Brisbane Underground Metro System

[#Metro]

I would like to see conversion of the SEB to metro, a la vancouver skytrain, if feasible and affordable (probably not, lol):

1. Peak hour volumes approach lower bound of metro systems currently
2. Will force BT into a transfer model, cutting almost all buses to the southside off
3. More efficient in terms of labour / passenger ratio (automated = no drivers)

I think the other parts of Brisbane need high frequency buses, not more concrete. Access to UQ with a metro would simply consist of catching a metro down the SEB and then getting a connecting bus at Buranda to UQ Lakes. And there would only be 1 bus route to do that.

[Golliwog]

I think any talk of metro networks is ignoring what we really need right now: a real review of the bus AND rail network combined.

However it's also folly to just focus on what we need in the short term and medium term (CRR), but also looking to thelong term. Thats where a metro should fit and while it should be planned for and around, there shouldn't be any serious consideration of building it ahead of CRR or fixing up other bottlenecks on the public transport network.

[ozbob]

Settle petals.  This is looking way ahead. Something even TMR is doing.

As infrastructure projects are developed it is prudent to at least factor in the need of a true metro sometime in the future.  This helps ensure that it will be achievable without massive infrastructure dislocations etc.

No one is suggesting that we drop everything and shoot for a metro.

This is is just a big picture discussion on what might be options in many years.

If you have suggestions as to line routes please do.  Moaning in this thread is not encouraged thanks.

[ozbob]

I think any talk of metro networks is ignoring what we really need right now: a real review of the bus AND rail network combined.

However it's also folly to just focus on what we need in the short term and medium term (CRR), but also looking to thelong term. Thats where a metro should fit and while it should be planned for and around, there shouldn't be any serious consideration of building it ahead of CRR or fixing up other bottlenecks on the public transport network.

Exactly.  Haven't we just had a bus review?  LOL  Only in Queensland ....

It is good in my mind that the possibility of a metro down the track is acknowledged in the lofty towers of TMR, at least there could be some clear infrastructure paths underground left for that possibility in 2045 or whenever ..

[ozbob]

One of the major cost impacts and route restrictions for Cross River Rail is the difficulty of clear paths underneath Brisbane.  This was explained to me directly with discussions with CRR engineers.  It is good thing to start to think ahead.  There a many more high rise buildings being planned for Brisbane, with no doubt little awareness of future transport corridor requirements.

For once Queensland, be smart ..

[somebody]

The surface rail network is defined and is unlikely to get CRR.

Say what?  Far too early to be giving up on it, or giving up on lobbying for it.

I'd be much more comfortable if this thread had started with: "after CRR is delivered (assuming that it is), then what?"

I'm going to say the CRR is the priority over a Metro as the CRR enables greater uterlisation of the current network. Metro won't solve growth issues in the outer suburbs, ie how to you build the Greenbank line?

CRR also does increase network penetration slightly in a high density area.

+1

[ozbob]

Truth hurts.  No one is giving up on anything.

This is just thinking ahead ...

[ozbob]

The surface rail network is defined and is unlikely to get CRR.

Say what?  Far too early to be giving up on it, or giving up on lobbying for it.

I'd be much more comfortable if this thread had started with: "after CRR is delivered (assuming that it is), then what?"

I'm going to say the CRR is the priority over a Metro as the CRR enables greater uterlisation of the current network. Metro won't solve growth issues in the outer suburbs, ie how to you build the Greenbank line?

CRR also does increase network penetration slightly in a high density area.

+1

I have clarified the intent.  Was a bit grey, shades of grey perhaps?  LOL

Think about the possible routes. 

Brisbane is going to be a big place in 20 years ...

I don't think the busways as such will be converted to light rail, although I expect electric buses - artics and perhaps bi-artics might be used on a trunk and feeder network model.

[#Metro]

I would base any metro on a Toronto model rather than a high density walk up model.
The city is spread but the high volume corridors need not be.

If the lifetime of a busway is around 40 years, then a metro could be a viable replacement for it. Technology would also be significantly better and hopefully relatively cheaper as well. Think what technology was like in 1973 and compare that to today. It's much better. The busway will probably be well overcapacity by then also.

Metro is expensive, so I would be as sparing as possible. I would also make it fully automated to extreme frequencies could be achieved during peak hour. (90 seconds)

Stage 1: CBD to Springwood, Logan
Metro directly down the busway, force all southside buses to terminate at metro stations beyond Wooloongabba. This will immediately release huge volumes of buses to be reallocated to high frequency use in the suburbs and save massive operational costs.

Stage 2: CBD to Aspley
Metro directly down the busway, force all northside buses to terminate at metro stations beyond Newmarket Road, Windsor.
This will immediately release huge volumes of buses to be reallocated to high frequency use in the suburbs and save massive operational costs.

Stage 3: Carindale to Indooroopilly
Metro down the Eastern busway, stopping at Buranda (interchange), PA Hospital, tunnel under University of QLD, St Lucia, Indooroopilly Rail, Indooroopilly shopping centre. Force the majority of Eastern suburbs buses to terminate / intersect at the metro along the Old Cleveland Road alignment.

Stage 4: Centenary Extension
Metro along the Centenary highway, connecting to the Stage 3 line.

In this way, high frequency services (bus and train) can be radically expanded across almost the entire city and buses can do what they do best - vacuum up passengers from the suburbs and dump them into the rail system for ultra-efficient rapid transport to the CBD.

Being simple and sparing also means low maintenance costs.

[ozbob]

Yes, agree it really needs to be ' metro like ' in present mind frames,  although driver-less buses may be a possibility in time ...

