Suburbs 2 City Bus Tunnel Proposal

[SteelPan]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/council-push-to-drive-buses-out-of-cbd/story-e6freoof-1226214567762

This is, I believe, a Terry Mackenroth era Infrastructure Plan concept rebranded - so not really alot new to see here!

Luckily, I don't really see this "competing" with CRR, which has a good headstart for funds and to be honest, the bus tunnel, for a change, can mark a little time!

Good idea - but not at the cost of CRR medium term, nor the subway plan longer term.

Others thoughts please?

[#Metro]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/council-push-to-drive-buses-out-of-cbd/story-e6freoof-1226214567762

I am disappointed at this studies scope because it already has chosen the mode. We well could be building a $2.5 billion dollar bus link only to find that it doesn't have sufficient capacity for the future.

What they should be doing is doing what Ottawa did and looking at ALL options for the study. This includes heavy metro and light metro options.

[O_128]

FFS people, its called a train. No point building trying to fix the capacity.

[HappyTrainGuy]

30 minutes my ass. If that was the case everybody would bail at Southbank, train to Roma Street/Central then walk! Just fix the stupid intersections to make them bus priority which the whole cultural centre area should have been anyway and get rid of the idea that buses are trains and that every route must go via the city! Put more people onto trains, ramp up the frequency and bring on the feeder buses.

[#Metro]

"I think most people recognise that Cross River Rail is not going to fly in its current format. At $8 billion it's just not affordable. Also it will not address Brisbane's bus needs," Cr Quirk said.

Last time I checked Brisbane wasn't the only city in SEQ.

Even with a Vancouver style light metro service (which could BTW be fitted into existing busway stations quite nicely) that could give around 30 000 pphd (an extra 12 000 pphd above current busway capacity which is 18 000 pphd), and hugely simplify operating patterns and have an efficiency gain in terms of labour.

"Without any new CBD bus infrastructure, between 300 and 400 bus services during the inbound peak hour could then be forced to terminate their journey at the city fringe."

GET A TRAIN!!!

NORTH-SOUTH SUBWAY PLEASE

[Gazza]

sh%t proposal, dont like it, media release time.

[Arnz]

I guess the main powers to be in the BCC is anti-rail and pro-bus when it comes to inner-city PT capacity needs.  As shown by that silly proposal to replace the CRR with a cross river underground busway   *cuckoo emote*

"Without any new CBD bus infrastructure, between 300 and 400 bus services during the inbound peak hour could then be forced to terminate their journey at the city fringe."

DUH, Feed them to the improved post-CRR rail services.  How hard is that?  

[#Metro]

"The queues in the busway tunnel will continue to grow from South Bank to Mater Hill station and then to Woolloongabba, creating complete gridlock with buses unable to enter the CBD."[/quote]

There you have it in bold. I have said exactly this and been hounded for saying it and called drama queen on this forum because I said it in the past. But now you have it. The Mayor Said it.

[#Metro]

I don't mind if this proposal competes with Cross River Rail... there are other projects that compete with CRR as well and it should be up to the experts at IA to see which one has higher priority.

The busway upgrade to release it from capacity constraints WILL have a lot of benefit and could even trump CRR simply because that busway carries 150 000 passengers per day, which is what 70% of the Entire QR Network carries in a day. It is possible that the NPV and BCR for the busway upgrade might actually come out equal to or higher than CRR. I would not be surprised...

[HappyTrainGuy]

The only reason the busway carries so many people is because every bus route in Brisbane and surrounds feeds into it to get to the city along with the busway being a dedicated route (Its pethetic that only the Ferny Grove line - Sort of for Shorncliffe as well via the subs - has no interaction with freight what so ever. Here's something.... could 15 min frequency work on Ferny Grove and Shorncliffe lines work via shuttles on the subs. The second Roma Street terminating service from Ferny Grove turns into a Shorncliffe service and vice versa via platform 2/3 @ RS during offpeak post modifications?). Get freight off the passenger lines, invest money into heavy rail to build it as the PT spine and then flood the lines realignment/merging stations, creating interchanged, higher frequencies and feeder services that branch out linking busways, railways and interchanges together rather than having every bus going to the city.

