Brisbane Underground - Stage THREE (2036)??

[SteelPan]

Just floating the idea (before stage ONE is built, so everything is purpose built) that following delivery of Stage One and then Stage Two, a Stage Three be built, out from the then operative "Woolloongabba Station" following roughly the route of the SE Freeway (M1) - which I understand the broad concept of was in the Wilbur Smith Study of many moons ago for a rail corridor - servicing as far as perhaps Springwood and maybe more into parts of Logan not serviced by existing infrastructure.  It could either replace the no-doubt by then very congested SE Busway or be underground all the way!

I can see the nay-sayers gasping already - I say, life is not about what's fair, reasonable or whatever - it's about what you squeek long and hard for!  

RAIL is an INVESTMENT - Roads are an inefficient Expense!

Let's Squeek!

[Derwan]

I don't think duplicating an existing PT route is ideal.  Replacing the SE Busway sounds like a good idea. 

[WTN]

I don't think duplicating an existing PT route is ideal.  Replacing the SE Busway sounds like a good idea. 

With Gold Coast speed heavy rail.

[Stillwater]

Are not the busways designed to take light rail should that be considered an option into the future?

[Golliwog]

What are we talking about here? Is this the stages of the Cross River Rail plans (stage 1: Yeerongpilly to Exhibition, stage 2: Toowong to Bowen Hills), or the other plan for the seperate network running from Toowong under West End and the City to Newstead (stage 2: extension to Bulimba/Hamilton Northshore)?

As for running under roughly the SE Freeway/Busway unless it completely replaces it or offers a much faster trip by most skipping stops then I would be against it. It would be better to have it interchange at a key station (for the south-side, Park Road is looking good, but equally I suppose so too is Woolongabba) and then go its own seperate alignment.

Are not the busways designed to take light rail should that be considered an option into the future?

I have heard that this was the original case but apparently in the newer busways this is not the case. I don't have any confirmation if this is the case, or even which new busways these are (if they have already been built or are just planned that way)

[#Metro]

Something needs to be done about the SE busway. Maybe it is more and bigger buses like Bogota.
Maybe it is LRT, heavy rail or metro options. Personally I favour rail options being looked at for replacing the SE busway.

This will have to be looked at in a study. I have a strong feeling that organizational inertia will see to it that the busway overloads first before any action is taken on capacity increases.

But IMHO the greatest things that could be done to improve PT in Brisbane IMHO DON'T require huge investment in infrastructure at all:

1. Improve bus services and frequencies. This doesn't even have to be BRT (though it helps). The BUZ network still needs a few more gaps filled. Cross town and orbital services have holes in them. Bus priority on streets. What kind of city is it where we can afford to build busway at expensive cost, and yet we cannot put a cheap, quick and simple to do bus lane on Coronation Drive   It doesn't make sense!!!

This can be done whatever technology is used for line haul work on the SE busway.

2. Increase rail frequencies on existing infrastructure and lines.
Don't build a seperate metro corridor until this happens.

3. Connect (1) to (2).

[#Metro]

And just to expand on point (1), places like Logan and redlands etc REALLY need a bus boost. Hourly buses must be horrible!!!

[Stillwater]

BrizCommuter's opinion
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/08/converting-busway-to-light-rail-reality.html
What BrisUrbane says
http://brisurbane.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/light-rail-for-brisbane-2/
What Qld Transport says
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/18/Files/Paul_Blake.pdf
Some dreaming
http://www.skyscraperlife.com/queensland-main-forum/7601-brisbane-mass-transit-thread.html
And crystal ball gazing by the BCC
http://www.weca.org.au/Resources/sept07-final-report-brisbane-mass-transit-investigation-lmt1.pdf

[Stillwater]

Here is a salient point:
Of particular concern is the ability of light rail to use the existing Victoria Bridge. It is
unlikely the bridge could be modified to accommodate the load of light rail vehicles,
tracks and overhead line equipment. A new bridge adjacent to the existing Victoria
Bridge would need to be constructed and would add significant construction cost and
delay the implementation.

