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

[SurfRail]

I also wouldn't rule out the future option of Trouts Rd, but agree its not made easy (read cheap) without the stubs. Note how many stubs exist in Sydney tunnels and will never be used. Certainly cutting a full time Ekka station is a bad move.

No need to cut services through Ekka.  It would just be a 15 minute headway in the off-peak and greater in peak, formed by trains to and from Kippa-Ring.  Trouts Rd would be for Caboolture and further north.  All three patterns can merge at Roma Street underground.  The headway might come down but not to the point of being unattractive.

[darthcaligula666]

What about Gold Coast passengers travelling to South Bank or South Brisbane? Will they have to interchange at Dutton Park? If so then Dutton Park will have to be upgraded and a third platform built. I'm sure planners have taken all of that into consideration........

Not sure about Dutton Park, you'd have to look at the train operating philopsy post UBAT. The intent maybe to have a transfer station further back say Yeronpilly or Salisbury or Coppers Plains, where BL and GC trains stop and then express to UBAT route, leaving those bound for surface stations to the city to take a truncated BL line service. One day in future this truncated train would been the Greenbank train.

i asked them about this at one of the meetings, and they said that yes dutton park will be getting a significant upgrade and a 3rd platform.

some of my train obsessed mates and i were talking a while back and we think they have got this project horribly wrong on so many levels. does anyone else think it would be better if the tunnel (with or without bus component) began at or near yeerongpilly, and then traveled underneath a similar path to the current goldie and beenie to park road, where park road could have an underground component added to incorporate the cleveland line, and then it can continue to the city as desired (roma street, etc). this would allow easier connections for cleveland and gold coast passengers, as well as giving the potential for the tennyson loop to be employed in the event of necessity like with the recent g20 and storms. its just a thought, but we thought it would work better than the current design.

[James]

After looking through the broader details, I've decided I would post my thoughts here regarding BaT:

The positive changes:
- Surfacing earlier - could still allow for a dive down again to Trouts Road if need be
- Bus portal still servicing INB - theoretically will allow for sectorisation of the busway network should it turn into a metro/light-rail like buses (Carindale - NW BRT via CC and Chermside - 8MP via BaT) if southern junction is fixed up

The negative changes:
- I don't understand why we feel we need to demolish the transit centre. There's a reason it is a morgue, it is because Roma Street is so far away from the actual activity centres of the CBD, not to mention the only area passengers pass through only has a cafe or two - nothing like the walk from Central to Adelaide St where passengers walk through the guts of Anzac Square Shopping Centre. Just leave it be.

The things still untouched:
- Park Road station is being sacrificed for a bunch of whinging grannies at Dutton Park. This is the opposition leader's electorate, why the LNP care if they resume one or a thousand properties or demolish all the stations to Yeronga is beyond me. It loses no political capital for them. It is not like they are resuming the Transport Minister's house...
- Southern portal issue, as far as I can see, is not fixed. The portal position still effectively means to convert the busway to metro, you will need to do the entire system all in one hit.
- No benefits for the northern lines

Again, still the big ticket for me is lack of Park Road interchange. Why anybody thinks it is acceptable to see the double change as a suitable solution is beyond me. Personally, I would just walk the 800m to Park Road, it could very well end up being faster.

Overall, I still give the BaT project a fail in terms of forward planning and being a proper transit solution.

More generally - it is beyond the point where doing nothing is an option. Now I am one of the first people to tell government to cut spending and to stop unnecessarily borrowing money, but Cross River Rail (note I didn't say BaT for a reason) needed to be built yesterday. Whoever finally just builds the damn thing and stops talking about it and gets it done by 2020 will probably have my vote until 2035. Maybe I am just concrete-driven, but a cross-city rail connection is a vote decider for me.

With respect to the 29 - I suspect a connection will be required to both Dutton Park and Wooloongabba, as a lot of routes will terminate at the Gabba and require that connection to UQ.

[BrizCommuter]

I'm sure property development at Roma Street potentially bringing in finances is a reason behind the Roma Street changes. Changes at the Northern end make some sense, such as more buses will now pass QUT KG, however access to Legacy Way is still suboptimal, and there is zero rail capacity increase at the Northern end.