[Golliwog]

I don't mind if this proposal competes with Cross River Rail... there are other projects that compete with CRR as well and it should be up to the experts at IA to see which one has higher priority.

The busway upgrade to release it from capacity constraints WILL have a lot of benefit and could even trump CRR simply because that busway carries 150 000 passengers per day, which is what 70% of the Entire QR Network carries in a day. It is possible that the NPV and BCR for the busway upgrade might actually come out equal to or higher than CRR. I would not be surprised...

I do. CRR is critical for the entire rail network. Buses have more options, you could pretty much just put some paint down of the CCB and look at that, you have a new dedicated bus route to the city. Same for the Story bridge. If this got funded by the Feds and the State before CRR, there is something seriously wrong with Brisbane.

[Gazza]

I find it very Hypocritical that transapex to date has been $9.18 Billion, but $8 Billion on rail is considered a "pipedream".

[#Metro]

I do. CRR is critical for the entire rail network. Buses have more options, you could pretty much just put some paint down of the CCB and look at that, you have a new dedicated bus route to the city. Same for the Story bridge. If this got funded by the Feds and the State before CRR, there is something seriously wrong with Brisbane.

Let's look at the train system as an example to illustrate what bandaid-upon-bandaids eventually lead us too.

Queensland chose narrow gauge rail. It was cheaper at the time.
It would have been better to get standard gauge IMHO as we could then buy trains off the shelf...

We chose to have level crossings on key roads. It was cheaper at the time.
Now we have network unreliability issues galore with cars into level crossings et al where main arterial roads cross the tracks.

We chose to have single track sections in major projects. It was cheaper at the time.
Now we have these horrible bottleneck sections which interfere with timetabling and the entire network
seems incapable of achieving even BASIC 15 minute frequencies on many lines, let alone "world class" standard of
a service every 5-10 minutes all day (which overseas systems and our own busway meets with ease).

We chose to put everything onto one system - passenger, freight, coal, long distance services. It was cheaper
at the time. Now timetabling trains requires hiring of mathematicians and pattern matching algorithims and the
timetable that pops out the other end is awful.

Simplicity and decency are important. By all means let's put on a band-aid, but it is no substitute for going to see
the doctor afterwards. That busway carries 70% of what the entire rail system carries. If this tunnel goes ahead, even
more people will catch it as it will speed up journeys and be easier to access.

The whole point of a competitive funding system is that proposals compete so that the best one wins.
And that's the reason why I'm not concerned about it competing with CRR funding. If CRR is that good, then there
should be no issue.

[#Metro]

I find it very Hypocritical that transapex to date has been $9.18 Billion, but $8 Billion on rail is considered a "pipedream".

Will there be a toll on this tunnel?   

[somebody]

Queensland chose narrow gauge rail. It was cheaper at the time.
It would have been better to get standard gauge IMHO as we could then buy trains off the shelf...

Not in Australia my friend.  We do things in our own way, by our own standards.  That's why it was necessary to make the double decker bus twin steer: a feature unique across the world.  Similarly, the insistence on stainless steel (rather than aluminium) was a big factor in the Waratah rolling stock contract being a debacle.

[colinw]

Queensland chose narrow gauge rail. It was cheaper at the time.
It would have been better to get standard gauge IMHO as we could then buy trains off the shelf...

Good trick.  Apply 21st century sensibilities to a decision made in about 1863.  The fact is that ALL rollingstock for the colonies was bespoke imported rollingstock for light lines, regardless of gauge.  The fact also is that level crossings were the norm across the country and around most of the world with rare exceptions like the Great Western Main Line in the UK.  When the rail systems were laid out from the mid 1800s through to around 1900 there was no major vehicular traffic to grade separate, so deciding to grade separate would have required 20/20 foresight on the part of the rail authorities.  Arguably the failure to grade separate can be blamed more on councils, etc. later on when roads were being built for the emerging motorised vehicle traffic.

As for the decision to adopt 3'6", it was entirely the correct one AT THE TIME for a colony of little more than 50,000 free settlers and bunch of convicts trying to push a line over the great dividing range.  The curve radii required to get across the Toowoomba range in standard gauge would have put rail out of reach of the colony.

As it was put in a debate at the time, it was the difference between being able to go 100 miles at 25 mph or go 250 miles at 15 mph.  For a struggling new colony with a vast hinterland to develop, it was the correct decision.