[#Metro]

I did earlier explore this idea, not sure about going through the CBD now, sticking to the INB has merit also.
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.0

[#Metro]

Driverless buses are also a real possibility with refinement in GPS and sensors, it could be done. The technology is advancing at an amazing rate. No driver union to run anti-bus network reform campaigns then... lol.

What you would do is put magnets or RFID tags or beacons in the road surface in addition to GPS.


See

[ozbob]

The black line being a ' metro line ' ...

Wilbur Smith must be smiling too?   

[#Metro]

[ozbob]

Present thinking at TMR  ... 

Brisbane inner city metro 

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

The Queensland Government's initial proposal is

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.

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.

Map --> here!  External PDF

[ozbob]

MIC --> Shanghai To Introduce Driverless Magnetic-Powered Buses

[Golliwog]

One of the major cost impacts and route restrictions for Cross River Rail is the difficulty of clear paths underneath Brisbane.  This was explained to me directly with discussions with CRR engineers.  It is good thing to start to think ahead.  There a many more high rise buildings being planned for Brisbane, with no doubt little awareness of future transport corridor requirements.

For once Queensland, be smart ..

Yes, building pile layouts can be quite hectic at times. Though in most cases through the CBD you should be able to follow existing road corridors. The corners could be a bit tight and therefore slow, but if you have them directly approaching stations then the magnitude of that issue is lessened, though it would still be good to go under an adjacent building to get a bigger curve radius.

Depending on the building's underground structure, you could be able to modify it after construction, but anything of that nature is obviously going to be rather expensive, both $ and time.

I think any metro network should start with a good analysis of the existing road network and basically look for two things, bottlenecks and missing links.

[#Metro]

I don't agree with the alignment TMR proposes nor the underlying logic.

The number of workers will double, as will the trips, but this alone isn't a justification for the proposed solution as there are many potential solutions to choose from. I've seem trip figures as well elsewhere but they don't tell you that they added up car trips + walking trips + PT in the figure.

The key problem is that Brisbane is infrastructure rich but service poor. Brisbane has more train stations than the entire Toronto Transit Commission subway system, and on top of that it has busway stations as well. The problem is in the outer suburbs where frequencies on buses are low. The problem is on main corridors leading into the city where there are too many bus services exactly where they are not required.

Replacing key bus corridors within the inner 5 km radius with light rail is also likely to be cheaper, cover more area, have more lines, serve more people and be rolled out faster. Just look at Melbourne, trams do a fine job carrying patronage within that inner 5km radius. It's very comprehensive in the inner section and the volumes are approaching 200 million boardings; In the 1940s, tram patronage in Brisbane was around 160 million passengers per year.

[ozbob]

It is entirely possible LD, that once 'the great unwashed' of Brisbane observe the Gold Coast Light Rail in action, there might be a growing realisation that they have been dudded ...

[James]

I don't agree with the alignment TMR proposes nor the underlying logic.

The number of workers will double, as will the trips, but this alone isn't a justification for the proposed solution as there are many potential solutions to choose from. I've seem trip figures as well elsewhere but they don't tell you that they added up car trips + walking trips + PT in the figure.

The key problem is that Brisbane is infrastructure rich but service poor. Brisbane has more train stations than the entire Toronto Transit Commission subway system, and on top of that it has busway stations as well. The problem is in the outer suburbs where frequencies on buses are low. The problem is on main corridors leading into the city where there are too many bus services exactly where they are not required.

Replacing key bus corridors within the inner 5 km radius with light rail is also likely to be cheaper, cover more area, have more lines, serve more people and be rolled out faster. Just look at Melbourne, trams do a fine job carrying patronage within that inner 5km radius. It's very comprehensive in the inner section and the volumes are approaching 200 million boardings; In the 1940s, tram patronage in Brisbane was around 160 million passengers per year.

I disagree with you on the note that Brisbane has 'too much infrastructure'. Yes, there is infrastructure there, but stations mean nothing if the infrastructure is inferior and if it bypasses high-density corridors.

Yes, there is a case for increased frequency - primarily in the rail network. That's why I think a rail review + increased frequencies needed to go along with a bus review. For frequent CBD access, unless the bus route goes near the Darra - Northgate corridor (Ferny Grove doesn't cut it), the bus must go all the way to the CBD.

But in the high density inner suburbs, people use buses because there is no other transit option. As these areas become more developed, there will be an even higher demand for public transport - and there will be a point where the SE Busway will choke.

The reason we need a metro is:
1. West End/New Farm buses are SLOW.
A metro which takes no more than 5 minutes would be preferable to a bus which takes 5-10 minutes just to get out of Adelaide Street. It has already been demonstrated that there is very high demand for public transport to New Farm, and a metro does that.
2. UQ needs high-capacity transit access.
Within the next decade, buses are simply going to become a non-option for UQ access because of the huge passenger numbers. Buses already leave people behind on a frequent basis at Indooroopilly, Toowong and Park Road (along with intermediate stops). This deters usage especially for those at intermediate stops until such a time as all the Arts students stop attending Uni around Week 3.
3. Bulimba/Hamilton Northshore Access
These two areas have already shown how they have a high demand for PT. Given the nature of the river (especially Bulimba) and the state of the roads, a metro would be a real winner.

I don't completely agree with Light Rail solely because it can end up being just as slow as pre-existing bus services and doesn't give as much capacity as a metro. Remember, when you make PT similar in speed (or even faster) than travelling by car, it will cause people to desert their cars in droves.

I think the busway should be kept as-is for now. Longer term, I think a western or NW busway should be considered, pairing Carindale/Capalaba with the new NW busway. Only then convert to electric bi-artic buses, going:
NW Busway - Capalaba
Chermside - 8MP
With services to UQ as necessary during peak times.

