NEWSFLASH: CRR DELAY ANNOUNCED!!!

[Gazza]

Just quietly I think the Sydney Metro project was stupidly priced, like everything else they build there. I don't accept it as as a reasonable benchmark.
The problem is, stuff like this doesn't get done often enough in Australia, so they always drastically overestimate, and then those responding to the tender adjust their prices up accordingly, because they see that this is the money the government has to spend, and naturally they want to use as much of it as they can.

It's the classic , "write a number on the back of an envelope, then double it" syndrome.

[ozbob]

Just quietly I think the Sydney Metro project was stupidly priced, like everything else they build there. I don't accept it as as a reasonable benchmark.

But, that was the cost ...

[ozbob]

Eastern busway is around 500 million per kilometre ...  on that basis the CRR is a good deal!   

[Gazza]

^Edited my original post.

But I mean, If a simple overground suburban expansion to Springfield can have $177 million come out of thin air in cost savings, then how can we trust other figures to be accurate?

But, that was the cost ...

Whose cost? The governments estimate, or what the majority of potential contractors were actually coming in with?
In Sydney, they hadn't even appointed a contractor before the whole thing got canned.

Again, using the Springfield example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/21/3144097.htm?section=business

The Queensland Government says a rail extension from Brisbane to Springfield, west of the capital, will cost $171 million less than expected.

It says the tendering process has brought the cost down to $470 million, with work to start in a couple of months and due to finish in 2013.

[ozbob]

Yeah I know, but no way will a metro be built in Brisbane for $4 billion, which is the figure spruiked from the Lord Mayor ....

Springfield will cost less than the non-existent Sydney Metro ( http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national/watch/21926341/885604/58/  )

Sydney metro was originally costed around 2 billion, but once the detail and the problems with construction were realised it rapidly escalated ..

[Gazza]

See, 2 Bil is pretty realistic for what they were getting. As for the other cost escalations, I reckon that is mostly due to NSW stupidity than anything...The thing was never built anyway, so it's not as good of a benchmark as looking at actual real life finished things which have a final cost attached to them, when all factors were considered.

If we had $4 Bil for a metro in Bris, I reckon we'd get 20km worth.
It could work if they kept the stations simple, and used bridges over the river where possible, and shallow level tunnels in other places.

[ozbob]

used bridges over the river where possible, and shallow level tunnels in other places.

light rail ...  I think that is how will pan out, combination some surface, cut and cover and elevation.  May even be automated system, though not sure if the punters would like that ..  could be fun if the computer systems have a pleasant friendly personality  " hey, come on board, we don't blue screen, and we don't need drivers either, penguin power! "  

[#Metro]

I think the Sydney metro is valid comparison. These projects usually come out costing more due to blowouts and difficulties discovered during the process.

A metro can cost anywhere between 200-400 million per kilometre (Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report, 2007). Remember, if you want to build any infrastructure, you are up against China and other industries for cash, labour and materials. So its going to be costly. I would think that there is a lot of competing demand for construction materials and labour. Maybe this is also why CRR is so expensive. The price of materials might have escalated.

The NewMetroRail project in Perth is probably so cheap because it ran in the middle of a freeway and took advantage of the freeway's grade separation, less need to acquire homes, less earthworks, less resumption of properties and so on.

A metro is going to cost much more because you are tunneling under roads and you have to move services such as sewerage, power, gas, dig up in places and so on. The metro will serve the inner city, which isn't where the problem is-the problems are in the outer parts of Brisbane. This is where we differ from Paris, and are more like Perth.

The other question is- do we actually need a metro?

If Campbell Newman wants money for a metro, why did he blow up funds on car tunnels instead? I think this is a puff piece- the earliest a metro even has a hope is 2020 at the earliest. So Campbell will be out of office by then (heaven forbid if he isn't). The money is not secured by any measure, and the BCC will not fund something on a scale for that either.

[Gazza]

Tramtrain, honest question, but what do you bring to the table by posting a solitary icon of a train in a separate post?

I think the Sydney metro is valid comparison. These projects usually come out costing more due to blowouts and difficulties discovered during the process.

Not necessarily....It can work both ways. Recent transport projects in SEQ have opened early and under budget. Even complex stuff like tunnelling can go well...Clem 7 opened several months early, Airport flyover opened 9 months early and the rest of Aiport link tunneling is reportedly ahead of schedule.

And check out this article about Legacy Way: http://www.constructionindustrynews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=1538680

The Leighton-led consortium had been eliminated in July, with reports suggesting its bid was in excess of $2.2 billion.

BRISBANE-based contractor BMD Constructions will team up with Italian companies Acciona and Ghella to build the $1.5 billion Northern Link toll road tunnel. The Transcity consortium's bid to design, construct, maintain and operate the tunnel represented a $300 million saving over the expected cost of the project of $1.8 billion.

So they managed to save $300 Mil on the Governments estimates, and $700 mil compared to the competitors.

If Campbell Newman wants money for a metro, why did he blow up funds on car tunnels instead?

Agree! Why aren't the media asking him this? If he wants to back up his own metro construction cost figures, then its easy to make him look silly for spending so much on tunnels which have worked out to more per km.

[#Metro]

Tramtrain, honest question, but what do you bring to the table by posting a solitary icon of a train in a separate post?

Sorry, double post. It has been taken out of service now 

Not necessarily....It can work both ways. Recent transport projects in SEQ have opened early and under budget. Even complex stuff like tunnelling can go well...Clem 7 opened several months early, Airport flyover opened 9 months early and the rest of Aiport link tunneling is reportedly ahead of schedule.

