Yes, it’s weird and a disappointment that Mater Hill platforms weren’t extended.
Extending the Mater Platforms would be an absolute nightmare, as there just isn’t the room there to do, well, anything really.
Maybe have Mater Hill bypassed by some services??? I dunno how popular is Mater hill in comparsion to nearby stops at Southbank and the Gabba
1 Like
That’s exactly what they’re doing with the 125 and friends! Daytime frequent, but via Captain Cook!
More and more and more complexity to not address the elephant in the room. The busway is not able to move the number of people it could in a way that is semi-legible to the average non-public transport user!! It too complex for infrequent users and thus incapable of increasing mode share. In fact it’s actually adding to motor-vehicle share!
1 Like
Although it might be expensive to create a bus interchange near Indooroopilly station, it would be fairly easy to make the local bus options more visible and usable by relocating some stops and providing signage. There are a scattering of nearby bus stops and it can be a good place to change mode, but it’s only feasible for those who understand the local bus routes.
1 Like
One thing I have noticed since I have been back is the steady stream of bus service cancellations due to lack of drivers. So, I think I will get my bus licence and help out! 
6 Likes
If the west needs interchange, itll need find a way to extend UQ out west flow wise and connect to low transport density areas of Kenmore, Figtree, Chapel hill & Moggill. Plus
Maybe a green bridge to Riverview
2 Likes
And why not? Perth is a city of a similar size and density (though Mandurah is much smaller than the Gold Coast) that does things much better than us. To mirror other cities like Sydney, Melbourne or Vancouver, we’d need more capital investment in infrastructure, and we’re already getting most of what’s on the horizon for the Olympics. We need to think through lower-cost solutions and Perth is as good a place to look to as any for answers.
I think one affordable way to get infrastructure in for expansion of the Bi-artics is bus/transit lanes for the most well-trafficked corridors. Specifically, if the 60 can get bus lanes on most of its length, perhaps it can use Metro vehicles, with the rest being combined into other services.
2 Likes
This project and the lack of acceptance that the busway is flogging a dead horse will (has) derail public transport for decade to come!! 2032 will be a mess unless major changes made.
I do like Temu Metro!!
1 Like
yesterday I was in the area and all the metro buses to uq looked full. We really should have build some sort of mass transit, or at least had higher frequency’s
I’ve been walking over the Victoria Bridge of an evening (getting in some more walking km before getting the bus), and some of the UQ bound Metros have looked pretty full coming over the bridge, but then seem to empty out quite a lot at Cultural Centre.
Keep in mind that M2 is currently running at a lower peak frequency (every 5 mins) than what is eventually planned (every 3 minutes), so that might improve things. Also, having M1 as well should help even out the loads between Roma Street and Mater Hill.
Thoughts & Comments on this video:
Overall I found the video a general disparagement of the BRT mode in favour of a rail based metro. I also found that the video relied on key omissions to present its case for a rail based metro.
Now, the SEB actually does have the patronage to support a proper rail-based metro. However, the current obstacles are the cost (own estimate - about $14 billion for the SEB at $1 billion/km) and the engineering requirements for a tunnel under the Brisbane River for such a rail-based metro.
Let’s go step-by-step through some of the points or objections.
‘BRT’ Door Fault
-
At 0:12 in the video, footage of door of a Brisbane Metro bus with the door stuck in the open position is displayed. Later in the video the narrator mentions that Brisbane should maybe buy some trains like Sydney metro “where the doors stay shut”. This disparagement is an invitation for the viewer to form a negative view of the Brisbane Metro specifically, or BRT in general, and its safety.
-
The problem for the author of the video is that earlier this month in April, a Sydney Metro train running in service at close to 100 km/hr with the door wide open was recorded. A video of this safety incident is provided below.
-
A similar door fault in transit also occurred with a QR train on the Gold Coast line in 2017 (see notes below). Faulty doors can happen on both buses and trains. They are not a reflection of the BRT mode choice.
BRT Mode Choice Objections
-
The video mentions that Brisbane Metro started out as a rubber-tyred rail-based metro, but this mode choice was later changed to a bus (but retained the metro name). Little detail is given as to why the rail mode was dropped.
-
This change is due to a number of serious engineering and high cost factors discussed on RBOT and by others in the past. The video does not really go into depth about why the mode choice of rail was dropped in favour of BRT, and this is a key omission.
-
I find that the omission is necessary to present the rail mode as somehow being overlooked, when actually it was analysed and found to be a worse option than the BRT option for the situation at hand.
Objection to the BRT Name
- The video makes a proper point about the name being misleading. The point about it confusing visitors from Sydney is a stretch though. The PT system in Adelaide is called Adelaide Metro (all modes) and the bus system in Tasmania is called Metro Tasmania.
