Connecting SEQ 2031 - The rail revolution ...

[Fares_Fair]

Appears that the rail link from Maroochydore to Beerwah to occur before duplication to Nambour.

What's wrong with that?

The bottleneck needs to be resolved first.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

^But once the line gets duplicated to Beerwah then that means double track to the branching point doesn't it?

[O_128]

This is my initial summary and may be subject to change upon reading the entire document.

Not much joy for the Sunshine Coast in this new non-draft glossy brochure.
Yes, it is a planning document and yes there should be plans, but there is no money set aside to achieve the stated goals.

Nambour rail duplication still on the backburner to 2031 despite our record growth.
Massive new developments at Caloundra South and Palmview that equal Springfield in size and population to be serviced with buses as a long-term interim measure.

Springfield gets the dual rail track for a mere 22,000 current residents, to 87,000 by 2030. (source Greater Springfield website)
The fact that the seat of Bundamba where it is situated is red team, has nothing to do with the incongruous discrepancy in resource allocation.

Appears that the rail link from Maroochydore to Beerwah to occur before duplication to Nambour.
No time frame mentioned for it in the document.

Cynically, the difference between Springfield and the Sunshine Coast is the colour of the political seats the rail line serves but that's typical politics in Queensland
(or anywhere else for that matter).
Need, unfortunately, is not the precursor for action.
What makes it galling is the advantages duplication to the north coast line would bring to the economy by freight savings and pavement savings alone, and still they cannot stand to provide acceptable levels of rail service to us.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I know the SC needs it blah blah blah, but from my POV encouraging people to live closer to the CBD can only be a good thing. And building beerwah to marroochydore makes sense as more people live in that corridor.

[somebody]

Appears that the rail link from Maroochydore to Beerwah to occur before duplication to Nambour.

What's wrong with that?

The bottleneck needs to be resolved first.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

If the Maroochydore link is to be done, I wouldn't complain.  I know it doesn't suit you though.

[#Metro]

That ridiculous subway is still there. Their justification is that there will be a lot of trips in the inner city, but they don't say how they calculated that number and I strongly suspect that is a catch-all number which includes walking, cycling, bus, ferry, car etc.

The metro is very costly and is not really an addition to mobility IMHO.
I mean, if you want to go from Bowen Hills to Toowong, just catch a train! New Farm to West End? BUZ 199 or CityCats.

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?
It's almost like they don't want to know that it is filling up. The core section of the busway should be converted to metro, there is already enough demand at peak hour to justify a metro IMHO.

If you want to put a subway in Brisbane, straight down the SE BUSWAY through Fortitude Valley (leave the INB as is) then up into the Northern Busway.

[O_128]

That ridiculous subway is still there. Their justification is that there will be a lot of trips in the inner city, but they don't say how they calculated that number and I strongly suspect that is a catch-all number which includes walking, cycling, bus, ferry, car etc.

The metro is very costly and is not really an addition to mobility IMHO.
I mean, if you want to go from Bowen Hills to Toowong, just catch a train! New Farm to West End? BUZ 199 or CityCats.

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?
It's almost like they don't want to know that it is filling up. The core section of the busway should be converted to metro, there is already enough demand at peak hour to justify a metro IMHO.

If you want to put a subway in Brisbane, straight down the SE BUSWAY through Fortitude Valley (leave the INB as is) then up into the Northern Busway.

Tramtrain Ive suggested numerous times that EMP to chermside can be metro while leaving the core section of busway (INB and EB + mater hill to CC) for buses.  But I agree, if they can't see it its not real.

[somebody]

That ridiculous subway is still there. Their justification is that there will be a lot of trips in the inner city, but they don't say how they calculated that number and I strongly suspect that is a catch-all number which includes walking, cycling, bus, ferry, car etc.

That's a bit daft.  Only a small portion of the 1997 plan was built.  There was to be a busway to Indro/St Lucia, Capalaba, Carseldine, Beenleigh.  We only got/getting Kedron, Langlands Park and Upper Kedron.

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?

To have single seat journeys.  I'm fine with this part.  People that use it already use PT, I'm yet to be convinced that modal shift is needed.

