QLD Transport talk from: Article: Transportation Jetsons-style

[colinw]

Before the inner city tunnel duplication of the early '90s, Brisbane CityTrain managed to comfortably get into the 45,000,000 per year ballpark with only two tracks from Roma St to Bowen Hills.

But the all-time records for MASS TRANSIT in this country still belong to the former Sydney tramways of blessed memory.

[SurfRail]

Another useful lesson from QLD's idiocy of the 1960s. Lota to Cleveland and Nerang to Tweed Heads both closed around 1960/61, followed by Beenleigh to Southport & Nerang in 1964. We got rid of the corridors on the Gold Coast, but the Redland Shire Council vigorously defended & retained the Cleveland corridor. Gold Coast reinstatement remains an ongoing and incredibly expensive processes, but thanks to the foresight of RSC the Cleveland rebuild of 1983-87 was relatively inexpensive & rapid.

I'm a pragmatist, and I think the closure of the Southport and Tweed lines was a fantastic outcome - we now have the highest speed regular electric commuter service in the country (for track speed south of Beenleigh anyway), with proper stations and Perth-style interchange facilities (albeit misused), and there is no way that would have happened as an evolution of the old line. 

The only thing that ruins it is the Beenleigh line alignment. Imagine if that lovely safari style alignment was still replicated all the way to the Coast - we'd be in the same bucket as the Illawarra!

Agree with you about Hobart though. 

[colinw]

The northern end of the old Gold Coast line had some reasonable alignment, e.g. from Ormeau to Coomera you mostly run within sight of the old embankment (and it is visible in places), ditto through Yatala.  The old line completely lost the plot south of Coomera though with horrendous curves through Oxenford & Helensvale. There was also a horrible curvy bit around Ormeau where the old ROW crosses the current line at nearly 90 degrees for no apparent reason.

I'd like to believe the line would have received some deviations had it lasted.

The REAL loss, IMHO, was the corridor into Southport proper, and at the southern end of the coast the corridor into downtown Coolangatta (want to knock down that police station for the LRT extension?).

Lota to Cleveland shows that a legacy alignment can be rebuilt to a reasonable standard (entirely grade separated, worst curves eased), the problem with that line remaining the indirect routing via Wynnum which of course was never closed.

Imagine if Lota to Cleveland corridor had been lost?  I doubt there would be a Cleveland line, and Cleveland, Wellington Pt, etc., would probably be backwaters with Victoria Point / Redland Bay levels of bus usage instead of a reasonably popular train.

[colinw]

The only thing that ruins it is the Beenleigh line alignment. Imagine if that lovely safari style alignment was still replicated all the way to the Coast - we'd be in the same bucket as the Illawarra!

Yeah, somebody built a darn busway on the freeway alignment into Brisbane. Grrr!  TT will hate me for saying this, but I would have loved to have seen the Gold Coast "Mandurah'ed" in the freeway alignment to Beenleigh*, with all those buses that toddle in the busway going to Perth style bus/rail interchanges instead.

*but only if we ran better than  half hourly on it. A railway built for half hourly service is a dumb idea and should not happen. If its worth building a railway / tramway then its worth running a least every 15 minutes if not more frequently.  Otherwise, dedicated reservation is not needed and you should just run a bus up the street.

[colinw]

Where, above, have I advocated rail in Hobart?  What I have been saying is that buses are needed but along sensible routes to where the people are.  Not along a legacy rail corridor which skirts along the river & parkland.

The rail corridor is best left alone in case it is useful again one day, but will make a fine bikeway or heritage tramway for now.

The buses should go straight up Brooker, New Town Road, etc.

I know you love the SE Busway, but please consider for a moment that tacking the Gold Coast Line onto the Beenleigh Line is the main reason why both lines seriously underperform. We lost the opportunity to have a truly decent intercity rail route when it half baked the Gold Coast line that way.  Maroochydore will be the same ,unless we build Trouts Road and link it to CRR without doglegging via Windsor.

Please look past your antipathy toward our current low standard rail services to what our rail network COULD be. Countless billions of dollars worth of stranded investment in underperforming infrastructure, yet many overseas systems with less infrastructure than us manage to do so much more (and so much more than a busway could handle). Can we really afford to just let our railways plod along doing sod all while we build a complete alternative transit system which will clog up within 10 years of opening?

To me the so-called great success of the SE Busway is actually a signpost to systematic failure of our transport planning. It is the one eyed man in a country of the blind, nothing more.

[#Metro]

Colin, I think there's a bit of unjustified polarisation going on there. I'm hardly antipathic towards rail - The Core Frequent Network is all about mobility, which embodies FREQUENCY, SPEED, LEGIBILITY, DECENT SPAN, and INTERCHANGE. And it applies to ALL modes - Ferries, Buses and Trains.

Our trains have problems due to their labour cost (two staff on the train vs other places) which works against span and frequency, geometry (many lines converging on to a constricted and congested core is a huge problem) which works against frequency, legacy routing literally being set in concrete (works against speed - many of our trains don't run much faster than a bus on a street with a whole heap of traffic lights).

If you divide the world into bus/train rather than service characteristics/tool, then yeah, I'm going to sound like a bus advocate (even though I've been accused of being a Light Rail fanatic and crazy about metros in this forum). The busway is almost everything I could want and dream of in a decent PT system and I only wish Hobart would look beyond trying to turn their PT network into some kind of bizzaro amusement park ride with recycled second-hand monorails, and high expensive techno-toys like PRT (heaven help us all).