And check out this article about Legacy Way: http://www.constructionindustrynews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=1538680

The cost that Campbell Newman has come up with is totally unrealistic. Busways cost more than this! Train extensions on the surface cost more than this! A metro is going to cost even more. That doesn't make it bad, but it does mean that we have to think long and hard about what the alternatives are and what purpose it serves.

Car tunnels are cheap, I suspect, because they don't have stations. A CRR station might be $100 million each. Then there are rollingstock costs and maintainence too.

I'm really skeptical. HOWEVER is it possible to convert Clem 7 can NortherLink to metro... lol.

[somebody]

Eastern busway is around 500 million per kilometre ...  on that basis the CRR is a good deal!   

Yes, I have some concerns about this one as well as TT.  It is challenging for a car to use Old Cleveland Rd west of Cavendish Rd if coming from the Captain Cook Bridge.  You have to go via Nile St.  Perhaps this short cut could be removed, but I guess that won't be happening.  I suppose bus doesn't get much advantage over car on the inbound, so the Eastern Busway does have a fair bit of merit.  On the assumption that the typical "Build it but don't use it" QLD culture doesn't occur.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at least one of the 200 and 204 still go via Woolloongabba after this is done.

[Gazza]

Car tunnels are cheap, I suspect, because they don't have stations. A CRR station might be $100 million each. Then there are rollingstock costs and maintainence too.

There is probably some cheapness associated with them being done so frequently in recent years  (   )

I would've thought that the fact stations are needed would be offset by the fact a train tunnel is so much narrower. Clem 7's tunnels were 12.4m wide each. To build a metro you could do with only a single 10.5m wide bore (if using the Spanish double deck method), or a couple of 6m wide tunnels with cross passages....That's a lot less spoil removal and tunnel lining that is needed in total compared to large roadways that need to fit trucks etc.

And stations are only as expensive as you want them to be. CRR would be a lot cheaper if they gave up on touchy feely stuff like big boxes that have 'natural light' all the way from the surface, and just built it to be as efficient as possible instead.

Heres another cost comparison too. The Circle line in Singapore will cost 7.8 Billion AUD (10 Bil SGD) for 35km...all underground with 31 stations. $222 Million a Km. It opens later this year too, so the figures are up to date.

Time and time again, I'm getting figures in developed countries (Excluding Spain) of $250 mill +/- $40 per kilometre. These projects are a couple of years old, or are to open in the near future, so they aren't going to vary by more than a few percent.

The Sydney Metro was fully costed and had gone to the tender stage.  That is a better Oz benchmark ..

But who's to say the cost wouldn't have come down again once the tenders had come in?
The crippling price of property acquisition would've been a big factor too. Thankfully Brisbane isn't at that stage.

PS, Sydney is the same city that is managing to spend $1.36 Billion on a 12km line out in the sticks with 2 stations. We're doing more or less the same out to Springfield, but for only about a third of the cost  

If you want to use Sydney as an example for costing, you're most welcome to...But I just flat out don't trust their numbers.
I hate to make a 'crackpot' political post, but I reckon NSW is a festering bubble unto itself, with an F- mark in successful transport project delivery, whose costings are simply not grounded in reality ....And this is why they will be voted out in a few days time.
In NSW, the greens are reportedly pushing for an enquiry as to why NSW transport project prices are inflated compared to the rest of Australia and the world, and I'm convinced if this goes ahead they will certainly make some interesting discoveries.

[somebody]

I hate to make a 'crackpot' political post, but I reckon NSW is a festering bubble unto itself, with an F- mark in successful transport project delivery,

Sydneysiders agree with this.  Which as you point out is the reason why they will probably be voted out.

[#Metro]

There is probably some cheapness associated with them being done so frequently in recent years  (  Angry Roll Eyes )

There is probably some truth to this. The groups and specialists are probably established within Brisbane now so it is easier to call upon them rather than start from scratch.

I would've thought that the fact stations are needed would be offset by the fact a train tunnel is so much narrower. Clem 7's tunnels were 12.4m wide each. To build a metro you could do with only a single 10.5m wide bore (if using the Spanish double deck method), or a couple of 6m wide tunnels with cross passages....That's a lot less spoil removal and tunnel lining that is needed in total compared to large roadways that need to fit trucks etc.

Does this include safety of life and a tunnel/space for evacuation/emergency purposes?

And stations are only as expensive as you want them to be. CRR would be a lot cheaper if they gave up on touchy feely stuff like big boxes that have 'natural light' all the way from the surface, and just built it to be as efficient as possible instead.

Gold plating is always insidious, but I'm not sure if that can be attributed so much to the main cost. You need elevators and lifts as well due to DDA etc. Then there are fire and safety standards, resumptions to access the surface, large caverns for bus interchanges etc etc- it all adds up. The more stations, more closely spaced, the costlier it gets.

Heres another cost comparison too. The Circle line in Singapore will cost 7.8 Billion AUD (10 Bil SGD) for 35km...all underground with 31 stations. $222 Million a Km. It opens later this year too, so the figures are up to date.

Time and time again, I'm getting figures in developed countries (Excluding Spain) of $250 mill +/- $40 per kilometre. These projects are a couple of years old, or are to open in the near future, so they aren't going to vary by more than a few percent.

250 million per kilometre sounds about right within ballpark. However, any metro must also dive under the Brisbane river. That's a very location specific cost...

I would like to see a proper feasibility report into this metro with proper costings versus the alternatives. The way this metro idea was announced, you'd have thought that it was thought it up while someone was stopped at a traffic light driving home. How much detail has gone into this thing? Where are the stations? What is the justification? What will the frequency be? How much will it cost? etc etc. See, we don't have any proper details except some sketchy vague ideas.