[STB]

And just to expand on point (1), places like Logan and redlands etc REALLY need a bus boost. Hourly buses must be horrible!!!

Hourly buses isn't that bad when you consider how the network used to be like pre-TransLink.  Anyway, I'd be pushing for a half hourly weekend route 250 over any other route in the Redlands.  Being a semi-rural area in parts, particularly the southern Redlands, you can generate only so much patronage, ie: I wouldn't want to throw on half hourly 260s, 262s, 280s, 282/283s for example, simply because the patronage isn't there in the first place, even if you did push up the frequency, not only that it services a fairly rural area for the most part.  

Perhaps in twenty years time though, then I'd get itchy fingers to up the frequency on some of those semi-rural routes.

If anything out here, the only things that need to be done in the medium term (within 5-10 years) is up the frequency of route 250 on weekends; send route 270 into the city full time offsetted by route 250 to provide a 15min frequency 7 days a week between Capalaba and the City; operate all local routes 7 days a week and up the weekend frequency of those local routes from two hourly to hourly.

In terms of Logan, most routes do operate half hourly.  Route 563 really needs to be split into two routes and to get connections with the train at Bethania and Beenleigh, and get better use of the Beenleigh Transit Centre in terms of the number of buses running though there (I wouldn't increase the frequency of route 567 just yet though, just routes 562 and 563).

[Golliwog]

My one problem with the busway is the contraints with the traffic lights at the CC and at the other end of Victoria Bridge. Get rid of those and I honestly think that there will be a lot less delays at least as time tabling becomes more accurate as delays due to lining up at the bus stops can be timed and should be consistant, where as traffic lights are variables and by their nature cause buses to arrive in spurts. To be honest though I don't really think thats possible with the current Victoria bridge and intersection layouts and changing those could cause to be very difficult (read: unpopular) or impossible.

What kind of city is it where we can afford to build busway at expensive cost, and yet we cannot put a cheap, quick and simple to do bus lane on Coronation Drive   It doesn't make sense!!!

Yes it does. Spending money building the busway doesn't impact on the travel times of car driving commuters. No matter how you look at it, taking a car lane and turning it into a bus lane is going to increase travel times for cars. Building an additional lane to be that bus lane should have no adverse impact on a cars travel time but is basically the equivalent of building a busway. Because the car drivers outnumber the public transport users something like 90 to 10 putting in buslanes on some roads would prove unpopular (most likely) but doing it across the board would be near political suicide.

[#Metro]

Here is a salient point:
Of particular concern is the ability of light rail to use the existing Victoria Bridge. It is
unlikely the bridge could be modified to accommodate the load of light rail vehicles,
tracks and overhead line equipment. A new bridge adjacent to the existing Victoria
Bridge would need to be constructed and would add significant construction cost and
delay the implementation.

I think this point is actually irrelevant. If you have a tunnel for the SE busway then you don't need to use the bridge. The presence of traffic lights and surface traffic also weigh against that. And this isn't fantasy either- if you look at the bus presentation slides in the Members area, you will see something very interesting on the last slides...

So the issue really simplifies down to this: Bus tunnel or rail tunnel? (rail = LRT, Metro, Heavy Rail)

[#Metro]

Hourly buses isn't that bad when you consider how the network used to be like pre-TransLink.  Anyway, I'd be pushing for a half hourly weekend route 250 over any other route in the Redlands.  Being a semi-rural area in parts, particularly the southern Redlands, you can generate only so much patronage, ie: I wouldn't want to throw on half hourly 260s, 262s, 280s, 282/283s for example, simply because the patronage isn't there in the first place, even if you did push up the frequency, not only that it services a fairly rural area for the most part. 

Dare I suggest.. flexilink? 

[#Metro]

Yes it does. Spending money building the busway doesn't impact on the travel times of car driving commuters. No matter how you look at it, taking a car lane and turning it into a bus lane is going to increase travel times for cars. Building an additional lane to be that bus lane should have no adverse impact on a cars travel time but is basically the equivalent of building a busway. Because the car drivers outnumber the public transport users something like 90 to 10 putting in buslanes on some roads would prove unpopular (most likely) but doing it across the board would be near political suicide.