Buses have done really well in Brisbane and they'll be an important part of the mix. The train system is already there, but until $6 billion or whatever it is is sunk into CRR, so that we can get the capacity we need to operate decent rail, then the rail system in this city will be a bit hamstrung.

There is a future for rail on the SE Busway and that is as a North-South Subway for BCC and Logan commuters.

[colinw]

<snippo>

There is a future for rail on the SE Busway and that is as a North-South Subway for BCC and Logan commuters.

I think we are (for the most part) in furious agreement, although I maintain that the relative success of the SEB is in part a reflection of the woeful standard of our rail services.

I agree completely about the ultimate future of the SE Busway being a metro to Loganholme or somewhere, and would argue that the surface busway will probably need to remain in a supporting role (heaven forbid we give it back to the freeway as more car lanes).

[somebody]

I think part of the success of the busway is the single seat journeys to locations off the busway.

Transfers == necessary evil

[Jonno]

I think part of the success of the busway is the single seat journeys to locations off the busway.

Transfers == necessary evil

and one of its biggets problems... I am sure I have written that before

[#Metro]

I think we are (for the most part) in furious agreement, although I maintain that the relative success of the SEB is in part a reflection of the woeful standard of our rail services.

Agree (with the first part), disagree on the second. It's not because of, it is despite of... why? Because when you fix up trains your bus connections at Roma Street and in the CBD and at South Bank and at Buranda and wherever else becomes better.

I agree completely about the ultimate future of the SE Busway being a metro to Loganholme or somewhere, and would argue that the surface busway will probably need to remain in a supporting role (heaven forbid we give it back to the freeway as more car lanes).

The busway is approaching capacity, but the main problem is the Cultural Centre bottleneck which is caused by it being Class B ROW (not because it is busway). Around 9000 pphd makes its way across the Victoria Bridge in peak hour, which incidentally, is about the same as what the old tram system did also.

Hobart needs to get the discussion going about what it is going to do. There are more studies you can poke a stick at, time to get commitment.

[Golliwog]

I'd go with 'because of' as well. If trains on the Beenleigh/GC line were operated better/high capacity, then I doubt much of the Mains Rd corridor would contiune to the city by bus, but change at Altandi (or whatever a convenient station is out that way). Currently though, if you tried that I doubt it would work as there simply isn't that much room left on the trains from down that way.

I reakon if you cut down on the number of routes even going all the way to the city on the busway and encourage transfer to rail further out then you'd probably also help sort out the CC issue, simply by reducing the number of buses going through there. Treat the cause, not the symptom!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Gee whiz, can't agree with you there, I moved house to be next to it and it is the best thing since sliced bread!! Didn't get that level of service when I lived next to train stations! No signal, track or accident faults - EVER.

Whenever I use it I think wtf are you on about. All the patronage are from people that don't actually get off at an actual busway stop (exc the inner city stops). Yes, there are times where its pretty good but most of my experiences from using it I'm stuck in a stupid bus jam for god knows how long, trying to understand why the PIDs tell me to look at the printed timetable at 7 o'clock at night in the anti peak direction... if they are even working of course, waiting 2m outside a bus stop because one bus can't pull out enough before blocking the entire busway, having some dill get on trying to buy a ticket while I watch bus after bus pass by with my transfer time getting tighter and tighter, trying to figure out how my schedulled bus-train transfer wait of 11 minutes from 8MP suddenly became the Courier Mail Red Bull Roma Street to platform 200m marathon sprint, stuck in a tunnel because the QSBS is more important than letting two busses at a time out of KGBS, waiting at a bus stop for the person that's using a glass walking frame to travel from the end of the platform then taking their sweet time in locating their gocard before sprinting faster than Usain Bolt to the free seat at the back of the bus and most of the time ontime running can suck it... Its okay, but not sliced bread good. There are still a heck of alot of improvments that can and have to be made to it.

I reakon if you cut down on the number of routes even going all the way to the city on the busway and encourage transfer to rail further out then you'd probably also help sort out the CC issue, simply by reducing the number of buses going through there. Treat the cause, not the symptom!

The same can be said for alot of routes across the entire network.

[#Metro]

Whenever I use it I think wtf are you on about. All the patronage are from people that don't actually get off at an actual busway stop (exc the inner city stops). Yes, there are times where its pretty good but most of my experiences from using it I'm stuck in a stupid bus jam for god knows how long, trying to understand why the PIDs tell me to look at the printed timetable at 7 o'clock at night in the anti peak direction... if they are even working of course, waiting 2m outside a bus stop because one bus can't pull out enough before blocking the entire busway, having some dill get on trying to buy a ticket while I watch bus after bus pass by with my transfer time getting tighter and tighter, trying to figure out how my schedulled bus-train transfer wait of 11 minutes from 8MP suddenly became the Courier Mail Red Bull Roma Street to platform 200m marathon sprint, stuck in a tunnel because the QSBS is more important than letting two busses at a time out of KGBS, waiting at a bus stop for the person that's using a glass walking frame to travel from the end of the platform then taking their sweet time in locating their gocard before sprinting faster than Usain Bolt to the free seat at the back of the bus and most of the time ontime running can suck it... Its okay, but not sliced bread good. There are still a heck of alot of improvments that can and have to be made to it.