[dwb]

Well those are all the goals on the table and now maybe we can start a discussion about how to fund it and what to fund as priority... for example, the prohibitive cost may be a good reason WHY to not proceed with plans for all the underground road tunnels, just saying.

[dwb]

Their little promo video that took forever to load will be on youtube soon, link coming (might take an hour or so to encode etc).

although it does seem to be loading off their site faster now.

[dwb]

If you want to put a subway in Brisbane, straight down the SE BUSWAY through Fortitude Valley (leave the INB as is) then up into the Northern Busway.

This is a good but unoriginal idea. I haven't really seen it in documents, but I'm sure it is there in the back of the transport planners heads but then to be serious I think it is out of sequence to be talking about it now.

[#Metro]

Argh!

If you watch the video-- 30 minutes for non-urban link services. So I am thinking Sunshine Coast/Gold Coast and Ipswich, possibly Caboolture too will STILL have TERRIBLE service frequency in 2031.

Ha! Move to Perth! Intercity trains to Joondalup and Mandurah every 15 minutes.

[Stillwater]

Well, on page 8, the state government comes clean and says the Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan is 'conceptual only', cannot be funded entirely by the state government alone and will require financial input from other sources, including local and federal governments.  That is bound to ensure that significant sections of the plan will remain unfunded and, therefore, cannot be completed by 2031.

Some aspects would seem to be driven by such things as the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games bid.  Therefore, in a tight financial situation, state government funding may favour extension of the Gold Coast Line to the Gold Coast Airport, for example, in preference to the Sunshine Coast Line (SCL) upgrade.  Then again, federal funding is likely to go to lines where there is a freight component, such as the SCL.  The trouble is that the detailed planning is likely to be done for the Gold Coast Line and not for the SCL, so the state will be pushing for a federal contribution to the GCL, while federal priorities might lie elsewhere.

As to whether Beerwah-Maroochydore proceeds ahead of Beerburrum-Nambour duplication, the point is that duplication to Landsborough is the common element for both these projects and must be addressed first.  I think that was what Fares Fair was alluding to in an earlier post.

[Arnz]

As to whether Beerwah-Maroochydore proceeds ahead of Beerburrum-Nambour duplication, the point is that duplication to Landsborough is the common element for both these projects and must be addressed first.  I think that was what Fares Fair was alluding to in an earlier post.

Beerburrum-Nambour is not one project, as stated many times.  It's Beerburrum-Landsborough and Landsborough-Nambour. 

I would think common sense would prevail here and Beerburrum-Landsborough comes before Beerwah-Caloundra/Maroochydore.  I don't think they'll do Maroochydore in one hit, going by the past history of all state governments.

[Fares_Fair]

This is my initial summary and may be subject to change upon reading the entire document.

Not much joy for the Sunshine Coast in this new non-draft glossy brochure.
Yes, it is a planning document and yes there should be plans, but there is no money set aside to achieve the stated goals.

Nambour rail duplication still on the backburner to 2031 despite our record growth.
Massive new developments at Caloundra South and Palmview that equal Springfield in size and population to be serviced with buses as a long-term interim measure.

Springfield gets the dual rail track for a mere 22,000 current residents, to 87,000 by 2030. (source Greater Springfield website)
The fact that the seat of Bundamba where it is situated is red team, has nothing to do with the incongruous discrepancy in resource allocation.

Appears that the rail link from Maroochydore to Beerwah to occur before duplication to Nambour.
No time frame mentioned for it in the document.

Cynically, the difference between Springfield and the Sunshine Coast is the colour of the political seats the rail line serves but that's typical politics in Queensland
(or anywhere else for that matter).
Need, unfortunately, is not the precursor for action.
What makes it galling is the advantages duplication to the north coast line would bring to the economy by freight savings and pavement savings alone, and still they cannot stand to provide acceptable levels of rail service to us.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I know the SC needs it blah blah blah, but from my POV encouraging people to live closer to the CBD can only be a good thing. And building beerwah to marroochydore makes sense as more people live in that corridor.

Hello O_128,

They may do.
The rationale is just that it doesn't resolve the short pasing loops or freight congestion issues to the main line, we have 26 buses replacing trains from Caboolture to Nambour.
A dual track extension to Beerwah, if it occurs, does not address that growing problem.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Arnz]

As to whether Beerwah-Maroochydore proceeds ahead of Beerburrum-Nambour duplication, the point is that duplication to Landsborough is the common element for both these projects and must be addressed first.  I think that was what Fares Fair was alluding to in an earlier post.