[#Metro]

James,

Infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive. The entire Toronto Transit Commission subway system consists of just ~ 69 stations, there are 85 train stations on the QR network within the BCC area - more stations than Toronto, a city 3-4x the size of Brisbane. Then you have busways galore in Brisbane. If you want a domestic example, even Perth has less stations than what is in the BCC area with 70 stations on the TransPerth network, running identical trains as we do. Perth carries more passengers than the entire QR network does and why is that? Because they run trains more frequently and have buses feeding the network.

The key thing about Brisbane is service intensity. It is too low. The other thing is the bus network. We all have at length gone on about the state of the BT bus network.

The reason we need a metro is: 1. West End/New Farm buses are SLOW.

With the expense of a metro, you would barely be even able to afford coverage over anything but a short area. Why not put a peak hour bus lane in?

A metro which takes no more than 5 minutes would be preferable to a bus which takes 5-10 minutes just to get out of Adelaide Street. It has already been demonstrated that there is very high demand for public transport to New Farm, and a metro does that.

Within the inner city, yes there may well be a case on core sections.

2. UQ needs high-capacity transit access.
Within the next decade, buses are simply going to become a non-option for UQ access because of the huge passenger numbers. Buses already leave people behind on a frequent basis at Indooroopilly, Toowong and Park Road (along with intermediate stops). This deters usage especially for those at intermediate stops until such a time as all the Arts students stop attending Uni around Week 3.

There are single bus lines in Toronto, running on plain streets that take huge volumes - probably more than what goes to UQ in a day.
Proof:

25 Don Mills Bus - not running on a busway - 38,000 passengers / day
29 Dufferin Bus - not running on a busway - 39,700 passengers / day
32 Eglinton West bus - not running on a busway-  48,700 passengers / day

To put these numbers in perspective, the daily load on the SEB is 150 000 trips / day. These single bus lines in Toronto are doing 1/3 of the load running on surface streets. They are due to be upgraded with none other than Light Rail, a plan that defeated a metro proposal simply on the grounds of cost and coverage being better for LRT.

504 King and  508 Lake Shore   (tram - almost identical route) - 57,300 passengers / day

Reference: http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Transit_Planning/Surface_Ridership_2012.jsp

3. Bulimba/Hamilton Northshore Access
These two areas have already shown how they have a high demand for PT. Given the nature of the river (especially Bulimba) and the state of the roads, a metro would be a real winner.

It would come at huge cost and there are other corridors that have higher volume of passengers, for example the SEB corridor. By the time this metro is feasible, the SEB would be approaching the end of it's service life and would probably require replacement.

I don't completely agree with Light Rail solely because it can end up being just as slow as pre-existing bus services and doesn't give as much capacity as a metro. Remember, when you make PT similar in speed (or even faster) than travelling by car, it will cause people to desert their cars in droves.

Yes, but it will be so expensive it will be so short that it will barely be able to get anyone better off. The SEB already has the ROW acquired, so most of the cost is already paid for, and the alterations less expensive than starting from scratch.

[#Metro]

I would like to see what the cost would be to separate the lines in the network versus a new metro. It would be interesting.

[James]

Infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive. The entire Toronto Transit Commission subway system consists of just ~ 69 stations, there are 85 train stations on the QR network within the BCC area - more stations than Toronto, a city 3-4x the size of Brisbane. Then you have busways galore in Brisbane. If you want a domestic example, even Perth has less stations than what is in the BCC area with 70 stations on the TransPerth network, running identical trains as we do. Perth carries more passengers than the entire QR network does and why is that? Because they run trains more frequently and have buses feeding the network.

The key thing about Brisbane is service intensity. It is too low. The other thing is the bus network. We all have at length gone on about the state of the BT bus network.

I never said that frequency was a bad thing - in fact the Brisbane network could have more of it. We all know the BT network needs serious improvement. But the fact is, the train lines are in the wrong places - inner Ipswich line/Caboolture Line excluded. Cleveland line misses major trip generators (closest one is Cannon Hill), Beenleigh Line has too much light industry either side of it once you get past Yeerongpilly (and Dutton Park is awfully close to Park Road). All our major shopping centre 'hubs' are away from railway lines (aside from Indooroopilly and Toombul). Ferny Grove line is alright, but there are sections of it which aren't on the best alignment.

One of the advantages cities like Perth, Toronto and Vancouver have is they had to build their networks from scratch. Brisbane is stuck with railway lines which have poor alignments (think Beenleigh line) which are away from major trip generators and follow common CBD corridors. This is why we are finding ourselves having to put in more infrastructure.

With the expense of a metro, you would barely be even able to afford coverage over anything but a short area. Why not put a peak hour bus lane in?

A peak hour bus lane down roads which only have one lane going in each direction? I will let you figure out why that's a bad idea. Yes, PT is great, but car trips still need to be designed for.

There are single bus lines in Toronto, running on plain streets that take huge volumes - probably more than what goes to UQ in a day.
Proof:

25 Don Mills Bus - not running on a busway - 38,000 passengers / day
29 Dufferin Bus - not running on a busway - 39,700 passengers / day
32 Eglinton West bus - not running on a busway-  48,700 passengers / day

To put these numbers in perspective, the daily load on the SEB is 150 000 trips / day. These single bus lines in Toronto are doing 1/3 of the load running on surface streets. They are due to be upgraded with none other than Light Rail, a plan that defeated a metro proposal simply on the grounds of cost and coverage being better for LRT.