[#Metro]

40 km x 250 million/km = 10 billion at least.

[Golliwog]

...I've seen a 3D animation clip (not available publically, sorry) of a bus using the new Langlands busway station, coming inbound on Old Cleveland Rd, using the inbound platform at hte busway station, then turning around at the hamburger and exiting onto Main Avenue via the Panitya St access ramp. No idea if thats actually the planned bus route though, I think it was just created to show off the station in the 3D animation.

I also think just taking the overall project cost and dividing it by the length of busway/train line built is a bit of a dodgey way to come up with a per km cost. Taking the Eastern busway example, the Buranda to Main Avenue section also included the construction of a pedestrian bridge (here) across Norman Creek to the school there. Not to mention the fact that because of its alignment and the lack of a preserved corridor theres a bunch of mucking around rearranging street access and building cul-de-sacs on the ends of some streets to allow cars to turn around easily. This isn't the best example as I don't know that much about it, but while not all projects do it, some provide much more than the transport infrastructure they're there to construct. The first section of the Eastern Busway also provided a bikeway next to the busway across Ipswich Rd and continueing onto .... somewhere, I just see it from my bus window The point is, the cost to construct things like that are included in the lump sum cost of the project, but they wouldn't be included in every busway they construct.

FYI, you can visit the site office which is located here and have a talk to someone from the project about what they're doing and how they're doing it. It's near stops for the 200, 209 or 204.

Also, on the extravagant stations side of things, there is also the fact that you have to ensure everything complies with the relevant Austalian Standard, which can be a bit fussy about some things. I also like to think that we provide much better for the disabled/deaf/blind etc. We have lifts for wheelchairs, tactile pavers for the blind, hearing loops  for the deaf, etc. These make little difference to those who don't need them, but make a world of difference for those that do.

[Gazza]

Does this include safety of life and a tunnel/space for evacuation/emergency purposes?

Yes, it does.

You need elevators and lifts as well due to DDA etc. Then there are fire and safety standards, resumptions to access the surface, large caverns for bus interchanges etc etc- it all adds up. The more stations, more closely spaced, the costlier it gets.

Also, on the extravagant stations side of things, there is also the fact that you have to ensure everything complies with the relevant Austalian Standard, which can be a bit fussy about some things. I also like to think that we provide much better for the disabled/deaf/blind etc. We have lifts for wheelchairs, tactile pavers for the blind, hearing loops  for the deaf, etc. These make little difference to those who don't need them, but make a world of difference for those that do.

I can see where you are coming from, but these things aren't Australian specific.  Every modern metro in developed countries (Well, every one built since the 1980s or so I'd say) have all of these features.

I also think just taking the overall project cost and dividing it by the length of busway/train line built is a bit of a dodgey way to come up with a per km cost.

Agreed, that's why I have tended to quote examples of projects several kilometres long. It gives a more realistic picture because things are averaged out, some areas might have lots of stuff that needs to be rearranged to fit the corridor through, others sections might be 'plain sailing'.

250 million per kilometre sounds about right within ballpark. However, any metro must also dive under the Brisbane river. That's a very location specific cost...

It can always go above it. You would build the bridging point somewhere further outside the CBD (Since the whole point of building metros would be to service areas away from the legacy corridors)
Certainly, you wouldn't attempt it in high impact places like Gardens point or whatever (Since CRR will be servicing that area anyway)
But if they can get away with this amount of stuff above the ground in the inner city: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.468512,153.011259&z=19&t=k&nmd=20100912 then an above surface metro crossing shouldn't be a problem.

Remember, CRR is sort of constrained...It's an expansion of the existing network, so it is bound by it's constraints (eg where it can link in, gradients etc)

An independent metro network would go wherever it wants and is less constrained.

[#Metro]

I take your point, though I don't know about the Merivale bridge being the best example. Sir Joh was known for ramming and steamrolling projects no matter what the cost.

[Gazza]

What I'm talking about was the mess of 2 overpasses plus the Go Between Bridge at the start of Coro Drive. If they can get away with that.....

Sir Joh was known for ramming and steamrolling projects no matter what the cost.

It's an interesting thing to consider though. These bridges will be around longer than the NIMBYs will. Of course, no matter what you build, someone will complain because its change for them. But years after it gets built, everyone sort of forgets about it and doesn't notice it anymore.

[somebody]

Sir Joh was known for ramming and steamrolling projects no matter what the cost.

I would say it was more: no matter the opposition.

Certainly, you wouldn't attempt it in high impact places like Gardens point or whatever (Since CRR will be servicing that area anyway)
But if they can get away with this amount of stuff above the ground in the inner city: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.468512,153.011259&z=19&t=k&nmd=20100912 then an above surface metro crossing shouldn't be a problem.

Not sure who would complain about that.  If you already live there, you already have the traffic noise.

That is an interesting case in point.  That arrangement should have permanently closed the right hand turn from Hale St into Coro and made improved arrangements to use Milton Rd and Cribb St.  If Sir Joh had put forward a plan like that, he would have told everyone who wanted to keep the right turn to go away.  Mind you, if he had put forward the current mediocre plan (looks mediocre in hindsight), he also would have told everyone who was complaining to go away.  I always thought it was a disgrace that he was the Premier, but having lived here for three years, I can see that he was, in fact, the man for the job.

It should also have had improved pedestrian access between the river and the inbound side of Coro.  We are lumped with a pretty awful result now.