Beerburrum-Nambour is not one project, as stated many times.  It's Beerburrum-Landsborough and Landsborough-Nambour. 

I would think common sense would prevail here and Beerburrum-Landsborough comes before Beerwah-Caloundra/Maroochydore.  I don't think they'll do Maroochydore in one hit, going by the past history of all state governments.

Following my own post: http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/Libraries/Publications_split/Draft_Connecting_SEQ_2031_-_factsheet_rail.pdf

Page 2: Beerburrum-Landsborough is first before CAMCOS in that 2031 document.

[Fares_Fair]

As to whether Beerwah-Maroochydore proceeds ahead of Beerburrum-Nambour duplication, the point is that duplication to Landsborough is the common element for both these projects and must be addressed first.  I think that was what Fares Fair was alluding to in an earlier post.

Beerburrum-Nambour is not one project, as stated many times.  It's Beerburrum-Landsborough and Landsborough-Nambour.  

I would think common sense would prevail here and Beerburrum-Landsborough comes before Beerwah-Caloundra/Maroochydore.  I don't think they'll do Maroochydore in one hit, going by the past history of all state governments.

Hello Arnz,

That is true.
My campaign is for it to continue to Landsborough ASAP and to Nambour by 2020 (timelines from Arup Engineers report, dated 2007)

I guess that is just not clear in this latest document as to how it will be done, and that's a concern.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

Well, on page 8, the state government comes clean and says the Connecting SEQ 2031 Plan is 'conceptual only',

'Fantasy' 2031

cannot be funded entirely by the state government alone and will require financial input from other sources, including local and federal governments.

Funding of plan is based on Earth, moon and stars all aligning plus winning Tattslotto multiple times over.

That is bound to ensure that significant sections of the plan will remain unfunded and, therefore, cannot be completed by 2031.

Ditto.

Some aspects would seem to be driven by such things as the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games bid.  Therefore, in a tight financial situation, state government funding may favour extension of the Gold Coast Line to the Gold Coast Airport, for example, in preference to the Sunshine Coast Line (SCL) upgrade.

Gold Coast Games is a terrible reason! The games lasts for a few weeks, rail line is permanent!

Then again, federal funding is likely to go to lines where there is a freight component, such as the SCL.  The trouble is that the detailed planning is likely to be done for the Gold Coast Line and not for the SCL, so the state will be pushing for a federal contribution to the GCL, while federal priorities might lie elsewhere.

Infrastructure Australia ATM is empty!

[#Metro]

Hmmm... this isn't a plan... this is a proposal.

[Gazza]

As to whether Beerwah-Maroochydore proceeds ahead of Beerburrum-Nambour duplication, the point is that duplication to Landsborough is the common element for both these projects and must be addressed first.  I think that was what Fares Fair was alluding to in an earlier post.

Beerburrum-Nambour is not one project, as stated many times.  It's Beerburrum-Landsborough and Landsborough-Nambour.  

I would think common sense would prevail here and Beerburrum-Landsborough comes before Beerwah-Caloundra/Maroochydore.  I don't think they'll do Maroochydore in one hit, going by the past history of all state governments.

Hello Arnz,

That is true.
My campaign is for it to continue to Landsborough ASAP and to Nambour by 2020 (timelines from Arup Engineers report, dated 2007)

I guess that is just not clear in this latest document as to how it will be done, and that's a concern.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

True, but I think rail to Maroochydoore probably should take precedence over Nambour.

You've said yourself that its not right that areas with lower population and growth (Eg Springfield) get rail improvements ahead of areas with higher population and growth (Eg Sunshine Coast)

Well within the Sunshine coast itself the highly developed coastal strip is lacking any rail at all, and Caloundra south needs to get on the network. These areas have higher population and growth than the inland corridor, and hence, should be funded first. Inevitably, the Maroochydoore line will be the more popular one.

Granted, others have done the calculations, but doesn't extending the duplicated line to Landsborough mean it becomes possible to increase the number of pax trains begin run to Nambour anyway?