At the Southern End, the lack of Park Rd interchange is still sub-optimal. I hope the ALP see some sense when they are back in government next year with this part of the design. Also, there will be limited capacity increase at the Southern End without significant track enhancements in the Gold Coast/Beenleigh Line corridor. 

[Gazza]

For those who haven't been up that way recently, you can walk right up to Exhibition off Gregory terrace. Could even touch on there for a lol if you want.

http://imgur.com/pjIXQ1N


Its all very nicely done.
During Ekka time they could provide access for non ticketed patrons by constructing ramps from Bowen Bridge Rd.

Seems silly not to turn back there...at least you'd have facilities for drivers too.

[red dragin]

^ There is even remnants of the old dock platform still there so no conflicts with the two main lines.

[aldonius]

[side issues]

James, where would the NW BRT connect? Coming off the Upper Roma St branch?
Also, South Brisbane is no longer the opposition leader's electorate... Paluszczuk is from down Inala way.

Briz, I wouldn't be so confident about the ALP being back in government. They'll need to pick up 35 seats or so on a naive swing of up to ~15%, the polls currently have a swing of 13% or so and that doesn't take into account incumbency bonuses for all the first-term LNP MPs - so effective swing of up to 20%, really. They'll probably get 20-25 seats.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Plenty of seats on tonights 340 service through Aspley 

[James]

James, where would the NW BRT connect? Coming off the Upper Roma St branch?
Also, South Brisbane is no longer the opposition leader's electorate... Paluszczuk is from down Inala way.

Briz, I wouldn't be so confident about the ALP being back in government. They'll need to pick up 35 seats or so on a naive swing of up to ~15%, the polls currently have a swing of 13% or so and that doesn't take into account incumbency bonuses for all the first-term LNP MPs - so effective swing of up to 20%, really. They'll probably get 20-25 seats.

'NW BRT' is a broad concept I use to refer to the busway 'pairings' that will exist along key bus spines. BRT would either come out at the Upper Roma St Portal (Route 380/385) or Normanby (345) - I tend to think the 38x option is the more likely one.

Regardless, South Brisbane is as safe as they come for the ALP, I don't see why this is a sore point.

[BrizCommuter]

Seems silly not to turn back there...at least you'd have facilities for drivers too.

Trains turning back would block the tracks to/from Mayne which are surprisingly busy in the peaks and shoulder peaks. For turn backs, or extra capacity from the North, additional tracks would be required through Exhibition.

Briz, I wouldn't be so confident about the ALP being back in government. They'll need to pick up 35 seats or so on a naive swing of up to ~15%, the polls currently have a swing of 13% or so and that doesn't take into account incumbency bonuses for all the first-term LNP MPs - so effective swing of up to 20%, really. They'll probably get 20-25 seats.

Sorry, my comment should have had a  after it. They will need some policies for starters, and one of those would have to reverse their huge fare policy mistake.

[SurfRail]

Yes, Yeronpilly would be better and was part of CRR. But the price tag was too much and LNP canned it and when in office ALP get deferring. UBAT will be built by 2021, CRR would not be built until 2025 at least. However while not easy it would be possible to do in future (for a price).

That's the thing though.  CRR was and still is cheaper than this project (eventual revised cost of $4.4bn, wwith $6.4bn including Trouts Rd), and did far more for the approaches to the tunnel.  Using the refinements adopted over the last 2 years (eg going via George St through more competent rock, shortening the tunnel at the northern end), it should be cheaper still and therefore capable of delivering a tunnel which is more useful and cheaper than this multimodal farce.

[James]

The UBAT cost includes the scope to deal with the buses. Rail misses so much of inner Brisbane I think this needs to be managed as the rail solution is decades away. No Metro will ever run on this tunnel and I don't think it should so don't waste money allowing to.

I'm partial to delaying the project 12-18mths if it means time to collecting the funds to start at Yerongpilly. I'm not sure if I fully trust the previous govt estimates, however much of this was done during the boom period so I suspect there are significant cost savings to be had now.

But why do we need to deal with the bus component? Sure, buses do miss parts of inner Brisbane, but when it comes to looking at inner southern Brisbane, none of it benefits directly from BaT.

