It was called metro before buses got involved. Obviously most of the cash was spent of making the busway better and more high capacity (for the metro).
Just a note, the Victoria Bridge was already changed years ago to no longer carry car traffic. The footage of cars using it is very old since you can see how early in construction the Queens Wharf project is (not even out of the ground in the footage). It has been undergoing upgrades recently though as part of the Bus Rapid Transit (badly named “Metro”) project. The reason for the name, by the way, is because the opposition party (Labor) for a City Council election was promising to build a light rail system, so “Metro” was used by the political party in power (Liberal National Party) to basically try and trick voters into thinking that they were actually going to build a real Metro.
I’m pleased to see that somebody else remembers the truth of why we are getting a second class “metro”. It’s just extra long bendy buses that will STILL be mixing it with traffic when buses come off the Victoria Bridge at North Quay.
Brisbane Metro is a much needed bus upgrade. But a genuine metro it is not. With Greater Brisbane set to be the home for 3M residents by 2030, and 4M by 2050, the city needs to start planning and building a genuine MRT network. The Busway Network should be a major supporting character, not the Public Transport heavy lifter. A pity an agreement couldn’t be reached on moving the Cultural Centre Station underground. But at least we have proposals now to get the busways to Chermside and Carindale. But I’m not holding my breath for construction to start.
The Northside gets nothing due to nimbies and also Northside gets only half the ridership compared to southern suburbs so clearly they prefer driving there
There is about $33B worth of investment currently improving the SEQ rail network, but it looks like it is going to take a lot more investment before the busway becomes the “support character”. In the meantime if we can expand the busway to Chermside and Carindale we will buy the rail network the time it needs to play catch up.
I think a proper driverless Metro line should absolutely be on the cards and if done right with strategic interchanges it could solve a number of problems on the Brisbane public transport network in swoop. However I also think they should be prioritising finishing the North-South line above all else, with the NWTC (Trouts Road) corridor potentially with 4 tracks in the North; and on the southern end an extended tunnel to Kuraby or Beenleigh with a new SE busway interchange stop and potentially another station or 2 on the way. The Greens proposal of Light Rail down Ipswich Road also definitely has merit. Lots to do!
glad you included the quotation marks in the title its weird how often projects are mislabeled like that, though none quite as bad as the autonomous trackless trams that china came out with awhile ago
@@tipi4923 Metrobus is a great and simple name for the system, should've been picked instead. I remember there were advocacy groups asking BCC to change the name to BERT (Brisbane Electric Rapid Transit) in which the name is even stupider than the "Metro"
@@Crushery BERT sounds too nerd :) . Anyway I find this Brisbane’s system quite interesting and attractive looking too. Time will tell whether it will be a successful? This kind of big, modern, double articulated eBus system is still a relatively rarity and that’s why I would be happy to test the system and the ride quality…
It’s a bus, but also the South-East and Northern busways were already connected via the Queens Street bus station. The reason they’re building the tunnel below Adelaide street is that the Queens Street bus station is running at or above capacity at peak times, there are so many buses trying to go to Victoria bridge they all get stuck in bus-only traffic. Also the bus routes actually already existed, they’re just getting new buses and renamed.
Queen street bus station will also be closing down in the future as what was the Myer centre is planned to be demolished to make way for a new redevelopment
I think the metro name came from the early proposal which was closer to a train than what it ended up. It sounded interesting in its first incarnation but what have we ended up with, electric buses and some improvements to existing busway for $1.4 billion. the LNP who are now the government complained about cost blowouts to projects like CRR yet the metro doubled in cost under the LNP council. CRR is a major infrastructure where as the metro is just an expensive improvement.