504 King and  508 Lake Shore   (tram - almost identical route) - 57,300 passengers / day

Reference: http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Transit_Planning/Surface_Ridership_2012.jsp

And I assume those roads are a traffic disaster a la Sir Fred Schonell Drive? Also, for 427/428/432, the road is one lane in each direction. Bus lanes are great, but they have a limit. SFSD can't be widened without property acquisitions, so if you installed a tidal flow system it could work (I think decreasing SFSD down to one general traffic lane would just cause rat running in the suburb).

It would come at huge cost and there are other corridors that have higher volume of passengers, for example the SEB corridor. By the time this metro is feasible, the SEB would be approaching the end of it's service life and would probably require replacement.

Yes, the SEB corridor already has the patronage, but we need to look at putting metros in NEW places. Expanding the network, not simply keeping with what we have now. The areas I have described are all along bus routes with very high patronage (412, 196, 199). 428 does very well, as does the 230/235. Most of the other high-patronage routes (I'm thinking the southside BUZ routes) either are good as is feeding the SE Busway or need a Mains Road railway line (this is the true reason why CRR is important).

Removing very high patronage routes like the 199 and replacing them with metros would allow for more buses to serve lower density communities and feed rail - where they are needed most. If an LRT corridor could be found which would serve the West End/New Farm area without making local access impossible, I would not be against that.

Yes, but it will be so expensive it will be so short that it will barely be able to get anyone better off. The SEB already has the ROW acquired, so most of the cost is already paid for, and the alterations less expensive than starting from scratch.

Expensive yes, but the benefit will be huge. Once we get CRR, a railway line should be down Mains Road (or similar) and decent frequency along both lines should be introduced. 130/140/150 can then be deleted and fed into rail, resulting in a suddenly half-full busway.

Remember, this metro is 30 years away, we aren't finalising a corridor now. I'm considering future prospects of where high patronage growth and high density communities will be.

[#Metro]

I never said that frequency was a bad thing - in fact the Brisbane network could have more of it. We all know the BT network needs serious improvement. But the fact is, the train lines are in the wrong places - inner Ipswich line/Caboolture Line excluded. Cleveland line misses major trip generators (closest one is Cannon Hill), Beenleigh Line has too much light industry either side of it once you get past Yeerongpilly (and Dutton Park is awfully close to Park Road). All our major shopping centre 'hubs' are away from railway lines (aside from Indooroopilly and Toombul). Ferny Grove line is alright, but there are sections of it which aren't on the best alignment.

Most people in Brisbane live near a train station and if there were decent frequency and fed by buses, far less of an issue. My point about Brisbane having more infrastructure than Perth or Toronto still stands. There are train stations and busways all over the BCC area.

One of the advantages cities like Perth, Toronto and Vancouver have is they had to build their networks from scratch. Brisbane is stuck with railway lines which have poor alignments (think Beenleigh line) which are away from major trip generators and follow common CBD corridors. This is why we are finding ourselves having to put in more infrastructure.

The premise is correct in my view but the conclusion is not. Much of the alignment proposed by TMR is not justified IMHO. Worse the money spent on metro is money not spent elsewhere on decent frequency, light rail etc. I also disagree about Perth. The Armadale line went in 1889, Fremantle line 1881, Midland line 1881.

If you look at the Ipswich line, the argument about trip generators is false. There you have a train line with a city at one end (Ipswich) two major centres (Indooroopilly & Toowong), a bus connection to UQ (it's not rail bus people transfer at two points so not bad), a hospital (Wesley) a corporate business district and stadium (Milton) and the city. You have the CBD on the rail network, you have Fortitude Valley smack bang on the rail network as well. And anywhere not on the rail network could conceivably be linked by feeder bus as they do in Melbourne and Perth.

A peak hour bus lane down roads which only have one lane going in each direction? I will let you figure out why that's a bad idea. Yes, PT is great, but car trips still need to be designed for.

Brunswick Street New Farm has two lanes along it. Not automatically a case for a metro, might be a case for Class A ROW. Just saying.

[#Metro]

And I assume those roads are a traffic disaster a la Sir Fred Schonell Drive? Also, for 427/428/432, the road is one lane in each direction. Bus lanes are great, but they have a limit. SFSD can't be widened without property acquisitions, so if you installed a tidal flow system it could work (I think decreasing SFSD down to one general traffic lane would just cause rat running in the suburb).

Run a bus between UQ Lakes and the metro on the SEB at Buranda. The number of students and staff at UQ is around 30 000 or so. Assuming 100% public transport mode share (absolute maximum) you would need two or three of those Toronto equivalent buses. Now we already have the busway at UQ lakes, the ferry etc. Sir Fred Schonell Drive is also a 2 lane road, except when approaching the roundabout near the campus entry where it merges.

An east west metro from Carindale over the Schonell Bridge, under UQ Campus and on to Indooroopilly is something that might be entertained as a cross town thing, but I would not support yet another radial line from the CBD to UQ Lakes.

[#Metro]

Yes, the SEB corridor already has the patronage, but we need to look at putting metros in NEW places. Expanding the network, not simply keeping with what we have now. The areas I have described are all along bus routes with very high patronage (412, 196, 199). 428 does very well, as does the 230/235. Most of the other high-patronage routes (I'm thinking the southside BUZ routes) either are good as is feeding the SE Busway or need a Mains Road railway line (this is the true reason why CRR is important).

If you want an expanded network, with the greatest coverage of high frequency services, the metro is the worst way to go about doing that. The lesson in Toronto over the last year or two with mayor Rob Ford scrapping a Light Rail plan, putting in a metro plan, then running out of cash for it, and then the city having to force a retreat back to Light Rail shows that you can get more coverage for the same cost.