Metro as a name has been overused. The video makes a good point about the merit of renaming the service. This could be achieved by calling it a Metro Bus, which is also the name of the former high-frequency bus system in Sydney.
Objections to cost and budget
-
The video states that Brisbane Metro cost $1.5 billion dollars and went over budget. Both of these are true.
-
However, what the video does not say is that $1.5 billion spent on an alternative metro rail system at $1 billion/km (Sydney Metro) would only be enough to purchase a paltry 1.5 km metro rail system running between the Brisbane CBD and Fortitude Valley with just 2 stations in total.
-
The video mentions that ‘for a few extra billion’ that a proper rail based metro could have been installed. This is simply a denial of two realities - (a) BCC actually wanted to run with the rail mode and then later had to drop it once its analysis threw up serious problems, and (b) the cost associated with a rail based metro would have been about one order of magnitude higher. I estimate a rail-based metro would be about 10x the cost of Brisbane Metro, or around $14 billion or so. An RTI on BCC’s analysis would probably reveal the precise figures.
-
In addition to this, it is implied that a metro rail project would somehow not also face project delays or cost blow outs. But had the rail mode been selected, it too would have faced a cost blow out (just like CRR or Sydney Metro did). Because such a rail project would be more expensive at circa $14 billion, the actual blowout would have been much larger in absolute terms than for the BRT option. In other words, the narrator of the video has not properly assessed the counterfactual scenario.
Conclusion
I hope these comments provide a response and context to the points made in the video. The staff at BCC and TMR are smart people, and the choice of this mode over the rail based metro has been taken for sound and legitimate reasons. The BRT option is a reasonable choice in the circumstances and does not prevent a rail-based metro in the future when the Federal, Queensland and BCC are in a position to fund a project of that scale.
Notes
Sydney Metro Door Open in Transit
Shocking vision of doors stuck WIDE OPEN on a moving Gold Coast train.
3 Likes
Again as has been pointed out many many times. 1.8 billion for little to no change, if not less capacity (aka taking public transport backwards), is far worse outcome than a more expensive project that creates massive change.
Trying to justify the spending of transport investment leftovers is missing the bigger goal of getting the transport investment reprioritised. This is the only thing making the right public transport too expensive! It’s never too expensive for the latest business case backed freeway or tunnel project.
Yes the money is now spent and public transport will sit around worst practice for another decade or more!
5 Likes
I hear you but this video is just pure denial Jonno. I have carefully set out each of the reasons why.
BCC and TMR are smart people.
They have taken this decision for a reason. A good reason. They are not being irrational.
There is a place for a rail based metro but it exists in the future.
Just like I and others have had to accept 50c fares are here to stay, others will have to accept BRT and Brisbane Metro are here for the next decade or so.
If anything, Brisbane Metro is likely to now be adopted outside of BCC as well.
If you want abundant rail, it needs to be cheap.
1 Like
You have to remember the context. The LNP had gone into the election promising a rubber-tyred metro (on rails) on the inner busway. When they got into the detail after the election they realised all of the problems and huge implementation costs of this. The public servants clearly had a direction to build something, so they couldn’t just say no.
It may well have been that the smartest thing to do was just to take cars off the Victoria Bridge and add some capacity at the Cultural Centre station and leave it at that, and spend the other $1.7 billion on something else, but politics was already in the way. It’s just naive to think that doesn’t happen.
4 Likes
Precisely. Details matter.
The reason was political and a Lord Mayor pushing a vanity project. BCC forced their bi-articulated electric bus on Translink. Any objection form State would have been quickly politicised by Lord Mayor.
If we want solutions that make a major impact then we need to solve the investment prioritisation issue!!! Saying “we can’t afford it” whilst billions are spent creating congestion and more health issues for the public is conceding defeat!
1 Like
When one encounters a hard reality, there are usually 2 options:
- Deny the reality.
- Embrace it.
I’m not here to change your mind, but I will point out that it was the team at RBOT that pointed out the major flaws in the rail based proposal by BCC.
It was an expensive proposal that failed to account for the reality that you cannot place a rail based metro over the Victoria Bridge (it can’t handle the load), high cost, net reduction in busway capacity, and it terminated short of RBWH. The southside terminus was Wooloongabba I believe, which for the cost, was totally unworkable.
There is a place for a rail based metro, but it exists in the future, once the current Brisbane Metro bus service finishes its lifecycle.
The is no need to attribute the mode change to politics / vanity when a simple engineering or finance explanation will tell you everything you need to know.
1 Like