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

[Cam]

Stubborn politics. 

[techblitz]

Response to techblitz:

The approach from the western side involves going down stairs and back up again between tracks in addition to the usual rise and fall over a single line.

The Queensland Government is trying to sell the nearby 5 hectare, former Nyanda State High School site, which may house up to a couple thousand people in medium rise units and probable retail outlets. Surely an upgrade or a new station adjacent to the site will be part of the deal.

really hoping so...salisbury is my local.....nyanda does present a big opp.

QR probaby doesnt know dont know what to do with these stations....

coopers plains is the dda compliant station but its pedestrian accessibility leaves a little to be desried for people without access to a vehicle...
salisbury,rocklea,moorooka dont get the patronage and with QRs policy of only upgrading stations that get decent patronage...could literally take decades before they are in line.......bottom line is one of these stations MUST be designated as the cross-town connector and friendly bus feeder station....salisbury or coopers plains....either one needs to be safe for late night users (safe lighting,cctv etc)...right now salisbury has great lighting to the bus stops but coopers plains doesnt....
salisbury is not dda yet coopers plains is...and both do not have close-by bus-stops...go crosstown to corinda-oxley-darra and see the difference lol....
Minds need to be made up,,,decisions need to be made on what to do with these stations...including rocklea and moorooka...

[#Metro]

I have no objection to the bus component, other than perhaps the southern portal alignment. Indeed I would not call it a bus component, but a dual ROW component.

People are objecting based on the vehicle being used. My response to that is the vehicle can ultimately be changed and it is important that the opportunity to get the second ROW through the CBD as it will permit the SE busway to become rail. The Hale et al bus lane proposal has no modelling or analysis done for it that I can publicly see, it is class C or class B infrastructure (i.e. like Cultural Centre/Melbourne St portal) and thus exposed to general traffic disruption on the Captain Cook Bridge, and I would suggest that the maximum upper limit for bus lane capacity in Class B row is already close to being met.

http://www.humantransit.org/ottawa/

"Double-width exclusive lanes can comfortably move about 180 buses per hour, with no more than two buses piling up at any one stop.  The way they do this is simple:  they insure that buses never block each other; when a bus is stopped, other buses can pass it.

That's DOUBLE WIDTH. Is Chris Hale talking single or double width bus lanes in the CBD? Now unless the whole of Adelaide St has cars banned or half of Elizabeth St goes to bus lane (and the Elizabeth St ramp is closed to general traffic) it is difficult to see how the load is going to be accommodated. And it is STILL open to surface traffic disruption.

Show me the bus lane proposal, which streets it has and the modelling for the peak hour capacity throughput.

[dancingmongoose]

They are going to upgrade Salisbury station when they work on the Flagstone/Beaudesert line so they are probably just waiting until then before doing any work on it. I can see the logic in that, why upgrade it now when you only have to do it again when they put another 4 platforms in. Of course that logic is only applicable if we get it started in the next 100 years...

[ozbob]

Feedback received, thanks.

================

Hello everyone,

As stakeholders interested in public transport I have sent you a copy of my submission in response to the EIS for the Queensland Governments proposed Underground Bus and Train (BaT) project. I am an experienced professional in transport systems and have spent most of the last 10 years working in rail and public transport planning. The attached submission highlights a number of flaws in the BaT project that raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the proposed project.

I am a firm believer that if you want to deliver a quality project then you need to start with two fundamental questions

1.       What transport outcomes and services do we need in the future?
2.       What infrastructure is required to deliver those services?

When you ask these two questions you will end up with a project that that delivers the right outcomes for the people of SEQ.
The EIS makes it very clear that these questions have been ignored and that the goal of this project is to deliver the BaT tunnel, regardless of the limited benefit it provides.

