Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: SEQtransit Blog  (Read 3910 times)

achiruel

  • Guest
SEQtransit Blog
« on: February 25, 2012, 03:26:45 PM »
I'm not sure if this has ever been posted here, and it doesn't seem to have been updated recently, but there are some interesting ideas here (even if a bit pie-in-the-sky)

http://seqtransit.blogspot.com.au/

It wasn't written by anyone here was it?

Offline BrizCommuter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2962
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2012, 09:04:31 AM »
Going by the fantasy list, it looks like the author is a dreamer. So could quite easily be someone on this forum.  ;)

Offline Mr X

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2012, 09:07:26 AM »
Quad to Strathpine?  :-w
The user once known as Happy Bus User (HBU)
The opinions contained within my posts and profile are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the greater Rail Back on Track community.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79319
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2012, 09:10:19 AM »
Ha, true believers abound!

 :P
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2012, 09:19:04 AM »
Quad to Strathpine?  :-w
A bit pointless if Trouts Rd is to be built!  I note that he also leaves Strathpine-Lawnton as a triple.  The current via Virginia line should terminate at Strathpine in that eventuality.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2012, 10:20:50 AM »
Quad to Strathpine?  :-w
A bit pointless if Trouts Rd is to be built!  I note that he also leaves Strathpine-Lawnton as a triple.  The current via Virginia line should terminate at Strathpine in that eventuality.

I think quad to Petrie and Trouts Road would be needed.  The additional track from Petrie to Northgate is because there is no way you could run all Caboolture, Kippa-Ring, Maroochydore and local trains on the Trouts Rd line so there will still be expresses via the existing line - plus you need trains to serve Ekka.  The quad would allow you to separate the expresses, long distance and freight out from the local trains, and there is room for it.

Trouts Rd is more important in the short term but I think they would need both.
I am no longer using this forum.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2012, 10:23:38 AM »
Trouts Rd, if built should have wide station spacing to get around the compromises you are alluding to.

Or itself be a quad.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2012, 12:23:27 PM »
Trouts Rd, if built should have wide station spacing to get around the compromises you are alluding to.

Or itself be a quad.

You will still need to send freight and long distance via the NCL, and you need to send something that way to serve Ekka otherwise you need to link another line to the CRR sector which would causes complications.

Perhaps you could get away without 4 tracks past Northgate if you run:
- All stations Kippa-Ring to Northgate and express to Ekka, with Shorncliffe serving Nundah and Toombul
- Caboolture and Maroochydore express via Trouts Road (ie same stopping pattern for both between city and Petrie)
- Freight and long distance use the mains city to Northgate and share with the Kippa-Ring service.

I think this is sub-par as they should be planning for Kippa-Ring trains to be full by Petrie.
I am no longer using this forum.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2012, 12:32:53 PM »
I'll accept freight, and maybe Traveltrain can't use Trouts Rd (I'm not sure).

I think Kippa-Ring needs to use Trouts Rd, and Caboolture.  With Nambour I can accept two possibilities: it needs to bypass Trouts Rd to access the triple because of its stopping patterns or it should go via Trouts Rd because its straighter and faster.

I suppose there is another alternative and that is to have a quad from Petrie to Strathpine with the via Virginia sector on one track pair and the via Trouts Rd on another track pair.

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2012, 12:55:29 PM »
The policy to provide trains running between Nambour and Brisbane, taking 'about an hour' to make the journey, as promised, envisages trains from the Sunshine Coast using rail in the the Trouts Road corridor.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2012, 12:59:44 PM »
The policy to provide trains running between Nambour and Brisbane, taking 'about an hour' to make the journey, as promised, envisages trains from the Sunshine Coast using rail in the the Trouts Road corridor.
Is it a core promise?

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2012, 01:16:10 PM »
Speaking of foaming, like the Busway alignment down the Pacific MWY being used for rail, what about the the Bruce Highway just before Bald Hills (Station sites: North Lakes, Burpengary Central, Morayfield turnoff, Caboolture turnoff) then onward towards Caloundra South/CAMCOS alignment.

