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

[Jonno]

UBAT is certainly a lot better than nothing. It's just frustrating when it could be made significantly better for (potentially) modest additional cost.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

exactly...it may be a quick and cheap fix but at least its signed off and the ball is rolling....backtracking is nothing new in this city...it will just happen at a greater scale....higher frequency bus services should offset the transfer penalties. Looks like they have already locked in route 29.
They will not change their designs because passengers will be `inconvenienced'
Design,costs and decent enough integration into the bus network will supersede everything else......not a perfect job but better than nothing
If there are any overcrowding issues at the gabba...they will sort it out quickly. Its the one thing BT are first rate at.....implementing new services to decrease overcrowding.
With all the `inconvenience` statements.....Looks like ozbob will have his hands full at the meeting...

Higher frequency bus services??? Where? I must have missed those in the recent Bus Review.  I guess we can be happy with 9% mode share.  Wouldn't want to set "completely never done before" targets of 40% plus now would we.  The fundamental problem with our transit system is that we have no over arching network design we are building to?  We have no single network map/plan.  Fiddle here, Fiddle there Claim a great success ....reality is less than 9% mode share. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just thinking out loud.... is there any way that they can just sink the rails just after Fairfield, still following the existing track and tunnel it from there?  Not sure if that would increase the price that much, but I'm guessing it would allow a Park Road station to exist.

I have 2 issues/questions with this:

1. Where would they have the rather large area for construction of the tunnel portal?  (We've seen how big these areas can be with the road tunnels.)  Or would this remain the same and the tracks just be lowered into the "cutting" you mentioned in your subsequent post?

2.  If you are following the existing track (putting the tracks into a cutting), how would you achieve this while still running services?

You could always reroute via Corinda for the short term. Have buses covering off the closed stations between Marooka-Park Road. Maybe run trains into Corinda with a quick crew swap during reverse peak hour so priority would be on services heading on peak direction. Its not perfect at all but its still an available option to continue running services.

[James]

Loosers?
Do Cleveland Line passengers currently have direct access to the Gabba and George St. No.
Do Kuraby passengers currently have direct access to the Gabba and George St. No.

Whilst the lack of interchange at Park Rd is a big concern, this thread is starting to get a bit hysterical and negative (and not just this post).

Other than an addition of a station at Park Rd (looking unlikely), then careful train service planning, and bus routing is the solution. This may even create new connectivity opportunities for other public transport users. It has been the plan since the ICRCS to run a three tier service (4tph each) on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast corridor. One of three tiers will run via South Brisbane. It is likely that one of these tiers will eventually run to Flagstone, although via Tennyson to Corinda is an unlikely but possible option.

Lets try to be constructive.

BrizCommuter, do Beenleigh/GC commuters currently have a connection to Park Road, though?

Yes, they do, and removing this is a big issue. The Park Road connection is a very handy one, and a full time route to Wooloongabba from UQ Lakes is not a good solution.

Secondly, will Beenleigh/GC commuters be able to connect to South Brisbane/South Bank easily post-BUM?

The answer to this one is no. Sandwiching commuters on to a bus is not a solution and will just congest an area of the bus network which BUM is actually trying to ease. Yes, a three-tier service may come about at a later date, but at this point (due to a lack of track capacity), there won't be any kind of three-tier operations, meaning in order to maintain that connectivity, you will end up with a tunnel which could end up with 2tph running through it off-peak!

[Gazza]

If you are following the existing track (putting the tracks into a cutting), how would you achieve this while still running services?

Wouldn't you just do something like in Perth, when they built the Mandurah line tunnel, and again when they sunk the freo line....Really just a case of slewing tracks, boring piles and doing a slurry wall or something to allow for the portal.

Yes, they do, and removing this is a big issue. The Park Road connection is a very handy one, and a full time route to Wooloongabba from UQ Lakes is not a good solution.

Just on that, wouldn't the 66 just go via UBAT instead, and then cancel the 29?