Arguably, after 1901 we should have standardised the whole newly federated country, bit pointless arguing about it now 'though.

I am just about over arguing for all these "big dumb-ass projects". Starting to suspect the whole thing is just a giant cash cow for consultants, etc.  We have neither the money, the brains or the will to run our existing rail system or public transport system with anything even vaguely resembling sensible service patterns or frequencies, so why the heck should we spend a single dollar building any more?  What is the point, it'll just be billions down the tube for the same old mediocre crap.

FWIW, I do not believe CRR will ever be built, and am somewhat doubtful about this bus tunnel as well.  IMHO the Springfield line & MBRL will probably be giant white elephants like the rest of our waste-of-time rail system as well - only in QLD will we build a rail line then run it half hourly at under 2000 pphd capacity..

[Golliwog]

Thats a nice list of things that are wrong with Brisbane's rail system, but its not a reason to abandon it for buses. CRR stacks up (so far anyway) and this bus tunnel will probably stack up too (with some modifications to stupid things) but even if the bus tunnel has a better BCR than CRR, that doesn't mean it should be built first! Theres a need to see which project is absolutely critical, and for half the rail network (which can then be fed by bus/interchange at the Gabba) that is CRR hands down.

[colinw]

Don't worry GW, just feeling somewhat exasperated by the whole thing at present.

I find it really frustrating that we seem unable to provide more than mediocrity with what we have now, and yet there is a seemingly endless stream of mega-projects on the horizon.  A case of "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish" perhaps?

CRR would of course be a boon for the system if/when built, but to realise the full benefits will need to be used properly, and the evidence to date indicates that is unlikely.

As for this bus tunnel, I can see its benefits but consider it a distraction or secondary priority. I think the emerging need for it tells us that busway may have been the wrong technology after all, or at least that we have an over-reliance on buses to do the heavy lifting "line haul" task.

Some of it comes down to the "Brisbane people won't change" nonsense too, the nonsensical idea that all services must provide a single seat journey to the Brisbane CBD (as if that is the only worthwhile destination).

Off to have a coffee, maybe some caffeine will cheer me up

[somebody]

Agree with everything you just said in those last two posts, colinw, with the exception of "people don't want to change" being nonsense.  "People won't change" may be nonsense though.

This bus tunnel is really not required - just fix up a few of the bottlenecks on the busway and more CCB services, as we have discussed recently.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Will it be maglev?

[O_128]

Will it be maglev?

for 2 billion it may as well be. This is just going to push the congestion up to wickham and ann streets.

Perhaps though the melbourne street tunnel and bridge could be built, then just buswayify adelaide street.

[colinw]

$2billion!  Two thirds of the cost of the 2 billion Euro, 40km long, entirely underground Metro Sur south of Madrid. Or, over double the cost of the Springfield line.  Or over double the cost of the entire 40km+ of rail south of Beenleigh to the Gold Coast.  Or significantly more than the 70km Mandurah line. All to run a bunch of buses.  We really are insane here in QLD.

[#Metro]

It is possible to have both a short term fix and a long term fix.

A short term fix (band aid) will work now but its effectiveness will wear off. A long term fix will take time and money to do
but once done will be a permanent fix.

I know that people want CRR badly, but that isn't a reason to shoot down the bus tunnel idea. There are other projects in Sydney, Melbourne as well that are vying for funding. I got to work this morning on that busway!

If the BCR of this bus tunnel comes out as better than CRR, then that is a amber flag. If the NPV comes out bigger than CRR (and this is possible given the utility and capacity of the busway) then the bus tunnel should be built first IMHO.

It will be very interesting if both Mr Quirk and Mr Newman both get into power at the next elections. It would be like BCC running the entire state.

[somebody]

Enough buses running around the indirect path via South Bank!

Let's get more on the CCB rather than wasting any more money on this rather silly idea.

[#Metro]

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=738

In the previous item here, I wrote about the Metrolinx study tour including a visit to Madrid. A report reviewing that tour was on yesterday's Metrolinx Board agenda.