It is simple economics: the more expensive something is, the less of that something you will have. Also, it presumes that the problem is not enough infrastructure, and I would argue that the problem is actually poor network design, a recalcitrant Brisbane City Council with it's government monopoly control over the city bus network and poor service intensity on the current rail network that is really the key problem.

Removing very high patronage routes like the 199 and replacing them with metros would allow for more buses to serve lower density communities and feed rail - where they are needed most. If an LRT corridor could be found which would serve the West End/New Farm area without making local access impossible, I would not be against that.

I just want you to consider the construction costs being 3x to 4x greater for metro than for LRT.

Expensive yes, but the benefit will be huge. Once we get CRR, a railway line should be down Mains Road (or similar) and decent frequency along both lines should be introduced. 130/140/150 can then be deleted and fed into rail, resulting in a suddenly half-full busway.

Remember, this metro is 30 years away, we aren't finalising a corridor now. I'm considering future prospects of where high patronage growth and high density communities will be.

I'm just saying that given the busway reaches 12 000 pphd - 18 000 pphd in the mornings already, and that massive depopulation near the busway over the next 30 years seems unlikely, plus the fact that the busway will be near the end of it's economic life as well, makes it the first consideration for any metro. Of course Brisbane City Council and Brisbane Transport will be scathing at this as replacing the SEB with rail would directly threaten it's bus business.

Approximately 70 % or so of people using the busway DO NOT live near busway stations. They are brought to the system using the buses running in suburban streets away from the busway. I can see no reason why this can't be achieved on the rail system also, using buses to feed trains, even if the alignment does not go in an exactly optimal way.

There seems to be a philosophy that having lots and lots of train stations absolutely everywhere is the answer - if public transport is not working, just put train stations on every street corner like Paris. In the long run these good intentions could do more damage to public transport simply due to high maintenance and high cost of infrastructure detracting away from what really matters: speed, frequency, span, ticket costs, integration. The key thing about Canadian Cities is that by keeping the network small and simple, it can be worked intensely and also hugely expensive maintenance costs can be kept right down.

[#Metro]

http://www.humantransit.org/2012/01/toronto-earth-to-mayor-subways-are-expensive.html

Bottom line:  Going underground is expensive, so we do it only when we really need to!  Responsible planning fights hard for space on the surface -- especially in space-rich low-density suburbs -- before sacrificing millions just to get transit "out of the way" of cars.

[HappyTrainGuy]

James,

Infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive. The entire Toronto Transit Commission subway system consists of just ~ 69 stations, there are 85 train stations on the QR network within the BCC area - more stations than Toronto, a city 3-4x the size of Brisbane. Then you have busways galore in Brisbane. If you want a domestic example, even Perth has less stations than what is in the BCC area with 70 stations on the TransPerth network, running identical trains as we do. Perth carries more passengers than the entire QR network does and why is that? Because they run trains more frequently and have buses feeding the network.

The key thing about Brisbane is service intensity. It is too low. The other thing is the bus network. We all have at length gone on about the state of the BT bus network

Already to some extent the the walk up patronage to trains is pretty much at its limit on the Caboolture line due to the well sh%thouse PT feeder networks and the poor infrastructure surrounding stations (lighting, pathways etc). Even with doubling the frequency the expected patronage would be minimal to "its alright... it could also be alot f*****g better" at best. Park and Rides are pretty much at capacity with the morning workers. In peak hour buses can be hourly. Off peak buses are hourly or worse. Bus span of hours are just dreadful with most services terminating with the 6pm train from the city eg My Beloved 338 departs for its final service from Strathpine before 5.30pm. Take the new Narangba station upgrade. Its fine in itself but when you consider most of the properties and housing estates are 1km minimum up a hill up the road with the last bus being a request only service (no one boards at the station so the bus heads back to the depot which also sucks if you want to use that same bus to get to the station) and that's just after 7pm IIRC - the translink review recommended that they become part of the full time schedule which is very good news but the span still needs to be worked on. Geebung is a mess when it comes to getting bus access there with duplication and poor timetabling - running the 327 past the exact same time that both the inbound and outbound train arrives so no one makes the transfer to either service. Carseldine is almost as bad. Zillmere has the buz and access problem ie why spend 6 minutes walking from the north to the platform up the flights of stairs and then down to the platform when the bus will get you to the city in about the same transit time/sometimes longer. Bald Hills doesn't have a feeder service despite the close proximity of the 327 (only runs one direction during peak hour), 338 (during private school terms only in the afternoon IIRC ) and 680. Strathpine has the 338 and the local feeder service but Strathpine isn't the interchange station for the area. Bray Park is the actual interchange for all the services bound for Lawnton, Strathpine, Warner, Joyner, Bray Park etc. Lawnton has close proximity to its interchanges with trains going in both directions arriving at the same time but it too lacks frequency. Petrie is just a real problem with multiple outbound trains arriving there during peak hour only to have the poor feeder network struggling to cope with the passengers which is easily seen with the 680 leaving people behind. Then there's the safety directly surrounding the stations which will limit anyone walking to/from the station during dusk or the night. The houses at Dakabin aren't that far away but walking between unlit school grounds and unlit sporting ovals with minimal lighting for the parking areas and then along a unlit path through a wooded area to the station. And just the other week a woman was raped walking home from Carseldine railway station at 5.30-6pm.