[#Metro]

I wish to join others and say, in it's current form, I OPPOSE THIS PROJECT because it is grossly defective and deficient.

My issues:

• Bifurcation/Splitting of both bus and train frequency increases waiting time and wipes out any time savings, which undermines the whole case of BUM
• No Park Road station - this is an UNACCEPTABLE deficiency
• Defective busway tunnel portal - buses should dive into the BUM at W'Gabba, there is no need to dive with trains at Park Rd.
• Mad, absolutely mad multiple Beenleigh line patterns (via BUM, via S'Bank) which will reduce frequency, negate benefits of construction and confuse everyone, and set up a situation where Beenleigh trains arrive at two different stations at Roma St depending on the time rather than one. Just make all trains stop at Pk Road, not hard is it?!
  

Connections are central to a good network. There are currently connections available at Park Rd to Gold Coast and Beenleigh passengers, and in the future Flagstone. EVERY TRAIN CONNECTS. The UBAT proposal to run a bifurcated service or "special" service to cover that gap is inferior and will result in more operational expenditure to run multiple service patterns when you could just have ONE station connect everything like it should. Running multiple service patterns eats up train paths, cost more money to run more train services and wastes pax time because now they have to wait for "their" train, when in the alternative scenario they could just catch ANY train. The project has not been built yet, it is just sketches on paper ATM, thus NOW is the time to intervene and make changes. Don't settle for second best, cut corners and so forth. The previous gov demolished hundreds of homes to make way for the Eastern Busway at Stones Corner. Homes and residents can relocate, the tunnel cannot and once it is built, we're stuck with it for 100+ years.

A Park Rd station could be done perhaps by lowering and rebuilding Fairfield Station and the line at this point perhaps. Airspace could be sold and developed to offset the cost. The BUM tunnel portal for buses should go in at W'Gabba so that NO buses go via Captain Cook Bridge - I fully suspect that CC bridge is STILL going to be planned to be used, not good enough. Placing the bus portal in at W'Gabba would allow simple one line patterns to be run rather than the bifurcated mess that is proposed. We already have tunnels with multiple entries - Clem 7 has the Kangaroo Pt entry for example, and a new TBM is not required for this, just cut and sink a shaft to the BUM tunnel.

FIX UP THE PROJECT before I will consider supporting it.

[aldonius]

Just on that, wouldn't the 66 just go via UBAT instead, and then cancel the 29?

As far as I can tell based off the geometry, the current-busway to UBAT bit is not a T-junction, more like on/off ramps.

[ozbob]

All good discussion.   This helps to identify concerns and moving forward to the reference design consultation there will be plenty of opportunity for input.  And I will be seeking a session for members as well.

UBAT is a reality.  Constructive efforts to seek clarifications and then measured inputs is the way forward.

[STB]

Just thinking out loud.... is there any way that they can just sink the rails just after Fairfield, still following the existing track and tunnel it from there?  Not sure if that would increase the price that much, but I'm guessing it would allow a Park Road station to exist.

I have 2 issues/questions with this:

1. Where would they have the rather large area for construction of the tunnel portal?  (We've seen how big these areas can be with the road tunnels.)  Or would this remain the same and the tracks just be lowered into the "cutting" you mentioned in your subsequent post?

2.  If you are following the existing track (putting the tracks into a cutting), how would you achieve this while still running services?

1. As the line would already be dipped down quite a bit, it would be just a matter of what has been done in Melbourne where they dig up a hole, and dig a slope into the ground and underground, and continue tunnelling under as already planned.  Gazza has pointed out already of how this could happen.

2. Divert trains via Tennyson for a period of time that would run direct to Roma Street (an adjusted timetable would be needed), and run buses to either Park Road (and get those passengers to transfer to a train from Cleveland, or through to South Brisbane).  I'm sure something like this can be done, and if you look at other cities like Adelaide and Perth where they've shut down entire lines to rebuild it from scratch, it's certainly doable with plenty of planning and communication with the community.