[SteelPan]

Given we are talking about projects stretching over 1-2 decades let's grab BOTH the Cross River Project and the "subway" concept - what's the big deal really!  Chook feed over that time span   

[ozbob]

Media release 20 March 2011

SEQ: Make proper use of Queensland Rail assets before building Brisbane subways

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers believes that improvements to the current Queensland Rail services to provide a metro-style service must be considered before building subways. Cross River Rail is of course, priority number one.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back on Track refers to recent comments in the media suggesting that Cross River Rail should be scrapped (1). RAIL Back on Track has always welcomed the Cross River Rail Project. While subways could certainly be looked at along with alternatives such as 'high-end' rapid-transit grade light rail, Cross River Rail will still have to proceed anyway. It must not be scrapped because other councils outside Brisbane are also experiencing explosive growth and these places also need to access jobs in the Brisbane CBD. One of the limiting factors on this access to jobs is the Merivale Railway bridge, there just aren't any more slots for new train services on that bridge during peak hour. Cross River Rail has  real benefits in terms of capacity and frequency gains over the entire urban and interurban rail network and this is why it is essential."

"Brisbane also has a significant amount of completely underutilised Queensland Rail infrastructure (2). The number of train stations within South East Queensland outnumber busway stations five to one. We have continually proposed Rail Rapid Transit in the form of 'Train Upgrade Zones' in Brisbane which is a rapid-transit quality, metro-style train service fed by feeder buses and existing bus routes(2-6. Indooroopilly rail station would be a perfect candidate for this."

"This can be done now where current infrastructure permits with no new trains and does not prevent the future installation of a subway elsewhere in Brisbane. Simple measures such as a proper bus-train interchange at Indooroopilly would allow people to connect to the improved Queensland Rail services and would have benefits sooner rather than later."

"The multi-billions for 'Car Rapid Transit' - a low capacity, expensive to build, high user toll, high pollution and unsafe mode would have been better spent on proper public transport options like orbital 'ring road' bus routes like Melbourne SmartBus and an improved Queensland Rail network (7-10)."

"RAIL Back on Track calls for 'Car Rapid Transit' funds to be diverted to fund proper mass and rapid transit transformations of our existing and future public transport systems."

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

References:

1. 'Scrap cross-river rail': Lord Mayor
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/scrap-crossriver-rail-lord-mayor-20110318-1c0c9.html?comments=16#comments

2. SEQ: Why our "Busways on Steel Wheels" must be better used
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5432.0

3. SEQ: A Train Upgrade Zone between Petrie and the CBD?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5407.0

4. Metro-style frequency Darra to CBD?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5380.0

5. Train Upgrade Zones (TUZ)
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5385.0

6. Think bus, fill train!
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5339.0

7. SEQ: "Car rapid transit" is NOT the only option for Kingsford Smith Drive
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5166.0

8. SEQ: Core Frequent Network 2011 - If the price goes up, service levels must go up too!
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5193.0

9. SEQ: Focus on building the core frequent public transport network needed now
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5290.0

10. SEQ:  Time to get more from our scarce taxes
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5355.0

[Gazza]

Given we are talking about projects stretching over 1-2 decades let's grab BOTH the Cross River Project and the "subway" concept - what's the big deal really!  Chook feed over that time span

Agreed. By all means, get CRR done first.... IMO any further expansions to the QR network should focus on the growth areas in outer suburbs, with large, widely spaced stations, to deliver fast travel times.

But if we can spend 8 Bil now, who says we cant spend that amount again on another big project down the track.

While subways could certainly be looked at along with alternatives such as 'high-end' rapid-transit grade light rail

To be honest, I don't think it matters what the actual mode itself is called....It could be metro, but at the same time the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London is 100% grade separated and driverless, so 'Light Rail' can do the same too. Some of the metros in smaller European cities use trains that run on rubber tyres.

What is important I think is that whatever gets built, it is 100% class A right of way.....I'm opposed to any street running, because it would just cause the same problems as what occur in South Brisbane with the Busway.
And I'd even oppose street running on the far edges of the network, because the presence of the system will inevitably cause population growth around it, and this is going to result in more traffic in the area which the thing was built, thereby making it a victim of its own sucess.

For something interesting, check out the Rennes Metro in France. Renness is the smallest city in the world with a Metro (pop 390,000) and gets 120,000 riders per day, with trains every 90 seconds (!). It shows what is possible.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Entr%C3%A9e_Station_M%C3%A9tro_JF_Kennedy_Rennes.jpg
http://image46.webshots.com/47/4/18/92/2672418920087005636lgZMKU_fs.jpg

[#Metro]

I am not against the concept of a metro, but if we are going to get it, it actually must go somewhere USEFUL because it is going to be astronomically costly no matter which way you look at it. Every last bit of capacity should also be squeezed out of the busway and train network and BUZ routes.

As for 100% Class A ROW all the way, you and I, we are going to have to agree to disagree because this comes down to where we individually place our values and I don't think there are technical answers to this question.

The values are:
Speed vs Coverage
Low cost vs High cost
High Benefit to a smaller area vs lower benefit to a wider area

Personally I think Class B ROW is acceptable for Light Rail and BRT. Melbourne has trams which run in Class B and in Class C, and they work. Sure they are slower, but this is mainly due to very close stop spacing and over time Class C ROW are being prioritised into Class B.

Only where absolutely justified (such as the inner city, or where space on the surface does not permit) would I use class A IMHO. A metro would have to be Class A obviously and would be good for a trunk line of some sort.

Cost of ROW vs Coverage is one reason why the South East Busway does not have a tunnel linking the Melbourne Street portal to the Queen Street Busway station. The cost for that single tunnel would be billions, and thus the busway network would have been stunted and much shorter had that tunnel been constructed first. The tradeoff is that it is less reliable and lower capacity on this section. It is very rare to have perfect choices, and in many cases you are making a decision between two imperfect choices and you have to decide which one is the least-worst.