The "Madrid Miracle" is always an issue for discussion. How could a city build so much rapid transit so quickly? Part of the answer lies in the political climate where just getting the work done takes priority over endless political posturing, announcements, jurisdictional wrangling and little action. Part of the answer lies in the money lavished on Madrid by other governments. But part is the much lower cost of building subway tunnels in Madrid compared to other cities thereby making subway expansion much more affordable regardless of who pays for it.

Major differences between the two lines and their construction include:

Stations are about 50% longer on Sheppard compared with Madrid and they are designed with provision for expansion for full six-car train operation.
   
Construction that did not involve tunneling was performed 7×24 in Madrid while in Toronto it was constrained to 5×12. Continuous work avoids the overhead of daily startup and shutdown of activities.
   
Madrid used a single large tunnel compared to the dual tunnels in Toronto. Also, the trains in Madrid are smaller and require a smaller combined tunnel than would be the case in Toronto. Single tunnels eliminate the need for cut-and-cover box structures at crossovers and effectively reduce the scope of excavation at stations where these crossovers are located.

Because MetroSur ran through open countryside, about 30% of the tunnel structure is cut-and-cover. On Sheppard, only the stations are cut-and cover.

Madrid reduced the need for temporary construction support by using slurry walls that become a permanent part of the structure. This method was used successfully on the southern end of the University subway, and less happily on the Harbourfront LRT tunnel where groundwater conditions made the technique completely unsuitable. Note that this applies to box structures, not to bored tunnels.

    No Environmental Assessment was conducted in Madrid.

    The track structure in Toronto is a dual-layer design in which the concrete base holding the rails is mechanically isolated from the underlying structure. This requires additional excavation to provide headroom for the extra support. This technique was first used on the Spadina Subway and on Sheppard, although it was not used for the Harbourfront or Spadina Station tunnels.

   The Madrid standards for fire safety including ventillation and emergency access are less stringent than in North America.
For example, all new Toronto stations must be built with dual exits. On Sheppard, this was implemented with full second exits rather than emergency exit shafts.

Ground conditions in Madrid (mainly compacted sand) favour the continuous large bored tunnel approach compared with the situation in Toronto (glacial till, boulders and underground streams).

Economies of scale were realized with MetroSur which was part of an ongoing series of projects. Construction activities simply moved from one project to another rather than being reconstituted for each expansion, and more of the design was done during construction.

The Sheppard line includes two large interchange stations over its 6km length. MetroSur has five major interchanges over its 40km length.
The cost of labour and materials is much lower in Madrid than in other parts of Europe.

[Arnz]

It will be very interesting if both Mr Quirk and Mr Newman both get into power at the next elections. It would be like BCC running the entire state.

Replace the entire Rail Network in Queensland with a State Maglev Busway Network anybody?  I hear Maglev Buses are going cheap.

[colinw]

http://stevemunro.ca/?p=738

Thanks TT, that certainly explains some of the differences.  I still wonder if we are getting 'bang for our buck' 'though.

FWIW, I am dead against this busway tunnel idea.  It is concreting in the indirect route via South Brisbane, the inappropriate mode choice, and the massive funneling of all & sundry bus services into one route.

I guess if we bang on the square peg with a big & expensive enough hammer it might eventually fit (sort of).

[HappyTrainGuy]

That's what Ipswich must have done with the 1 million bucks in funding for buses over 3 years

[#Metro]

Replace the entire Rail Network in Queensland with a State Maglev Busway Network anybody?  I hear Maglev Buses are going cheap.

Don't laugh Arnz. I've heard they're going to put that on the Bruce Hwy and send them to the Sunshine Coast!

FWIW, I am dead against this busway tunnel idea.  It is concreting in the indirect route via South Brisbane, the inappropriate mode choice, and the massive funneling of all & sundry bus services into one route.

I think the tunnel is a very good idea - even if it ultimately is bus. The only reason why it wasn't built first was that it would have meant we would get maybe a handful of stations and a much smaller busway network. While it is not direct to the CBD, but on the other hand, that's where major activity centres are located (Hospital, Parklands, Cultural Centre). There's also nothing to stop CCBridge being used as well anyway.

Having the service placed into Class A ROW is entirely appropriate for the task, capacity and location. $2.5 - $3 billion dollars for the project is a bargain considering that half a billion was spent on 2 stations for the E. Busway and another half billion on Springfield Rail. Let's not even go broach subjects like the road tunnels. Ventilation of all the fumes will be a challenge though, as will bus station capacity (KGS already seems a bit full), but these could be overcome.