To be fair CRR lost some major features that are super disappointing for the big dollars being spent and compormise its ability to revolutionise the rail network: -The southern end tunnels were meant to go all the way to Moorooka which would have freed up the freight track for significantly more freight and cut Gold Coast journeys by several minutes plus meant the Gold Coast and Beenleigh could both run alot more service from day 1 without getting in each others' way as much and also GC passengers could have simply transferred to a South Brisbane bound train with a cross-platform or same-platform transfer. They haven't even built stub tunnels for this future extension so this would require a fairly annoying shutdown now. -The northern end tunnels were meant to get stubs to that they could one day be extended up to the Trouts Road corridor which would have slashed journey times by a huge amount for Sunshine Coast trains and for Ferny Grove passengers through a strategic transfer, plus added new stations in unserved/underserved areas and freed up the existing corridor of a huge amount of traffic between Strathpine and Northgate. They will either have to do this in future via a sub-optimal routing on the Ferny Grove line corridor or through disruptive & more expensive works to retrofit stub tunnels.
@BigBlueMan118 fair enough you obviously know more about it than me, but one things for sure it's better than nothing and would not have happened under an LNP government ( check out the bat tunnel saga which Newman said himself was a furphy). My point is the hypocrisy of talking about one cost overrun and not another.
The only city in Australia that has pulled their finger out and realised that they are no different from the rest of the world is Sydney, constructing a real Metro system. All other Australian cities seem to be under the delusion that they are different from other international cities that all have Metro systems, and that they can get by without it, that their suburban rail trains can feel the same function like in Melbourne or that a bus can replace the function like in Brisbane. It is embarrassing.
That's because Syd is the only city built like cities in other parts of the world except north America: rail based transport hubs are the centre of the subs, just like every city in Japan/Europe. other cities are total shit, new Ellenbrook line will open soon, the station called Morley is not in real Morley, you have to take a bus from the station to all council facilities in Morley and the shopping centre, Melbourne is the same, biggest shopping centre in Oceania locates 1 km from two railway stations, who planned that! Only Sydney, you walk outside the station, bang, shopping centre, library, police station, council buildings, court. Sydney is the only city in Australia functioning like a proper city, but still a lot of gaps inbetween the lines, hope metro west and metro south west can improve more.
The Sydney Metro is not a metro either. It is just another brand name for a suburban rail service which the marketing gurus decided needs a different name from the rest of the suburban network. A metro is a criss-crossing, usually inner city network. It is at least a standalone service, unaffected by incidents on other lines.
Frankston line runs at 10 mins and trains run to Dandenong every 10 mins. Have you even been to Melbourne? Like don’t get me wrong Sydney metro is good and is good for Sydney, but in no way is it a reflection on what other countries are doing. It’s a reflection of our suburban sprawl needing more suburban rail focused on getting people to the suburbs quickly. Like the only project in Europe that would match what Sydney metro did in both line and cost is crossrail in London which is also suburban rail. And they did that after having an extensive metro network in the city.
You got it a bit wrong why they actually decided to call it the Brisbane Metro. Originally when first announced the plan was to build an underground rubber-tyred driverless metro but then decided to change it to a bi-articulated bus on the existing busways at a third of the cost. Although the change in plans the name was kept the same, hence the metro name. Also funnily enough they were still planning to build a tunnel under the river connecting King George Square Station with South Bank Station and move the Cultural Centre Station underground. Due to increasing costs they decided to change Victoria Bridge to a bus-only bridge instead to keep the project on budget (even though the project still went over budget by almost $500million).
So if before we plan to have High Speed train and decided we don't have the money and buy normal Train we should still called it High speed trains? Is that so hard to called it as it is? BRT?
Thank you. I've argued, lightly, with people calling it a metro, telling them it's really a bus rapid transit system. I'd suggest that calling it a metro is more a marketing thing. Edit: End of video, and I was right thinking it's marketing BS.
It should be referred to as BRT of which it basically is, but who makes any rules defining who can call what "a metro"? Nobody!! Its operation fits with most criteria that defines a metro anywhere. The difference in Brisbane is that other metros operate in much higher population densities and therefore require vehicles able to carry greater numbers of passengers. We don't refer to Paris or Montreal metro vehicles as buses do we? Well, their metro "vehicles" are rubber tyred!!