It'll definitely be costly (hence foam), but does emulate the "rail" running along highway.
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2012, 01:30:22 PM »
^Save the allignment for HSR :) ?

achiruel

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2012, 02:42:25 PM »
The policy to provide trains running between Nambour and Brisbane, taking 'about an hour' to make the journey

Is that with an IMU or Tilt?  Or are they planning to run non-stop between City & Beerwah?

Offline Fares_Fair

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4599
  • Duplicate the Sunshine Coast Line (#2tracks)
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2012, 02:48:57 PM »
The policy to provide trains running between Nambour and Brisbane, taking 'about an hour' to make the journey

Is that with an IMU or Tilt?  Or are they planning to run non-stop between City & Beerwah?

I'm not aware of any to do that.
Great idea though !

Regards,
Fares_Fair.
Regards,
Fares_Fair


Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2012, 04:47:36 PM »
I'll accept freight, and maybe Traveltrain can't use Trouts Rd (I'm not sure).

I think Kippa-Ring needs to use Trouts Rd, and Caboolture.  With Nambour I can accept two possibilities: it needs to bypass Trouts Rd to access the triple because of its stopping patterns or it should go via Trouts Rd because its straighter and faster.

I suppose there is another alternative and that is to have a quad from Petrie to Strathpine with the via Virginia sector on one track pair and the via Trouts Rd on another track pair.

If Trouts Rd exists, CRR exists, that means in all likelihood Gold Coast will be through-routed to the Sunshine Coast to isolate the rollingstock (potentially move all the IMUs to Clapham and out-stabling at Robina and up the NCL so Mayne only has access to suburban sets).

Ekka?  Strathpine to Northgate?
I am no longer using this forum.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQtransit Blogee
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2012, 04:54:15 PM »
I don't see why you wouldn't at least run the long distance pax trains on the Trouts Rd line. I mean, its a basically straight alignment so it should all be well over 100km/hr except for a bit where it ties in with the FG line, and even then only maybe.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blogee
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2012, 04:56:10 PM »
I don't see why you wouldn't at least run the long distance pax trains on the Trouts Rd line. I mean, its a basically straight alignment so it should all be well over 100km/hr except for a bit where it ties in with the FG line, and even then only maybe.

How do they get to the long-distance platforms at Roma Street?

Assuming the Alderley-Everton Park leg is installed, they could use the Ferny Grove line, but why would you when you could run on the mains with less impediment to other services?
I am no longer using this forum.

Offline aldonius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2012, 05:07:39 PM »
For reference with the line routings, and for people like me who need everything spelled out, ConSEQ2031 lists:
  • Everything from north of Caboolture express to CRR via Trouts Rd and tunnel (stopping only at Petrie & Strathpine), and presumably paired with the Gold Coast.
  • Caboolture and Kippa-Ring express from Strathpine, one to CRR via TR and tunnel (presumably to Beenleigh/Flagstone), and one via existing (Ipswich/Rosewood/Ripley).
  • Trouts Rd local service from Strathpine via inner FG line.
  • 'NCL' local service from Strathpine via existing.

I'd assume the Tilts and Traveltrains do what they do now.
Now any tunnel between Trouts Rd and CRR is likely to be direct from Alderley to Roma St, paralleling Enoggera/Kelvin Grove Rd, so we have the small issue that nothing is serving Exhibition. Remedying this diminishes sectorisation...

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQtransit Blogee
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2012, 05:35:16 PM »
I don't see why you wouldn't at least run the long distance pax trains on the Trouts Rd line. I mean, its a basically straight alignment so it should all be well over 100km/hr except for a bit where it ties in with the FG line, and even then only maybe.

How do they get to the long-distance platforms at Roma Street?

Assuming the Alderley-Everton Park leg is installed, they could use the Ferny Grove line, but why would you when you could run on the mains with less impediment to other services?
Depends on how the set up the tunnel between the FG line and CRR at exhibition. If it only connects from the spurs shown on the CRR drawings then yes, you would have issues. But if they also connect to the surface tracks heading towards Roma St then this would allow access to the long distance platform, and also past RS if you wanted to run freight on it as well.