I am of the belief that there is no need to build any form of bus tunnel - just rationalise the bus network and only have high capacity buses feeding in from key corridors in peak hour, and feederise the rest. In terms of rail, CRR is generally superior.

[#Metro]

I am of the belief that there is no need to build any form of bus tunnel - just rationalise the bus network and only have high capacity buses feeding in from key corridors in peak hour, and feederise the rest. In terms of rail, CRR is generally superior.

The first iteration of the Hi Quality Bus Network actually included a SE Subway as a component as I was aiming for a Toronto/Perth style setup. However in the process of design I realised that including said subway was probably going to be  a while off and costly, so there was a need for a transitional bus arrangement.

This is the current Hi Quality Bus Network. It is meant to be a transition state where we do as much as we can possibly do without pouring any extra concrete.

It is a transition state, not an end goal. As the Chinese proverb states 'dig a well before you need to drink'.

The SE Busway is the only road corridor in SEQ that reaches the lower bound of metro systems in peak hour. Conversion to automated subway will permit automatic operation, a massive labor saving which will permit more buses more frequently in the suburbs, including massive benefits for the Logan City Council area and a Class A ROW into the city.

It makes sense to use one machine to make two tunnels both in terms of efficiency and future provision. Bus reform is helpful but there will still be large volumes of buses going to the CBD and it does not help the logan area as these buses will need to spend around 20 minutes or so travelling all the way to the Brisbane CBD, which is wasteful.

Some history from the city the bus reform plan is based on.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5104.shtml

In terms of crossing the Don Valley, the TTC was fortunate to benefit from the foresight of a designer from the 1910s. Crossing the wide and deep Don Valley would have required an expensive bridge if it weren't for Edmund Burke (architect) and Thomas Taylor (construction engineer) and their Prince Edward Viaduct. Spurred by the buzz around subway development in 1911, consulting engineers Jacob and Davies recommended to Burke and Thomas that a subway might run along Bloor Street in the future and the viaduct should have a provision for such a line. As a result, Thomas designed into the framework of his Bloor Street Bridge over the Don Valley a lower deck that could be used by subway trains crossing the valley. Underground streetcars were envisioned, but fortunately the designers did not stint on clearance. The Viaduct comprises three parts: two bridges and an embankment. On the west, the Rosedale section is 565 feet long and takes Bloor Street over the Rosedale Ravine. In the middle, the Bloor section travels along an embankment until it reaches the Don Valley, which is spanned by the 1620 foot Don section. The lower deck was available on both the Rosedale section and the Don section.

This proved a godsend to the TTC, as the only major change required (other than laying down reinforced concrete on the deck to house the trackbed) was at the west end of the Viaduct.

People need to see beyond the vehicle having rubber tyres and being a bus... it will not be like that forever and a chance like this won't likely come again. Very expensive to go back and do the job twice. Class A all the way. Hence I am NOT opposed to a bus component.

[#Metro]

Imagine having to go back and build a second bridge over this because it was cheaper the first time to leave it out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward_Viaduct

The Toronto subway crosses Don Valley on the underside of Bloor Street bridge. This is the view looking South as the subway crosses the valley eastbound.

View under Bloor St Bridge between Castlefrank and Broadview Stations

[dancingmongoose]

Personally I think if we're going to have a double decker tunnel it should be two rail, the upper lever for exhibition, the lower lever for Trouts Road.

[BrizCommuter]

EDIT: 2nd thoughts, a single island platform is all that is required.
Through trains would run on a pair of outer tracks which spilt from the Ekka roads nth of the station and run around the station and dive.
Sth side of Ekka station would be a pair of scissors to enable terminating at either platform.

Again, that would result in trains blocking the path of other trains on the busy Ekka Line. Any turnback at or around Exhibition would need to be on additional tracks e.g. reversing siding/pocket track(s), or additional platforms.

[#Metro]

Personally I think if we're going to have a double decker tunnel it should be two rail, the upper lever for exhibition, the lower lever for Trouts Road.

The issue here is that you'd now need to use QR rollingstock. QR Heavy rail has rather stringent engineering requirements for curves, inclines, platform lengths etc and the busway corridor is unlikely to be suitable for this. Metro services can run on rubber tyres (i.e Paris) and be shorter (i.e Vancouver) so can handle these requirements.