Ahh, this is the problem. We are looking at moving CARS and not PEOPLE. The problem in grovelling to the car is that the construction $$$ of the PT infrastructure becomes astronomical just so that car users don't get upset. Amazing! I'm sure Jonno would agree here.

The problem with spending this money in this way when there are alternatives is waste (why aren't the anti-tax people upset about this) and people's houses that need to be demolished. Demolishing houses is also unpopular, although not as unpopular as upsetting road users it seems.

[SteelPan]

Everyone - I'm talking here about a project in 2036 - the SE Busway could be replaced or a new subway line operate in tandem with - in 2036, it ain't going to make any difference - the need for REAL MAJOR improvements is going to be required - Heavy Rail allows large-scale people movement and doesn't have above ground inner-city challenges, given the then operating cross river rail tunnel.  Remember, we're not talking about next year or 2015, 2020 - it's 2036 - we're well past bigger buses or more "normal" size buses for public transit infrastructure starved regions like much of Springwood/Logan etc....

[SteelPan]

For the sake of my original post, I'm viewing - for simplicity's sake:

Stage 1: as Yeerongpilly to Exhibition.
Stage 2: Toowong to Bowen Hills, or the other option plan...extension or not.
Stage 3: As per my original post.

Apologies for any confusion.

[Golliwog]

Ok in that case assuming that the problems with the SE busway have been solved (changing to light rail, bigger buses, trunk routing, whatever) then I would be against a new route that would duplicate its task. Also, unless the new line terminates at Woolongabba you would be restricting the number of trains that can use CRR1 from the Beenleigh/GC corridor.

[colinw]

My opinion is that underground rail duplicating or replacing any of the busway routes would be an expensive mistake.  IMHO the ultimate future of the busways lies at the upper end of light rail or as a light metro operation, something akin to the (at the lighter end) the Calgary C-Train & L.A. Blue Line, or at the heavier end the Vancouver Skytrain or Tyne & Wear Metro, operating multiple unit sets at very high frequency, and providing a huge capacity compared to the busway but at a fraction of the cost of tunneling.

Those light metro systems have an immense capacity when run at high frequency, e.g. Vancouver manages of the order of 350,000 daily journeys on a 68km system that is a fraction the size of CityTrain.  C-Train likewise manages about 280,000 on 50 route km.  Something of C-Train standard to Springwood (or better still, Logan Hyperdome) and Capalaba would be a revolution for the South East part of greater Brisbane.

I would therefore like to completely avoid any underground routes that duplicate the busway system, and instead focus on bringing the busways up to a very high standard of surface rail transport, with high quality BRT feeders.

If we do go off tunneling some more, it should be to tie together the system with genuinely new links that avoid major obstacles (like densely built urban environment, big hills or the river).

Another thought: I would be supportive if we were to build an underground line INSTEAD of the busway to Capalaba.  That would serve a genuine need, step straight to the highest capacity mode, and with appropriate junctions or interchange would short cut the very indirect Cleveland line.  But don't waste effort doing it along the S.E. Busway corridor.

cheers,
Colin

[#Metro]

Isn't the maximum a skytrain can carry 580 pax?
That would mean about 17 400 pax/hour one way, the SE Busway capacity is put at 15 000 in the link I saw in the DTMR slides a few posts back.

Its hard to know what is appropriate until the actual busway capacity right now and in the future is established.
There are suggestions that the SE Busway is beyond LRT capacity what is the story there? If it is really true that it is above LRT capacity, that leaves light metro and subway options left, short of duplicating the thing.

[colinw]

The claim is that the busway is capable of 12,000 an hour, per direction. It probably hits or even exceeds this in bursts in peak - around 300 buses per hour - but not without congestion & clumping.

One thing is clear - ordinary light rail or trams WILL NOT CUT IT for busway conversion.  It would need to be some form of light metro multiple unit operation with 500 pax or more per train, at tight headways (30tph or better).  I'm thinking something like Siemens SD-160 units like San Diego here - about 236pax per single vehicle and able to operate in multiple up to 6 cars.