The separation of buses from surface traffic and pedestrians will also speed things up massively during peak hour. My main issue is whether it will have enough capacity. The cost could also be lowered by weeding out stations (Do we really need a city hall station, another KGS station, etc etc, there seems to be too many stations).

I'd like to see a station in Fortitude Valley under the mall and connecting to the rail station as well.

[colinw]

IMHO once we're at the point of needing projects like this, it is clear that bus is the wrong mode choice. May as well go light metro or something else.

Meanwhile, how about chucking those cars off the Victoria bridge, and fixing the design of the Cultural Centre busway station as well.

I cannot adequately express how much I hate the idea of this bus tunnel pretend Metro.

Meanwhile the trains keep trundling by via Merivale Bridge.  Just not very often.  What a waste.

[#Metro]

IMHO once we're at the point of needing projects like this, it is clear that bus is the wrong mode choice. May as well go light metro or something else.

Oh Colin, you are about to fall into your own trap!

Good trick.  Apply 21st century year 2011 sensibilities to a decision made in about 1863 1997.

Nobody expected to get 150 000 trips per day and up to 20 000 pphd on the SE Busway. Buses were the right mode because they allowed
existing infrastructure to be used, the area was low density, no transfer was required, and it was cheaper given that any rail option would have required Cross River Rail to be built (billions) and also no tunnel was required between South Bank and the CBD at the time.

If the SE Busway had been built as heavy rail, it would have hit maximum capacity a few years after opening. There is no room on the Beenleigh/GC line for
an additional 20 000 pphd! Cross River Rail would have to have been brought forward.

At least now there is a plan and a discussion. Put all the options on the table and let's see what can happen. After all, that's what we asked for in our last media
release on this issue, and that's what we now have.

[colinw]

Bollocks!  There is a world of difference between a tiny remote colony failing to predict the needs of its fledgling rail system 140+ years later, and a transit project developed under modern planning standards failing to predict its demand 15 years later.

In the 1990s when the busway was built, it was already abundantly clear that something more would be needed.  That is why there was much (empty) rhetoric about it being built to LRT standards for conversion.  Empty rhetoric of course, but analysis of BRT & LRT inter-operation or conversion did occur as part of both the BrizTram & Brisbane Light Rail projects.  (Hindsight again, LRT wouldn't be enough either).

As for the busway being built as heavy rail, it would obviously NOT have been via the South Brisbane route, but rather as a new corridor (Mandurah style).

The busway horse is dead, why do we keep flogging it?

Incidentally, what kind of capacity (pphd) is KSGS capable of?  I remain to be convinced that this tunnel will actually do anything other than move the choke point somewhere else, as the buses have to surface and end up on street somewhere unless they do a "balloon loop" thing & turn back.

[colinw]

Further to my previous post, I know we are saying this project complements CRR and is not competing it, but I am 100% convinced that Quirk, Newman and the LNP do not see it that way.  That is why Quirk is using language implying he thinks CRR is an expensive pipe dream, the exact same words his mentor & former boss Newman has used on at least on occasion.

I think we can take this proposal as a concrete indication of where priorities will be under a Newman LNP Government. CRR won't last 6 months from his election.

The language saying this project competes with, or even replaces CRR did not come from this site.  It is right there in the Lord Mayor's own statements.

I think most people recognise that Cross River Rail is not going to fly in its current format. At $8 billion it's just not affordable. Also it will not address Brisbane's bus needs

He said it, not us!  And if he's saying it, you can bet that is the script a future LNP Government will be reading from as well.

[somebody]

I cannot adequately express how much I hate the idea of this bus tunnel pretend Metro.

+1

Meanwhile, how about chucking those cars off the Victoria bridge,

I think that is going much further than necessary.  Just remove the effect that the Melbourne St bound routes block the South Bank bound ones.  I guess it does little for queuing to reach the Melbourne St portal from the South Bank side, but I am sure some rationalisation is possible here.

fixing the design of the Cultural Centre busway station as well.

Not sure what you mean here.