Spectrum of Authority

My feelings ---> I don't like busways!
Geometry ---> A service will have high speed, and capacity if operated frequently and in Class A row separated from general traffic, regardless if bus or train
Math ---> A smaller vehicle will mean higher frequency for the same capacity
Psycology ---> People like services that are coming soon

[Golliwog]

Spectrum of Authority

My feelings ---> I don't like busways!
Geometry ---> A service will have high speed, and capacity if operated frequently and in Class A row separated from general traffic, regardless if bus or train
Math ---> A smaller vehicle will mean higher frequency for the same capacity
Psycology ---> People like services that are coming soon

That's a form of logic, however the math line is easily rearranged to the same frequency will have a different capacity if operated with different sized vehicles. I'd much rather a train every 10 minutes on the Beenleigh-Ferny Grove line, than a busway with a much higher frequency. The higher frequency is at times useless in the outbound direction as they don't all serve the same stops, and on the inbound you can end up anywhere in the CBD. I'd much prefer the train which will always drop me at Central station than a busway where I can end up in KGSBS, QSBS, Elizabeth St or Adelaide St (or where ever else) depending on which route I end up on.

[#Metro]

TT, if the SE busway is so great, frequency that is so high and so well loved and carries so many more people than almost any railway in Australia, then the answer is simple. Stop building new railways? Sunshine Coast line, cancelled, Duplication of NCL, cancelled, extension of GC line cancelled. Then as rollingstock is life expired rip up the tracks and make them a road.  Even the single track sections will be ok as the railway easment is usually wide enough for two lanes and just think when people get to Cleveland and want to go to Redlands, no changing, as they catch the Redlands bus from CBD.
Oz bob will however need another hobby.

I don't operate on a bus/rail distinction in which to organise the world. The SE busway does a fantastic job despite all the negative dumping that goes on about it because it doesn't have steel wheels (shock horror - PT is more than just trains!). Busways may also be very appropriate in Hobart due to the direct service and ability for buses to easily climb some of the steep geography and navigate the roads in Hobart. Light Rail could work too but that would have to be a transfer model and can't really go outside the existing rail alignment.

There is scope for BRT on Main Road but the suggestions that the current rail corridor can't be converted to a busway or isn't appropriate are difficult to believe in the extreme. The geography of the road versus the corridor they have there is a bit like the busway versus logan road. Nowhere did I suggest BRT was a solution for everything, I simply suggested that it would probably be the best solution for the Hobart corridor.

It concerns me greatly that people would dispense with the value of mobility and would rather preserve the train corridor in Hobart as a bike trail to 'save it from being converted to a busway'.

That corridor would do really well as an open busway with a high capacity trunk service. The Brooker Highway is not appropriate due to the distance from main centres and congestion. Main Road is appropriate for a CityGlider type service, but that Class B corridor - bus. As I said Light Rail is also possible, but the track is in such poor condition it would probably have to be ripped up and relaid anyway.

[#Metro]

That's a form of logic, however the math line is easily rearranged to the same frequency will have a different capacity if operated with different sized vehicles. I'd much rather a train every 10 minutes on the Beenleigh-Ferny Grove line, than a busway with a much higher frequency. The higher frequency is at times useless in the outbound direction as they don't all serve the same stops, and on the inbound you can end up anywhere in the CBD. I'd much prefer the train which will always drop me at Central station than a busway where I can end up in KGSBS, QSBS, Elizabeth St or Adelaide St (or where ever else) depending on which route I end up on.

I think this is more to do with the city stops location, rather than mode, something Simon has commented on. Hardly going to kill a project because there are multiple stops. Toronto's TTC subway also has multiple stops - there is no "Central" station on the TTC system. This task is instead distrubuted over the stations Union, Spadina, St. George and Bloor-Yonge. Paris and London don't have single cores either - they have multiple stops all over their CBDs. Perhaps your argument and thinking is being constrained by experience of the current network, I suspect.

[somebody]

^ Interesting comments there GW.  Personally, my care factor as to where I am dropped off is FAR lower than where I am picked up.

I might prefer an Elizabeth St route over a KGSBS route if I am heading to that side of town, vice-versa or an Adelaide/Elizabeth St route if heading east of Edward.

[Golliwog]

I still don't believe you could have every route that comes along the SE busway go into the CBD and serve the one set of stops. Simon's city stop locations issue is a different kettle of fish and focuses on having all the buses to the same final destination areas serving the same or adjacent stops. As I understand Simon's city stop locations, it's not about having the 130 and 120 serve the same or adjacent city stop as they have a different passenger base, but having the 119 and 120 serve the same stops would be.

I'd also point out the in your Toronto example, the 4 stations you listed as serving the role of Central, are all served by the same subway line, on in the case of the green line, all of them bar Union. There is an important difference though. If you got on at Wilson on the Yonge-University-Spandina line you don't have to get a specific train/subway to get off at a particular one of those 4 stations, you can get off at any of them. Very differnt to how the SE busway routes operate here. You can't catch the 111 from Adelaide St.

Similar in Paris and London, while some lines have a few splits, the vast majority don't so there isn't a need to worry about which train you get on, so long as you're on the right line.

That's where I have issues with your talk about frequency on the SE busway being great. Yes there are a lot of buses, but they all go to different places. While not a big issue in terms of getting off in the city (walking isn't hard!) knowing where to get on is.