[Stillwater]

On current planning and despite clear promises that it would be delivered earlier, duplication to Landsborough is due by 2020, and to Nambour by 2031.  As FF has said, most people on the SC would hope that duplication and realignment to Nambour could be achieved within the timeframe that the state government plans to get continuous two tracks to Landsborough (2020).  Once the content of Connecting SEQ 2031 is digested, it would be interesting to see the LNP's proposed timetable.  There is no doubt this will become an election issue locally, as will the CAMCOS project to Maroochydore.

[mufreight]

Caloundra can be served for the interim by a bus feeder to the rail provided the NCL has the capacity for the additional passenger services but from the point of ecenomics a greater return on investment overall for the State is to increase the freight capability on the NCL between Caboolture and Gympie so that longer (1500 metre) trains can be operated which would not only reduce the transit times for freight but also improve rails position in competition with road taking freight off the heavily congested road system.
The priority is the realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Nambour this will provide shorter transit times for passenger services and more paths for services including those to Caloundra with the return from freight services contributing the major portion of the costs involved.

[somebody]

Caloundra can be served for the interim by a bus feeder to the rail provided the NCL has the capacity for the additional passenger services but from the point of ecenomics a greater return on investment overall for the State is to increase the freight capability on the NCL between Caboolture and Gympie so that longer (1500 metre) trains can be operated which would not only reduce the transit times for freight but also improve rails position in competition with road taking freight off the heavily congested road system.
The priority is the realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Nambour this will provide shorter transit times for passenger services and more paths for services including those to Caloundra with the return from freight services contributing the major portion of the costs involved.

I wonder who came up with the idea of separating out the project at Beerburrum?  Makes little sense.

[Arnz]

Caloundra can be served for the interim by a bus feeder to the rail

There already is one that's been in place since the Pre-TransLink days.  Route 605 (originally the Route 1A Integrated Trainlink to Caloundra).

provided the NCL has the capacity for the additional passenger services but from the point of ecenomics a greater return on investment overall for the State is to increase the freight capability on the NCL between Caboolture and Gympie so that longer (1500 metre) trains can be operated which would not only reduce the transit times for freight but also improve rails position in competition with road taking freight off the heavily congested road system.
The priority is the realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Nambour this will provide shorter transit times for passenger services and more paths for services including those to Caloundra with the return from freight services contributing the major portion of the costs involved.

Personally I'd rather have Landsborough-Nambour go ahead (instead of CAMCOS) after Beerburrum-Landsborough out of mainly freight and revenue reasons (to provide part of the funds for the upgrades of the other lines in the Passenger network).

[Fares_Fair]

Caloundra can be served for the interim by a bus feeder to the rail

There already is one that's been in place since the Pre-TransLink days.  Route 605 (originally the Route 1A Integrated Trainlink to Caloundra).

provided the NCL has the capacity for the additional passenger services but from the point of ecenomics a greater return on investment overall for the State is to increase the freight capability on the NCL between Caboolture and Gympie so that longer (1500 metre) trains can be operated which would not only reduce the transit times for freight but also improve rails position in competition with road taking freight off the heavily congested road system.
The priority is the realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Nambour this will provide shorter transit times for passenger services and more paths for services including those to Caloundra with the return from freight services contributing the major portion of the costs involved.

Personally I'd rather have Landsborough-Nambour go ahead (instead of CAMCOS) after Beerburrum-Landsborough out of mainly freight and revenue reasons (to provide part of the funds for the upgrades of the other lines in the Passenger network).

@Gazza,
I have argued intensively regarding the population and growth projections when comparing service levels and funding priorities of other areas and I make no apology for that.
The line needs to be de-congested (proof would be with no rail buses required) to allow the extra coastal services to fit onto the line at Beerwah, and duplication to Landsborough is a minimum requirement for that.
Palmwoods, 3 stations north of Landsborough, has the shortest passing loop in the 1680 km from Brisbane to Cairns. That needs to be addressed, as do the slow curves north of Landsborough, hence my rationale.
IMHO, the Maroochydore services would be no better, frequency wise or length of journey wise, than we have now until this is done.

@Arnz,
Same here, The freight advantages and revenue opportunities are well documented.