I think the tunnel is a very good idea - even if it ultimately is bus. The only reason why it wasn't built first was that it would have meant we would get maybe a handful of stations and a much smaller busway network. While it is not direct to the CBD, but on the other hand, that's where major activity centres

I do not think it is a good idea at all.  Mater Hill and South Bank stations do not have much spare capacity either, especially the former.  I didn't see anything in the proposal to address that.

[#Metro]

Bollocks!  There is a world of difference between a tiny remote colony failing to predict the needs of its fledgling rail system 140+ years later, and a transit project developed under modern planning standards failing to predict its demand 15 years later.

Sorry Colin, what precedent would they have used? NOBODY expected the kind of demand that the busway is seeing in this urban context. EVEN IF you are correct, that's not the point: the problem is there now. It is fundamentally the same kind of scenario.

It would be very very odd indeed if in 1997 Brisbane had decided to place a 40 000 pphd capable metro into low density urban sprawl. It would be the FIRST metro in Australia if it did that. Given that neither Sydney or Melbourne have metros, I highly doubt the planners in Brisbane would have thought anything over 10 000 pphd would have been required.

As for the busway being built as heavy rail, it would obviously NOT have been via the South Brisbane route, but rather as a new corridor (Mandurah style).

This would have massively increased the costs, plus where are you going to dump 20 000 pphd into the network? You can't connect that to the Beenleigh line, that's already at capacity anyway. You can't run 20 000 pphd to train stations to the Beenleigh line in feeder buses either, there isn't enough track capacity for that either. You would have also required a tunnel for the train (since trains can't use Victoria Bridge or Riverside expressway) which would have priced that proposal out of existence anyway.

Bus was the right solution then. They DID make the right choice. I doubt that bus is the solution now. Same situation in Ottawa, bus was the right solution then, not now. There are even slides on this http://www.bhls.eu/IMG/pdf/1-2-Alain-Mercier-Ottawa.pdf

Incidentally, what kind of capacity (pphd) is KSGS capable of?  I remain to be convinced that this tunnel will actually do anything other than move the choke point somewhere else, as the buses have to surface and end up on street somewhere unless they do a "balloon loop" thing & turn back.

This is what I am thinking too. If it will be like KGS and QSBS then I really wonder as well whether it will have enough capacity. This is why I call for metro options to be looked at (and to think that I got called all sorts of names on the forum for suggesting metro on the busway- ha!!!)

I do not think it is a good idea at all.  Mater Hill and South Bank stations do not have much spare capacity either, especially the former.  I didn't see anything in the proposal to address that.

I was at Mater Hill last week just after peak hour ended and it was chaos, it just isn't going to last.

[#Metro]

http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af104/tramtrain/NSS.png

With credits to Brent Palmer for Creative Commons share alike license.
http://transitmapsetc.blogspot.com/

North South Subway
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6950.0

[colinw]

Bollocks!  There is a world of difference between a tiny remote colony failing to predict the needs of its fledgling rail system 140+ years later, and a transit project developed under modern planning standards failing to predict its demand 15 years later.

Sorry Colin, what precedent would they have used? NOBODY expected the kind of demand that the busway is seeing in this urban context. EVEN IF you are correct, that's not the point: the problem is there now. It is fundamentally the same kind of scenario.

It would be very very odd indeed if in 1997 Brisbane had decided to place a 40 000 pphd capable metro into low density urban sprawl. It would be the FIRST metro in Australia if it did that. Given that neither Sydney or Melbourne have metros, I highly doubt the planners in Brisbane would have thought anything over 10 000 pphd would have been required.

In 1997 it emphatically would not have been planned as metro, but frequent light rail or heavy rail was on the table and discussed at the time.  As you say if built as heavy rail it could not have fed into the existing system, and most likely would have had to terminate somewhere like Roma St.

Just a few short years later, in 2002, the W.A. Government did exactly that with the Mandurah line by deciding to give it a dedicated underground corridor and reroute from the earlier Thornlie option.  Funny the way the planners in Perth managed to get it right, and we blew it.

This may be of interest by the way, details about the proposed Rochedale & Springwood extension:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/0bc453ca-d54e-4f02-8c14-03475c6625fe/pdf_sebx_cds_v1_s18_traffic_and_transport.pdf

[Cam]

As others have posted, this solution will not improve the congestion at Mater Hill.