[somebody]

I still don't believe you could have every route that comes along the SE busway go into the CBD and serve the one set of stops. Simon's city stop locations issue is a different kettle of fish and focuses on having all the buses to the same final destination areas serving the same or adjacent stops. As I understand Simon's city stop locations, it's not about having the 130 and 120 serve the same or adjacent city stop as they have a different passenger base, but having the 119 and 120 serve the same stops would be.

Correct.  But also off peak.  130 & 140 are correct.  425 and 444 are wrong.

[#Metro]

I still don't believe you could have every route that comes along the SE busway go into the CBD and serve the one set of stops. Simon's city stop locations issue is a different kettle of fish and focuses on having all the buses to the same final destination areas serving the same or adjacent stops. As I understand Simon's city stop locations, it's not about having the 130 and 120 serve the same or adjacent city stop as they have a different passenger base, but having the 119 and 120 serve the same stops would be.

I'd also point out the in your Toronto example, the 4 stations you listed as serving the role of Central, are all served by the same subway line, on in the case of the green line, all of them bar Union. There is an important difference though. If you got on at Wilson on the Yonge-University-Spandina line you don't have to get a specific train/subway to get off at a particular one of those 4 stations, you can get off at any of them. Very differnt to how the SE busway routes operate here. You can't catch the 111 from Adelaide St.

Similar in Paris and London, while some lines have a few splits, the vast majority don't so there isn't a need to worry about which train you get on, so long as you're on the right line.

That's where I have issues with your talk about frequency on the SE busway being great. Yes there are a lot of buses, but they all go to different places. While not a big issue in terms of getting off in the city (walking isn't hard!) knowing where to get on is.

"I just don't like buses"

But that doesn't mean that they aren't a good form of Rapid Transit for many situations. Suitable for Hobart, definitely the right choice for the SE Busway corridor. Approaching capacity yes - but we can alter the service pattern, release more capacity at Cultural Centre by upgrading that section, and we can upgrade it to subway later. Can't really see why a busway station with multiple platforms isn't possible - trains do it...

If you got on at Wilson on the Yonge-University-Spandina line you don't have to get a specific train/subway to get off at a particular one of those 4 stations, you can get off at any of them. Very differnt to how the SE busway routes operate here. You can't catch the 111 from Adelaide St.

Er, yes you can. I do it all the time. Catch any service to Cultural Centre (I like the 199/196/CityGlider - max wait is usually 2 mins) and then get any busway service 111 or 555 or whatever from there. The frequency of service is so high that it's like I never made the transfer.

[Golliwog]

When did I ever say I don't like buses? Mode for purpose! Why run a dozen buses all the way to the CBD when you could fit those people onto 1 train? Buses are great for collecting pax and concentrating them as they can penetrate into the suburbs much easier than a train can, and the SE Busway as a corridor itself is useful. However, if you terminated routes in say the Mains Rd corridor (and others) once they got to the busway, and designed them to encourage transfer onto a Beenleigh line train to get to the CBD, or to connect to the 111/77/88 for destinations on the busway, would the CC need to be upgraded? Buses also make great distributers. Route 66, Cityglider, 199 are great for getting people around the inner city, but that doesn't mean this should be extended all over the city.

[HappyTrainGuy]

When did I ever say I don't like buses? Mode for purpose! Why run a dozen buses all the way to the CBD when you could fit those people onto 1 train? Buses are great for collecting pax and concentrating them as they can penetrate into the suburbs much easier than a train can, and the SE Busway as a corridor itself is useful. However, if you terminated routes in say the Mains Rd corridor (and others) once they got to the busway, and designed them to encourage transfer onto a Beenleigh line train to get to the CBD, or to connect to the 111/77/88 for destinations on the busway, would the CC need to be upgraded? Buses also make great distributers. Route 66, Cityglider, 199 are great for getting people around the inner city, but that doesn't mean this should be extended all over the city.

Which is why it baffles me that the 330 is run every 5 minutes filling up (Including those that use it as an express to/from Chermside route prior to peak hour) when there are two nearby railway lines at Deagon and Bald Hills (Will soon be a third with Carseldine as the area is currently being developed). Then there's the idea of throwing up building a busway there. Past Chermside/Aspley and at the very most Carseldine there is just no need for a busway at all. Wanna go to the city, get on a service that drops you off at a train station. Want to go to Chermside/other regions get the 330 that terminates at Chermside and transfer to another service. The same can be said for services such as the 130/140/everyother stupid route that is assigned for each street once CRR is up with an improved frequency establish Altandi as a major rail bus interchange and cull those routes at the busway/Griffith with the fixed busway services taking up the slack for the inbetween be it additional 111, 88, triaxel, bendy buses, light rail, metro, whatever. Also extend Parkinson routes to feed into the Browns Plains interchange.

[Golliwog]

HTG: on a side note, I see the Northern Busway not as something to get those people out past Chermside into the city faster, but more as something that will enable the faster travel of people that are along the route between the two. Although yes, currently the network is setup to encourage those people to go all the way on bus. The only thing I can think of is that, again, the train lines are fairly full already.