Regards,
Fares-Fair.

[Stillwater]

 

[SurfRail]

Only a small portion of the 1997 plan was built.  There was to be a busway to Indro/St Lucia, Capalaba, Carseldine, Beenleigh.  We only got/getting Kedron, Langlands Park and Upper Kedron.

The entire network was built after IRTP was published.  They have done reasonably well given we have had major extreme weather events every year since 2007 and a global financial meltdown, plus having to reverse decades of inertia in this entire field of endeavour on top of that.

(Also, by Upper Kedron I will assume somewhere on the Northern Busway and not the suburb next to Ferny Grove!  )

[somebody]

Only a small portion of the 1997 plan was built.  There was to be a busway to Indro/St Lucia, Capalaba, Carseldine, Beenleigh.  We only got/getting Kedron, Langlands Park and Upper Kedron.

The entire network was built after IRTP was published.  They have done reasonably well given we have had major extreme weather events every year since 2007 and a global financial meltdown, plus having to reverse decades of inertia in this entire field of endeavour on top of that.

(Also, by Upper Kedron I will assume somewhere on the Northern Busway and not the suburb next to Ferny Grove!  )

Must have been a brain fade there with Upper Kedron.  Should have been 8 Mile Plains.

[Golliwog]

That ridiculous subway is still there. Their justification is that there will be a lot of trips in the inner city, but they don't say how they calculated that number and I strongly suspect that is a catch-all number which includes walking, cycling, bus, ferry, car etc.

The metro is very costly and is not really an addition to mobility IMHO.
I mean, if you want to go from Bowen Hills to Toowong, just catch a train! New Farm to West End? BUZ 199 or CityCats.

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?
It's almost like they don't want to know that it is filling up. The core section of the busway should be converted to metro, there is already enough demand at peak hour to justify a metro IMHO.

If you want to put a subway in Brisbane, straight down the SE BUSWAY through Fortitude Valley (leave the INB as is) then up into the Northern Busway.

Just as a side note, in our transport system lecture on Friday, our guest lecturer told us that Brisbanes busway was blowing the existing text book figures for maximum busway passenger volumes out of the water. We are somewhere up at the top end of an LRT system in terms of the volumes we are achieving on the busway as it is. At the moment I would say if you're going to work on upgrading the busway's capacity, work on making it fully grade seperated.

[O_128]

That ridiculous subway is still there. Their justification is that there will be a lot of trips in the inner city, but they don't say how they calculated that number and I strongly suspect that is a catch-all number which includes walking, cycling, bus, ferry, car etc.

The metro is very costly and is not really an addition to mobility IMHO.
I mean, if you want to go from Bowen Hills to Toowong, just catch a train! New Farm to West End? BUZ 199 or CityCats.

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?
It's almost like they don't want to know that it is filling up. The core section of the busway should be converted to metro, there is already enough demand at peak hour to justify a metro IMHO.

If you want to put a subway in Brisbane, straight down the SE BUSWAY through Fortitude Valley (leave the INB as is) then up into the Northern Busway.

Just as a side note, in our transport system lecture on Friday, our guest lecturer told us that Brisbanes busway was blowing the existing text book figures for maximum busway passenger volumes out of the water. We are somewhere up at the top end of an LRT system in terms of the volumes we are achieving on the busway as it is. At the moment I would say if you're going to work on upgrading the busway's capacity, work on making it fully grade seperated.

Id say grade seperating CC and the queen street portal might give you a few thousand more people per hour. The issue mainly is the amount of not full buses using the busway.

[somebody]

Id say grade seperating CC and the queen street portal might give you a few thousand more people per hour. The issue mainly is the amount of not full buses using the busway.

I'd think an upgrade for the loop used to access the CC Bridge is more of a priority.

[dwb]

Id say grade seperating CC and the queen street portal might give you a few thousand more people per hour. The issue mainly is the amount of not full buses using the busway.

I'd think an upgrade for the loop used to access the CC Bridge is more of a priority.

Finally we have found some common ground today Simon

[frereOP]

The other thing is that the busway is still there as a busway. Why?
It's almost like they don't want to know that it is filling up.