As far as I am aware though, very little planning has been done for the FG line- exhibition tunnel, so anything is possible.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2012, 05:55:04 PM »

The point is that Anna Bligh said in August 2010 that SC commuters will rattle (hurtle?) to Brisbane at 160 km/hr on new passenger tilt trains.  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/beating-the-rat-race-at-160kmh-20100830-1479g.html

When you read the fine print, this occurs when Trouts Road Corridor is converted to rail.  Someone retiring now would be lucky to see the Trouts Road Rail Corridor in their lifetime, so once again we have (ahem) a ‘forward looking’ statement from our beloved Premier.

As to the trains that will run from the SC to Brisbane, we are told they will be CoastLink services using ‘ high-speed European style trains’.  That’s a bit like the used car salesman selling a Kombi van saying it has ‘Lamborghini qualities’ – ie, it has four wheels.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19525
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2012, 06:20:20 PM »
If we don't have the cash, it is not going to happen.

Best to refer to Jarett Walker's "spectrum of authorities"
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79319
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2012, 06:23:20 PM »
Trouts Rd Corridor in action --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7547.msg86539#msg86539

Looks like it is a quad Simon!

 :P
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4575
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2012, 09:32:12 PM »
If Trouts road goes up the quad only needs to be from Strathpine to Petrie instead of Petrie to Northgate which would require addition property resumptions between Bald Hills to Virginia (Mostly around Bald Hills station area/Gympie Road rail bridge, Zillmere station area/Murphy Road rail bridge and Geebung to Sunshine). Freight/express/passing movements can use the middle track Strathpine-Northgate. The Samsonvale Road rail bridge would need to remove the road underpass to enable the quad (was built/designed for that in the future). The planned Diane Street rail bridge to remove the level crossing at Lawnton should take that into account as the corridor is already preserved as a quad section. Bray Park and Lawnton would become 2 island platforms. The only issues would be the trackside infrastructure mods and the earth works at Bray Park/Lawnton stations. Super Amart? the building beside the Lawnton level crossing wouldn't need to be resumed as space from the level crossing equipment/unused road would take up the extra track. The car park there might get a little chopped off and the carpark can be removed from Station road side with station road turned into a small one way road. The bus stop beside the station can be extended and act as a interchange point if needed. Petrie/Kippa Ring and Caboolture/NCL traffic could then be sorted seperatly with no/minimal impacts (depending on how Petrie/Bowen Hills-CRR is configed).
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 09:39:38 PM by HappyTrainGuy »
"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2012, 11:38:31 AM »
If Trouts road goes up the quad only needs to be from Strathpine to Petrie instead of Petrie to Northgate which would require addition property resumptions between Bald Hills to Virginia (Mostly around Bald Hills station area/Gympie Road rail bridge, Zillmere station area/Murphy Road rail bridge and Geebung to Sunshine). Freight/express/passing movements can use the middle track Strathpine-Northgate. The Samsonvale Road rail bridge would need to remove the road underpass to enable the quad (was built/designed for that in the future). The planned Diane Street rail bridge to remove the level crossing at Lawnton should take that into account as the corridor is already preserved as a quad section. Bray Park and Lawnton would become 2 island platforms. The only issues would be the trackside infrastructure mods and the earth works at Bray Park/Lawnton stations. Super Amart? the building beside the Lawnton level crossing wouldn't need to be resumed as space from the level crossing equipment/unused road would take up the extra track. The car park there might get a little chopped off and the carpark can be removed from Station road side with station road turned into a small one way road. The bus stop beside the station can be extended and act as a interchange point if needed. Petrie/Kippa Ring and Caboolture/NCL traffic could then be sorted seperatly with no/minimal impacts (depending on how Petrie/Bowen Hills-CRR is configed).