Conversion would likely also come unstuck at the Cultural Centre due to platform lengths- any light metro conversion of the busways would need to do something different to the current route after South Bank.

Actually, thinking about this more, it does look like rail replacement of the busway would need to start hitting heavy rail type capacity.  Forget about light rail - needs to be metro like. BUT - we need to do something or it will clag up.  Imagine what will happen if the extension to Springwood & higher frequency service to Logan Hyperdome interchange gets a big uptake?

[#Metro]

The reason why I ask is because of http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4367.0
It isn't clear if "peak direction" means both the Nth and SE busways or just one...

Colin W, the other thing is this

65 pax per bus x 300 buses = ~ 20 000, not 12 000. So what's the explanation here??

Is the bus only 60% full during peak hour???

[#Metro]

Conversion would likely also come unstuck at the Cultural Centre due to platform lengths- any light metro conversion of the busways would need to do something different to the current route after South Bank.

TUNNEL

Bogota style superbuses or Van Hools going over the Victoria Bridge and Captain Cook Bridges into the CBD?
What do people think about that BRT proposal. Van Hool = 180 pax/bus at crush load.

A tunnel sounds expensive and crazy- but then when you compare it to some of the really pie in the sky proposals for cars, like the double deck underground KSD tunnel, it seems much more rational...

[colinw]

That's why I said "may exceed".  The actual peak flow on the busway is clear as mud and figures seem to be unobtainable, so it is hard to make an intelligent guess as to what is required to replace it.  I think I am on solid ground in stating that trams / ordinary light rail wouldn't be sufficient.

My peak hour usage of the busway is all at the outer end - Eight Mile Plains & (sometimes) Garden City.  While there are a lot of buses, it seems to be mix of crowded and only partially full.  I reckon it would even out at something like 50 pax per bus- wouldn't be surprised if there's a 15,000 per hour flow in there at the max.

NOTE: these are "eyeball" estimates only.

[#Metro]

If it is 12 000/hour then it is within LRT range. If it is pushing 20 000 + an hour or above, it is getting outside LRT range and into light and heavy metro.

The actual number of people should be clarified. There are also the options of "better BRT" in the form of dedicated busway services with more capacity, but these buses are long, they may require platform extension.

[ozbob]

LRT in Brisbane I see as a convenient inner city mass transit system, don't see it as a replacement for the present line haul bus except in the inner city area.  I don't think the bus way system will see light rail.  A light rail system will be separate, but interfacing at critical points both with bus and heavy rail interchanges.

[somebody]

No matter how you look at it, taking a car lane and turning it into a bus lane is going to increase travel times for cars.

[rant]
Try telling that to people who are driving across the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

In the 1980s, the bridge was a complete debacle.  To the degree that people would use the Gladesville Bridge instead, to avoid the congestion, even though that route was also very heavily congested.  To put that into perspective, imagine using the Indooroopilly bridge (rather than Centenary) for a trip from Darra-The Gap. But on a bigger scale.  Then the Harbour Tunnel (50% increase in number of lanes) made it politically viable to convert one lane of the bridge to a bus lane.  This has resulted in PT being the mode of choice for the majority going over the bridge in peak hour.
[/rant]

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I know that in hte medium to long term people will switch to PT if it can beat the traffic, which adding bus lanes would allow, but in the short term people won't consider that as it is inherrant that people don't like to change from their habits. I know bus lanes are the way to go and that within a year of them being put in that patronage will pick up (provided of course that a frequent and there fore convenient timetable is in place).

I'm just looking at it from the car drivers perspective where their trip times are worsened.

[#Metro]

In the 1980s, the bridge was a complete debacle.  To the degree that people would use the Gladesville Bridge instead, to avoid the congestion, even though that route was also very heavily congested.  To put that into perspective, imagine using the Indooroopilly bridge (rather than Centenary) for a trip from Darra-The Gap. But on a bigger scale.  Then the Harbour Tunnel (50% increase in number of lanes) made it politically viable to convert one lane of the bridge to a bus lane.  This has resulted in PT being the mode of choice for the majority going over the bridge in peak hour.