I'm not fully sure I am with this Exhibition Station idea. The RBWH busway isn't that far away. Anyway, all moot really.

[dancingmongoose]

Personally I think if we're going to have a double decker tunnel it should be two rail, the upper lever for exhibition, the lower lever for Trouts Road.

The issue here is that you'd now need to use QR rollingstock. QR Heavy rail has rather stringent engineering requirements for curves, inclines, platform lengths etc and the busway corridor is unlikely to be suitable for this. Metro services can run on rubber tyres (i.e Paris) and be shorter (i.e Vancouver) so can handle these requirements.

If you look closely, you'll notice I never said anything about busways...

[ozbob]

The UBAT cost includes the scope to deal with the buses. Rail misses so much of inner Brisbane I think this needs to be managed as the rail solution is decades away. No Metro will ever run on this tunnel and I don't think it should so don't waste money allowing to.

I'm partial to delaying the project 12-18mths if it means time to collecting the funds to start at Yerongpilly. I'm not sure if I fully trust the previous govt estimates, however much of this was done during the boom period so I suspect there are significant cost savings to be had now.

But why do we need to deal with the bus component? Sure, buses do miss parts of inner Brisbane, but when it comes to looking at inner southern Brisbane, none of it benefits directly from BaT.

I am of the belief that there is no need to build any form of bus tunnel - just rationalise the bus network and only have high capacity buses feeding in from key corridors in peak hour, and feederise the rest. In terms of rail, CRR is generally superior.

Spot on James ...  BaT is a thought bubble from Newman ...

Hale had it right ..

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

Hale is a PhD Transport Researcher, well travelled and published.  Local experts are finding it difficult to express their concerns no doubt - political recriminations.  Has happened before when certain people spoke up against some of the road tunnel misleading stuff.  Their funding stopped.

We must continue to highlight the issues.  I pay for this site, no one else ... 

[newbris]

The UBAT cost includes the scope to deal with the buses. Rail misses so much of inner Brisbane I think this needs to be managed as the rail solution is decades away. No Metro will ever run on this tunnel and I don't think it should so don't waste money allowing to.

I'm partial to delaying the project 12-18mths if it means time to collecting the funds to start at Yerongpilly. I'm not sure if I fully trust the previous govt estimates, however much of this was done during the boom period so I suspect there are significant cost savings to be had now.

But why do we need to deal with the bus component? Sure, buses do miss parts of inner Brisbane, but when it comes to looking at inner southern Brisbane, none of it benefits directly from BaT.

I am of the belief that there is no need to build any form of bus tunnel - just rationalise the bus network and only have high capacity buses feeding in from key corridors in peak hour, and feederise the rest. In terms of rail, CRR is generally superior.

Not much of the bus bound parts of the inner north benefit from BaT either. Caxton St, no; Waterworks, no; Kelvin Grove Rd & Northern Busway, not much difference to current except quicker cross town trips to George St/Gabba. I assume the main benefit of BaT is to divert some of the multitude of outer suburban to the city services from Victoria Bridge.

[#Metro]

Spot on James ...  BaT is a thought bubble from Newman ...

I have no objection to a bus component. The Hale 'idea' is extraordinarily skimpy on detail with (a) no modelling (b) no map (c) no numbers for the volumes of buses along city streets. It fails to consider that the busway can be upgraded to automatic rail with Class A ROW in the future, removing the bulk of buses from the entire CBD and major benefits for Logan and bus services in the suburbs generally. It offers no protection from surface level disruptions for a line that is carring high volumes of passengers in the AM and PM peaks into and out of the CBD.

Of course, there is no reason why bus reform cannot proceed in the interim and better running in the CBD be achieved, but I believe it is ultimately no substitute for Class A ROW in terms of reliability, protection from disruption etc. It is the same reason why we do not have QR trains travel on surface streets and level crossings close to the CBD.

Brisbane's Busway is Based on Ottawa's Transitway, which is now undergoing conversion from busway to rail. The Canadians have to build a tunnel as part of the process through the downtown core; Conversion of the SEB will require the same, and therefore boring two tunnels with the one machine as part of one project in one go will be economical moreso than having to go back and sink a second tunnel.

http://www.confederationline.ca/en/welcome-to-the-confederation-line/

Dr Hale said state and local governments were hanging onto bus dependency thinking initiated by Labor governments in the mid-1990s, rather than embracing a paradigm shift to rail.