You'd also do the sinking of the line as the last thing to do in the project, and focus on the tunnel building first, which would give people plenty of warning that the tracks would soon be closed from say Yeerongpilly or Moorooka (to turnback trains and divert others via Tennyson).

[paulg]

Based on the vertical profile that has been published, to add a park road interchange there appears to be no need to move the portal from the Dutton park station area they have planned. A slight change in vertical alignment is needed to add a flat section, and there is plenty of room for the cut and cover station box. They are unlikely to agree to move the portal location anyway, much better to get them to look at minor alterations to the existing plan.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[The Reaper]

There is no guarantee that UBAT will have connectivity to the North.  Planning shows a connection to the Exhibition Loop.

Not only is it not guaranteed but it isn't even mentioned. The project media talks about new services from the south and Cleveland and new buses from the north and south, but nothing on new trains from the north. IIRC the only way that CRR was able to supply new trains from the north was significant junction work at Mayne Yard which is missing from UBAT. Surely a significant drawback if true?

[Jonno]

So the only real positive so far is that something is going to be built?

[ozbob]

There is a very serious flaw with the no frills UBAT.  There is no provision for extra rail capacity north and south of UBAT?  This was part of CRR, but chopped down for CRR Lite.  Is MBRL going to be shuttles?? lol

This is a frequency limiter ... 

The only benefit for rail will be some redundancy, and rail access into Gabba and George St.  As far as massive increases in train frequency, won't happen we are already nudging peak capacity from the north and in from Beenleigh.

And the failing direct service bus model becomes even more entrenched.   

Is this a nightmare?  Pinch me??

Indeed The Reaper ...   earlier comment from me ...

[James]

Just on that, wouldn't the 66 just go via UBAT instead, and then cancel the 29?

And miss Roma Street and QUT KG? Now that isn't a good idea...

Not only is it not guaranteed but it isn't even mentioned. The project media talks about new services from the south and Cleveland and new buses from the north and south, but nothing on new trains from the north. IIRC the only way that CRR was able to supply new trains from the north was significant junction work at Mayne Yard which is missing from UBAT. Surely a significant drawback if true?

I don't think even CRR Lite had those works included, so provided it connects to the Exhibition Loop I'm not super concerned at this point. Additional surfaces tracks are a lot easier to build than an underground station which could require re-tunnelling.

[ozbob]

I think the detailed work for the reference design will highlight these flaws.  Additional capacity will be done other wise it is stranded ...

[nathandavid88]

Loosers?
Do Cleveland Line passengers currently have direct access to the Gabba and George St. No.
Do Kuraby passengers currently have direct access to the Gabba and George St. No.

Whilst the lack of interchange at Park Rd is a big concern, this thread is starting to get a bit hysterical and negative (and not just this post).

Other than an addition of a station at Park Rd (looking unlikely), then careful train service planning, and bus routing is the solution. This may even create new connectivity opportunities for other public transport users. It has been the plan since the ICRCS to run a three tier service (4tph each) on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast corridor. One of three tiers will run via South Brisbane. It is likely that one of these tiers will eventually run to Flagstone, although via Tennyson to Corinda is an unlikely but possible option.

Lets try to be constructive.

BrizCommuter, do Beenleigh/GC commuters currently have a connection to Park Road, though?

Yes, they do, and removing this is a big issue. The Park Road connection is a very handy one, and a full time route to Wooloongabba from UQ Lakes is not a good solution.

Secondly, will Beenleigh/GC commuters be able to connect to South Brisbane/South Bank easily post-BUM?

The answer to this one is no. Sandwiching commuters on to a bus is not a solution and will just congest an area of the bus network which BUM is actually trying to ease. Yes, a three-tier service may come about at a later date, but at this point (due to a lack of track capacity), there won't be any kind of three-tier operations, meaning in order to maintain that connectivity, you will end up with a tunnel which could end up with 2tph running through it off-peak!