Among many other failings the EIS makes it clear that the BaT tunnel
-         Provides only 37% of the peak hour rail capacity provided by the Cross-River Rail project
-         Does not address crowding on the northern rail lines which were addressed with Cross-River Rail
-         Fails to understand the underlying issues on the bus network and proposes a massive infrastructure investment over operational changes
-      Continues to operate key areas of the bus network over capacity
-         Has a significantly lower Benefit to Cost ratio than Cross-River Rail

And yet the Queensland Government still touts this as the best solution to our transport problems.

The CRR Project was the result of a comprehensive and expensive investigation over several years and considerable community consultation. The BaT project has discarded all of this work and pushed through a badly thought out design that fails to deliver for the people of Queensland.

I urge you all to look at the attached report and then investigate the EIS for both the BaT project and the former Cross-River Rail project to see what you are really going to get for your money. The differences couldn't be more stark.
Please feel free use and to distribute this email and attachment widely among your networks.

Kind Regards,
Phillip Stewart

Attachment --> here! PDF 1 MB

[#Metro]

Even using a load factor of 55% (equivalent to the highest load factor found on the Busway) these
227 buses are only carrying a load equivalent to the seated capacity of 125. Essentially there is the
equivalent of 100 buses going through the Cultural Centre in the busiest hour of the morning peak
carrying air.

Well well well, welcome to BCC's ridiculous 'no transfer' bus network! I think a problem like this is inherent to busways where the bus runs through the busway. In a connected network, air is expelled at interchanges. With buses it is possible to do the same, but only if you have a closed system like Bogota where the trunk section has superbuses that are large enough capacity to take incoming transfer pax.

Unfortunately, even with redesign of the bus network, there is still a need to send a high volume of buses through to the CBD, unless one wishes to engage in near side termination (i.e. dump pax at W'Gabba, Park Road etc). With BaT / CRR / BUM you can terminate a whole heap at Griffith University. The whole Sunnybank area should be considered for rapid transit straight down Mains Road. Proposals to rail on the periphery fail IMHO because they don't go through the central axis of the suburb where the shopping centres are.

[#Metro]

Rather than being at capacity, the busway has reached a point where the infrastructure can no
longer accommodate the inefficiencies that exist in the current route design and the existing
planning mentality that every service must go direct to the CBD.

ouch!

[ozbob]

I probably won't be around to suffer the sad consequences for that long if this BaT is actually ever built.  My grandchildren will though.

I hope that there are more serious attempts to point out the sheer folly of what is proposed for BaT.

Well done Phillip on having the courage to call it as it is.

If by some miracle the LNP lease agenda goes down in #qldvotes there might be hope for a better solution along the lines of CRR with improved bus network and priority.

If enough constructive criticism is put forward between now and the election by transport professionals, maybe folks and government might listen.

That criticism will not be forthcoming from within the bureaucracy of this government though. It is a controlled threatened culture IMHO.

[ozbob]

Media release 10th October 2014



SEQ: BaT - another political con trick?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel, and the overall merits of the project.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1). Others are now coming to similar conclusions - this is a very flawed project (2)!"

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7

2. Submission by P. Stewart re BaT EIS http://backontrack.org/docs/crr/Stewart.pdf from http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg147298#msg147298

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Twitter

banksy ‏@thereaIbanksy 1 minute ago

Morality vs. Obedience

[#Metro]

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

I would like to see a map of where these bus lanes will go and the capacity of those lanes in pphd.
Bus lanes on Adelaide Street? That would mean one lane used for the buses stopping and the other lane used for buses, meaning cars etc banned from the entire street. That's what got Light Rail dumped because it upset The Property Council. What about Elizabeth Street - nice, but that is one way, what about the return direction? How is a two way lane on that going to interface with the fact that there is an expressway exit ramp emptying on to the street there? Close down that ramp and make it bus only?

Turbot etc streets are possible but are much further away.

Bus lanes within the CBD imply the buses are still going to the CBD and are operating in Class B row, this implies a ceiling of 10 000 pphd or 150 buses per hour or a bus every 24 seconds. The number of buses on these streets are already well above this ceiling meaning that even with bus lanes these lanes would already be overcapacity anyway (Table 4-15, Sharpe Submission).

