East-West Subway

[SteelPan]

From the inner, high density suburbs of the West - with BOTH Growing residential and commercial sectors to the likewise, Growing residential and commercial sectors of the under-serviced inner eastern suburbs of Brisbane.  The inner west and east have been largely overlooked for almost two decades in Brisbane PT planning and construction!          

[#Metro]

I like the idea but if you want it to happen anytime soon, save it for the future.

Let's see a map though!

[SurfRail]

I'd like a subway from Robina to Southport. 

You know, because they should have one.

[Mr X]

^^ Cabulcha to Taigum 


I personally can't see the merit in a subway down this corridor. OCR inbound has what, 40-50 buses an hour in the AM peak? Even if we assume that each bus is holding 70 people, that's only 3,500 people and far far short of the 20K-30K that TT has mentioned is a subway/metro type capacity. Maybe in the future when more development happens but now? No.
Eastern suburbs need a "Core Frequent Network" type service down major arterial roads to service the real black spots. A subway down OCR won't help that one iota, it would only benefit ONE corridor unless there are feeders. (However Bulimba, Morningside etc. to city via OCR is an illogical way of going, as an example)

[somebody]

I'd like a subway from Robina to Southport. 

You know, because they should have one.

Seems similar to the justification for the Eleanora extension actually.  Apparently the corridor doesn't even justify 761s after 8:15pm, or better than hourly frequency arriving in Brisbane by 9am.

[#Metro]

A subway is justified when projected peak capacity approaches ~ 15 000 pphd.
Going to Class C to Class A increases both speed and reliability and thus will cause some growth due to travel time advantages.

10 000 pphd is the current upper limit of Class B LRT
Busways (and metro like LRT) can match metro capacities, however IMHO in our context it might be more efficient to do it as metro from the get-go.
It will just however likely be added to the pile of whatever else is in SEQ 2031.

That said, there is no reason why we can't go about planning/discussing a rapid transit corridor (be it subway, busway or whatever) that goes East-West. It may well be a decent alternative to whatever TransApex plans are for a underground toll road from Buranda to Toowong or Indooroopilly is.

[SurfRail]

I'd like a subway from Robina to Southport. 

You know, because they should have one.

Seems similar to the justification for the Eleanora extension actually.  Apparently the corridor doesn't even justify 761s after 8:15pm, or better than hourly frequency arriving in Brisbane by 9am.

Different kettle of fish really.  Several bus routes on the Gold Coast "justify" better services now (I'm thinking 15 minute frequencies on the 706 and 709 north of Southport, the 715, the 750 from Pac Fair to Mudgeeraba), doesn't mean they will be happening because the govt is cheap and does not value PT investment the way it should.  You can link the service provision to the 4.5% of all trips made on PT down here...

The railway will also cut travel times roughly in half, provide intre-regional rail access for around 100,000+ people on the southern Gold Coast, already has a defined corridor and significant untapped travel demand, and will better connect the PT system to the second busiest airport in the State, which is a worthy goal in itself.

(I think the RTS extension to the border is more important though.)

By way of comparison, East Brisbane is practically spitting distance from the State's capital and already has a railway, a frequent ferry service and numerous bus options.  It's hard to see where you would actually put a railway through there which would justify the investment - it's not on the way to anywhere that doesn't have a railway or future busway, no signficant employment or population generators compared to a place like New Farm (the future population will be concentrated at the Gabba and Buranda)

[#Metro]

Different kettle of fish really.  Several bus routes on the Gold Coast "justify" better services now (I'm thinking 15 minute frequencies on the 706 and 709 north of Southport, the 715, the 750 from Pac Fair to Mudgeeraba), doesn't mean they will be happening because the govt is cheap and does not value PT investment the way it should.  You can link the service provision to the 4.5% of all trips made on PT down here...