Firstly, regarding the Park Road connection, why is a full time bus from Woolloongabba to UQ Lakes not a good solution? Considering that catching buses from Park Road to UQ Lakes is the current status quo, all you're doing is increasing the travel time marginally. Not ideal, but far from the end of the world for UQ students. The lack of a Park Road station is more of an imposition to transferring between the Beenleigh/GC and Cleveland lines than it is for UQ students IMO. And as BrizCommuter asked in an earlier post, how many people do actually interchange between the two lines? I think that information would be helpful in working out just how big an issue this is.

Regarding South Bank connectivity, that is a non issue barely worth arguing about. First off, this situation isn't UBAT-specific, it would have occurred under CRR as well and I don't recall many people arguing against CRR because of it. Secondly, connecting to South Bank post UBAT will be extremely easy. Between the 100BUZ, 200BUZ, the Maroon Glider and assorted other routes, we have an extremely frequent bus connection between Woolloongabba and South Bank already in place. In my mind, this would be a superior connection compared to waiting for a connecting train at Park Road under CRR. On top of that, you could get off at George Street and either walk over the Goodwill Bridge for a dose of exercise, or catch a ferry from Gardens Point to South Bank, or get off at Roma Street and catch a 111 back to South Bank or practically anything back to the Cultural Centre.

I'm not a fan of losing Park Road in the least, and would prefer that oversight rectified as much as the next person, but I agree with BrizCommuter in saying that this thread is getting far too hysterical and negative, which really doesn't help anyone.   

[Gazza]

And miss Roma Street and QUT KG? Now that isn't a good idea...

How would it miss Roma St?

Regarding South Bank connectivity, that is a non issue barely worth arguing about. First off, this situation isn't UBAT-specific, it would have occurred under CRR as well and I don't recall many people arguing against CRR because of it.

The issue for me is more that it locks in a need in the long term to have a whole bunch of buses (and drivers) conveying people into those stations via the busway, rather than making use of rail capacity....A situation where buses get crowded at Wooloongabba and then empty out a 1 to 2 stop laters, with the bus then having to continue into the CBD to actually terminate.

[nathandavid88]

Depending on the northern exit portal of the UBAT, the better solution might be to run the Route 66 over the Captain Cook Bridge via Woolloongabba and up either William Street or Queens Wharf Road and back onto the busway that way? I'd only go UBAT if there is a way to double back to Kelvin Grove at the UBAT/Northern Busway connection.

[Stillwater]

From Barton-Deakin website:

"A public competition will be held in early 2014 to determine a unique name for the UBAT project."

What could be better than the BUM?

[James]

How would it miss Roma St?

Sorry, meant to say Normanby. Both are major stations and the BUM simply passes those stations. Northside-wise the tunnel will be practically useless.

Firstly, regarding the Park Road connection, why is a full time bus from Woolloongabba to UQ Lakes not a good solution? Considering that catching buses from Park Road to UQ Lakes is the current status quo, all you're doing is increasing the travel time marginally. Not ideal, but far from the end of the world for UQ students. The lack of a Park Road station is more of an imposition to transferring between the Beenleigh/GC and Cleveland lines than it is for UQ students IMO. And as BrizCommuter asked in an earlier post, how many people do actually interchange between the two lines? I think that information would be helpful in working out just how big an issue this is.

Regarding South Bank connectivity, that is a non issue barely worth arguing about. First off, this situation isn't UBAT-specific, it would have occurred under CRR as well and I don't recall many people arguing against CRR because of it. Secondly, connecting to South Bank post UBAT will be extremely easy. Between the 100BUZ, 200BUZ, the Maroon Glider and assorted other routes, we have an extremely frequent bus connection between Woolloongabba and South Bank already in place. In my mind, this would be a superior connection compared to waiting for a connecting train at Park Road under CRR. On top of that, you could get off at George Street and either walk over the Goodwill Bridge for a dose of exercise, or catch a ferry from Gardens Point to South Bank, or get off at Roma Street and catch a 111 back to South Bank or practically anything back to the Cultural Centre.