[O_128]

What should happen this budget is 50million to be dedicated to getting everything done so when funding is available the project is shovel ready and construction could feasibly start in 2013 rather than 2015

[Gazza]

The cost for that single tunnel would be billions, and thus the busway network would have been stunted and much shorter had that tunnel been constructed first. The tradeoff is that it is less reliable and lower capacity on this section. It is very rare to have perfect choices, and in many cases you are making a decision between two imperfect choices and you have to decide which one is the least-worst.

I don't see why you'd have to tunnel under the river. Instead I would've just diverted traffic around it instead, either by street closures or overpasses/underpasses.

I am not against the concept of a metro, but if we are going to get it, it actually must go somewhere USEFUL because it is going to be astronomically costly no matter which way you look at it.

Hang on a second. In the case of Springfield, it would've been much cheaper to just do buses along the Centenary, but obviously they have spent many times more than this to establish a rail corridor, because they have obviously seen the long term benefits.

Similarly, you have promoted light rail over buses in the past, because of their longer term benefits over buses (capacity, longer vehicle life, comfort, lower labour costs due to 1 driver per 300 people etc)

But Metro technology again has another 'layer' of benefits over buses and light rail. So to dismiss them because it simply because costs more upfront is like saying we shouldn't bother with anything more than buses, to save money.

This 'lower cost up front' mindset got us the SE Busway, and whilst it is great to use, it's managing to reach capacity in under 2 decades, which isn't good enough for a major infrastructure project.

With any major 'concrete' project, they literally need to be looking at what the demand will be over 40-50-60 years, and build accordingly, it will save us in the long run!

Don't under estimate the impacts of running costs. Translinks operating budget was $956 Million in 2007, and is likely over $1 Bil these days. Sure, a Metro will cost the most up front, but it will have lower long term running costs (No drivers), and the highest economic benefits.

As for 100% Class A ROW all the way, you and I, we are going to have to agree to disagree because this comes down to where we individually place our values and I don't think there are technical answers to this question.

The way I see it, its either one or the other all the way sort of in built up areas.
If the ridership is low enough to not warrant rail or a metro, then buses in dedicated lanes with traffic light priority should do the job, using artic buses as necessary.

Once patronage starts to get very high, I reckon just jump straight to a Metro, even if its a 'light metro' as seen in some French cities. From that point, the presence of a metro will then begin to induce demand in a very big way.

If its a situation where its half and half (Eg wanting to tunnel through a dense area, but use street running in outer areas) Then it should be a Metro in the dense part, and bus lanes in the outer part (Because if you are running LRT in a lower density surface setting, it becomes a bit of a case of "All your eggs in one basket" since it then only services one coridoor......I'm sure your familiar with the issue with branching and service levels.

The higher cost of the metro in the inner part is offset by the lower cost of the bus lanes in the outer part basically.
The system would be designed such that Bus routes would radiate from the terminus, as to concentrate people onto the Metro...And because the metro is running every 2 mins, the transfer penalty is eliminated.

I sort of think LRT would be the wrong fit for inner Brisbane because the roads are too congested as it is, so it would inevitably have to fight that. And I can guarantee that if one was ever built it would be compromised, and we'd end up with trams running down Adelaide St or something (And no matter what, you couldn't do proper traffic light priorty because you'd be competing with hoards of buses, and having buses and trams on the same street would be just as inefficient as flat junction conflicts on a railway)
When you look at European cities, light rail often doesn't reach the inner city (Eg in London the DLR and Croydon Tramlink are on the periphery, similarly Paris's tramways are orbital)
Certainly, LRT is a good solution for smaller cities, and I think GCLRT will be a great sucess.

But in Brisbane, if our Busways are bursting at the seams only a few short years after opening and out rail network is needing 8 Bil spent just to keep up with demand (despite not even being run to potential), then I think we are a bit beyond the point where LRT will be a decent long term solution.

[#Metro]

Hang on a second. In the case of Springfield, it would've been much cheaper to just do buses along the Centenary, but obviously they have spent many times more than this to establish a rail corridor, because they have obviously seen the long term benefits.

Similarly, you have promoted light rail over buses in the past, because of their longer term benefits over buses (capacity, longer vehicle life, comfort, lower labour costs due to 1 driver per 300 people etc)

But Metro technology again has another 'layer' of benefits over buses and light rail. So to dismiss them because it simply because costs more upfront is like saying we shouldn't bother with anything more than buses, to save money.

This 'lower cost up front' mindset got us the SE Busway, and whilst it is great to use, it's managing to reach capacity in under 2 decades, which isn't good enough for a major infrastructure project.

With any major 'concrete' project, they literally need to be looking at what the demand will be over 40-50-60 years, and build accordingly, it will save us in the long run!

Don't under estimate the impacts of running costs. Translinks operating budget was $956 Million in 2007, and is likely over $1 Bil these days. Sure, a Metro will cost the most up front, but it will have lower long term running costs (No drivers), and the highest economic benefits.

I think you might have needed rail out there both for political reasons and also because the Centenary is a carpark and also the higher speed the new trains can go at (130km/hour) which buses can't and capacity. But you know what I do also support buses and BRT down the centenary highway because it is cheap and quick to do, hence my support also for the Richlands-Rocket Rail bus. So there is no inconsistency there at all. Right now BUS is the correct choice because we are waiting for that rail line to be extended and funding to come online. I have promoted light rail in the past, but I have also promoted more BUZ routes and a core frequent network that is blind to modal choice.