If trains had their frequency doubled for it to really pay off there would need to be more frequent feeder buses, feeder buses that aren't afraid of running in the dark, better interchange between the trains and buses (Strathpine-Caboolture are well timed but its just the BT routes that suck at that - 327 problems ) and better lighting surrounding the stations so people feel comfortable walking to and from the station. That applies to both BT and private operators. Such a pitty that the Translink network review was scrapped for the northside. The northside feeder network and just overall a revolutionary step forward in having a world class pt network. Looks like we'll be stuck in the 1900's that little bit longer then.

Oh and FYI LP, there's something like 8000 bus stops in the Brisbane area alone - many of which see 1 bus every 60 to 90 minutes.... or even not at all

[Old Northern Road]

Most people in Brisbane live near a train station and if there were decent frequency and fed by buses, far less of an issue. My point about Brisbane having more infrastructure than Perth or Toronto still stands. There are train stations and busways all over the BCC area.

Most people in Brisbane do not live near a train station at all. Nearly all of the major trip generators outside of the CBD aren't served by rail (UQ, RBH, Chermside, Carindale, Garden City). Nearly all of the most densely populated suburbs in Brisbane aren't served by rail. (Funnily enough one of the few densely populated suburbs that does have a train station is Clayfield). Most of Brisbane's rail network was built for freight.

And Brisbane doesn't have anywhere near the rail infrastructure that Toronto has. Toronto has a Subway system (currently 69 stations - soon to be 75), GO Trains (63 stations) and a Streetcar network (over 100 stations). I pretty sure they have some form of BRT as well.

The premise is correct in my view but the conclusion is not. Much of the alignment proposed by TMR is not justified IMHO. Worse the money spent on metro is money not spent elsewhere on decent frequency, light rail etc. I also disagree about Perth. The Armadale line went in 1889, Fremantle line 1881, Midland line 1881.

The Armadale, Fremantle and Midland lines only make up a small fraction of the total patronage of Perth's rail network (all three get roughly the same patronage as the Ferny Grove line despite having more frequent services). In fact the patronage of Perth's rail network would probably be lower than Adelaide's if it only consisted of the Armadale, Midland and Fremantle lines.

[Old Northern Road]

I know a few Canadian's and they are a bit shocked when you mention the operating subsidy of Australian suburban rail. They believe cost wise it should pay for its day to day operating cost or come alot closer which is what happens in many parts of Canada surburban systems. I think you would find that if Brisbane was in Canada, much of the outer network would have been closed down in 60's and 70's, ie continuation of Joe's ask to CL line. If we copied models from Canada there probably wouldn't be a train past the inner core network. Doomben would be gone and duplication of the outer core network like FG sections wouldn't even be discussed and simply wouldn't happen.

Vancouver operates 1 HR commuter line and thats peak flow and direction only on a single track freight line, its operating subsidy is very low (there used to be graph on their website). The Skyrail was built because while Vancouver left space for freeways, they never had the money to build them and it was cheaper to build skyrail using mostly available redudent heavy rail corridores and then expanded as part of Expo and winter Olympics etc and cultural change that they were now never to go down the freeway model. However Vancouver terrain and layout wise is alot easier to service than Brisbane.

Wasn't there a plan in the early 70's to shut down the entire network except the bit between Darra and Zillmere?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Nuuuuuuuuuuup.

But as ONR said. If you go around other rail networks there are big trip generators directly surrounding their stations - not every station but enough to draw patronage. Much of our network consists of suburbia and industrial areas away from points of interest. This would have been a result of Brisbanes bus and tram network directly competing against the railways and centralizing the CBD/key corridors and locations. Coverage wise Brisbane still a very very very small city.

[#Metro]

Most people in Brisbane do not live near a train station at all. Nearly all of the major trip generators outside of the CBD aren't served by rail (UQ, RBH, Chermside, Carindale, Garden City). Nearly all of the most densely populated suburbs in Brisbane aren't served by rail. (Funnily enough one of the few densely populated suburbs that does have a train station is Clayfield). Most of Brisbane's rail network was built for freight.

Most are within 5 km of a station, the minimum for a decent bus service to connect to. Most in Toronto don't have rail anywhere near them. Toronto uses buses feeding people to rail to achieve maximum coverage. Similar philosophy in Perth. A metro is so expensive that you could not hope to reach any significant portion of Brisbane with it. Why build a metro to Australia Tradecoast/Hamilton when there is already a rail alignment there that could be extended? Or run a BUZ connecting to rail?

And Brisbane doesn't have anywhere near the rail infrastructure that Toronto has. Toronto has a Subway system (currently 69 stations - soon to be 75), GO Trains (63 stations) and a Streetcar network (over 100 stations). I pretty sure they have some form of BRT as well.

Brisbane runs significantly more bus routes than Toronto (even if you thrown in streetcars), Go Trains are long distance services that don't generally stop within the TTC area and are generally peak commuter rail. There are 85 train stations within the BCC area. Then there are a whole heap of busway stations that are Class A ROW.

We have HEAPS of infrastructure. The issue is service intensity and non-walk up access.

The Armadale, Fremantle and Midland lines only make up a small fraction of the total patronage of Perth's rail network (all three get roughly the same patronage as the Ferny Grove line despite having more frequent services). In fact the patronage of Perth's rail network would probably be lower than Adelaide's if it only consisted of the Armadale, Midland and Fremantle lines.

Armadale + Fremantle + Midland make up ~ 40% of Transperth rail patronage, and would be around 2x of what Adelaide would get when combined. And if people want to include the Joondalup and Mandurah lines, then we'd just include the Caboolture line and Gold Coast Line. The two systems are very comparable indeed.

Simply hoping to put rail stations on every street corner is a) hugely costly, b) will take forever to implement and c) result in a lot of maintenance expense. We have a lot of infrastructure assets already and a metro would be great to replace the SEB with.