[colinw]

Ministerial Media Statement -> click here

Transport and Multicultural Affairs
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Four-year-old plan will not address Brisbane's transport needs

Brisbane City Council has dusted off a four-year-old plan for the future of inner-city public transport in a desperate bid to play catch-up while at the same time finally admitting it will not support the critical Cross River Rail project.

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the council had today rehashed a fanciful bus plan it first mooted in mid-2007 because in the four years since it had not built a single kilometre of Brisbane's bus network.

Ms Palaszczuk said while the Lord Mayor revisited an old plan he had also today come clean in admitting he does not support the vital Cross River Rail project, which was critical to the city's future transport needs.

"We're happy to look at Council's proposal and work with them as we have done for several years to find transport solutions for Brisbane as part of the southeast," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"All those joint planning studies have pointed to rail as the way of the future to shift ten times what buses can.

"A $2.5 billion bus tunnel is not a solution and it's not a replacement for feasible solutions like the Cross River Rail.

"It's been four years since the council under Campbell Newman first came up with this plan – today they added an underground busway and I think we are all familiar with this council's track record on tunnels.

"In the meantime, they have sat and watched as our government put in place more than $1.8 billion worth of completed busways, with another $500 million worth currently under construction.

"Our government has built more than 25 kilometres of busway throughout the city over the past decade – the council by contrast has not spent a cent or built a single metre.

"Over the next 20 years rail is going to be the backbone of our transport network, with the capacity to move hundreds of thousands of people each day.

"We're getting on with the job of delivering Cross River Rail and establishing more frequent and reliable services."

Ms Palaszczuk said in the past decade the government had delivered:

§The 17.7km South East Busway

§The 3.6km Inner Northern Busway

§The 1.2km Northern Busway with a further 3km due to open in 2012

§The 3km Eastern Busway

She said a business case for the Cross River Rail project was currently being finalised while the Commonwealth Government considered the State Government's submission for funding to Infrastructure Australia.


"Cross River Rail represents a public transport revolution for the south-east.

"It has the capacity to move up to 120,000 people into the inner city in the two-hour morning peak period – that's the equivalent of a 30-lane motorway.

"It will almost double the capacity of the inner city rail network making it one of Queensland's most important infrastructure projects and it remains our government's number one transport priority.

"It will address the capacity constraints of the 300-kilometre South East Queensland rail network and allow an extra 96 trains from the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and outer Brisbane suburbs to come into the CBD each weekday during morning peak.

"While we wait for federal government to put funding on the table, we're getting on with job of planning this important piece of infrastructure for south east Queensland."

[#Metro]

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the council had today rehashed a fanciful bus plan it first mooted in mid-2007 because in the four years since it had not built a single kilometre of Brisbane's bus network.

This is quite unfair on BCC actually. Not only does BCC fund the buses on a scale unlike any other council in Australia (saving the state government huge amounts of money over the decades, compare this to what councils do in Sydney and Melbourne- nothing!), it also happily let buses go over the Victoria Bridge and built the Eleanor Schonell Bridge (is that one km in total is it now?) at a cost of around 50 million dollars.

All those joint planning studies have pointed to rail as the way of the future to shift ten times what buses can.

The rail network and bus network were planned to have different catchment areas, unless now they want to admit that they compete with each other. When CRR is built and if it gets funded- $8 billion is a big ask from ATM IA

$500 million worth currently under construction

That's right, half a BILLION on two bus stations at Stones Corner and Langlands which BTW is totally and shamefully underutilised!

it's not a replacement for feasible solutions like the Cross River Rail

Its not meant to be a replacement anyway! Different part of the network!!!

the council by contrast has not spent a cent or built a single metre

This is totally and PATENTLY incorrect and absolutely untrue. Eleanor Schonell Bridge? BUZ network?

"Cross River Rail represents a public transport revolution for the south-east.

"It has the capacity to move up to 120,000 people into the inner city in the two-hour morning peak period – that's the equivalent of a 30-lane motorway.

Cross River Rail will have one track in and one track out. That means at 30 tph, the max capacity is around 60 000 pphd MAX, therefore someone has been double counting and is counting the trains going over the merivale bridge currently!!!

Nothing in this media release will do anything much about buses congesting at CC or through the CBD. It also contains clear errors of fact.