I'm worried about the fixation on concrete - for the cost of 1 km of busway you could deck out the ENTIRE city in frequent service. Imagine what you could do with $465 million dollars - buy ONE busway station at buranda OR cover the city in BUZ services. The problem with cost-benefit scenarios is that the base case is rather limited to alternatives like "do nothing", or "more buses on road X' or "vehicle A versus vehicle B". I wonder what the BCR and NPV on the Stones Corner busway was? And I wonder how that would compare to a citywide BUZification for the same amount of money?

The amount spent on concrete is just phenomenal.
$465 million dollars. You could complete the CFN and still have spare change left over!

[HappyTrainGuy]

^^ Cabulcha to Taigum 

IMHO Cabulcha to Deagon to feed into the high frequency 314 

[Gazza]

Why would you build a metro with current rollingstock? They aren't suited to that sort of work.

[mufreight]

Option 1
Start from Cannon Hill, head under ground, Balmoral, Bulimba, Newstead, then connect to nth outlet of CRR near Exhibtion station.

Option 2
Start from Cannon Hill, head under ground, Balmoral, Teneriffe, Newfarm, Eastern Brisbane CBD then swing around and connect with CRR heading nth. Issue is trains all head nth.

Option 3
Start from Cannon Hill, head under ground, Balmoral, Teneriffe, Newfarm, Eagle Street then up under Central/Anzac Squr, then swing around south crossing under and to north of the CRR lower George street station and crossing under the middle of Sth Bank parklands under west end, crossing river to nth of Uni Qld and reconnecting at or under Indo station.

And while we are at it, Hamilton extension is UG then under river and connecting to Cannon Hill with station at Balmoral.

Anyway a few billion dollars worth for the 2031 and beyond.

Justification, faster travel times than even cars, ferries have storm relibaility issues. Would still use current rollingstock with aim to have stations about 750m apart.

regards
Shane

Another espousal of unmitigated foam, the cost of what you are proposing would be at least twice that of CRR for about one fifth the benefit and the passenger density is simply just not there to justify your proposal.
Ideas and aspirations are great but lets concentrate on fixing the current public transport mess rather than simply compound it with foam that distracts from the present problems that need resolution not distraction and band aids.

[Gazza]

espousal

Mu's new favourite word 

[SteelPan]

I'd like a subway from Robina to Southport. 

You know, because they should have one.

GREAT Idea - thanks for supporting my concept, it'll be a snap, given generations ago, our much economically poorer, less well educated and less technology enabled forefathers managed to get the mainline rail to Southport!   

[mufreight]

espousal

Mu's new favourite word 

There are a number of other words but in attempting to remain polite are less than appropiate for use on this forum, but you could perhaps substitute bullsh*t

[somebody]

Ideas and aspirations are great but lets concentrate on fixing the current public transport mess rather than simply compound it with foam that distracts from the present problems that need resolution not distraction and band aids.

Sydney NWRL = official and widely supported foam.

[SurfRail]

Ideas and aspirations are great but lets concentrate on fixing the current public transport mess rather than simply compound it with foam that distracts from the present problems that need resolution not distraction and band aids.

Sydney NWRL = official and widely supported foam.

I disagree that a Hills District railway is foam, but it certainly is in its current form without more CBD capacity.

[somebody]

^ That's what I meant.

[Gazza]

My personal position is that once the current round of rail expansion is done as outlined in CONSEQ 2031 (And that takes us through to 2031), any new lines should be 'fit for purpose'  driverless metro.

Forget the obsession with compatibility with the current fleet. We can achieve the efficiency same gains by just buying a standard off the shelf metro train that other bigger cities are using (And believe me, by 2031 i imagine quite a few cities will have new Metro lines by then) and order the same parts they do. And of course the cost savings of driverless well and truly offsets the cons of having non QR compatible trains.
I don't think narrow gauge is ideal for metro work, trains wobble from side to side too much, and interiors are still too narrow, even with longitudinal seating (felt this on Perth A sets actually)

For proposals like a line from Morningside to 'shortcut into' the CBD, then people would change trains to do so, with a station at Morningside.