[James]

Most people in Brisbane live near a train station and if there were decent frequency and fed by buses, far less of an issue. My point about Brisbane having more infrastructure than Perth or Toronto still stands. There are train stations and busways all over the BCC area.

...

If you look at the Ipswich line, the argument about trip generators is false. There you have a train line with a city at one end (Ipswich) two major centres (Indooroopilly & Toowong), a bus connection to UQ (it's not rail bus people transfer at two points so not bad), a hospital (Wesley) a corporate business district and stadium (Milton) and the city. You have the CBD on the rail network, you have Fortitude Valley smack bang on the rail network as well. And anywhere not on the rail network could conceivably be linked by feeder bus as they do in Melbourne and Perth.

Brunswick Street New Farm has two lanes along it. Not automatically a case for a metro, might be a case for Class A ROW. Just saying.

You forget what the area passes through/near. The Ipswich line to Darra, unlike the Beenleigh line to Coopers Plains and the Caboolture line to Zillmere (these stations are a similar distance zone-wise) the rail line takes a direct, quick route and passes through suburbia for the entirety of its trip.

There's no point in me repeating what Old Northern Road has said, but he's hit the nail on the head.

If you want an expanded network, with the greatest coverage of high frequency services, the metro is the worst way to go about doing that. The lesson in Toronto over the last year or two with mayor Rob Ford scrapping a Light Rail plan, putting in a metro plan, then running out of cash for it, and then the city having to force a retreat back to Light Rail shows that you can get more coverage for the same cost.

It is simple economics: the more expensive something is, the less of that something you will have. Also, it presumes that the problem is not enough infrastructure, and I would argue that the problem is actually poor network design, a recalcitrant Brisbane City Council with it's government monopoly control over the city bus network and poor service intensity on the current rail network that is really the key problem.

I just want you to consider the construction costs being 3x to 4x greater for metro than for LRT.

I'm just saying that given the busway reaches 12 000 pphd - 18 000 pphd in the mornings already, and that massive depopulation near the busway over the next 30 years seems unlikely, plus the fact that the busway will be near the end of it's economic life as well, makes it the first consideration for any metro. Of course Brisbane City Council and Brisbane Transport will be scathing at this as replacing the SEB with rail would directly threaten it's bus business.

Approximately 70 % or so of people using the busway DO NOT live near busway stations. They are brought to the system using the buses running in suburban streets away from the busway. I can see no reason why this can't be achieved on the rail system also, using buses to feed trains, even if the alignment does not go in an exactly optimal way.

There seems to be a philosophy that having lots and lots of train stations absolutely everywhere is the answer - if public transport is not working, just put train stations on every street corner like Paris. In the long run these good intentions could do more damage to public transport simply due to high maintenance and high cost of infrastructure detracting away from what really matters: speed, frequency, span, ticket costs, integration. The key thing about Canadian Cities is that by keeping the network small and simple, it can be worked intensely and also hugely expensive maintenance costs can be kept right down.

Have you considered the fact the only way to implement LRT along most of this route is either to block off whole streets from car access or resume houses? May I remind you buying up properties, especially in high density areas, is expensive and could run into a lot of problems? Where would we put LRT for this role in the CBD, remembering it is only replacing 5-6 very high patronage bus routes? What about the (very useful) cross river access this alignment provides?

Doomben line is not appropriate in its current form. The line is too short to draw enough patronage to fill an entire train, the alignment is average and Eagle Junction is best for buses feeding rail in most cases. Doomben Line should either be converted to LRT to interchange at Eagle Junction, or not run at all. Subsequently, this unlocks more train slots for Shorncliffe trains (which in my opinion, should have their frequency boosted and allow for full-time express running Bowen Hills - Northgate stopping only at Eagle Junction).

This like is to be built 20-30 years into the future - so I am thinking about population and the network 20-30 years from now.

That depopulation of the busway is possible. As you said, 70% of the busway's patronage comes from off the busway. Where is a lot of that patronage coming from? The 130/140/150 BUZ. Cut all of them and feed them to a Browns Plains via Mains Road rail line (or similar) and rail goes through the roof. There are an insane amount of buses coming from the catchment areas of these BUZes, take them off the road and you'd see a sizeable decrease in busway patronage.

No, there shouldn't be railway stations on every corner, but as I've stated before, there are huge swathes of suburbs which are simply not served by rail which need to be *cough* Mains Road corridor *cough*.

[#Metro]

This like is to be built 20-30 years into the future - so I am thinking about population and the network 20-30 years from now.

If you want to look 30 years ahead, all you would need to do is look at Melbourne and Sydney where they are today. That's the kind of inner city we might have. What are they doing? Expanding buses and LRT. The Melbourne Tram network's patronage speaks for itself. Removing houses is politically hard, but tunneling is expensive. Crucially it may be cheaper than it is today though as technology advances. If houses can be removed for busways and airportlink, I think the engineers can work something out for LRT.

Even portions of Toronto's crosstown LRT line run underground to feed the subways and then pop up on to the surface to run.

I think it might be helpful for me to draw maps of ideas.

[somebody]

Doomben line is not appropriate in its current form. The line is too short to draw enough patronage to fill an entire train, the alignment is average and Eagle Junction is best for buses feeding rail in most cases. Doomben Line should either be converted to LRT to interchange at Eagle Junction, or not run at all. Subsequently, this unlocks more train slots for Shorncliffe trains (which in my opinion, should have their frequency boosted and allow for full-time express running Bowen Hills - Northgate stopping only at Eagle Junction).