This shift to rail is not going to happen if a future train alignment on the SEB into the CBD is blocked because no second tunnel was built. The SEB carries 150 000+ trips per day, this is higher than lines on Perth's train network, the case is there for future conversion IMHO.

[aldonius]

Not much of the bus bound parts of the inner north benefit from BaT either. Caxton St, no; Waterworks, no; Kelvin Grove Rd & Northern Busway, not much difference to current except quicker cross town trips to George St/Gabba. I assume the main benefit of BaT is to divert some of the multitude of outer suburban to the city services from Victoria Bridge.

I remember reading that they want to put the Captain Cook services through the BaT, primarily. Basically, getting to the 'BUZes through CC, everything else not' system.

[ozbob]

Cut out the middle man ... go straight to a rubber tire metro network or equivalent.

Network reform will put buses in a holding pattern.  If B is built it will never be converted as it will further entrench network failure and it will all seem too hard.

Big decisions need to be made now.

By the time BaT is commissioned (if ever) they will have missed the bus .. long gone ...

[James]

I have no objection to a bus component. The Hale 'idea' is extraordinarily skimpy on detail with (a) no modelling (b) no map (c) no numbers for the volumes of buses along city streets. It fails to consider that the busway can be upgraded to automatic rail with Class A ROW in the future, removing the bulk of buses from the entire CBD and major benefits for Logan and bus services in the suburbs generally. It offers no protection from surface level disruptions for a line that is carrying high volumes of passengers in the AM and PM peaks into and out of the CBD.

Of course, there is no reason why bus reform cannot proceed in the interim and better running in the CBD be achieved, but I believe it is ultimately no substitute for Class A ROW in terms of reliability, protection from disruption etc. It is the same reason why we do not have QR trains travel on surface streets and level crossings close to the CBD.

Brisbane's Busway is Based on Ottawa's Transitway, which is now undergoing conversion from busway to rail. The Canadians have to build a tunnel as part of the process through the downtown core; Conversion of the SEB will require the same, and therefore boring two tunnels with the one machine as part of one project in one go will be economical more so than having to go back and sink a second tunnel.

http://www.confederationline.ca/en/welcome-to-the-confederation-line/

Dr Hale said state and local governments were hanging onto bus dependency thinking initiated by Labor governments in the mid-1990s, rather than embracing a paradigm shift to rail.

This shift to rail is not going to happen if a future train alignment on the SEB into the CBD is blocked because no second tunnel was built. The SEB carries 150 000+ trips per day, this is higher than lines on Perth's train network, the case is there for future conversion IMHO.

Have you seen where the portal has been placed? If the bus component of BaT is converted, you are going to need to convert almost the entire current and future busway network - from Loganholme to Bracken Ridge to Capalaba to UQ Lakes. The only section which you might be able to get away with is the Wooloongabba - Roma St section. Anywhere north is not an option as the tunnel surfaces there, and anywhere south is stuffed thanks to the tunnel surfacing in the Eastern Busway. The Wooloongabba - Buranda section of the SEB will also be effectively mothballed.

The SEB carries the trips it does due to the lack of feeding passengers to rail. If you sent 75% of 130/140/150 pax to rail (which is possible if you build CRR, providing faster trip times), all of a sudden you have less buses going to the CBD and you've managed to solve your capacity crisis! Further this benefit by re-aligning the Beenleigh line between Banoon and Fruitgrove, with the construction of an interchange at Plainlands. May I remind everybody on this forum we have almost 100bph coming down the Mains and Warrigal Road corridor, if you can reduce this to 20-30bph, you all of a sudden have extra capacity again.

That's just one example. There are so many ways the network can be optimised in the short, medium and long term you don't need a second bus tunnel, you just need to shift away from the 'all buses into the CBD' paradigm.

I remember reading that they want to put the Captain Cook services through the BaT, primarily. Basically, getting to the 'BUZes through CC, everything else not' system.

This means we will have a very empty tunnel with a bunch of irrelevant, infrequent services. A tunnel which is empty for about 90% of the week, a victory for the PT users of Brisbane!