Filling up?  It's already filled up!  You just hav to watch the buses cued up across the Victoria Bridge in the afternoon to know that the city section i already at capacity.  A breakdown in the Myer Centre bus station or on the Victoria Bridge would bring the whole system to a grinding halt!  It seems the urgency of that scenario would dictate conversion to a metro now I would have thought

And as for the cost?  The real question about cost should be "What is the cost of NOT building it?" rather than the stock standard "Can we afford it and if so where is the money coming from?".

[somebody]

Filling up?  It's already filled up!  You just hav to watch the buses cued up across the Victoria Bridge in the afternoon to know that the city section i already at capacity.  A breakdown in the Myer Centre bus station or on the Victoria Bridge would bring the whole system to a grinding halt!  It seems the urgency of that scenario would dictate conversion to a metro now I would have thought

I think that just shows the need for a greater level of effectiveness of the PM peak rockets.

[Golliwog]

Filling up?  It's already filled up!  You just hav to watch the buses cued up across the Victoria Bridge in the afternoon to know that the city section i already at capacity.  A breakdown in the Myer Centre bus station or on the Victoria Bridge would bring the whole system to a grinding halt!  It seems the urgency of that scenario would dictate conversion to a metro now I would have thought

And as for the cost?  The real question about cost should be "What is the cost of NOT building it?" rather than the stock standard "Can we afford it and if so where is the money coming from?".

But ditto for a broken down metro train or LRT. But the thing is, an upgrade will be very expensive, and if anything you would only gain a little bit of extra capacity in the corridor. I'm all for a metro or LRT, but I do not think its a good idea to upgrade the busway into it. By all means change how the busway operates to reduce the number of half empty buses and increase the capacity that way, but I do not support upgrading it to a metro or LRT given the current situation.

[#Metro]

Just as a side note, in our transport system lecture on Friday, our guest lecturer told us that Brisbanes busway was blowing the existing text book figures for maximum busway passenger volumes out of the water. We are somewhere up at the top end of an LRT system in terms of the volumes we are achieving on the busway as it is. At the moment I would say if you're going to work on upgrading the busway's capacity, work on making it fully grade seperated.

This is the case, but I disagree that simply more grade separation is the answer. This is like "CRR for buses".

Reasons why the core section of the busway should be converted to metro:

1. Capacity -  the busway is already pushing the lower bound for metro systems. A metro could perhaps double the peak capacity of the busway system. And this is why I don't agree with the SEQ2031 "we need a metro from Toowong to Bowen Hills via West End" argument. They're basing the construction of that metro (if it ever happens) on projected demand, when there is DEMAND NOW staring them in the face in the form of the SE busway.

2. Network capacity and savings from removing route duplication. A metro on the core part of the busway would mean that the days of paying to send all the buses down to Adelaide St/Queen St/Elizabeth street would end. Instead, the buses would drop people off at the metro station, allowing them to turn back, save money and have higher frequency in the suburbs.. When you consider that most buses in brisbane run at a paltry 30 minutes and even BUZ is 15 minutes perhaps with a metro that could be further reduced to 5-10 minutes all day.

3. Terminal capacity There is limited space in the CBD for buses to layover. Queen St tunnel is slow (20 km/hour speed limit) and the stations KGS and QSBS couldn't possibly handle all the additional buses if they were taken off the streets.

4. Automation you can automate the core, reducing labour cost- reallocate that to feeder services, high frequency all night

[Stillwater]

It is interesting, always, to see what other levels of government think about strategy documents such as the Queensland Government's Connecting SEQ 2031.  The Sunshine Coast Regional Council made a submission in respect of the draft document, but many of the issues it raised then remain relevant to the final document.
http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/planning/submission_scc_seq_2031.pdf

[STB]

Personally I'd rather see additional capacity built at Cultural Centre and Queen St Bus Station rather than converting to a metro or LRT.  Most people really do not want to change modes even if it might be better for them to do so, so while I can see what you are saying TramTrain, I don't think it will ever become a reality.  For one thing, on top of the cost/benefit which would be minimal as others have pointed out, imagine the disruption to convert the busway to light rail, it'd be enough to drive people off the system completely!