[SteelPan]

and, every child that rides the East-West Subway will get a free "Genuine Aussie" lollipop*  
(Disclaimer - limit 1 lollipop per family.  Lollipop cannot be consumed on subway premises.  Lollipop flavour to be determined by joint parliamentary committee into lollipop flavours.  Lollipop is defined as, candy on a short stick, but may not be limited to said definition, if an alternate definition is authorised under the Queensland Parliament Lollipop Act 1902 as amended.  Lollipop may contain artifical flavours, colours and perseratives, trace elements of nuclear and biological material may also be present, lollipop is manufactured on machinery which is also used in the processing of dolphin meat.  Lollipop not recommended for human consumption by people under 108 years of age and those people with normally functioning tastebuds and a healthy respiratory system)  

Ps. Lollipop deal only valid for first day of subway operation between 12:00am and 12:01am.

Pps - YES, the subway will be WORLD CLASS!


* "Genuine Aussie Lollipops" made in China with ingredients of unknown origin.

[Gazza]

It tends to be most metro lines are short, because high density compact cities are the ones who build em.

[O_128]

It tends to be most metro lines are short, because high density compact cities are the ones who build em.

I wouldn't say all lines are short, paris's lines are quite sizeable, line 7 on the paris metro is longer than the ferny grove line.

[SteelPan]

Also, regards the funding of a Brisbane Metro (subway), there is the real option for private sector ownership of this metro (subway) - public and/or private ownership of rollingstock and possibly operation are also possiblities.   

[SurfRail]

Also, regards the funding of a Brisbane Metro (subway), there is the real option for private sector ownership of this metro (subway) - public and/or private ownership of rollingstock and possibly operation are also possiblities.   

Exactly how GCRT will run.  GCRT is the the sort of PPP that works, because it does not rely on massive fares which are not integrated with the rest of the network.

[mufreight]

My personal position is that once the current round of rail expansion is done as outlined in CONSEQ 2031 (And that takes us through to 2031), any new lines should be 'fit for purpose'  driverless metro.

Forget the obsession with compatibility with the current fleet. We can achieve the efficiency same gains by just buying a standard off the shelf metro train that other bigger cities are using (And believe me, by 2031 i imagine quite a few cities will have new Metro lines by then) and order the same parts they do. And of course the cost savings of driverless well and truly offsets the cons of having non QR compatible trains.
I don't think narrow gauge is ideal for metro work, trains wobble from side to side too much, and interiors are still too narrow, even with longitudinal seating (felt this on Perth A sets actually)

For proposals like a line from Morningside to 'shortcut into' the CBD, then people would change trains to do so, with a station at Morningside.

A couple of valid points unfortunately submerged in less than realistic foam.

[Gazza]

My personal position is that once the current round of rail expansion is done as outlined in CONSEQ 2031 (And that takes us through to 2031), any new lines should be 'fit for purpose'  driverless metro.

Forget the obsession with compatibility with the current fleet. We can achieve the efficiency same gains by just buying a standard off the shelf metro train that other bigger cities are using (And believe me, by 2031 i imagine quite a few cities will have new Metro lines by then) and order the same parts they do. And of course the cost savings of driverless well and truly offsets the cons of having non QR compatible trains.
I don't think narrow gauge is ideal for metro work, trains wobble from side to side too much, and interiors are still too narrow, even with longitudinal seating (felt this on Perth A sets actually)

For proposals like a line from Morningside to 'shortcut into' the CBD, then people would change trains to do so, with a station at Morningside.

A couple of valid points unfortunately submerged in less than realistic foam.

How about you let us have free conversation.

[dwb]

Gazza I agree with metro services providing distribution function in inner cuty

[SurfRail]

It's not foam per se, it's just foam to be talking about it seriously as something to be implemented now (or any time in the next decade) with the other issues we have. 

Nothing wrong with discussing the future though.

[mufreight]

My personal position is that once the current round of rail expansion is done as outlined in CONSEQ 2031 (And that takes us through to 2031), any new lines should be 'fit for purpose'  driverless metro.