I'm not a fan of losing Park Road in the least, and would prefer that oversight rectified as much as the next person, but I agree with BrizCommuter in saying that this thread is getting far too hysterical and negative, which really doesn't help anyone.   

Lack of Beenleigh+GC/Cleveland interchange facilities will become a more prominent issue as time progresses.

CRR was to have easy interchange at Park Road. Not a big issue, especially given trains would have the room for pax. At Wooloongabba though, buses do not have the capacity or the boarding ability to effectively transport passengers to South Bank/South Brisbane. You will end up with one bus being the "unlucky bus" and passing Mater Hill as a full bus just because a GC train full of tourists wanting to go to South Bank arrived.

Further more, in a connective network a la the Bus Network Review, the Roma Street - CC/South Bank connection is significantly diminished, along with Wooloongabba - CC connections. Building a station at Park Road is very important. To not build one is a disaster.

[BrizCommuter]

The BrizCommuter word on the Park Road issue.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/brisbane-underground-park-road-problem.html

[ozbob]

The big issue is as flagged, will the BCC still be there?   I fear much grief if they are still able to run roughshod over TransLink and sensibility ..

Other wise good effort. Thanks for sharing ...

Onwards!

[#Metro]

The preferred solution would still be an interchange between existing rail lines and UBAT at Park Rd/Boggo Rd, and this would be BrizCommuter's preference. However, even without this interchange station (that may cost at least $500m) the benefits of UBAT still significantly outweigh the dis-benefits as long as the above mitigation strategies are in place.

How about it just gets built PROPERLY the first time around? Costs can be offset significantly by selling the air rights to the private sector for large apartments and offices. Every train stops at Park Road.

[Hey_diddy]

Just wanted to share my concerns/suggestions regarding the bus component of the UBAT plan...

Firstly, I want to clarify that I agree that the rail component is the most crucial, but given that we probably won't see it without the busway as well, I would like both to be done right.

I feel that the bus component further complicates an already difficult-to-use bus network. It seems unclear which bus routes travelling along the Eastern and Southeast Busways would use the tunnel, and which would use the old route. I've thought about two potential solutions and wondered what the rest of the community thought about them...

1) As has been suggested already, I think that the bus component should dive later, after Buranda perhaps. This avoids the odd dogleg turn on to the Eastern busway as currently proposed and would speed up bus movements.

2) I have also been wondering if it would be feasible for the new bus tunnel to connect with the existing busway at QSBS after the new George St station, rather then creating a second/duplicate Busway through the CBD. I'm not sure though, if it will be possible for the new bus tunnel to rise from its depth of 40 or so metres at George St to the 10 or so metres at QSBS - any opinions on this? In this "solution" I would also recommend the removal of the existing QSBS portal at Redacliff Place.

Providing these solutions are possible, my ideal plan for the future busway would be that all Southeast Busway services would travel through the existing busway stations to QSBS and then continue through UBAT to Buranda and beyond. All Eastern Busway services would remain on the old alignment from Buranda to Cultural Centre and travel through the CBD via Adelaide Street. I think this will also allow for the consolidation of CBD bus stops, in a manner similar to that suggested in the original Translink Bus Review.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Thanks for your comments Hey_diddy. Makes a lot of sense, I am sure they will not be un-noticed.

[#Metro]

1) As has been suggested already, I think that the bus component should dive later, after Buranda perhaps. This avoids the odd dogleg turn on to the Eastern busway as currently proposed and would speed up bus movements.

Whats this about DOG legs?  +1

2) I have also been wondering if it would be feasible for the new bus tunnel to connect with the existing busway at QSBS after the new George St station, rather then creating a second/duplicate Busway through the CBD. I'm not sure though, if it will be possible for the new bus tunnel to rise from its depth of 40 or so metres at George St to the 10 or so metres at QSBS - any opinions on this? In this "solution" I would also recommend the removal of the existing QSBS portal at Redacliff Place.