I am not dismissing a metro just on cost grounds. There are things that are high cost but also high benefit. But you are right, it is extremely costly and that means you are going to get LESS rapid transit for your dollar, so that metro had better go somewhere where there already isn't parallel to an pre-existing busway or rail line. But for the West End-New Farm corridor my preferences are with Light Rail given the demand on that corridor.

Your final claim must be examined, this is not a personal criticism, I am just saying that there has been NO feasibility report that calculates the Net Present Value of competing options and a benefit cost ratio for these, so it is too early to make a judgement about the veracity of these claims. Remember, the BCR and NPV are both affected by the life of the asset and also how fast the infrastructure can be delivered.

Oh, and a lower operating cost is ONLY true if the demand sees that it is well used and the mode matches demand. We all know that adding extra services to rail at high patronage should in theory be cheaper than trying to do the same job by bus, but if you have a metro with few people riding it because there was a mismatch between demand and mode chosen, then thats going to be costly to maintain that asset and few services will be run. I don't think this would be a huge problem in Brisbane as the city gets bigger, but where are the detailed patronage forecasts for this metro.

[#Metro]

The way I see it, its either one or the other all the way sort of in built up areas.
If the ridership is low enough to not warrant rail or a metro, then buses in dedicated lanes with traffic light priority should do the job, using artic buses as necessary.

There will always need to be surface transport options. That inevitably means Class C and Class B. London, Paris, Perth, you name it, they have bus lanes even close to the city. Your first paragraph I agree with and makes sense.

Once patronage starts to get very high, I reckon just jump straight to a Metro, even if its a 'light metro' as seen in some French cities. From that point, the presence of a metro will then begin to induce demand in a very big way.

It depends on the location/alignment. Bus can theoretically do 10 000 pphd in bus lanes, but I doubt this could be done without causing much bunching, chaos and inefficiency (lots of bus drivers). A bus every 2-5 minutes is more than enough frequency, so that puts the desirable maximum at somewhere around 4000 pphd before looking at Light Rail options (which can take you to about 15 000 pphd in Class B (tram lanes), and up to 25  000 in Class A). You would probably start looking at metros when you were getting around 10 000 pphd on Light Rail.

Due to sheer cost, time of construction and practicality, it is not possible to put a metro down every street unless you have something like 30-50 years of incremental extensions. We can't wait that long and you can't put metro down everyone's street, and not even down most arterial roads, its just too expensive and takes too long. That's why if there is a metro, it needs to be somewhere useful that isn't duplicating what can be done well on existing infrastructure.

If its a situation where its half and half (Eg wanting to tunnel through a dense area, but use street running in outer areas) Then it should be a Metro in the dense part, and bus lanes in the outer part (Because if you are running LRT in a lower density surface setting, it becomes a bit of a case of "All your eggs in one basket" since it then only services one coridoor......I'm sure your familiar with the issue with branching and service levels.

Absolutely agree on this one. But you know Light Rail can be used to also feed metro where demand warrants.

The higher cost of the metro in the inner part is offset by the lower cost of the bus lanes in the outer part basically.
The system would be designed such that Bus routes would radiate from the terminus, as to concentrate people onto the Metro...And because the metro is running every 2 mins, the transfer penalty is eliminated.

Agreed. However the same thing could also be done by upgrading and utilising the QR heavy rail network first. There's still a bit that can be squeezed out of that network, and in any case, a growing population plus already bad service on the current rail system will demand improvements in this area anyway as well. Metro makes sense once the juice out of this lemon begins to start running dry.

I sort of think LRT would be the wrong fit for inner Brisbane because the roads are too congested as it is, so it would inevitably have to fight that. And I can guarantee that if one was ever built it would be compromised, and we'd end up with trams running down Adelaide St or something (And no matter what, you couldn't do proper traffic light priorty because you'd be competing with hoards of buses, and having buses and trams on the same street would be just as inefficient as flat junction conflicts on a railway)
When you look at European cities, light rail often doesn't reach the inner city (Eg in London the DLR and Croydon Tramlink are on the periphery, similarly Paris's tramways are orbital)
Certainly, LRT is a good solution for smaller cities, and I think GCLRT will be a great sucess.

Well I'm not sure if I am convinced about this argument. First Brisbane is too small and now it is too big? Melbourne runs trams all over the shop, it is not LRT but would be if the stop spacing were wider. That tram system carried- what does Ozbob put the figures at - 200 million pax or something like that annually. That's more than QR or buses in Brisbane! If it is so bad, why is the patronage so high on it? Since we are starting again, we have the benefit of making the stop spacing wider and using Class B ROW. If you are going to run any bus on the surface in the CBD then I don't know why you cannot also run Light Rail in the CBD. Its the same thing only bigger, powered by overhead wires and on steel wheels.

But in Brisbane, if our Busways are bursting at the seams only a few short years after opening and out rail network is needing 8 Bil spent just to keep up with demand (despite not even being run to potential), then I think we are a bit beyond the point where LRT will be a decent long term solution.

I think busways were the correct choice in Brisbane due to the tunnel problem in the core of the CBD. It just didn't make sense to spend possibly $2 billion drilling tunnels in the CBD for a river crossing when you had the Victoria Bridge and then find that you didn't have enough cash left over to run rapid transit services into the suburbs.

[#Metro]

Quote
T

he cost for that single tunnel would be billions, and thus the busway network would have been stunted and much shorter had that tunnel been constructed first. The tradeoff is that it is less reliable and lower capacity on this section. It is very rare to have perfect choices, and in many cases you are making a decision between two imperfect choices and you have to decide which one is the least-worst.

I don't see why you'd have to tunnel under the river. Instead I would've just diverted traffic around it instead, either by street closures or overpasses/underpasses.