[#Metro]

Have you seen where the portal has been placed? If the bus component of BaT is converted, you are going to need to convert almost the entire current and future busway network - from Loganholme to Bracken Ridge to Capalaba to UQ Lakes. The only section which you might be able to get away with is the Wooloongabba - Roma St section. Anywhere north is not an option as the tunnel surfaces there, and anywhere south is stuffed thanks to the tunnel surfacing in the Eastern Busway. The Wooloongabba - Buranda section of the SEB will also be effectively mothballed.

No subway is required on the Northern Busway, patronage there will be handled well with the busway as is. SE Busway is where the game is at. Wooloongabba-Buranda section is a sunk cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy.

The SEB carries the trips it does due to the lack of feeding passengers to rail. If you sent 75% of 130/140/150 pax to rail (which is possible if you build CRR, providing faster trip times), all of a sudden you have less buses going to the CBD and you've managed to solve your capacity crisis!

You have the Logan Pax to deal with, you have pax from the Eastern suburbs which is growing all the time. Pax still need to connect to Griffith University etc so buses need to run at least as far a Griffith. The issue with transferring is that when you have a bus-bus transfer the second bus must be really massive otherwise you may as well just run all buses to the CBD. High capacity buses can get you there for a time, but ultimately automatic rail will be most efficient. The SE Busway corridor is already acquired so the largest cost is already paid for.

Further this benefit by re-aligning the Beenleigh line between Banoon and Fruitgrove, with the construction of an interchange at Plainlands. May I remind everybody on this forum we have almost 100bph coming down the Mains and Warrigal Road corridor, if you can reduce this to 20-30bph, you all of a sudden have extra capacity again.

100 buses / hour x 85 pax per bus = 8500 ppdd (theoretical, suburban growth will see realistic loadings approach this)
8500 / 150 pax superbus = 56 buses/hour.
One hour has 60 minutes. So 60/56 = one bus per minute approx.

Even using 150+ pax superbuses, this would still be quite a lot of buses. These would probably have to terminate at Griffith University for Uni and Greenslopes Hospital access.

That's just one example. There are so many ways the network can be optimised in the short, medium and long term you don't need a second bus tunnel, you just need to shift away from the 'all buses into the CBD' paradigm.

I'd like to see a proper analysis and comparison. The Brisbane of 1984 had far less patronage around - I don't know, 20 million - on the buses. It is now ~ 70 million, with 35-40 million of that coming from the SEB corridor.

Quote from: aldonius on December 04, 2014, 10:27:26 PM
I remember reading that they want to put the Captain Cook services through the BaT, primarily. Basically, getting to the 'BUZes through CC, everything else not' system.

Services will likely change to take advantage of the new alignment, and to better serve W'Gabba. I can already imagine 66 realigned to use it and there may be others.

[James]

No subway is required on the Northern Busway, patronage there will be handled well with the busway as is. SE Busway is where the game is at. Wooloongabba-Buranda section is a sunk cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy.

You now lose the ability to through-route any services through to Chermside. I'm not sure if you've realised, but demand to Chermside is just as strong as demand to Garden City. Sure, the routes 'fan out' at the inner CBD point instead of the SE busway, but there is still a lot of demand from the northern suburbs. You're also going to have the metro terminating into nothing then - it will end at Roma St and go no further, with BaT then providing no benefit at all to the people on the north side.

You have the Logan Pax to deal with, you have pax from the Eastern suburbs which is growing all the time. Pax still need to connect to Griffith University etc so buses need to run at least as far a Griffith. The issue with transferring is that when you have a bus-bus transfer the second bus must be really massive otherwise you may as well just run all buses to the CBD. High capacity buses can get you there for a time, but ultimately automatic rail will be most efficient. The SE Busway corridor is already acquired so the largest cost is already paid for.

Logan pax is a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer volume coming from the Mains Rd corridor. And I'm not suggesting a bus-bus transfer for the majority of routes - I am fine with running 20-30bph to the CBD.

High capacity buses will do the job without having to convert the entire busway network to subway.

I'd like to see a proper analysis and comparison. The Brisbane of 1984 had far less patronage around - I don't know, 20 million - on the buses. It is now ~ 70 million, with 35-40 million of that coming from the SEB corridor.