Table 4-15 Base year (2012) AM peak one hour bus demands and capacity

Captain Cook Bridge 221 buses/hour, estimated capacity 250 (88.4%)
Elizabeth Street 219 buses/hour, estimated capacity  120 (103%)
Adelaide Street (eastbound) 153 buses/hour, estimated capacity  120 (128%)

* All buses that have their final stop in CBD between 7:30am and 8:30am (Source: TTA)
** per lane including station/stops (Source: BACICS)

The congestion is at Cultural Centre which is Class B priority, upgrading that to Class A implies removing surface intersections - by definition this implies a tunnel either for the cars or the buses as placing over/underpasses at these locations so that the car/bus traffic streams avoid each other is not feasible there.

General Comments

It is difficult to expel air from the BCC bus network due to the multitude of rocket patterns, stopping patterns and dog breakfast of routes going to the CBD. Cutting services with which only run a handful of services in peak (i.e. 105, 108, 172 etc) will not do much at all. For example, if I assume I remove the sole 108 peak service from Cultural Centre, that's what (1/~200 buses/hour) x 100 = 0.5% reduction in buses, almost as good as zero.

Proper relief happens only if the  high volume services going through -  BUZ 150, BUZ 100, BUZ 130, BUZ 111, 160, 222, 204, 200, 66 etc are intercepted before they enter the CBD (i.e. terminate BUZ 150, BUZ 130 at rail - the politics of this is likely to be toxic, as will be cutting sacred-cow rockets and the journeys longer without BaT rail component), OR these services are converted to superbuses (250-300 pax per bus) which brings new headaches with station platforms within QSBS, KGS, the QSBS snake, and potential problems off the busway manouvering in local streets (i.e. blocking intersections when stopped in traffic). I think superbuses are possible, but you'd need to do an evaluation similar to Light Rail as to where they can/cannot go.

Importantly, one needs to look at whether removing the bus tunnel component will result in increase or decrease in net benefits. Class A ROW is justified in core areas for high volume services, there is only one opportunity - the cheapest and most efficient one - to build the bus tunnel while the rail tunnel is being constructed as one project.

'Larger superbuses only' may increase capacity, but will not provide reliability (accidents, weather, congestion) without Class A Row, and may not be able to fit inside QSBS/KGS without modifications. Importantly, converting to this model will destroy the very reason why busway was chosen in the first place - 'no transfer' for passengers.

[ozbob]

A proper network review will significantly reduce the number of buses through the CBD. Feed rail, ramp up rail as per CRR.

It is time a proper connected network was proposed and implemented.  It is a disgrace the political processes involved with the failed TransLink review and this BaT abomination.

I don't think there will be investors silly enough to put up capital for the BaT as proposed.  The BaT needs fixing.

It is also ludicrous to consider that resumptions for a road with limited benefits is fine, but to seriously compromise the BaT because of the reluctance to do that for a project with massive ramifications for much of SEQ is pushed aside. 

A sad joke really ..

[#Metro]

Some comments:

(a) Cultural Centre will continue to be congested unless some BUZ services are permanently removed from CC, either by rail interception, permanent re-routing over the Captain Cook Bridge or by entunnelment of the services into a bus tunnel. Cutting minor routes (108, 172 etc) at CC in peak will NOT provide significant relief.

(b) Extensions to the Eastern Busway are likely to be useless without problems in the bus core fixed. Congestion problems within the core are likely to reduce travel time savings and thus the NPV and BCRs of any Eastern Busway Extension project.

(c) Class A ROW gives the best protection against weather and delay from traffic, bus lanes do not. It is efficient to construct a bus tunnel and rail tunnel at the same time rather than two separate projects and it gives the valuable option of the busway to be converted to rail. No bus tunnel component means effectively no chance of busway conversion to rail.

