
Woolloongabba
Hawthorne
Bulimba
Teneriffe
Newstead
Hamilton
Racecourse

North - South Line:

Sunnybank
Griffith University
Holland Park Village
Greenslopes Central
Stones Corner
PAH
Highgate Hill
South Brisbane (Cultural Centre)
Elizabeth Street
Central Station
RBH
Windsor
Lutwyche
Kedron
Chermside

[#Metro]

I am opposed to a metro on the following grounds:

1. We have huge public transport assets
2. Cost
3. Better use of funds on upgrading existing system
4. Duplication

The exception in Brisbane where a metro is feasible, apart from an upgrade to the QR rail network, is directly down the SE busway, and to a far lesser degree, the Nth Busway.

This would also force BT to transition to a terminate & transfer network.

[James]

I'm with Lapdog. To me, a metro would just end up being another version of the Cleveland Solution because people are too stupid to see the benefits of CRR. A metro should be well off the cards.

If there is to be a metro (there should only be one), it should go like this:
(Potential to extend westbound)
Indooroopilly
UQ Chancellors Place
West End
South Brisbane/South Bank (rail connection)
Riverside/Parliament Precincts (CRR connection)
New Farm
Teneriffe
Bulimba
Portside Hamilton
Doomben

Sending it through the same old core section is just useless duplication. The busways, even though they have lower capacities, should continue to be built (South-East to Loganholme, Eastern to Capalaba and Northern to a northern rail node at least) and then run artics or similar. A metro, if built, should follow a totally new alignment with high-density areas connecting to key nodes.