It sounds good but the issue there is the low capacity of KGS/QSBS and "the snake" in QSBS. If heaps of rockets etc went into the QSBS portal it would be a nightmare - it is a nightmare as it already is. There is merit in what you're saying, the issues are the snake and the slow speed limits plus it is a chokepoint.

[Old Northern Road]

You can pretty much guarantee BCC are behind the decision to not build platforms at Park Rd. It's a disgraceful waste of resources to force people to change to a bus when there is a perfectly good rail line there. A station at Park Rd would be a lot cheaper than the other underground stations due to it not being as deep. It would probably pay for itself in the long run.

The main problem I have with this proposal is that it encourages BCC to continue running their wasteful bus network which of course means less bus services for the poor people who live outside BCC.

[nathandavid88]

2) I have also been wondering if it would be feasible for the new bus tunnel to connect with the existing busway at QSBS after the new George St station, rather then creating a second/duplicate Busway through the CBD. I'm not sure though, if it will be possible for the new bus tunnel to rise from its depth of 40 or so metres at George St to the 10 or so metres at QSBS - any opinions on this? In this "solution" I would also recommend the removal of the existing QSBS portal at Redacliff Place.

From what I have seen, I think an issue with this is that the UBAT tunnel will be substantially deeper underground compared to the QSBS/KGS Busway. This is illustrated on the cross section of the grades.



While you probably could make a busway connection between the two, it might undermine any attempts to ensure the route is able to be converted to light rail by being too steep a connection.

[SurfRail]

It looks like the easiest solution to this problem would be to simply lower the entire corridor earlier in the piece.

I think the best option is to close Denham St and start immediately north of Fairfield.  Reroute trains via Sherwood for a few months while the line is taken out, trackbed excavated, sunk and relaid, and then shift the TBM into the corridor.  You would need room for 4 tracks, and that seems to exist in the stretch between Fairfield Station and Wilkins St.  The inner tracks would dive and the outer tracks would continue via current route (with the western track continuing to be dual gauge).

This is somewhere close to the original CRR proposal but probably with slightly less tunnelling.

This option may even potentially lead to Dutton Park remaining.

Are there any major resumptions that might be needed?  The principal ones I suspect that people are not considering are lay-down areas for equipment and spoil removal, but it looks like this stretch has enough room for that without needing to take anybody's home.

[paulg]

It looks like the easiest solution to this problem would be to simply lower the entire corridor earlier in the piece.

Why do you want to start the tunnel/cutting earlier? There is no need. The slight incline they have planned through the Park Road area can easily be made flat for an interchange station, as shown by the red line here:


As pointed out by nathandavid88, it is impractical and expensive to tie in with the QSBS due to the depth of the UBAT tunnel (which has to be that deep to cross the river). The same restriction applies to changing bus the entry location to Wooloongabba (see red circles above). By the time UBAT gets to Wooloongabba it is already deep (~30m?) so it would be very difficult and expensive to build ramps for the buses to descend to that level (eliminating the benefit of the efficiency of a single TBM digging the whole tunnel).
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/U/UBAT/m/UBATwoolloongabba.ashx

Cheers, Paul

[SurfRail]

As long as that flat at furthest left is actually at Park Road.

[paulg]

The vertical profile can be altered to move the station to anywhere you like between the portal and Wooloongabba. See, for example, these alternatives:

[hU0N]

While you probably could make a busway connection between the two, it might undermine any attempts to ensure the route is able to be converted to light rail by being too steep a connection.