Forget the obsession with compatibility with the current fleet. We can achieve the efficiency same gains by just buying a standard off the shelf metro train that other bigger cities are using (And believe me, by 2031 i imagine quite a few cities will have new Metro lines by then) and order the same parts they do. And of course the cost savings of driverless well and truly offsets the cons of having non QR compatible trains.
I don't think narrow gauge is ideal for metro work, trains wobble from side to side too much, and interiors are still too narrow, even with longitudinal seating (felt this on Perth A sets actually)

For proposals like a line from Morningside to 'shortcut into' the CBD, then people would change trains to do so, with a station at Morningside.

A couple of valid points unfortunately submerged in less than realistic foam.

How about you let us have free conversation.

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

[somebody]

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

<Mod Hat On>
New lines proposals are on topic in this forum.

[SteelPan]

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

No foam involved here.  I think the private sector could be very interested in investment in a Brisbane Metro.  Such investment would allow public funds to continue to be directed toward public sector PT projects and Brisbane would get a new metro, with its own metro rollingstock and key interchange points between Metro and QR services.

I've met a few industry super-funds people over the years and good infrastructure deals are very high on their target list!   

[#Metro]

An E-W subway is less of a priority, but that said, no harm can come from discussing it.


Being a person with a keen interest in Economics and Finance, in the spectrum of authority this actually comes below that of planning.
No cash, no service, it is that simple.

Now, I caution against looking at the private sector as some sort of fairy-finance-god with bucketloads of $$$. Very large projects with very large costs
and no profit are extremely high risk for the private sector. Don't believe me - look at Clem 7 , Airport Link , Cross City Tunnel, Airtrain etc. Borrowing from
the private sector costs more and is exposed to market risk as well.

The primary purpose of a transit system is mobility (moving people around), not development.  Development is a benefit, not a purpose.
That said also, the quality of service must be decent otherwise we may as well use the cash to directly subsidise development in selected areas
rather than spend it on transit.

A big ticket class A project can easily cost $5 billion. To break even in a commercial sense (i.e. fund this out of development stimulus) is going to take
A LOT of development. How much development do you need to even get to 25% of the cost of $5 billion dollars.

A cheaper solution might be to up the level of development and downgrade the ROW to class B or Class C. So this becomes things like Light Rail Projects
(30-50 million per kilometre) and BRT projects (probably less) and BUZ projects...

[BrizCommuter]

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

<Mod Hat On>
New lines proposals are on topic in this forum.

<BrizCommuter Hat On>
Fantasy foaming new lines and infrastructure should be in a different forum to real new lines and infrastructure.

[Arnz]

Or to quote BrizCommuter back in the early days of this forum's finding.  The "Trainspotter Fantasy File".

[somebody]

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

<Mod Hat On>
New lines proposals are on topic in this forum.

<BrizCommuter Hat On>
Fantasy foaming new lines and infrastructure should be in a different forum to real new lines and infrastructure.

This is the forum for unfunded proposals, or at least that's my understanding.

[aldonius]

@BrizCommuter, Arnz: seems like an excellent idea.  
Maybe have a subforum of Wacky Dude Corner with that name?

Edit @Simon - I presume then the CRR thread will get moved should that project acquire IA funding?

[Gazza]

My personal position is that once the current round of rail expansion is done as outlined in CONSEQ 2031 (And that takes us through to 2031), any new lines should be 'fit for purpose'  driverless metro.

Forget the obsession with compatibility with the current fleet. We can achieve the efficiency same gains by just buying a standard off the shelf metro train that other bigger cities are using (And believe me, by 2031 i imagine quite a few cities will have new Metro lines by then) and order the same parts they do. And of course the cost savings of driverless well and truly offsets the cons of having non QR compatible trains.
I don't think narrow gauge is ideal for metro work, trains wobble from side to side too much, and interiors are still too narrow, even with longitudinal seating (felt this on Perth A sets actually)

For proposals like a line from Morningside to 'shortcut into' the CBD, then people would change trains to do so, with a station at Morningside.