Longish post

I wish I was not functionally illiterate when it comes to drawing programs, as a map would be easier to follow (maybe somebody is interested in putting this together - MaxHeadway?) - but how’s about:

Sector 1 – Milton lines

1A
-   All stations Airport to Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Redbank Plains via Springfield (continue on as 1B)
1B
-   All stations Shorncliffe to Roma Street
-   Express Milton to Redbank stopping at Indooroopilly and Darra, then all stations to Redbank Plains via Ripley Valley (continue on as 1A)
1C
-   All stations Doomben to Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Redbank

Rosewood is a shuttle with some peak services continuing to the city via pattern 1A once they hit Ipswich.  If the line gets extended to Gatton or further, then it could be a 2tph all day pattern running all to Ipswich then express to Redbank, then as per 1A to Bowen Hills and turn back or stable at Mayne.

1B and 1C could be run with metro-ised rollingstock, 1A would be better suited for the current fleet.

Sector 2 – South Brisbane lines

2A
-   All stations Cleveland to Wynnum Central, express to Buranda, then all to Roma Street
-   All stations to Strathpine via Trouts Rd (separate tracks from the Sector 3 services)
2B
-   All stations Manly to Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Ferny Grove
2C
-   All stations Yeerongpilly to Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Ferny Grove

All services could be run with metro-ised rollingstock, although 2A would suit the current fleet.

Sector 3 – CRR lines

3A
-   All stations Maroochydore to Caboolture, then Petrie, then Alderley, Kelvin Grove and Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Yeerongpilly via Gabba, then Loganlea, Helensvale and all stations to Varsity Lakes (eventually Coolangatta)

3B
-   All stations Caboolture to Petrie, then Alderley, Kelvin Grove and Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Yeerongpilly via Gabba, then Loganlea, then all stations to Helensvale

3C
-   All stations Kippa-Ring to Petrie, then Alderley, Kelvin Grove and Roma Street
-   All stations Roma Street to Yeerongpilly via Gabba, then Salisbury, then all stations to Flagstone

3D
-   All stations Petrie to Northgate, then Eagle Junction, Ekka and Roma Street
-   Roma Street to Loganlea via Gabba

Nambour and Gympie North are shuttles to Beerwah only in the off-peak, with a few peak services continuing to Yeerongpilly and either reversing or stabling at Clapham.

All lines would be run with longer distance rollingstock or IMUs, and be capable of supporting 9-car trains (although I don’t know about 3D, it might have to be 6-car given the stations involved).

Trouts Rd would have stations at Bridgeman Downs, Aspley West, McDowall, Everton Park, Alderley and Kelvin Grove at most (I’d say Everton Park and Bridgeman Downs would be optional and can be preserved sites if not actually built).
I am no longer using this forum.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2012, 11:48:33 AM »
YLY trains need to extend to Moorooka, Rocklea and probably Salisbury, maybe Coopers Plains (depending on infrastructure).

Otherwise, pretty good.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2012, 11:54:33 AM »
YLY trains need to extend to Moorooka, Rocklea and probably Salisbury, maybe Coopers Plains (depending on infrastructure).

Otherwise, pretty good.

Salisbury would be good.  I honestly had not thought about extending them further out, as Yeerongpilly comes with stabling at Clapham and the possible demand from stations south would likely be met with 15 minute frequencies on what I have called the 3D stopping pattern.

Goes without saying that apart from the shuttles, the aim would be for each individual stopping pattern to be at 15 minute frequency 6am-9pm minimum (maybe longer if justified, but half-hourly to just past midnight would likely do) and to the maximum extent permitted by the infrastructure in the peak flow directions. 

We could notionally have 180 trains per hour in or out, from all directions (6 tracks through town x 30 trains per track with ATP and in-cab signalling).  I think that is well in excess of what will be needed though.  180 trains over 2 hours would be a good achievement and is probably more likely.
I am no longer using this forum.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2012, 11:59:05 AM »
Not quite right.  CRR plans to have platform faces at Moorooka and Rocklea inaccessible to CRR trains IIRC.  This is to apply in one direction at Salisbury also.

Full time express through these stations is one of the aspects of CRR which I like.

achiruel

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2012, 12:12:38 PM »
It seems a little odd to do that at Salisbury seeing as that will be the junction station for the future Greenbank line  ???