Well it wouldn't be appropriate to have the shorter line bypassing the inner stations while the longer line serves them.

It can be argued that Doomben should be a shuttle, but I prefer a proper service, and a few more Albion and Wooloowin passengers will help fill up the trains, even if 3 car.  There aren't enough pressures on the northern paths to justify a shuttle if you ask me.  I'm sure someone will disagree.

[James]

If you want to look 30 years ahead, all you would need to do is look at Melbourne and Sydney where they are today. That's the kind of inner city we might have. What are they doing? Expanding buses and LRT. The Melbourne Tram network's patronage speaks for itself. Removing houses is politically hard, but tunneling is expensive. Crucially it may be cheaper than it is today though as technology advances. If houses can be removed for busways and airportlink, I think the engineers can work something out for LRT.

Even portions of Toronto's crosstown LRT line run underground to feed the subways and then pop up on to the surface to run.

I think it might be helpful for me to draw maps of ideas.

Airport Link was mostly run underground, and the main components of the busways have been run either underground or on public land. When you run transit through areas already populated, you end up with a lot of angry residents and very expensive buybacks. Yes, LRT is good, but the question is do we have the room for it? I believe the answer is no, hence why I'm for a metro. The system I suggest (in LRT form) would need:
- Significant property resumptions
- Closing some City streets to traffic (this includes buses)
- Another river crossing at the very least - maybe more (with no doubt BCC trying to get the LRT turned into a busway)
A metro, while more expensive, totally bypasses the NIMBYs and associated whiners, and allows for easy cross-river transit.

Well it wouldn't be appropriate to have the shorter line bypassing the inner stations while the longer line serves them.

It can be argued that Doomben should be a shuttle, but I prefer a proper service, and a few more Albion and Wooloowin passengers will help fill up the trains, even if 3 car.  There aren't enough pressures on the northern paths to justify a shuttle if you ask me.  I'm sure someone will disagree.

Whoops - I meant to say Caboolture services should express run Bowen Hills - Northgate stopping only at Eagle Junction (this also eliminates the issue of SC services stopping along this corridor). This would mean less crowding on the Caboolture line and give Shorncliffe trains better patronage.

I think especially if you all-stopped the Airtrain service (its express running saves one minute, if you actually want to save time stop the dilly-dallying at Bowen Hills), the frequency along the corridor would be such that Albion + Wooloowin loads would be very evenly spread. 3 car trains in peak are a waste of slots (unless rolling stock causes 3-car limitations). It also should be kept in mind Doomben won't have a line to pair with once all the rail lines are built as per Connecting SEQ 2031 (or more correctly, 2131).

[Old Northern Road]

Most are within 5 km of a station, the minimum for a decent bus service to connect to. Most in Toronto don't have rail anywhere near them. Toronto uses buses feeding people to rail to achieve maximum coverage. Similar philosophy in Perth. A metro is so expensive that you could not hope to reach any significant portion of Brisbane with it. Why build a metro to Australia Tradecoast/Hamilton when there is already a rail alignment there that could be extended? Or run a BUZ connecting to rail?

Most of the major trip generators in Brisbane are not served by rail and therefore most trips in Brisbane are not going to be by rail. Unless you are travelling to the CBD then the existing network is pretty much useless and increasing the frequency on most lines isn't going to change that.

Brisbane runs significantly more bus routes than Toronto (even if you thrown in streetcars), Go Trains are long distance services that don't generally stop within the TTC area and are generally peak commuter rail. There are 85 train stations within the BCC area. Then there are a whole heap of busway stations that are Class A ROW.

We have HEAPS of infrastructure. The issue is service intensity and non-walk up access.

GO Trains is not long distance it is a commuter/ suburban rail network. Its main function is to move people from the outer suburbs into the inner city which makes it very similar to Brisbane's rail network.

Armadale + Fremantle + Midland make up ~ 40% of Transperth rail patronage, and would be around 2x of what Adelaide would get when combined. And if people want to include the Joondalup and Mandurah lines, then we'd just include the Caboolture line and Gold Coast Line. The two systems are very comparable indeed.

Simply hoping to put rail stations on every street corner is a) hugely costly, b) will take forever to implement and c) result in a lot of maintenance expense. We have a lot of infrastructure assets already and a metro would be great to replace the SEB with.

The Joondalup and Mandurah lines weren't built for freight. The patronage on the 3 lines which were isn't any better than most of Brisbane's lines.

[#Metro]

For some reason my maps didn't show.
I will repost.

Basically my position is this at the moment
* No metro along TMR alignment - I don't think it adds much new to the table
* Buses and potentially LRT will play a role, more so as feeder or surface transport.
* Busway is the best alignment for a metro
* Keep the system small and simple to avoid large maintenance costs, use it intensively.

Things that matter are frequency, span, ticket cost and physical network integration with feeder modes, rail system within BCC area can be upgraded to this standard. ROW is already acquired and much of the BCC area is within 5km of a train station - the minimum distance that a bus service needs to be viable. Potential scope for some rail lines to be "disconnected" from the QR network and run metro style rollingstock - i.e. Ferny Grove Line, Doomben Line.

Melbourne's approach isn't to build a metro, but have METRO Trains Melbourne roll out 10 minute frequencies on lines progressively. Services every 10 minutes already happen on the Dandenong line and Frankston lines, buses feed it. This is the approach I would like to see adopted for Brisbane.

[#Metro]

Busway replacement proposal
Black - Core sections of metro along busway alignment or similar
Green - Possible but non essential extensions

NORTH




SOUTH

[#Metro]

Indicative Feeder System NORTH (red arrows)



Indicative Feeder System SOUTH (red arrows)