A couple of valid points unfortunately submerged in less than realistic foam.

How about you let us have free conversation.

Free conversation is not a problem but fantiasia foam gets more than a bit irritating, lets focus on resolving the existing problems and the shortcomings of the existing mess rather than foaming on with distractions.  Being realistic if funds are dirvirted to every new idea that comes up, the resolution of the existing problems will never occour, and the problems themselves will compound.

Hi,

Actually, in recent times I have written several media releases, drawn up proposals for bus network restructures, and spent time writing to letters to authorities on existing problems of today.

[somebody]

Edit @Simon - I presume then the CRR thread will get moved should that project acquire IA funding?

I presume so.  It happened that way with the MBRL thread.

[SteelPan]

An E-W subway is less of a priority, but that said, no harm can come from discussing it.


Being a person with a keen interest in Economics and Finance, in the spectrum of authority this actually comes below that of planning.
No cash, no service, it is that simple.

Now, I caution against looking at the private sector as some sort of fairy-finance-god with bucketloads of $$$. Very large projects with very large costs
and no profit are extremely high risk for the private sector. Don't believe me - look at Clem 7 , Airport Link , Cross City Tunnel, Airtrain etc. Borrowing from
the private sector costs more and is exposed to market risk as well.

The primary purpose of a transit system is mobility (moving people around), not development.  Development is a benefit, not a purpose.
That said also, the quality of service must be decent otherwise we may as well use the cash to directly subsidise development in selected areas
rather than spend it on transit.

A big ticket class A project can easily cost $5 billion. To break even in a commercial sense (i.e. fund this out of development stimulus) is going to take
A LOT of development. How much development do you need to even get to 25% of the cost of $5 billion dollars.

A cheaper solution might be to up the level of development and downgrade the ROW to class B or Class C. So this becomes things like Light Rail Projects
(30-50 million per kilometre) and BRT projects (probably less) and BUZ projects...

Hardly.

The private sector is champing at the bit to expose more money to the infrastructure sector.  Unlike public money, the private sector will ALWAYS find a buyer for an asset at the best price available.  Airtrain, Clem7, Sydney Airport Railway all took/or are still taking the long way 'round to commercial success - but it's primarily private sector dollars exposed - not public.

A Brisbane metro would benefit the city in two ways, 1) by adding value to existing assets and 2) encouraging future asset growth!  Ohh, try 3 ways, it'll actually move people too!

No "buz" is going to do that in 5 billion years!

No need for fear, it's just progress!

[#Metro]

The private sector is champing at the bit to expose more money to the infrastructure sector.  Unlike public money, the private sector will ALWAYS find a buyer for an asset at the best price available.  Airtrain, Clem7, Sydney Airport Railway all took/or are still taking the long way 'round to commercial success - but it's primarily private sector dollars exposed - not public.

This is absolutely and totally untrue. As I understand it there are certain tax offsets and rebates from the federal government for investing in infrastructure funds. The risk with a multibillion dollar borrowing is extremely high and even worse with a project that does not make a commercial profit. Who is going to invest in something that does not make a profit - nobody!

Governments and private businesses calculate BCRs and NPVs in slightly different ways because of their scope of purpose. It is quite possible for government and private business to do a businesses to do BCRs and NPVs on an identical project and get totally different values. Why? One is for making profit, the other is not.

The primary purpose of a subway is to move people. If you just wanted to improve land values, no need to build a subway, just bury gold bullion to the tune of $5 billion or whatever in everyone's front yard.

[somebody]

Ideas and aspirations are great but lets concentrate on fixing the current public transport mess rather than simply compound it with foam that distracts from the present problems that need resolution not distraction and band aids.

Sydney NWRL = official and widely supported foam.

I disagree that a Hills District railway is foam, but it certainly is in its current form without more CBD capacity.

It's not just about capacity through the CBD, i.e. Western Express or whatever the Libs are calling it.  I think it needs the second harbour crossing.