Um, but they did exactly what you said Gazza, and they didn't tunnel under the river because they used BRT and Class B ROW at Cultural Centre. They closed 2 lanes on the Victoria Bridge and put a bus jump lane on the Captain Cook Bridge. A tunnel would be required for Class A ROW- and as metros can ONLY run in Class A ROW, had Brisbane chosen to build a metro rather than a busway, it would be much much shorter than the current busway network is today.

[mufreight]

While it would not substitute for CRR it woulf be possible to construct a Light Rail System that ran underground through the city along the alignment of Adelaide Street built on a cut and cover basis rather than a deep tunnel, such a LRT system could cope with steeper grades and could cross the river on a bridge then become an elevated system through West End and cross the river again to service the University and continue through to Indooroopilly.
An LRT system constructed to compliment the CRR heavy rail and the existing BRT would be far more practical and cost effective than the proposed Metro system.

[#Metro]

While it would not substitute for CRR it woulf be possible to construct a Light Rail System that ran underground through the city along the alignment of Adelaide Street built on a cut and cover basis rather than a deep tunnel, such a LRT system could cope with steeper grades and could cross the river on a bridge then become an elevated system through West End and cross the river again to service the University and continue through to Indooroopilly.
An LRT system constructed to compliment the CRR heavy rail and the existing BRT would be far more practical and cost effective than the proposed Metro system.

I'm not going to rule out a metro because it is a metro. But can't support a metro unless it:

a) is somewhere useful
b) does not parallel/duplicate existing infrastructure (my main critique of the Indooroopilly-West End-Bulimba proposal)
c) Is the best fit for demand over the alternatives (another critique of the Indooroopilly-West End-Bulimba proposal)

If you can find some alignment in Brisbane that meets all three criterion then I would support a metro.
For West End-CBD-New Farm LRT is a low impact mode. Elevated anything (monorail, Busway, Metro or LRT) would set the inner city NIMBYs go crazy and have problems with the built up nature. Tunnel (subways, underground LRT or BRT) is ridiculously expensive. I feel that this leaves us with surface options- BRT & LRT in Class B and C ROW.

[ozbob]

CRR is well advanced, I have little doubt that it will eventually be built.

I am totally unconvinced that a metro will be built in Brisbane.   CRR will bridge a nice gap, and then with trains pinging in all over at a metro like frequency, a metro is not needed.  There needs to be a fairly urgent and major fix for the Melbourne Street - CC bus mess.  Cars might have to go off Victoria bridge and just make it bus only.

[Gazza]

Um, but they did exactly what you said Gazza,

So they did "street closures" and built "overpasses/underpasses"?
Where are these overpasses?
Perhaps I could've been more specific, but Grey St for instance should've been closed or had an underpass built, so the busway didn't have cross traffic. An overpass for William St could've been done too.
I guess the project was done at a time when any PT spending would've been a major battle, but I guess these are things that could be sorted in the future.

There will always need to be surface transport options. That inevitably means Class C and Class B. London, Paris, Perth, you name it, they have bus lanes even close to the city. Your first paragraph I agree with and makes sense.

I never argued otherwise. What I'm saying is either have Class A heavy rail (Be it QR or Metro) and Class B Bus (Class C in low traffic residential areas) feeding it as the two transport modes forming the network.
Not something in between that is poor.

Agreed. However the same thing could also be done by upgrading and utilising the QR heavy rail network first. There's still a bit that can be squeezed out of that network, and in any case, a growing population plus already bad service on the current rail system will demand improvements in this area anyway as well. Metro makes sense once the juice out of this lemon begins to start running dry.

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. Nobody on here has suggested they prioritise otherwise (Unless Campbell Newman has a secret account   )
Remember, a Metro or whatever is a good couple of decades away, and by then CRR would be done, along with the rest of the network upgrades shown on long term planning documents (Eg Triplication to Kingston), Cleveland and Shorncliffe duplications etc)

We're talking about a Metro here, so I shouldn't have to keep reassuring that the QR network would be sorted out first...That should be implied.

Well I'm not sure if I am convinced about this argument. First Brisbane is too small and now it is too big? Melbourne runs trams all over the shop, it is not LRT but would be if the stop spacing were wider. That tram system carried- what does Ozbob put the figures at - 200 million pax or something like that annually. That's more than QR or buses in Brisbane! If it is so bad, why is the patronage so high on it? Since we are starting again, we have the benefit of making the stop spacing wider and using Class B ROW. If you are going to run any bus on the surface in the CBD then I don't know why you cannot also run Light Rail in the CBD. Its the same thing only bigger, powered by overhead wires and on steel wheels.

In 20 years, Brisbane will be big  . In 30 years (When whatever we decide to build around then is a mere 10 years old) Brisbane will be even bigger. I never said Brisbane was small.

Bear in mind Melbourne's tramways are a legacy network, so the infrastructure cost is already sunk, and it gets high patronage because they use the infrastructure well.
But as you've said, its not ideal (Slow, mixed traffic, many routes have only short stops so they run trams that aren't much bigger than a bus anyway...etc)
If we're building something, we have the chance to do it right from scratch.