There was an idea a while back of converting the existing Victoria Bridge into a fully working busway, but if that happens I'd suspect that the South Brisbane section might need some adjustments to allow this to happen.  There is still some capacity on the busway (not much), so will see how it copes with the additional 100 and 180 BUZ routes when they kick in.  I think when the Northern Busway opens and the 330 gets upgraded, we might see some changes to where the northern routes terminate at which might help relieve Cultural Centre a bit perhaps?  I am speculating a bit here though.

One question for you though TramTrain, if LRT is the answer, what happens when that is at capacity, or if a tram breaks down and has to be moved?  That is one clear problem with rail, once you've got something stuck on it, nothing can move, at least buses can move out of the way of the obstacle if there is room to move, like there is at Cultural Centre station.  I'd hate to see an LRT vehicle break down in the middle of peak hour there, it'd be hell on Earth! In terms of additional capacity beyond LRT, there's certainly no room for additional heavy rail into the city from this section.  I know there's CRR but that services a different market, among clearing up paths on the Merivale Bridge.

[somebody]

^ I think you got that benefit/cost thing around the wrong way.

I don't see the need for additional capacity at the Cultural Centre.  A bus every 20 seconds is enough.  The loop is the major problem for peak, but I actually think the most pressing fix is for additional light cycle time leaving QSBS.  Perhaps this is kind of what you are thinking of?

[Golliwog]

1. Capacity -  the busway is already pushing the lower bound for metro systems. A metro could perhaps double the peak capacity of the busway system. And this is why I don't agree with the SEQ2031 "we need a metro from Toowong to Bowen Hills via West End" argument. They're basing the construction of that metro (if it ever happens) on projected demand, when there is DEMAND NOW staring them in the face in the form of the SE busway.

Actually, the figures we were told IIRC were that the busway is currently in the middle of a metro capacity. Upgrading to a metro could (on the figures given) at most only double capacity, or a little better than that. That metro you find fault with would most likely remove the 199 and Cityglider, allowing for those buses to be spread elsewhere across the network. It would also provide an invaluable link across the river at West End, which could also allow for a change in Citycat stopping patterns. You can't say that those two bus routes aren't showing current considerable demand?

2. Network capacity and savings from removing route duplication. A metro on the core part of the busway would mean that the days of paying to send all the buses down to Adelaide St/Queen St/Elizabeth street would end. Instead, the buses would drop people off at the metro station, allowing them to turn back, save money and have higher frequency in the suburbs.. When you consider that most buses in brisbane run at a paltry 30 minutes and even BUZ is 15 minutes perhaps with a metro that could be further reduced to 5-10 minutes all day.

You can remove route duplication without going to a metro though. Improve trunk and feeder operations on the busway. Comparing a single BUZ frequency to a possible metro frequency of 5-10 minutes is a crappy comparison. The SE busway has severl BUZ or equivalent routes. They can increase the frequency in the suburbs by improving trunk and feeder, without going to metro.

3. Terminal capacity There is limited space in the CBD for buses to layover. Queen St tunnel is slow (20 km/hour speed limit) and the stations KGS and QSBS couldn't possibly handle all the additional buses if they were taken off the streets.

I don't think they could either, but one or two additional bus stations in the city would be less expensive than the metro. Or other options that would be available such as making Adelaide St bus only and changing the bus stop operations.

4. Automation you can automate the core, reducing labour cost- reallocate that to feeder services, high frequency all night

This is about the only thing I can see that metro would have over the bus option. It is a fair point and I don't have figures for metro operation costs, but the rough figures we were given were that a bus is $5-6/km or $100-130/hour to operate. There are of course economies of scale as well. The simple example he gave us was

On a route of 15 minute frequency, that runs 16 hours per day, adding just 100m of travel at the end of each trip will cost at least an extra $23,000 per annum.

[Golliwog]

^ I think you got that benefit/cost thing around the wrong way.

I don't see the need for additional capacity at the Cultural Centre.  A bus every 20 seconds is enough.  The loop is the major problem for peak, but I actually think the most pressing fix is for additional light cycle time leaving QSBS.  Perhaps this is kind of what you are thinking of?

Which loop is that?

I think the end goal needs to be removing the traffic lights there and at CC completely. Platooning of buses is part of why CC has the capacity issues it does, as well as the queue from the lights leaving CC causing a temporary restriction on buses leaving the outbound platform.