Sigh. To get 1 recycled bus lane in you have to provide a brand new tunnel and 4 car lanes???

[somebody]

Sigh. To get 1 recycled bus lane in you have to provide a brand new tunnel and 4 car lanes???

Yes.  And also put up the toll on the remaining 7 lanes by 900%, matching the toll on the new tunnel so no one can cry about funneling.  Seems to be how it was in 1990 in Sydney or 2010 in Brisbane.  The thing is that it seems it is going to stay that way in Brisbane.

The success of this plan changed the whole attitude toward PT in Sydney, IMHO.

[somebody]

Sigh. To get 1 recycled bus lane in you have to provide a brand new tunnel and 4 car lanes???

Actually, wasn't something similar done in Brisbane when they did the Coro drive tidal flow thing?  Didn't they add another lane, which was given over to the bus lane?  Residents were outraged!

[SteelPan]

Ok in that case assuming that the problems with the SE busway have been solved (changing to light rail, bigger buses, trunk routing, whatever) then I would be against a new route that would duplicate its task. Also, unless the new line terminates at Woolongabba you would be restricting the number of trains that can use CRR1 from the Beenleigh/GC corridor.

Please remember - we're talking 2036 - so who really cares if the SE Busway is "duplicated" - by then, it's going to need to be!  Further, a second line into Woolloongabba Station and on into the city would not push CRR1 anywhere near breaking point - indeed - it improves the economics for the entire project.  Such a line will revolutionise the very poorly served regions of Springwood and parts of Logan that have been allowed to boom with little (any?) serious mass-transit infrastructure.

Look at the social and economic nightmares LA has endured because of poor mass transit infrastrucutre - but they bit the bullet and we should learn - yes, I know they've embraced metro, we can too - but if we build a 2nd rail corridor out from the 'Gabba, we get twice the value for it!

[#Metro]

Look at the social and economic nightmares LA has endured because of poor mass transit infrastrucutre - but they bit the bullet and we should learn - yes, I know they've embraced metro, we can too - but if we build a 2nd rail corridor out from the 'Gabba, we get twice the value for it!

I've read the first paragraph but the second paragraph I'll comment on.
I agree that PT has problems now and will in the future. However, it seems the very first thing assumed is that PT infrastructure must somehow be deficient, and that by just increasing it, PT mode share will increase.

Infrastructure is necessary, but not sufficient, for good PT.

Brisbane has pretty good infrastructure as it stands. There needs to be some tweaks and other projects like CRR delivered. But the main problem is FREQUENCY and operating hours on rail and on bus, and more so in the OFF peak/weekends. The underutilisation of the things we have already needs to finish IMHO.

[Golliwog]

I know we're talking 2036, but I still stand by my point that by then it should have been upgraded (either more bus capacity, or some form of rail) so I would still be hesitant to have another line serve the busway route. Especially when you look at all the other places in Brisbane that are PT infrastructure poor.

[longboi]

We're stuck with the busway and need to find a way to make it work.

[Gazza]

For the sake of my original post, I'm viewing - for simplicity's sake:

Stage 1: as Yeerongpilly to Exhibition.
Stage 2: Toowong to Bowen Hills, or the other option plan...extension or not.
Stage 3: Roma St to Trouts Road

Fixed 

We're stuck with the busway and need to find a way to make it work.

Indeed, the fact is that part of the city already has a decent grade separated (As far as the city lol) line haul route, and money for a metro underneath it would be better diverted to other parts of Brisbane still stuck with PT on surface streets.

[SteelPan]

OK, then a Stage THREE - out following the OLD Gold Coast Highway - Logan Rd/Mount Gravatt etc and on down to Springwood and Logan that way!  I simply suggested the SE Busway as an option to lower cost and replace by 2036, a well past breaking point busway, with Heavy Rail!  This new route is fine and replicates nothing!