CRR will bridge a nice gap, and then with trains pinging in all over at a metro like frequency, a metro is not needed

It depends, the QR network is nice and all, but there are still pretty big gaps in the city where
Perhaps this is just my world view, but IMO cities should aim in the long term to have Class A coridoors spaced roughly 4km apart. This puts everybody no more than 2km away from the system, which is a short bus trip or an easy bike ride.

a) is somewhere useful
b) does not parallel/duplicate existing infrastructure (my main critique of the Indooroopilly-West End-Bulimba proposal)
c) Is the best fit for demand over the alternatives (another critique of the Indooroopilly-West End-Bulimba proposal)

If you were to use that criteria, then many lines in Metro networks overseas would never have been built (Look at the Tube map, and note the number of lines parallel)
What is important is that the catchment areas are not overlapping.
Technically, the Northern Busway in its entirety will be 'parallel' to the Caboolture line (And in fact will intersect with it at its terminus) But its not a waste is it because it picks up new destinations along the way and has its own catchment bubble.
So your 3 criteria might be a bit harsh.

[#Metro]

So they did "street closures" and built "overpasses/underpasses"?
Where are these overpasses?
Perhaps I could've been more specific, but Grey St for instance should've been closed or had an underpass built, so the busway didn't have cross traffic. An overpass for William St could've been done too.
I guess the project was done at a time when any PT spending would've been a major battle, but I guess these are things that could be sorted in the future.

The street closures are the closure of 2 lanes on the Victoria Bridge, the overpasses are on the SE busway between CC and Southbank where the busway runs elevated and above the streets where South Bank TAFE is. There are a number of overpasses also heading down the SE busway such as over Cornwall St.

This is rather a trivial point I feel. I think busway was the right choice then. I don't know about the whole cash shortage thing- I'm not convinced when I keep seeing multi-billions being blown up on Car Rapid Transit. Now whether busways continues to be the right choice or whether they should be upgraded to feeder and transfer and run Bogota like superbuses, light rail or something else (here's an idea- do you want your metro running in the busway?).

I never argued otherwise. What I'm saying is either have Class A heavy rail (Be it QR or Metro) and Class B Bus (Class C in low traffic residential areas) feeding it as the two transport modes forming the network.
Not something in between that is poor.

Well I think we are on the same page then, but I don't have any objection to Light Rail running in Class B either if demand requires it.

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. Nobody on here has suggested they prioritise otherwise (Unless Campbell Newman has a secret account   )
Remember, a Metro or whatever is a good couple of decades away, and by then CRR would be done, along with the rest of the network upgrades shown on long term planning documents (Eg Triplication to Kingston), Cleveland and Shorncliffe duplications etc)

We're talking about a Metro here, so I shouldn't have to keep reassuring that the QR network would be sorted out first...That should be implied.

Oh yeah, good one Gazza! HELLO EVERYBODY ON RAILBOT I AM CAMPBELL NEWMAN (NOT!!!) LOL!!!   Gee whiz, that's the funniest thing I have read all day.
Well I hope so! I won't be a happy camper if my train is still 30 minutes and there is metro being constructed.

[ozbob]

I have lived most of life on the Melbourne tram system.  It is without doubt magnificent.  Went to school, went to football, went fishing by tram.

The conversion of Port Melbourne and St Kilda VR branches to light rail has been a brilliant move as well.

Both Ferny Grove and Doomben are naturals for light rail  (ozbob dons tin-foil helmet in preparation for the incoming ...)  but they would be isolated unless, we have some light rail say from West End to Newfarm and some branches to connect the lines up.

The Brisbane tram system was quiet small by Melbourne standards but did manage to carry more pax than bus and rail combined today ..  

[Gazza]

the overpasses are on the SE busway between CC and Southbank where the busway runs elevated and above the streets where South Bank TAFE is. There are a number of overpasses also heading down the SE busway such as over Cornwall St.

I wasn't talking about that bit.

(here's an idea- do you want your metro running in the busway?).

I would die from happiness if that happened.

[#Metro]

I have lived most of life on the Melbourne tram system.  It is without doubt magnificent.  Went to school, went to football, went fishing by tram.

The conversion of Port Melbourne and St Kilda VR branches to light rail has been a brilliant move as well.

Both Ferny Grove and Doomben are naturals for light rail  (ozbob dons tin-foil helmet in preparation for the incoming ...)  but they would be isolated unless, we have some light rail say from West End to Newfarm and some branches to connect the lines up.

The Brisbane tram system was quiet small by Melbourne standards but did manage to carry more pax than bus and rail combined today ..  

Um, er, I wouldn't support Light rail on the Ferny Grove line. Just boost the frequency. As for the Doomben line, freight makes that a bit hard. But if there were no freight than maybe Doomben line could be made into LRT. But how would that LRT get into the city? It would have to run in Class C or Class B ROW and thus be worse than just running more frequent trains.

Although, if you terminated the LRT at Eagle Junction, then that might be workable. You would free up train paths for other services and Eagle Junction is already very frequent so transfers to QR heavy rail would not a big deal at this location. Light rail could also pop below the Brisbane River and then pop up again on the other side and run around in Bulimba or whatever too. So yeah, that might actually be workable. You could run LRT every 5 minutes and have people transfer at Eagle Junction. That would also free up normal trains to be better used elsewhere on the network. Platforms might have to come down though or high floor LRT used.

[ozbob]

The reason why both St Kilda and Port Melbourne could be converted to light rail so successfully was the existing tram network to which they could run into/from.  This is not the case in Brisbane, nor is it likely to be.  Just ruminating ...

[ozbob]

Quote
(here's an idea- do you want your metro running in the busway?).
I would die from happiness if that happened.

That is mentioned as an option in the draft Connecting SEQ 2031 stuff ...

[#Metro]

The reason why both St Kilda and Port Melbourne could be converted to light rail so successfully was the existing tram network to which they could run into/from.  This is not the case in Brisbane, nor is it likely to be.  Just ruminating ...

Its not a bad idea. If it is OK to use bus to feed train, why not then LRT if demand or infrastructure allows it???
Madrid Metro uses LRT to feed stations at some locations.