I think that by far the bigger issue as far as conversion to light rail goes is station design.  If the bus stations are anything like existing busway stations, they will be a 4 platform (end to end) per direction design, occupying a footprint of 45m x 25m approx.  Clearly (eg Mater Hill), this type of design is capable of handling about 300 buses per hour, representing about 18,000 seats per hour in the peak direction.  By way of comparison, similar Goldlinq stations are a single side platform per direction occupying a footprint of 45m x 16m approx.  In a tunnel setting, with a concourse and escalators and stairs, this would probably grow to a footprint of about 45m x 20m.  According to Goldlinq, their stations will be capable of handling 40 trams per hour, representing about 12,000 seats per hour in the peak direction.  Obviously, this is less capacity for the same footprint.

Apart from any other considerations, if UBAT is to have any hope of eventually hosting light rail, then the station caverns need to be oversized from the get go (probably large enough to fit a 45m x 35m four platform station configuration).  Without stations this big, any future conversion to light rail would either require expensive station work, or would require a downgraded capacity along the whole corridor, both of which would be enough reason for governments to resist conversion.  I think you get one chance to make the stations big enough.  If you don't do it right the first time, you'll never have light rail in the tunnel.

[Gazza]

I thought the bus stations would just be the same length as the rail station below?

One thing im interested in is how they will get the fumes out...Will require some pretty careful control of positive/negative pressure in the station complex to stop the esclalator shafts being diesel fume chimneys.

[SurfRail]

While you probably could make a busway connection between the two, it might undermine any attempts to ensure the route is able to be converted to light rail by being too steep a connection.

I think that by far the bigger issue as far as conversion to light rail goes is station design.  If the bus stations are anything like existing busway stations, they will be a 4 platform (end to end) per direction design, occupying a footprint of 45m x 25m approx.  Clearly (eg Mater Hill), this type of design is capable of handling about 300 buses per hour, representing about 18,000 seats per hour in the peak direction.  By way of comparison, similar Goldlinq stations are a single side platform per direction occupying a footprint of 45m x 16m approx.  In a tunnel setting, with a concourse and escalators and stairs, this would probably grow to a footprint of about 45m x 20m.  According to Goldlinq, their stations will be capable of handling 40 trams per hour, representing about 12,000 seats per hour in the peak direction.  Obviously, this is less capacity for the same footprint.

Apart from any other considerations, if UBAT is to have any hope of eventually hosting light rail, then the station caverns need to be oversized from the get go (probably large enough to fit a 45m x 35m four platform station configuration).  Without stations this big, any future conversion to light rail would either require expensive station work, or would require a downgraded capacity along the whole corridor, both of which would be enough reason for governments to resist conversion.  I think you get one chance to make the stations big enough.  If you don't do it right the first time, you'll never have light rail in the tunnel.

If you think Mater Hill has either a capacity of 18,000 pphd, 300 buses in either one or both directions or any of these suppositions, there is a bridge between the Gabba and the Valley going cheap.  Do yourself a favour and actually count how many buses go through there in the am and pm peak.

Who cares about light rail?  An automated metro would be capable of closer to 30000 pphd without any bigger footprint than what is planned.  Something Montreal style would probably cope with both the UBAT and existing busway alignments.

GoldlinQ doesn't need to run trams more often than 40 per hour, probably ever.  Peak periods on the Gold Coast are 7am to 7pm in both directions.  40 trams per hour over that period gives a total capacity of around 50% of the city's population - if it doubles to just over 1 million it would still be 25%.  That is simply not going to fill up and so it will never be required.  If it does, then bunging on some platform extensions to accommodate 2 consists at a time would fix it at negligible cost except maybe at GCUH.

[hU0N]

I'm sure that Mater Hill doesn't run that many buses all day every day. Translink do however claim 5 buses per minute passing through Mater Hill at the busiest times during peak, which equates to 310 passenger places a minute. To achieve this you would need vehicle headway of 12 seconds and platform dwell times of 50 seconds, both of which are reasonable. And while it may not actually happen all day because of the peaky nature of demand, the fact it can be done for ten minutes is proof of concept.