[HappyTrainGuy]

HTG: on a side note, I see the Northern Busway not as something to get those people out past Chermside into the city faster, but more as something that will enable the faster travel of people that are along the route between the two. Although yes, currently the network is setup to encourage those people to go all the way on bus. The only thing I can think of is that, again, the train lines are fairly full already.

Plenty of capacity still available on the trains. The northside is already pretty speedy with some decent coverage. The problem the northside has are poorly run routes with the lack of frequency (both train/bus), span of operating hours (buses are very poor while the trains are pretty good however the weekend timetables can be better in the mornings), on time services, very poor interchange abilities and mostly because everything goes to the city. I don't have many problems with getting the busway to where it will be pretty soon as a core infrastructure path however I still think the local area should of had a full blown proper network redesign first. There have been a few routes added and frequencies on selected routes increased since translink formed but the majority the whole northern network has stayed the same prior to Translink forming.

I think we should try to stay on topic

[Golliwog]

Plenty of capacity still available on the trains. The northside is already pretty speedy with some decent coverage. The problem the northside has are poorly run routes with the lack of frequency (both train/bus), span of operating hours (buses are very poor while the trains are pretty good however the weekend timetables can be better in the mornings), on time services, very poor interchange abilities and mostly because everything goes to the city. I don't have many problems with getting the busway to where it will be pretty soon as a core infrastructure path however I still think the local area should of had a full blown proper network redesign first. There have been a few routes added and frequencies on selected routes increased since translink formed but the majority the whole network has stayed the same prior to Translink forming.

I think we should try to stay on topic

Even in peak? I know off-peak could easily handle extra but thought peak would be fairly full already. But I do very much agree that there is a definite need for Translink to go over all BCC routes. I expect most BUZ and trunk routes to stay the same, or similar but there is a real need to revisit the feeders and local service. I think this is something that RBOT should push for, both with Translink, but also with BCC, as I have a strong suspicion that is where the issue lies. I can't say I have any concrete evidence of it, but it is alluded to by the arguments over BCC ownership of various bits of PT infrastructure meaning non-BCC buses can't use them, and complaints that non-BCC residents are using our buses, and the fact that BCC has put forward both Cityglider plans.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Inbound there are still free seats on some all stoppers when they get to Northgate but be prepared to have some arm fat in your face, walk futher along the platform or tell someone to move to get to them. Outbound is abit more crowded with school kids-students/shift workers etc but people should learn to walk where its less crowded. That'll change when Kippa Ring comes online though.

336/337 would be a good route to promote as a proper local feeder which is already established. Its only run 5 times a day when everyone is at school and work yet it feeds into Aspley and Chermside bus interchanges, Geebung railway station along with servicing 6-7 schools along its route, some areas not serviced by other routes along with faster trips to nearby routes/shops compared to currently. Running it 5 times during each peak hour would better than the 5 times during the day. 327 can then be culled and take over the 326 Sandgate duties terminating at Sandgate station to form a Strathpine-Sandgate corridor with the 326 taking over the Taigum duties via Handford/Murphy Roads.

[somebody]

When did I ever say I don't like buses? Mode for purpose! Why run a dozen buses all the way to the CBD when you could fit those people onto 1 train? Buses are great for collecting pax and concentrating them as they can penetrate into the suburbs much easier than a train can, and the SE Busway as a corridor itself is useful. However, if you terminated routes in say the Mains Rd corridor (and others) once they got to the busway, and designed them to encourage transfer onto a Beenleigh line train to get to the CBD, or to connect to the 111/77/88 for destinations on the busway, would the CC need to be upgraded? Buses also make great distributers. Route 66, Cityglider, 199 are great for getting people around the inner city, but that doesn't mean this should be extended all over the city.

Which is why it baffles me that the 330 is run every 5 minutes filling up (Including those that use it as an express to/from Chermside route prior to peak hour) when there are two nearby railway lines at Deagon and Bald Hills (Will soon be a third with Carseldine as the area is currently being developed). Then there's the idea of throwing up building a busway there. Past Chermside/Aspley and at the very most Carseldine there is just no need for a busway at all. Wanna go to the city, get on a service that drops you off at a train station. Want to go to Chermside/other regions get the 330 that terminates at Chermside and transfer to another service. The same can be said for services such as the 130/140/everyother stupid route that is assigned for each street once CRR is up with an improved frequency establish Altandi as a major rail bus interchange and cull those routes at the busway/Griffith with the fixed busway services taking up the slack for the inbetween be it additional 111, 88, triaxel, bendy buses, light rail, metro, whatever. Also extend Parkinson routes to feed into the Browns Plains interchange.

And you don't reckon that idea would reduce PT use?

[Gazza]

Re the Comparisons of Heavy Rail such as the Mandurah Line, and the Busway, I think it is an incorrect conclusion to say that heavy rail wouldn't have done as well.

TT, you have said yourself that a bus entering a busway should be viewed no differently to a bus feeding into a Class-A service.

I guess the point I want to make is, if the SEB was heavy rail, and feeders were as equally well resourced as the BUZ routes using it today, then there is no reason a heavy rail line wouldn't be matching the busway.

Just off the top of my head, in terms of 'Good' Feeders' comparable to the BUZes feeding into the Busway, youve got CircleRoute at Bull Creek, the Rockingham Transit System busway to the foreshore, and the Mandurah Loop, all of which operate at 15 minute or better headways, 7 days a week.
Outside that feeders are lower frequency and shorter, but am happy to be corrected on the presence of other BUZ type routes exclusively feeding the Mandurah line.

In Brisbane, you've got the 130/140/150 BUZes, plus other buses that use the inner part of the Busway and would count towards busway patronage (100, 120, 180...Does 200 count?). 555 is almost worthy of inclusion too (Though perhaps the 555 wouldn't exist in this alternate universe, because there would me more rail stations further south along the M1)

Anyway, point is, there is no reason rail on the coridoor could not have done just as well, provided feeders matched the service levels of the current BUZes and other important routes.

[#Metro]

Why are we still going on about this?

Re the Comparisons of Heavy Rail such as the Mandurah Line, and the Busway, I think it is an incorrect conclusion to say that heavy rail wouldn't have done as well.

I disagree. Mandurah line with all its feeders etc does 18 million per year AND it has the connections. SEB does 44 million per year, which is 2x the Mandurah line. We are also only travelling 20 or so km, Mandurah line is different in that it needs to travel 80 km or so. It is a different type of service required.

Mandurah line frequency is 15 minutes. SEB is every few minutes.
The gradient would be an issue, making rail more expensive, plus you must have a tunnel to get into the CBD (effectively Cross River Rail - so add $5 Billion in cost - the busway only cost $2-3 billion for the entire thing) or you would have to had linked it up to the Beenleigh line - kiss goodbye decent frequency, and you would have major congestion problems at the Merivale Bridge, which is The Rail Version of Cultural Centre.

So we can argue all day about whether 'Ferrari' is better in any and all aspects than your standard car, but it is a losing argument because Ferrari costs heaps. It's not much different here either - I think a heavy rail option would be run at much lower frequency (15 minutes all day), would have cost waaaay more due to needing a tunnel and the gradients would be restricted to 2%, or the frequency would not be good (due to having to merge into the Beenleigh line at South Bank). Whichever way you look at it, it's just not an option. The option would be priced out of existence.

I don't understand why people would go to such extreme lengths just to make it heavy rail.
Trains, or just any particular mode of PT, is just not that special.
Buses and BRT are perfectly legitimate mode to move around on.

The SE busway could have a rail future as an automatic metro like Vancouver Skytrain. The crucial bit is making BCC realise that the City Tunnel they propose in Adelaide Street needs to be metro convertible or a metro from day #1. Light Rail is not an option because the capacity added by LRT would only be marginal and therefore not worth the trouble. Funnily enough, the only rail that comes close to the SEB in terms of both urban context and single line status IS Vancouver Skytrain, I think one of their lines does around 100 000 trips per day or so.

[SurfRail]

I reckon if you exclude all the buses that only travel on the busway to get between Juliette/Cornwall or the Gabba and the Captain Cook Bridge, and all the West End and 300/400 series routes which use the Cultural Centre, you would have nowhere near 44 million trips. 

You don't need the busway for any of those trips, and indeed in most of those cases the Cultural Centre and Victoria Bridge stretch are the only form of bus priority of any kind that these services have.

If we are going to talk about Skytrain, compare like with like.  It relies heavily on transferring.  I can only imagine what the SEB could have done with rail capacities and with feeder BUZ routes, which would blow the average Mandurah feeders out of the water.

[Gazza]

Why are we still going on about this?

Because the topic was split off from the Hobart discussion for this very purpose.

Or did you want the last word or something 

Mandurah line with all its feeders etc does 18 million per year AND it has the connections. SEB does 44 million per year, which is 2x the Mandurah line

Read my post properly. The point is the "feeders" for the SEB (In other words, the routes flowing onto it, so excluding the 111 etc) are better than the feeders on offer in Perth ,so I reckon that reason alone is why the SEB carries more pax, because more people get "delivered" to it. There's what, 60 routes using the busway or something?

...I already stated quite clearly that despite the length of the line, only 3 true high frequency routes connect with it, at Rockingham, Bull Creek, and Mandurah.

SEB has about 8 high frequency "feeders", so already you can see how it has an advantage.

Imagine if the Mandurah Line had 8 high frequency feeders! It would go gangbusters. The line is currently limited by what the car parks can fit, given they account for half the patronage anyway

I don't understand why people would go to such extreme lengths just to make it heavy rail.

Simple, the Potential of the corridoor.
If they built it, and only ever intended on having it go to 8MP, then yeah bus, or light rail or whatever would be ok.

But what you conveniently forget is that trains from the Gold Coast are stuck using a slow alignment on the Beenleigh line, and the need to run express trains with an all stopper service means neither service can be run frequently.
Because of having to run both services on the same coridoor, millions have had to be spent (more than the cost of the SEB!) on track amplifications, and despite this, the job is still not done, hence crappy frequency.

If the SEB were heavy rail, it would not only serve a commuter function for the first 15km, but you could also use the lines to run express trains from the GC, and also have stops at Springwood, Slacks Creek, Hyperdome etc before linking to the GC line at Beenleigh.
Think of it that the gap from 8mp to Beenleigh would be paid for by not having to upgrade the Beenleigh line (Which could be left as a simple double track)

The GC line would probably be the fastest commuter run in Australia if it could follow the M1.

A comparable situation would be if they used the Trouts Rd Coridoor as a stretch of busway. Sure, it would benefit commuters in its catchment, and it would be inherently cheaper too (Trouts Rd relies on a tunnel to Roma St) and there would be other routes that could run down it too. Yay mobility!

But if we built a busway along it, we'd completley F*** up the future potential for lines to the north.

And this is what the true cost of the SEB is, it can only be used to benefit Brisbane commuters rather than say everyone to the NSW border.

The option would be priced out of existence.

Again, its penny wise, pound foolish, and would be a case of re-ordering spending. We'd have CBD capacity now, rather than in 2020.
Im sure in 2000 dollars a CBD rail tunnel or even just a 2nd bridge would have been much cheaper than now.

Lets look at the 2nd bridge, because this option would be more feasible than today.
What you need to keep in mind with this is that if this scenario had occured, a lot of other stuff wouldn't be in the way.

Getting the track from the SEB allignment would have actually been quite simple.
Currently the SEB has 650m of tunnel all up either side of Mater hill.

An SE rail line would have needed around 1.1km of tunnel to get through this bit.
The rest of the way through South Bank is plain sailing, since the tracks would have been built the place of the current busway, which is a simple elevated structure, and sits beside existing tracks when passing under the exhibition centre.
Getting Round to Roma St requires a short tunnel next to the existing one, and then the new track pair to Roma St just goes where the busway platform at Roma St currently is.

So basically, the real extra cost of an SE rail line is a 2nd bridge over the river, 400m of extra tunnel through Mater Hill, and a short tunnel and extra tracks approaching Roma St. Certainly not 5 bil to do all that!

And to be fair at that stage they could have terminated the line at Mt Gravatt with little consequence and not done that little branch to Wooloongabba, and done 8mp and beyond in the next stage (Say when the Beenleigh line was approaching capacity and they needed GC trains off it, and perhaps made the numbers work that way.

So yeah, the basis of my argument is that the Busway cant benefit gold coast rail users, but a heavy rail SE line would have.

It would have been entirely feasible at the time, but they were sold on the busway concept, so that's what we got.

[#Metro]

Because the topic was split off from the Hobart discussion for this very purpose.

Right. Didn't notice the slight change in title.

I don't agree with your assessment at all Gazza. Basically what you are proposing is a conspiracy theory that they were just MAGICALLY SOLD ON BUS, which of course is NOT "REAL" public transport, despite more than proving itself carrying 2x what Mandurah line does, and indeed almost any other single rail line in Australia. The idea of a second bridge and tunnels near South Brisbane is highly unconvincing, would have cost billions, there is a convention centre and buildings in the way, and not only that totally ignores peak capacity and geometric issues that arise from merging trains.

The busway does something like 7 traffic lanes in the morning or around 18 000 pphd. That's ~ 18 trains/hour worth you want to put over the Merivale Bridge (aka 'RAIL Cultural Centre'). Or even with a new rail bridge you'd still have to pour 18 tph somehow into Roma Street; how is that going to work? Built as rail we'd have MEGA capacity issues right now!!

Mandurah does 80 km, that's worth doing as rail all the way because you can get trains to go at 130 km/h on it and over distances like that the comfort (think seats, toilets and less standing) and ride quality matters far more. On shorter distances, like 20 - 30 km these have less weight, and frequency matters more.

It would have looked bizzare to planners to basically do parallell lines which have the same origin and same destination at huge cost all the way from Varsity Lakes to Brisbane CBD as entirely new rail coming off the existing rail system, splitting away and then re-joining it at Beenleigh. I'm sure they would have just thought 'why not use existing infrastructure' and just skip stops.

It is just extraordinary to justify the modal choice "could have beens". "It could have been heavy RAIL", SO WHAT!! Buses are fine to use on the SEB, the do the job well. The frequency is off the planet, like a metro, direct service, express and local patterns, emergency vehicles to the PA Hospital can use it (seen this a few times), I've never experienced a signal or track fault, one lane was closed last night and the bus just went into the other lane, it carries a phenomenal amount of people. It does the job well and is sufficient.

I reckon if you exclude all the buses that only travel on the busway to get between Juliette/Cornwall or the Gabba and the Captain Cook Bridge, and all the West End and 300/400 series routes which use the Cultural Centre, you would have nowhere near 44 million trips. 

Well, I don't think this is valid. It's pretty clear that these services use the busway. Shall we delete all the trips made on the train system between Central and Fortitude Valley because there is BUZ 199 and 'they don't really have to travel on trains between there'. The current rail system (that's ALL lines, all 147 stations, all fed by park and ride, buses, walk up, cycling, 5 cities) does around 170 000 trips per day, the busway does 150 000, and that's just ONE busway.

The future for rail on the busway is a North-South Subway done by rubber tyred metro or Vancouver style skytrain due to the gradients and alignments. That requires a tunnel through the CBD and Valley.

Had the SEB been built as HR I would highly suspect that we'd have two trains per hour (max four), and a merge into the Beenleigh line anyway around Buranda or South Bank which would put a maximum geometric cap on capacity. Hindsight is a wonderful thing....

[Gazza]

TT, read my post again.
Explain how the convention center would have been in the way.

There is a gap between the back of the convention center and South Bris, wide enough for tracks to fit through.

[SurfRail]

Well, I don't think this is valid. It's pretty clear that these services use the busway. Shall we delete all the trips made on the train system between Central and Fortitude Valley because there is BUZ 199 and 'they don't really have to travel on trains between there'. The current rail system (that's ALL lines, all 147 stations, all fed by park and ride, buses, walk up, cycling, 5 cities) does around 170 000 trips per day, the busway does 150 000, and that's just ONE busway.

The railway system runs at low frequency and always has, the busway runs at high frequency and always has.  What point are you trying to make here?

I think you haven't addressed Gazzas arguments about our better bus frequencies generally at all, which fully comply with your own reasoning around feeders and trunk lines.

The busway is jammed up good, and costs ridiculous amounts of money to operate due to the staffing and maintenance requirements of running so many high frequency routes in parallel to the city. 

They had a better operating model (Joondalup, ESR, plenty of overseas examples etc) and chose to ignore it by catering to single-seat trips.  That's the only significant reason why it was picked over a rail option or some other interchange-to-higher-capacity-vehicle based system.

[#Metro]

Where and how are you going to accommodate 18 000 pphd extra into Roma Street with this idea?

[SurfRail]

Where and how are you going to accommodate 18 000 pphd extra into Roma Street with this idea?

With at minimum a twin track railway which would have obviated in large part the need for Cross River Rail.  It would have been delivered at a time when construction costs were cheaper in real terms, and when the state had more money and less debt.

It only needs to operate anywhere near that capacity in the peak - same with the busway.  18,000 per hour = train every 3 minutes, which is exactly what the current line-side visual signalling system is capable of delivering, and not even the total capacity of the Merivale Bridge!

You can move this with 18 traincrew and their support team (maintenance, cleaning, train control) and not need around 300 drivers and their support team (maintenance, cleaning, network coordination).  You could use your smaller number of required staff to operate still very high frequency services but without the need for rockets, peak expresses and all the other guff.

How much money would your subway proposal cost?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Won't someone please think of the labour costs.

[#Metro]

I don't agree with a lot of what is being said here.

With at minimum a twin track railway which would have obviated in large part the need for Cross River Rail.

Don't think so - studies since Wilbur Smith 1969 have suggested going via Wooloongabba. You know what also? If you get a copy of
the Wilbur Smith Plan 1970, in the back pages there is a busway there - complete with drawings of buses in a station and people boarding
them long before the word or concept of a busway came into the psyche.

I'm not convinced entirely that the grades would have permitted this in sections, to get to 2% you'd need far more earthworks, signalling, rail track and maintenance. I'm not convinced that plugging the track into the existing QR network would have allowed 18 000 pphd - as you point out, just this line alone would have maxed out capacity and caused chaos when it dumped all the passengers into Roma Street.

You would have also entrenched a legacy alignment - Roma Street is quite far from the CBD, wheras QSBS is directly underneath the Queen Street Mall.

It is all very well and good 10 years after the fact to be pontificating with the benefit of hindsight about how "it should have been heavy rail." The busway does quite a task today and is fit for purpose.

The labour costs of rail - two staff per train - and even higher during the evenings when two security guards must be added - so four staff on the train, would mean these evening services probably would have only been provided at half hourly or even hourly frequencies. Then you'd need station staff at the train stations too.

The current service is frequent (every 2 min or better), it's fast (80 km hour), it is direct (direct to UQ, rockets to far destinations), it carries an unbelievable number of passengers (44 million) directly into the CBD (Adelaide and QSBS). Now that's not to say that it doesn't have problems, but it also must be remembered that our own rail network also has problems too. Oh yes, did I mention it was BUS as well?

People can go on and on about how we should have built the Ferrari option... and I agree, Ferrari is better in all regards BUT IT ALSO COSTS HEAPS.
There's also not much stopping someone proposing to put a rail line down the M1 if you really really wanted to - the median is still there - take away the T2 lane but you would still need a tunnel somewhere.

Like I keep saying the busway can be upgraded in the future to a rail option as part of a North South Subway system using rubber tyred metro or something like Skytrain. This would be cheaper to upgrade because the alignment has already been acquired.

[#Metro]

Won't someone please think of the labour costs.

Like I keep saying the busway can be upgraded in the future to a rail option as part of a North South Subway system using rubber tyred metro or something like Skytrain. This would be cheaper to upgrade because the alignment has already been acquired.

[#Metro]

2001:
Second section of South-East Busway Woolloongabba to Eight Mile Plains $452.8m (including Stage 1)
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/southeast-queensland-transport-infrastructure-rollout-since-1975-20100702-ztu7.html#ixzz1sRXc9HZT

Using the Reserve Bank of Australia's inflation calculator, this comes out to be $601 million in today's dollars, services every 2 minutes and pretty good for carrying 44 million people per year, direct service. Perth paid what, $2 billion, got 4 trains/hour and 18 million pax per year. Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't run more frequent feeders to their train line is because they spent so much on concrete that they didn't have enough cash left over to run trains every 3 min???

Gold Coast - 80 km x 50 million/km + (200 million for bridge), + (18 trains x 10 million ea) = ~ 4.5 Billion, what's that ~ 9x what the SE busway cost... FERRARI
I can see why the engineers decided to tack the GC line onto the Beenleigh line .... services much sooner for lower cost (at least initially). Not perfect, I agree but practical.

Cross River Rail is along within the $6 -8 billion dollar mark and required federal funding. Remember Perth had to go it alone and use state funds to pay for the entire thing and IA didn't exist then. So I think it is just fantasy to suggest that we "could have just re-ordered the spending" - you wouldn't have had that information..