(d) There is a case for superbuses, but even if these are deployed, maintaining a basic frequency of a BUZ every 10 minutes in peak hour for Southside routes would see at least ~100 buses/hour at Cultural Centre, the actual figure is likely to be higher than this and hence I suspect you will still have problems even with superbuses, plus they will not fit through the QSBS snake or at QSBS platforms).

The operation of large superbuses and high frequency/capacity is best complemented by Class A ROW, Class B row if you cannot afford Class A. Remember the lengths of these superbuses are quite long (27 meters for the largest Autotram Extra Grand/256 pax) so perhaps only one or two will fit at existing busway platforms (2 x 27 = 54 meters, a third bus would make 81 meters, thus overhanging the busway platform if we assume busway platforms are 77 meters max in length), so perhaps all the busway platforms would have to be extended as well, c.f. Gold Coast Tram 300 pax = 43.5 meters)

A proper network review will significantly reduce the number of buses through the CBD. Feed rail, ramp up rail as per CRR.

If we look at a map, what buses may be intercepted before they reach the CBD? Sunnybank area (BUZ 130, BUZ 150; Send to Beenleigh Rail BaT) and perhaps Bus 125 could be intercepted by the rail network before entering the CBD. You could possibly block BUZ 200 and 222s from entering the Brisbane CBD by sending these to UQ and interchange at Buranda/Park Road (bus or rail) but you can see here what is happening is near-side termination and cutting BUZ routes short.

[ozbob]

Hale and Stewart know what they are talking about.

I can only hope some more of the academic and professional planners and the like get into this.

There needs to be proper evaluation of all options before locking in a failing paradigm.  There is still a chance to sort it.

Should be interesting to see how this now proceeds.

[#Metro]

Well I hope so because the ideas the academics have put forward have even less detail than BaT does. Where is their maps, capacity estimates, drawings?

Even with bus review, many bus services will need to continue through to the CBD via Cultural Centre during peak, these mainly being BUZ services and an upgraded Bulimba 230.  BaT would provide the possibility of capturing BUZ 100, BUZ 120, 130 etc, and almost all rockets currently using Capt Cook Bridge resulting in a major decongestion of Cultural Centre and full isolation of the busway network from surface disruptions plus future option value to convert SE Busway to a SE Subway in the future.

[#Metro]

There needs to be proper evaluation of all options before locking in a failing paradigm.  There is still a chance to sort it.

Should be interesting to see how this now proceeds.

Agreed. The Park Road missing bit is a big glaring one...

[aldonius]

Elizabeth St is pretty much perfect for Southside rockets coming in over the Captain Cook. For the return half of the couplet, I suggest Ann St, which already has a bus lane.

This could also be used by the Westside services that currently use QSM-B, which should slightly increase throughput for KGS services (and possibly the rest of QSM, depending on how the light-cycle time is allocated).

[techblitz]

but you can see here what is happening is near-side termination and cutting BUZ routes short.

plz tell me the difference between what is happening on the gold coast at the moment with the 700/777 into light rail to surfers?
or tell me whats the difference of catching a bus 1or 2 km from a rail station only then having to hop off and transfer onto rail?

I honestly dont see nearside termnation and same platform transfers as an issue.....no matter where it is....the only issue is boarding times and platform capacity...but provided you get the frequencies down pat.....it becomes a non-issue

although there is hardly any passengers to complain about it.......there has been no stinkup over the nearside termination of the 117 at the gabba....and there is plenty of standing room at the gabba to accomodate a major bus route being diverted accross the CCB
why is everyone so scared of it?....when the benfits of it are much larger than the inconvenience...

[#Metro]

 

plz tell me the difference between what is happening on the gold coast at the moment with the 700/777 into light rail to surfers?
or tell me whats the difference of catching a bus 1or 2 km from a rail station only then having to hop off and transfer onto rail?

There are precedents for near side terminators. For example, the termination of Gold Coast and Beenleigh line trains at South Brisbane prior to 1978 did this. Pax then walked or caught buses across the Victoria Bridge. Show me a map of which routes you suggest are going to be cut where. BaT (or generically BUM, as the project might change again) is not going to be built for quite a while and so any bus review will probably need to run buses to the CBD still as the tunnel (rail or bus) is not in place, for example, it is faster to use the busway than transfer at Altandi from Sunnybank services.

I honestly dont see nearside termnation and same platform transfers as an issue.....no matter where it is....the only issue is boarding times and platform capacity...but provided you get the frequencies down pat.....it becomes a non-issue

Secondly, there is QR. Due to the high service production costs within QR (i.e. guards), the government has incentive to skimp on evening and weekend services. You will note that BUZ services run every 15 minutes 6am - 11.30 pm 7 days a week. Trains do not do this, being frequent to only around 7pm and not at all at night or on weekends. So in some cases, though not all,  one is feeding a 15 minute train to 30 minute rail (i.e. 150, 345). In the case of GCLRT is is basic 15minute or 7.5 minute frequency all the time IIRC.

[ozbob]

The first thing to go in the competitive bus tendering process will be the excessive BUZ services after 7pm.  Nothing surer .. 

[techblitz]

The first thing to go in the competitive bus tendering process will be the excessive BUZ services after 7pm.  Nothing surer ..

340/100/222 first on the list....they should never have been buzzed....just upgraded @ peak
its amazing...with near cbd but same platform transferring coupled with removal of some rockets at buranda...already plenty of standing room @ the gabba....there is an opportunity to get the 160/111/marooon glider patronage up.....take peak buzes out of the CC...could literally be done right now......

[James]

I think before we go on the attack regarding taking BUZes out of the Cultural Centre, we need to look at a break down of services (by number).


(Between 7:30am and 8:30am AM Peak)

You can already free up 14% of current capacity by simply removing the 4xx and the 3xx services from the Cultural Centre. I'm sure after this, you could probably cut services by another 11% just by removing services carrying air and consolidating the rockets (so more people start using the P-rockets instead of the line haul services).

Cultural Centre isn't at capacity by any means, it is just we continue to run air through it and put services which don't need to be there in it.

[#Metro]

There is a good case for ending services at Cultural Centre - it is a logical terminus point for services because most services need to squeeze through there.
Passengers on the south side and east Brisbane need to connect to northside and westside services. So I think some caution is warranted to ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease itself. The 130/140/150 services originate far away and can be fed to rail, however, this would reduce numbers by 14% (still a lot of buses through that area, with a bit of pax growth it might be back to original soon after) and you'd also be degrading service for these commuters as the BL line is slower (currently). With BaT it is feasible to run services (incl. Rockets et al.) to terminate at Griffith University Busway.

BaT needs to be constructed of course, so for the next 10+ years there would need to be an interim solution. You still have high volumes of buses approaching from the south side though, and if 230 is BUZzed, the 12% saving would be closer to 9-10% IMHO.

Then there is the issue that constructing 2 separate tunnels at separate times is more expensive than constructing 1 in 1 go all at once. Fundamentally I think a combined tunnel is a sound idea if people can only look beyond the vehicles actually running in the tunnel and look more at the lines it is forming.

[James]

There is a good case for ending services at Cultural Centre - it is a logical terminus point for services because most services need to squeeze through there.
Passengers on the south side and east Brisbane need to connect to northside and westside services. So I think some caution is warranted to ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease itself. The 130/140/150 services originate far away and can be fed to rail, however, this would reduce numbers by 14% (still a lot of buses through that area, with a bit of pax growth it might be back to original soon after) and you'd also be degrading service for these commuters as the BL line is slower (currently). With BaT it is feasible to run services (incl. Rockets et al.) to terminate at Griffith University Busway.

BaT needs to be constructed of course, so for the next 10+ years there would need to be an interim solution. You still have high volumes of buses approaching from the south side though, and if 230 is BUZzed, the 12% saving would be closer to 9-10% IMHO.

Then there is the issue that constructing 2 separate tunnels at separate times is more expensive than constructing 1 in 1 go all at once. Fundamentally I think a combined tunnel is a sound idea if people can only look beyond the vehicles actually running in the tunnel and look more at the lines it is forming.

I don't think forcing pax to transfer in the City is an issue. So what if they have to walk a block - to get from the 412 to pretty much any service I have to do that very thing. It isn't the end of the world, really. If worst comes to worst, pax can change routes at Cultural Centre to get closer to their terminus/super stop.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

11th October 2014

Re: SEQ: BaT - another political con trick?

Greetings,

The sad thing to consider is this.  There are no qualms in resuming residential properties for road widening, e.g. Lytton Road.  This has limited advantages for few suburbs. There are lot more property resumptions to come with further stages as well.

However, it is apparently fine to compromise a multi-billion dollar 'once in a generation'  public transport project because of a reluctance and lack of political courage to resume properties, with the consequent negative massive flow on implications for all of SEQ.

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...

Good luck SEQ, you are going to need it.  Mediocrity  is the hallmark of transport policy in Queensland.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 10th October 2014



SEQ: BaT - another political con trick?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel, and the overall merits of the project.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1). Others are now coming to similar conclusions - this is a very flawed project (2)!"

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7

2. Submission by P. Stewart re BaT EIS http://backontrack.org/docs/crr/Stewart.pdf from http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg147298#msg147298

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[#Metro]

Why don't they just say 'we don't want to spend money for the extended portal and this is just an alibi'.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

14th October 2014

Re: SEQ: Will the BaT fly?

Greetings,

More than a few concerns:

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/photos/a.653209831359874.1073741825.160527347294794/927458797268308/?type=1

Interesting table  - It's not JUST a tunnel under the river!

Comparing the BaT tunnel to the original Cross River Rail plan shows some pretty significant differences - and that's BEFORE we consider the inefficiency of running buses through the same tunnel.

Are we just wasting funds by not considering future public transport needs?



Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 14th September

SEQ: Will the BaT fly?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1)."

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7


Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[#Metro]

UPGRADE Dutton Park Station? WHAT?!?!!

I'd rather have DP shifted to be underneath the current Park Road station.

[dancingmongoose]

UPGRADE Dutton Park Station? WHAT?!?!!

I'd rather have DP shifted to be underneath the current Park Road station.

Yes they are attempting to compensate for the fact they wanted to close it. The problem is, it's only going to get an extra platform. It needs to be quad from outset considering they are already redoing the track there.

[ozbob]

[Derwan]

Interesting table  - It's not JUST a tunnel under the river!

Credit to Dancingmongoose for most of the comparisons from his post earlier in this thread.  I liked the idea of the simple comparison between the two, so used that (with a couple of modifications) and added one or two of my own.

The Facebook post has certainly generated some interest.

[ozbob]

The whole BaT argument is Batshyte. If capacity has become that bad, now would be the time to start the driverless innercity metro, lower operational cost even if high capital cost, and stop piling so many buses into the city centre ...

Indeed! 

Media release 10th October 2014



SEQ: BaT - another political con trick?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said there is growing concern with the lack of detailed public information on operational aspects of the Bus and Train (BaT) tunnel, and the overall merits of the project.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Our members have attended consultation sessions for the BaT. They have expressed concerns with the lack of detailed operational information on how this tunnel will work, particularly the bus aspects."

"From the outset there has been concerns from transport planners that the concept is flawed (1). Others are now coming to similar conclusions - this is a very flawed project (2)!"

"These concerns are not being addressed.  What future proofing is there for the bus component? Clearly single unit buses will not be able to meet the eventual passenger demands. This is a once in a generation opportunity and to paralyse future transport options for Brisbane and south-east Queensland on political whimsy is seriously flawed."

"Brisbane bus issues can be fixed by implementing proper network review, and establishing proper bus priority on the surface network. Why waste billions of dollars?"

"If the BaT goes ahead as it is seem to be planned for, the end point will be a conga line of buses in the bus component similar to the Victoria Bridge bus conga lines.  Really, is this getting anywhere for the longer term?"

"Eventually electric bi-artic buses, or even a rubber tyred metro system will need to operate in the bus component of the tunnel to handle the pax loads. This means there be multiple transfers for bus passengers, the bus network will be forced to operate as a trunk and feeder model. Meanwhile, rail passengers will have seamless rides into the new underground stations."

"A serious question is:  Why is there no combined bus and train tunnel anywhere in the world?"

"The answer is obvious.  No other jurisdiction has been as stupid as Queensland appears to be."

"Questions on the planned operational aspects need comprehensive and detailed explanations before wasting billions of dollars!"

References:

1. Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-and-rail-tunnel-all-show-and-no-substance-transport-expert-20131118-2xrab.html#ixzz3DDY3F0p7

2. Submission by P. Stewart re BaT EIS http://backontrack.org/docs/crr/Stewart.pdf from http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9972.msg147298#msg147298

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[riccardo]

Seems fairly obvious. Even after paying the 'Australia Tax' ie the extra we pay for everything in this country i would suggest a metro would be better value, would allow driverless and steeper grades, especially if using Paris or Montreal rubber tyred stock.


I would leave the whole Dutton Park Merivale alignment alone. I loved Labors idea of through running a Sunshine Coast (camcos?) to Gold Coast train under Brisbane, but if they are not serious about substantial underground length and speed then i would tackle overcrowding in other ways. First, shift the excess demand of the SE busway by making rail attractive to some of its sources like Garden City. By offering a different service via the Gabba and Garden point alignment, it should be possible to move some of the people, rather than the trains, off the existing city rail alignment.

Depending on how far back in the past you started this approach, Bris could have been a very different place.  The Airport was crying out for a driverless train, would have made money much quicker. This is not Vancouverism, but just pointing out that QR has built essentially a very expensive commuter service which, outside peak times, is just not well enough used to pay the bills, but is unable to affordably serve the denser inner suburbs and misses many completely from West End to Newstead.

[Gazza]

Thing is ,SFA   people are there to be "shifted". The 130/140/150 BUZ routes already cannibalize beenleigh line patronage and the poor frequency and speed does the rest.

The tunnel is really just an enabler for the Maroochydore and Flagstone lines to built, as well as allowing for extra GC line growth.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You gotta remember Riccardo for years pollyticks has used QR as a tool for votes as opposed to a pt service. They have wanted to improve a lot of things but someone always has to have their hand in the cookie jar and took Option C over Option A because it was cheaper in the short term but woeful in the long term.

[riccardo]

You gotta remember Riccardo for years pollyticks has used QR as a tool for votes as opposed to a pt service. They have wanted to improve a lot of things but someone always has to have their hand in the cookie jar and took Option C over Option A because it was cheaper in the short term but woeful in the long term.

too true.

And while having one BCC made things better for bus and ferry, made it worse for rail.

[ozbob]

The ' B ' in BaT is starting to look a bit shaky ... --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg148660#msg148660

[paulg]

The project website was updated today with a new blurb on the right hand side saying that a revised Reference Design will be released on 1 Dec.
http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/index.html
Cheers, Paul

[ozbob]

The project website was updated today with a new blurb on the right hand side saying that a revised Reference Design will be released on 1 Dec.
http://www.qld.gov.au/transport/projects/bat/index.html
Cheers, Paul

Thanks Paul.  Look forward to the revised design ...

[newbris]

So, some significant changes. The tunnel is to run under the transit centre rather than Roma St Parklands and surface a lot earlier in the existing corridor connecting to the exhibition line rather than come up in Victoria Park.


Also because the tunnel is shorter and coming up early (approaching near the countess corner outbound  presumably ?) the BAT bus will now connect to the inner northern busway and Normanby busway station by the look of it. I wonder if this means the bus connection to Legacy Way is off the cards or will they build a new connection from the busway ?

People living near or concerned for Roma St Parklands and Victoria Park will be happy.