How much of that SEB figure includes the random 3xx and 4xx buses which run into the Cultural Centre yet have no need to be there? I still don't believe the outer SEB causes a large amount of those 35-40 million trips.

[Stillwater]

We all saw how important PT was as a Victorian election issue.  Will the Queensland state election next year feature a battle between a CRR project promoted by Labor and a BaT promoted by the LNP?  Let's hope that Labor is compiling a good PT strategy so that transport becomes a heated debating topic leading to effective outcomes.

[SurfRail]

A lot of the busway patronage figure is jumped up because of routes like the 340 which only use the Gabba Junction.  It's like adding Gold Coast and Beenleigh patronage to the Cleveland figure for stations inbound of Park Road.

[#Metro]

You now lose the ability to through-route any services through to Chermside. I'm not sure if you've realised, but demand to Chermside is just as strong as demand to Garden City. Sure, the routes 'fan out' at the inner CBD point instead of the SE busway, but there is still a lot of demand from the northern suburbs. You're also going to have the metro terminating into nothing then - it will end at Roma St and go no further, with BaT then providing no benefit at all to the people on the north side.

Judging by the performance of route 77 from Chermside to Garden City, one wonders about the veracity of this statement.
How many passenger trips/year does the Northern Busway Handle? Conversion of the Nth Busway is not required.

Logan pax is a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer volume coming from the Mains Rd corridor. And I'm not suggesting a bus-bus transfer for the majority of routes - I am fine with running 20-30bph to the CBD.
High capacity buses will do the job without having to convert the entire busway network to subway.

Hi Capacity Buses will work, but only for a time. Buses coming from Logan are slightly higher than those coming from Mains Rd IIRC and will increase as the area grows and the busway is further extended. 30 buses / hour x 150 pax = 4500 pphd.

Logan pax is a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer volume coming from the Mains Rd corridor.

Proof?

How much of that SEB figure includes the random 3xx and 4xx buses which run into the Cultural Centre yet have no need to be there? I still don't believe the outer SEB causes a large amount of those 35-40 million trips.

Buses at the start/end of their routes tend to be empty. And there is no need to believe either, just pull out a calculator:

150 000 trips per day x 5 work days a week x 4 weeks/month x 12 months = 36 million. Figure would be higher as the 150 000 figure is getting a bit dated. In any case, Go Card boarding data would settle this question.

Stating that 3xx and 4xx services don't need to be at Cultural Centre but the busway needs to be converted all the way to Bracken Ridge (?) to permit through-routing seems like a contradiction. Either you need services to through route or you don't?

[Old Northern Road]

The Northern busway has barely been built so it's pretty stupid trying to compare it to the South East Busway. That SEB patronage figure is complete cr%p anyway as it includes buses which barely even use the busway like those going to West End and UQ etc. I was shocked when I found out how low the boardings at most of the busway stations were. Last time I checked Greenslopes and Holland Park West were only used by a few 100 people per day and Buranda busway station was less busier than Buranda train station. A metro station at Chermside would be more popular than one at Upper Mount Gravatt simply due to traffic congestion along Gympie Rd not to mention you also have RBH and QUT Kelvin Grove along the route as well.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No busway past Chermside. It's simply not needed. I still reckon widening Gympie Road through Lutyche and the instillation of bus lanes between the Inner Northern Busway-Chermside would have been the better option. The network should be addressed before wasting money on busways on the northside. The northside is by far better aligned for transfers compared to the southside with the multiple railway lines. Last time I checked Norris Road needs about 30m of tarmac to be connected to Telegraph road. The intersection is working because there have been a few times late at night where I have arrived there only to find that I have to stop and wait for traffic that simply doesn't exist. If it was connected tomorrow there is no reason a bus couldn't go from that intersection to Carseldine railway station in under 5 minutes unless there happened to be a few passengers buying paper tickets. I bet the BCC are going to delay the final construction for as long as they can.

Re busway figures I suggest everyone takes a look at the 3xx boarding numbers at the Cultural Centre during peak hour. The TAFE/Uni and schools at South Bank get very good numbers.