My point was mostly (as was yours) that to achieve the 20,000 seats per hour that would likely be required to make conversion to light rail attractive, then it's gonna need bigger stations. And when stations are built inside underground caverns, like at GCUH, they are tricky to expand after the fact.

It's no good agitating for light rail compatible gradients and turn radii (which are probably guaranteed by the presence of heavy rail anyway), unless you also advocate oversizing the station caverns, cause that is the most likely future technical problem that will stop conversion.

[SurfRail]

I'm sure that Mater Hill doesn't run that many buses all day every day. Translink do however claim 5 buses per minute passing through Mater Hill at the busiest times during peak, which equates to 310 passenger places a minute. To achieve this you would need vehicle headway of 12 seconds and platform dwell times of 50 seconds, both of which are reasonable. And while it may not actually happen all day because of the peaky nature of demand, the fact it can be done for ten minutes is proof of concept.

TransLink's claims are factually wrong. 

The furphy about it carrying 18,000 pphd is perpetuated because of the number of buses which pass through the Cultural Centre (which is somewhat higher due to the 19# and 300/400 series routes) and the number which pass through the Gabba junction (which includes a lot of buses which run non-stop up the busway and then turn off to use the Captain Cook Bridge).  Saying this makes the busway more capacious than GoldlinQ's line would be like saying GoldlinQ could carry double the number of passengers between Southport and Surfers if there was a second parallel line with no stops, or a second route via Bundall Rd and Chevron Island.  It's moving the goalposts the full length of another pitch.

The numbers for buses between Mater Hill and South Bank busway stations are actually:

0600-0659 - approximately 80
0700-0759 - approximately 140
0800-0859 - approximately 160

Around half of what is claimed.  Assuming a very generous 75 passengers on every bus, that is only 12,000 per hour at current busiest levels.

The base busway's capacity has been effectively reached and is basically the same as GoldlinQ's, only more expensive to run.  The bits which do carry more (Cultural Centre) jams up at the drop of a hat.

I think the consensus view on here is that light rail on the busway is a waste of time, so I'm not sure who your point was really directed at.  The general view is that something more heavy duty is needed, and that gradients should be dealt with in light of those potential requirements, not trams.

[hU0N]

Fair point about the numbers. Not all the buses stop at all the stations, which makes comparison with Goldlinq (which has no express loops) somewhat unfair.

I'm not arguing for or against conversion. I'm getting at the fact that light rail on the busway is a waste of time at least in part because the station footprints aren't big enough to receive anything bigger than a Goldlinq tram, which don't give enough of a performance bump to justify the money.

That being said, unless it is raised early, the chances are that UBAT bus stations will be similarly designed to the existing bus stations, meaning that light rail in UBAT is a non starter.

[SurfRail]

^ At least from the visible renders I think they will be similar length to the train platforms, which would be at minimum 160-175m.  The void will be there even if the bus platforms are not fitted out to that length at the start.  That gives you around 10 bus bays per platform to play with.  There would probably need to be a dynamic stand allocation system for it to work best, like the one being installed in the replacement Wellington St Bus Station in Perth.

[James]

Conversion from bus to LR will never happen.When the time comes they will prob ably be building a whole new metro system Or line and tunnel through to city to Convert you have two issues.

1) where do buses go during Construction ? Remember M1 traffic will be worse then .

2) Where do the remaining buses go after? Probably 25% Minimum of today

It will cause so much disruption  during 2 to 3 yr construction period no pollie will touch it

Also why LR? I am thinking HR either using current QR trains or green field in a tunnel through suburbs east of busway would be more benefical.

1) Bus lanes on M1. It is only three years, put on extra Beenleigh Line/bus services. They did it during Go Between Bridge construction, and nobody died then...

2) BCC should be ordered to sell the buses to private operators which will use them where they are needed (i.e. the outer suburbs).

[techblitz]

2) BCC should be ordered to sell the buses to private operators which will use them where they are needed (i.e. the outer suburbs)