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2012, 12:38:42 PM »
It seems a little odd to do that at Salisbury seeing as that will be the junction station for the future Greenbank line  ???
The entire concept of spending $8bn on CRR and leaving the bit through Salisbury un-done is completely bizarre!

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2012, 05:44:55 PM »
Not quite right.  CRR plans to have platform faces at Moorooka and Rocklea inaccessible to CRR trains IIRC.  This is to apply in one direction at Salisbury also.

Full time express through these stations is one of the aspects of CRR which I like.

Good point - hence I think Yeerongpilly is workable enough.
I am no longer using this forum.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2012, 11:34:39 PM »
Quote
Trouts Rd would have stations at Bridgeman Downs, Aspley West, McDowall, Everton Park, Alderley and Kelvin Grove at most (I’d say Everton Park and Bridgeman Downs would be optional and can be preserved sites if not actually built).
Sounds good. I'd put the stations at Beams Rd <1.7km> Albany Creek Rd <2.3km> Hamilton Rd <2.9km> Stafford Rd <1.8km> Alderley  <3.3km>  then Roma St.

Or should the station be on Rode Rd instead of Hamilton Rd?

Obviously the goal is to have the stations over/under these roads, with lifts and stairs on both sides, such that buses can just pull in and pax can reach the platforms without crossing the road.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4575
  • My train... My people... My money!
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2012, 11:55:31 PM »
I'd put it bang in the middle so it can draw traffic from both major roads along with providing an area for drop offs and interchange facilities. It would also enable loop services to easily serve the area similar to Kippa Ring.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 12:02:14 AM by HappyTrainGuy »
"What housing crisis?? There are plenty of free mobile apartments rolling around on the rails every day"

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #33 on: February 29, 2012, 12:15:45 AM »
I thought about that, but it means you'd say have a 210m platform, then concourses at both ends, and then still be 400m back from each Road. Would be maddening for cross town pax to travel 400m in then 400m out on a bus.

Re space for drop off and interchange facilities...The whole point is to allow this to be done on the road itself because looping in and out of a bus interchange is still a bit of a slow process that dislike a bit. http://g.co/maps/8apzk
If the road layout lets you avoid it, then go for it!

Or you could just have two stations with a crappy 900m spacing.  >:D
But that sets up an ugly precedent.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7228
Re: SEQtransit Blog
« Reply #34 on: February 29, 2012, 10:10:23 AM »
Sounds good. I'd put the stations at Beams Rd <1.7km> Albany Creek Rd <2.3km> Hamilton Rd <2.9km> Stafford Rd <1.8km> Alderley  <3.3km>  then Roma St.

I was thinking:
- Bridgeman Downs (optional) - around Roghan Rd.  This would mainly be a park'n'ride and would relieve capacity at Carseldine and Bald Hills.
- Aspley West - Albany Creek Rd (agree)
- McDowall - Rode Road.  Putting it here allows you to have a feeder that connects both the PCH entrance (east of Webster Rd) and Chermside without as much ducking and weaving - also works better for running buses between here and the Old Northern Rd corridor, and has a bigger walk-up catchment as Hamilton Rd is next to a lot of bushland.
- Everton Park (optional) - Stafford Road.
- Alderley underground - directly underneath and parallel to the existing station.  Probably have 4 platform faces underneath, with dives on the Ferny Grove line after Newmarket feeding into 2 and the line to Roma Street feeding the other 2.  Trouts Rd would be up-up-down-down, so the design should allow for that and for cross-platform interchanging to minimise the need to cross the tracks.
- Kelvin Grove - somewhere under Musk Avenue, not too far from the busway.

Obviously the goal is to have the stations over/under these roads, with lifts and stairs on both sides, such that buses can just pull in and pax can reach the platforms without crossing the road.

On-road bus stops don't always cut it, especially for stations that act as a bus terminus, but in this case I doubt any of them would be.

The Mandurah line stations with the "dog bone" layout work really well because they give you plenty of layover space and active bus stands, and generally allow in and out access from both ends so no looping around.

I am no longer using this forum.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan