BaT - Bus and Train project (was UBAT, was no CRR)

[ozbob]

JOINT STATEMENT
Premier
The Honourable Campbell Newman

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

BaT project one step closer

Queensland bus and train passengers will have a key say on the Environmental Impact Statement and reference design of the once-in-a-generation BaT project released today.

Premier Campbell Newman said the BaT project was an important piece of infrastructure that would ensure mums and dads spent less time travelling and more time with their kids.

"We want the people who are travelling on this vital link every day to have the final say and be proud of the project they helped create," Mr Newman said.

"We have made changes to the project's planning and design based on previous community feedback and this is reflected in the current design including keeping Dutton Park Station and Victoria Park open.

"We are on track to deliver this city-defining project as part of our strong plan for better infrastructure and better planning."

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the community can provide feedback on the latest reference design over the next six weeks following the release by the Coordinator-General of the Environmental Impact Statement.

"As we have proven before, we are a government that listens and so we encourage the community to provide feedback on the design before it is finalised," Mr Emerson said.

"To find out more about the Environmental Impact Statement and Reference Design, six community information sessions will be held at locations within the study corridor."

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said the 5.4-kilometre north-south tunnel with new underground stations at Woolloongabba, George Street and Roma Street would also provide a key link for buses using the new Legacy Way tunnel via a connection near Victoria Park.

"This project is a great example of different levels of government working together to address the city's public transport capacity issues," Cr Quirk said.

"It will double the capacity of the rail and bus networks, take pressure off existing infrastructure and make way for future growth."

The Environmental Impact Statement and Reference Design will be available for a six-week display period.

Submissions about the Environmental Impact Statement can be made to the Coordinator-General, and can be made online or in writing until 5pm Monday 13 October, 2014.

The Coordinator-General will review the submissions on the Environmental Impact Statement and other information, and determine whether further information is required, prior to making a decision on the project. Major construction is scheduled to start in 2016 with completion due in 2020.

Further information and Reference Design Maps are available to view on the project website www.qld.gov.au/batproject and at the community information sessions.

To view the Environmental Impact Statement, make an online submission or to find out about how to make a written submission, visit www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/underground.

[ENDS] 1 September 2014

[paulg]

The EIS documents are now available for download from this page:
http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/underground-bus-and-train-project-projects-environmental-impact-statement.html

[ozbob]

Thanks Paul.

[dancingmongoose]

I want more than anything to see a simulated weekday network timetable.

[STB]

Time to pour myself a nice long drink, this is going to be some interesting reading.  I hope that they put in the bit that those who will have to transfer under this project from Cleveland to Beenleigh/Gold Coast trains by going to Roma Street than out again will be paying a higher fare than they do now at Park Road.  I told the team that a while back and they scratched their heads and went...oh, didn't realize that.

[darthcaligula666]

the dates and times for the community information sessions are:


Saturday 6 September    
12–3pm    
Centenary Pool, Community Room
400 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill

Monday 8 September    
11am–2pm    
111 George Street, auditorium on lower plaza level
Cnr George and Charlotte streets, Brisbane

Saturday 13 September    
10am–1pm    
Dutton Park State School, Assembly Hall
112 Annerley Road, Dutton Park

Tuesday 16 September    
5–7pm    
Brisbane Girls Grammar School, G Block classrooms
70 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill

Wednesday 17 September    
4–7pm    
Brisbane German Club Hall
416 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba

Monday 22 September    
2pm–5pm
Brisbane Square Library, Community Meeting Room
266 George Street, Brisbane

(clearly anyone who knows me knows i simply copied and pasted that)

i am actually looking forward to seeing if i can stalk one or two of these meetings. is anyone else likely to attend? im very keen to have as much information on this project as possible, and am hoping that they do keep dutton park open.

[hU0N]

Time to pour myself a nice long drink, this is going to be some interesting reading.  I hope that they put in the bit that those who will have to transfer under this project from Cleveland to Beenleigh/Gold Coast trains by going to Roma Street than out again will be paying a higher fare than they do now at Park Road.  I told the team that a while back and they scratched their heads and went...oh, didn't realize that.

Well, that's not true.  With two out of three current lines passing through Dutton Park (and three out of four future lines), the likelihood is that there will still be trains through Park Road that travel at least as far as Dutton Park, where there is an opportunity to transfer to services that are exiting the tunnel.  No extra fare, just an extra transfer.  And transfers are good for you. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.

[hU0N]

I'm not saying that two transfers are better than one, simply that the bypass of Park Road will be a small inconvenience (with no additional fare cost) for a tiny minority of passengers who want to travel from Cleveland to the Gold Coast.  As such, the level to which it has been overblown is quite remarkable.

[STB]

I'm not saying that two transfers are better than one, simply that the bypass of Park Road will be a small inconvenience (with no additional fare cost) for a tiny minority of passengers who want to travel from Cleveland to the Gold Coast.  As such, the level to which it has been overblown is quite remarkable.

It's not just that, but also for access to UQ via the busway and other destinations via the busway.  Cross River Rail already covered off on having platforms at Park Road, this is just a cost cutting measure, and I know that as I've spoken to the team about it.

The simple fact too is that having two transfers within 800m of each other is just plain silly.  Along with the idea that the project team was spruking a while back that if you wanted to get from Cleveland to the Gold Coast for example, then you were either having to go to Roma Street, or transfer at Southbank for a bus to the Gabba then train from there.

[STB]

the dates and times for the community information sessions are:


Saturday 6 September    
12–3pm    
Centenary Pool, Community Room
400 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill

Monday 8 September    
11am–2pm    
111 George Street, auditorium on lower plaza level
Cnr George and Charlotte streets, Brisbane

Saturday 13 September    
10am–1pm    
Dutton Park State School, Assembly Hall
112 Annerley Road, Dutton Park

Tuesday 16 September    
5–7pm    
Brisbane Girls Grammar School, G Block classrooms
70 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill

Wednesday 17 September    
4–7pm    
Brisbane German Club Hall
416 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba

Monday 22 September    
2pm–5pm
Brisbane Square Library, Community Meeting Room
266 George Street, Brisbane

(clearly anyone who knows me knows i simply copied and pasted that)

i am actually looking forward to seeing if i can stalk one or two of these meetings. is anyone else likely to attend? im very keen to have as much information on this project as possible, and am hoping that they do keep dutton park open.

I'll be attending at least one of them, not sure which one yet though.  And frankly IMO Dutton Park isn't as important as Park Road, darthcaligula, as it serves far more purpose than Dutton Park, including still giving access to the PA hospital with buses running every few minutes to the PA Hospital itself.  Obviously that argument seems to be moot now.

[darthcaligula666]

my understanding was that the closure of dutton park was a cost cutting measure, and with it remaining open now, the project may be a tad more expensive, but would inconvenience less people.

with regards to people coming from the cleveland line and transferring for a gold coast, there will be a few people having to do this, but as they already have to change trains at park road as it is, changing further along the line isnt as big a deal as it may initially seem. if you are worried about being late, leave earlier, catch an earlier train. (if i can do it, i am sure everyone can!) i tend to agree with you huon that the beat up about how bad it is has been blown out of proportion. i am used to catching multiple trains each day (have had to do so for my entire degree) and most days i make at least 4 journeys (sometimes more) so the beauty of that is that you get to free journeys by wednesday afternoons (thursday mornings at the latest). and there is always the possibility of driving to an alternative station, sometimes the station closest to where you live is not always practical; i should know.

i know a lot of people were +/- dutton park closing. as you said it is a moot point now. i make no secret of the fact i am glad it is remaining open, but i do agree with you, park road does have more relevance. i couldnt argue otherwise. i am biased towards dutton park for a number of reasons, but they are merely opinions and will cease to be relevant for me personally sometime around mid november. perhaps with the station receiving its upgrade, it will become more accessible, and attract a number of newer commuters each week, and the increased patronage will make it a more relevant station. out of curiosity, does anyone know whether dutton park was less patronised than tennyson? i think that would be an interesting point to verify.

i am looking forward to the meetings, and will make sure i get as much info as possible, and i will certainly be laying out various travel scenarios and asking for clarification as to time taken for the journeys, cost incurred (increase, decrease, no change) and number of transfers etc. perhaps i will see some of you there? if i am going to attend any, the weekend ones are looking the most likely. and hell yeah, i am catching the train to the meeting, it would look pretty bad if i didnt!

perhaps if people have a list of questions we could draft them for people who are attending the meetings, and once asked, record these responses for discussion on the forum?

[STB]

my understanding was that the closure of dutton park was a cost cutting measure, and with it remaining open now, the project may be a tad more expensive, but would inconvenience less people.

The cost cutting measures included not removing any housing and building the tunnel closer to Park Road/Dutton Park.  This meant scrapping the Park Road platforms due to the slope of the tunnel in order to get under the river, if Cross River Rail had been built the tunnel would've started further back towards Yeerongpilly-Fairfield and hence platforms could've been built at both Dutton Park and Park Road stations.

This isn't the only concerns I have with the project though, other issues include entrenching buses competing with trains effectively along the same corridor rather than working with each other, and the lack of additional trackwork at either end of the tunnel to improve capacity and avoid conflicts between other trains.

[James]

Well, that's not true.  With two out of three current lines passing through Dutton Park (and three out of four future lines), the likelihood is that there will still be trains through Park Road that travel at least as far as Dutton Park, where there is an opportunity to transfer to services that are exiting the tunnel.  No extra fare, just an extra transfer.  And transfers are good for you. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html.

Transfers are not good for your City if they are totally needless and unnecessary!

First and foremost, there should be a station at Park Road for adequate connection to UQ and for interchange between the Cleveland and Beenleigh/Gold Coast line. If Dutton Park station needs to be moved, fine, so be it. It is no closer to the PA Hospital than the PA Hospital busway/the PA Hospital Cityxpress stop (both of which can be accessed by a transfer if you are so infirm as to be unable to walk from Park Road station).

Secondly, there is absolutely no need for a bus tunnel through the CBD, especially on the god-awful alignment proposed. Seriously, it stuffs with the Eastern Busway, bypasses QUT Kelvin Grove and duplicates a railway line!

This is more than a 1 in a generation project, this is a 1 in 100 year project. If it gets stuffed up, this is a failure that Brisbane will have to live with forever.

[darthcaligula666]

is it a non negotiable of either the tunnel or the cross river rail? i understand that having both in the short term is ridiculous, but im thinking long after im gone, how will the network be structured? if the tunnel goes ahead, great, make it an effective mode of transportation. with the implementation of this tunnel, does this mean then that a cross river rail line will not be built within the next few decades?

i am most likely speaking out of turn, but would it not be wise to plan to build the tunnel or river crossing (which ever comes first; eggs/chickens all that jazz) then wouldnt you want it so that once it is completed, it would have the potential for future developments to complement it? if i am building a tunnel and spending craploads, i want to get the best bang for my buck, maximise the number of people who are likely to use it, and ensure it has the ability to be either extended or have other networks join up with it to create a super awesome network, with lots of connections, which keeps traffice moving (bus and train). there is no point spending a crapload of money on a tunnel if very few people use it and it is plagued with maintenance issues throughtout and malfunctions at its entrance and exit points.

i would be very interested to see the long term vision. what is the network proposed to be looking like in 2020, 2050 and even beyond that? do we want to have a tunnel and a cross river rail line so that both can take the pressure off the merivale. should they look at duplicating the merivale? i would expect someone is reponsible for this kind of planning and engineering. i am hoping that whomever they are, they are at the meetings, or at the very least send a proxy.

keeping stations open is great, but that is simply one thing. shouldnt the goal be having an incredibly efficient and user friendly network that people *want* to travel on?

[dancingmongoose]

Obviously there is sufficient need for Park Road on the Gold Coast line as trains never used to stop there during peak hour and now they do. With it, one simple transfer at Park Road. Without it, you need to bus between Woolloongabba and Park Road or transfer at Roma Street. Generally speaking, it's not too bad, but just imagine the annoyance of entering the portal and seeing a Cleveland train right there, and you'd catch it if there were platforms. Also Park Road is walking distance to the hospital and has a designated busway. IMO, if we're going to lose Park Road underground, we need to make use of the Dutton Park/Buranda fork, especially if BaT trains are stopping at Dutton Park as it appears they may. Heck you could even call the underground Park Road station Dutton Park to please the masses.

I'll try to get to one of the sessions, probably the state library one.

is it a non negotiable of either the tunnel or the cross river rail?

The BaT tunnel is the cheaper, and inferior, LNP alternative to Cross River Rail. CRR was very similar, but the tunnel extended to Yeerongpilly, and was paired with the Sunshine Coast line and made use of a rebuilt Exhibition station.

[darthcaligula666]

the one at dutton park school looks the most likely for moi, uni and assignments and all that kind of prevent me from doing any meetings during the week. alas, have to help out at a certain shop in the city this weekend, so no chance for this saturday (bugger).

i had a feeling that the projects were a one or the other, and that the likelihood of having both was pretty slim. as i said earlier, i support which ever proposal will give the better transport for the city. would it not be possible to have both a tunnel and a bridge in the next few decades? thinking from a purely economic point of view (sans any actual figures) wouldnt doing the more expensive option now be the better option, simply because to put it off for 2 or 3 decades will increase its price several fold (simply because that is what happens, nothing ever gets cheaper!)

i totally agree with using the dutton park station to its fullest if park road has to take a back seat in all of this. buranda already has a busway, could anything be links up with this? i think attending these lectures and taking notes will be the best thing for all interested parties. it will be like a far more exciting version of attending uni. such a shame these lectures arent able to be held at the pace lecture theatre, that would certainly make things interesting to say the least!

and mongoose i know exactly what you mean about seeing a train there and knowing you cant catch it. the amount of times i have come in to roma street to try to catch a beenleigh (or even a coopers plains now) only to have it either just arriving as we approach roma street, or just leaving as our train arrives, it does get a touch frustrating. the amount of times i have run for that train, only to have to calmly pull away from  platform 4 as i reach the top of the steps, is ridiculous. i gave up on trying to synch them long ago and now just go to central, get food and then catch it at my leisure. certainly eases the strain on my heart! if this kind of problem (if one can call it a problem. a first world problem, but still a problem) will arise with the new infrastructure, perhaps timetable rescheduling to try to maximise crossovers of major services like this could be considered.

[SurfRail]

At what point did this farcical notion of not throughrouting trains to and from the north creep in?

[dancingmongoose]

At what point did this farcical notion of not throughrouting trains to and from the north creep in?

I think it went more or less unnoticed with the Dutton Park debacle. It was there from the inception of the BaT. Of course, that doesn't make it any less stupid

[aldonius]

Plenty of discussion on the lack of throughrouting back in April.

Page 23 of this thread, about halfway down.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> BaT tunnel could still change: Newman

There could be more changes to the design of Brisbane's $5 billion BaT tunnel, Premier Campbell Newman hinted on Monday after releasing the environmental impact study.

"We are prepared still to change the design to make it better to save money, to make it a better piece of infrastructure," Mr Newman said.

He said there was the possibility of some further changes at the Victoria Park golf course end near the Inner City Bypass, where trains connect to the Exhibition line and buses would connect to the Legacy Way busway and the Northern busway.

"I know that the technical people are really striving to find other ways of delivering the outcome," Mr Newman said.

"I think there are more things that can be done to minimise the footprint – if I can put it that way – to deliver the outcome."

The plans now include a new busway bridge running over the Exhibition line and the Inner City Bypass, which connects to the Inner Northern Busway and to Gilchrist Avenue.

This bridge is 6.5 metres above the ground and includes space for two 3.5-metre bus lanes and road shoulders.

Brisbane now has six weeks to pass its final comments on the BaT tunnel, with  submissions closing on October 13.

Buses will run on the top half of the tunnel-tube, while trains will run on the lower half.

However funding for the huge project depends on voters backing the state government's plans to sell or lease government-owned assets, an issue which has dominated public debate this year.

Plans to fund the BaT tunnel project will feature heavily in Southeast Queensland in the 2015 state election.

As part of its publicity and information program the state government believes it can deliver $8.6 billion from asset sales and leases under its Strong Choices policy.

From that, $1 billion is set aside to start the 5.4 kilometre underground Bus and Train project, planned to run from Dutton Park train station to the Inner City Bypass, near Victoria Park golf course.

"There is $1 billion dollars in the Strong Choices kitty – if I can put it that way – and that is a billion dollars that underpins the project," he said.

"And it demonstrates how we think we can fund it as a public private partnership in the future."

That public private partnership model could be similar to the Gold Coast Rapid Rail project, which attracted money from local, state and federal government.

That money - over time - repaid a private consortium which raised the money from the private sector to build Gold Coast's light rail project based on funding assurances from three levels of government.

Construction on BaT could begin 2016 and finish 2020.

However there is strong community opposition to the government's program of planned asset sales and leases.

The major changes – the decision to now keep and expand Dutton Park train station and a far reduced impact on Victoria Park golf course – are now contained within the formal planning guidelines for the BaT tunnel and included in the EIS.

New underground stations are planned for Woolloongabba, in George Street and at Roma Street station.

The changes were reported by Fairfax Media in June this year.

Full details on the environmental impact statement – released on Monday - can be read on the Department of Transport and Main Roads website.

The BaT tunnel concept emerged in 2013 when the LNP scrapped the previous government's Cross River Rail project, merged it with Brisbane City Council's Suburbs to the City Buslink, which planned to tackle the problem of buses crowding the Victoria Bridge.

There is no confirmed federal government funding for the proposal.

[darthcaligula666]

dude, you are up earlier than me! thats crazy!

i do wonder if after the meetings things with the proposal/s are still very much subject to change, which would most likely make the meetings redundant. the whole thing is becoming a bit of a political football. i hope this project doesnt become another merivale bridge which took like a century to get completed! i think i read somewhere it was proposed a century before i was born and then was completed in the late 70s (1978?). hopefully we have a good amount of talk, and some real action on the project soon.

im off to catch a train now

[STB]

I've been looking at the proposed rail service plans, and perhaps a compromise could be reached regarding Beenleigh/Gold Coast connecting with Cleveland trains, UQ and other destinations at Park Road.  What I'm suggesting is with the proposed Helensvale-Kuraby express run, run that via Park Road, and have the Kuraby all stopper run via BaT?  Just flip them around, since Helensvale will obviously be a major interchange as the Gold Coast Light Rail is eventually built to Helensvale, which then provides links to Griffith University etc.  Alternatively, have a lit pathway built between the two stations alongside the tracks.  Would be much more preferred than having to interchange twice between trains within splitting distance, which isn't a good outcome as James pointed out.

Thoughts?

[#Metro]

i hope this project doesnt become another merivale bridge which took like a century to get completed!

See Wilbur Smith and Associates 1965 and 1970 plan, which has the BaT alignment all drawn out already. Also contained drawings of a concept that is similar as today's busway. Unfortunately they didn't build it - although in true Sir Joh style, the rail line bust straight out of the Kangaroo Pt Cliffs, over a bridge and then dived into the middle of the Botanical Gardens, no second thoughts about the ruining of the cliffs and gardens...

The Cleveland line was going to go up the BUM was well. I think there is a coal freight overpass in the middle of the triangle now. Note that the line dives underground and there is no Park Road station connection. No connection at the time to UQ then...

[STB]

The beauty of that project though is that Cleveland line users could just interchange at Wooloongabba instead of either interchanging twice within metres, doing a 10-15min walk between the interchanging stations or going into the city and out again (and paying a higher fare for it too!).

That project also had more sensible station locations.  In regards to it punching through the cliffs, build it underground entirely and pop it out of the ground near Fortitude Valley.

[ozbob]

i hope this project doesnt become another merivale bridge which took like a century to get completed!

See Wilbur Smith and Associates 1965 and 1970 plan, which has the BaT alignment all drawn out already. Also contained drawings of a concept that is similar as today's busway. Unfortunately they didn't build it - although in true Sir Joh style, the rail line bust straight out of the Kangaroo Pt Cliffs, over a bridge and then dived into the middle of the Botanical Gardens, no second thoughts about the ruining of the cliffs and gardens...

The Cleveland line was going to go up the BUM was well. I think there is a coal freight overpass in the middle of the triangle now. Note that the line dives underground and there is no Park Road station connection. No connection at the time to UQ then...

Just imagine what an activated metropolis Brisbane might have been ...

still ... we live in hope .. 

[STB]

I've been looking at the peak hour proposed rail network, and what they are suggesting, if my calculations is right, is trains every 3.5mins between Helensvale and Beenleigh.  Every 7.5 mins from Varsity Lakes and every 8 or so minutes from Helensvale.  Feels a tad overcooked.

[darthcaligula666]

agreed, and had it been built then, it could have been completed for a fraction of the cost of today. this is why im curious if we go for one option over the other, will it be built in a way that facilitates the completion of the other option some time in the future, so that ultimately a second river crossing (or should that be third? indooroopilly is a crossing!) and a tunnel are both completed. i have no engineering background, only university physics and high school math c, so i dont quite grasp engineering fully, but i would presume maintenance with a tunnel could have the potential to close it off to all services, unlike a bridge (again i site indooroopilly, there are 2 rail crossongs here, so if one is unavailable, trains can still go between indro and chelly via the other bridge)

has anyone given thought to a second merivale? again, i dont know if it is even possible, but if it physically were possible, would it help to ease the congestion? i know it is a very left field thought, something i think i specialise in, but it would be interesting to know if it had been considered, and if knocked back, what was the arguement against establishing a second crossin at this location?

you dudes have so much info on this forum, it is incredible! wish i had joined sooner.

[#Metro]

I've been looking at the peak hour proposed rail network, and what they are suggesting, if my calculations is right, is trains every 3.5mins between Helensvale and Beenleigh.  Every 7.5 mins from Varsity Lakes and every 8 or so minutes from Helensvale.  Feels a tad overcooked.

What is their definition of 'peak hour'? Is it a 1-hour peak or a 2-hour peak?

has anyone given thought to a second merivale?

Yes, knocked back due to lack of space (Convention Centre or Hotel would have to go) and does not serve W'Gabba, or CBD. Brisbane's Central station isn't really 'central'.

[STB]

I've been looking at the peak hour proposed rail network, and what they are suggesting, if my calculations is right, is trains every 3.5mins between Helensvale and Beenleigh.  Every 7.5 mins from Varsity Lakes and every 8 or so minutes from Helensvale.  Feels a tad overcooked.

What is their definition of 'peak hour'? Is it a 1-hour peak or a 2-hour peak?

Not sure, just states 'Peak Hour'.  So I assume from 6am to 9am (with the peak of the peak from 7am to 8am), and 3:30pm to 6:30pm (with the peak of the peak from 4:30pm to 5:30pm).

[dancingmongoose]

What I'm suggesting is with the proposed Helensvale-Kuraby express run, run that via Park Road, and have the Kuraby all stopper run via BaT?  Just flip them around, since Helensvale will obviously be a major interchange as the Gold Coast Light Rail is eventually built to Helensvale, which then provides links to Griffith University etc. 

That would work. That's actually a pretty good solution.

[ozbob]

Some informed blog comments here ..

> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bat-tunnel-could-still-change-newman-20140901-10b5y0.html#comments

[hU0N]

It's not just that, but also for access to UQ via the busway and other destinations via the busway.  Cross River Rail already covered off on having platforms at Park Road, this is just a cost cutting measure, and I know that as I've spoken to the team about it.

The simple fact too is that having two transfers within 800m of each other is just plain silly.  Along with the idea that the project team was spruking a while back that if you wanted to get from Cleveland to the Gold Coast for example, then you were either having to go to Roma Street, or transfer at Southbank for a bus to the Gabba then train from there.

I don't see that UQ access will be a problem.  More than half the UQ lakes buses pass near or right through both Boggo Road and Woolloongabba stations.  This allows transfers to either railway alignment.  As for transfers to the bus network more generally, CRR was perhaps a tad worse because the number of bus routes passing through the PAH/Dutton Park/Park Road/Boggo Road station complex would be an order of magnitude lower.

That really is my point.  UBAT works *better* for train/bus transfers than CRR because of the portal location.  On the flip side, it works marginally worse for a particular train/train transfer that is (on balance) probably one of the less in demand transfers.  On this basis, I'd say there is a case to be made that CRR featured a better PAH et al configuration; but there is an equally strong case to be made that the UBAT configuration is superior.  I can't call that particular discussion, but the fact that it is possible at all means that Park Road is NOT the fatal flaw in UBAT that it is made out to be.  Goodness knows there are plenty of other flaws to pick on, it mystifies me why everyone is so hung up on the least serious one.

[#Metro]

I notice there are a lot of objections in the blog comments at Brisbane times with regards to running buses over trains in the same tunnel. This is something I don't have a problem with.

The mode running in the tunnels can be changed eventually to be rail/rail. A a separate tunnel for the SE Busway if that were upgraded to SE Subway purely would keep the two systems separated. I have no problem with that.

[James]

I don't see that UQ access will be a problem.  More than half the UQ lakes buses pass near or right through both Boggo Road and Woolloongabba stations.  This allows transfers to either railway alignment.  As for transfers to the bus network more generally, CRR was perhaps a tad worse because the number of bus routes passing through the PAH/Dutton Park/Park Road/Boggo Road station complex would be an order of magnitude lower.

That really is my point.  UBAT works *better* for train/bus transfers than CRR because of the portal location.  On the flip side, it works marginally worse for a particular train/train transfer that is (on balance) probably one of the less in demand transfers.  On this basis, I'd say there is a case to be made that CRR featured a better PAH et al configuration; but there is an equally strong case to be made that the UBAT configuration is superior.  I can't call that particular discussion, but the fact that it is possible at all means that Park Road is NOT the fatal flaw in UBAT that it is made out to be.  Goodness knows there are plenty of other flaws to pick on, it mystifies me why everyone is so hung up on the least serious one.

Ummm... yes, sort of, in a way, if you enjoy duplicating services. If we are to keep the same level of standard going to UQ Lakes (for example) - lets loosely call this 6bph weekdays and 4bph weekends - we will need to run twice as many buses in order to adequately serve both BUM and the inner SEB. Total waste of money, when CRR would just provide the same catchment area and no need to run buses.

BUM pax will have to transfer at Wooloongabba, which will add both route-km and trip time for those going to UQ. Pax going home will have another place to deal with with respect to rocket services - QSBS, Adelaide St, City Precincts AND BUM! The bus network will just become an even larger bus spaghetti mess.

The way BUM is heading, we are going to be designing our network around infrastructure - it should be the other way around! If there are any people who will be positively affected bus transfer wise by BUM without the significant addition of route-kms (e.g. a second 66 - RBWH to UQ Lakes via BUM), please let me know.

The mode running in the tunnels can be changed eventually to be rail/rail. A a separate tunnel for the SE Busway if that were upgraded to SE Subway purely would keep the two systems separated. I have no problem with that.

The design is such that in order to make BUM (bus) metro, you'd have to convert the entire busway network. In terms of LRT, you can probably bet your bottom dollar BCC will try ANYTHING to "save costs" by making the floor of the BUM (bus section) not able to sustain the weight of LRT.

[ozbob]

Don't shoot me ...    but ...  I have been reliably informed that the upper deck will be able to support ...



Now, whether or not that ever happens is a moot point.  But I thought I would share that again ..

I do think though it is inevitable that bi-artics will end up being used in the B part (if ever BaT does get built) which sort of confirms that there are better ways of doing this really ..  oh wait ... 

[dancingmongoose]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave out the bus level? Spend the savings on removing the bus network from BCC and fix it.

[ozbob]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave out the bus level? Spend the savings on removing the bus network from BCC and fix it.

^

[ozbob]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave out the bus level? Spend the savings on removing the bus network from BCC and fix it.

[ozbob]

Nov 2013

Brisbanetimes --> Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert

... Chris Hale, from the University of Melbourne's Infrastructure Engineering department, said the government had not followed mainstream transport planning processes when developing the idea.

"They've just come up with a stunt, an idea that looks really flashy and exciting," he said.

"However, on any basic transport planning process you would see that bus lanes are the way to go, and high capacity rail for the main moving people path." ...

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html

[James]

Don't shoot me ...    but ...  I have been reliably informed that the upper deck will be able to support ...



Now, whether or not that ever happens is a moot point.  But I thought I would share that again ..

I do think though it is inevitable that bi-artics will end up being used in the B part (if ever BaT does get built) which sort of confirms that there are better ways of doing this really ..  oh wait ...

Thank god for that. Still, the point remains that the entire busway network from UQ Lakes to Kedron to Loganholme to Chandler will need to be metro if you put it metro in BUM due to the way it connects - which would probably actually be worse than the current situation (due to inability to feed buses into the inner busway at Wooloongabba/Buranda).