[pandmaster]

I think the busway (or metro) should be extended past Chermside, but only to link with the heavy rail at Zillmere or perhaps Geebung. All the way to Bracken Ridge is a joke.

[James]

Judging by the performance of route 77 from Chermside to Garden City, one wonders about the veracity of this statement. How many passenger trips/year does the Northern Busway Handle? Conversion of the Nth Busway is not required.

The 77 is hourly off-peak and is very poorly promoted and supported by the network, so I don't believe this to be a valid point. The 77 also avoids significant trip generators such as South Bank, Wooloongabba and UQ.

The INB probably handles less pax then the ISB (Inner Southern Busway), but past RBWH, I believe the Northern Busway handles a significant amount of passengers relative to the (outer) South East Busway. Probably not as much, but a significant amount, certainly.

Proof?

45bph running through 8MP from the Logan rockets, vs. 49bph stopping at the Altandi station stop - and there's probably even more which are coming from the south and don't stop there and/or take alternate routes (e.g. 138, P141, P142). 24bph also at Fruitgrove, ignoring alternative services (e.g. 153). Measured between 7am - 8am on a Monday during Uni semester.

Sure, not a drop in the ocean, but still smaller compared to Mains Rd routes. And you have routes in there which really should be feeders like the 566.

Stating that 3xx and 4xx services don't need to be at Cultural Centre but the busway needs to be converted all the way to Bracken Ridge (?) to permit through-routing seems like a contradiction. Either you need services to through route or you don't?

Build busway to Zillmere, and have a bus/train interchange there. Possibly further, but not into Bracken Ridge itself.

Cultural Centre also isn't "through-routing" at all, it is like sending a service to Fortitude Valley from the southside and saying the service is 'through-routed'. Pax can change to a counter-peak service at KGS/Adelaide St.

[aldonius]

I attended the second community consultation for the revised reference design today.
My takeaway - they're doing a good job under very tough political constraints.

I asked about tunnel stubs - the southern ones are super easy, northern ones much less so. With no Trouts Rd tunnel project at any stage of planning, they can't justify it, basically.

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

Regarding the layover area down at Kent St: that was originally going to be a little busway station to replace Dutton Park. To fit in platforms on the eastern side would require resumptions, so has been left out for now. Pax for UQ from the express southern lines are going to need to transfer at Woolloongabba (or just walk from Dutton Park?).

I asked about the busway T-junction at Countess St: they considered ramps, but would have to sacrifice the layover space to do so, which would've caused more trouble than it was worth. It won't be nearly as painful as the Melbourne St portal.

[ozbob]

^ thanks for the updates.

[SurfRail]

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

Which officially cancels any goodwill I have for this project as of right now.

The political class truly has no idea how anything works.  We are giving toddlers the keys to the LHC.

[#Metro]

Regarding future conversions: Any 'rubber-tyre-metro' is essentially going to have to be a multi-artic trolleybus. The upper deck won't be able to take anything heavier.

I made a prediction a while ago, it is written somewhere in the forums here, that if BCC is involved some technical defect will be introduced into the project which would cancel the rail upgrade component to ensure that the mode is stuck as bus.

Well well well, look what happened.

The bus component will still be useful, and buses run all the way to the CBD currently anyway, but I strongly suspect there is no plan whatsoever to change, and with the bus component, BCC will just keep running everything to the CBD. Same with Logan buses, each Logan bus adds about 20 minutes to its trip to travel direct to the CBD, this is a huge waste of money and Logan services would be a lot  better under a connected network model.

[#Metro]

I think official confirmation is required with regards to the top deck.

The Dutton Pk fiasco is silly. A small busway stop would be very useful, would allow 196 etc to use the busway.

[ozbob]

Interesting ... 

[ozbob]

I think official confirmation is required with regards to the top deck.

The Dutton Pk fiasco is silly. A small busway stop would be very useful, would allow 196 etc to use the busway.

I was told once by BaT folks that the top tunnel could run rubber tyre metro eventually.  My guess is that the tunnel construction probably has been modified (more cost cutting) to not the same original specifications.

I just hope this BaT falls over with Lyssa virus ...  it is so flawed now with cut cut cut that it is seriously compromised.   If built it will be a major issue down the track.   

It is shaping up as a classic ' half baked ' Queensland project, something done oh so well here.