Totally disagree that "metro" can only be called such if its steel wheeled and steel tracked. The Brisbane version called as a metro fits the criteria except it's wheels. Would you call a Paris metro carriage a bus? No! Yet the vehicles that run on the Paris metro system have rubber tyres + as do the Montreal and Mexico City "metros".
I've said this before, but BERT is a stupid name for a BRT system like this. It's not rapid transit, which is what the name suggests and "Electric" is just a stupid buzzword for more attention (yes ik it's electric)
BERT is what it is, "Metro" is just the branding. Kinda like what the Paris Metro which is a range of transport lines including a rubber-tired rapid transit service.
@@fauzirahman3285 Have you been on the Paris Metro? People who didn't look carefully might not even realise those vehicles weren't normal trains - the rubber tyre rolling stock are still trains, on some lines they are 8 cars long (120m). They run on special tracks and on the lines that still have drivers (several are automated), the driver doesn't steer them. It's nothing like the bi-articulated busses that Council have bought here in Brisbane!
95% of the "metro" project could simply be done with bus reform and greater use of articulated buses, which brisbane is terrible at using. The only northside buses that see articulated or tri axle buses are the 60 cityglider (which is only a recent change) and the 66, which doesn't even go that far north. Keep in mind metro 1 is just replacing the 111 and 160 bus, which is astounding the 160 has lasted this long. And the metro 2 is just replacing the 66, which under the metro it's frequency is barely changing. And the frequencies aren't even that high for something called a metro anyway. The adelaide street tunnel is really the only proper improvement as it helps eliminate what is effectively a one lane road through the queen street bus station section. The cultural centre rebuild hasn't done alot to actually improve the station or services. IMO, king george square has gone backwards because they've effectively removed an entire stop, and two have been converted so only metro vehicles can use them, and because the doors are at such different distances to any other bus nothing else can use them, so where now stuck with them for ever. For similar money they could have just built the salisbury to beaudesert passenger railway line, or fixed the northern busway north of the RBWH.
@@wilkgr Brisbane's western suburb public transport routes were always fairly poor even back in the tram days - don't get me wrong the trams were way better than the buses that replaced them especially before traffic got insane. But compared to the routes in the rest of the network, the western tram coverage was poor and slow as I understand it. Need a new East-West proper driverless Metro line like Sydney and Melbourne.
I’d like to see Brisbane kick off a true MRT with two simultaneously built lines (but with more pre-planned). Downtown: Skygate-Hamilton-Bulimba-Newstead-New Farm-KP-City-South Bris-West End-Indro-Kenmore-Jindalee NorthSouth: NWTC-Paddington-Rosalie-Milton-West End-UQ-Yerongpilly. But all fantasy given we can barely get a functioning bus network under our current transport paradigm.
I would like to see 2 lines. One running from Capalaba to Easton’s Hill via Carindale, UQ and Chermside and the other line would run from Ripley, convert the existing Springfield corridor, through to Jindalee, than across to UQ, share the same route as the other line and then branch off to the airport via Hamilton
Fantastic video. One benefit to the metro that you missed is that all buses must run through the cultural centre using the existing infrastructure. The stop there is at 90% capacity currently, and so additional services are not possible at the moment, without the de-centralisation of the routes.
great video! the rationale behind brisbane "metro" reminds me of what Ottawa did with its transitway. for many years Ottawa got away with only using buses along high quality busways that fed into the CBD, but eventually bus congestion got so bad they decided to consolidate service into an underground city tunnel. but instead of choosing more buses like brisbane, they went with a light metro service (which uses low floor trains for some reason). the system has had a lot of growing pains, and a common complaint similar to brisbane is that a lot of riders lost one seat rides to the CBD. for what it's worth, the system is growing with extensions under construction to triple the length of the existing line.
It’s an astronomically expensive bendy bus which can’t even go as fast as a regular bus. 🤦🏽 Typical LNP boondoggle. As for the busway network, entirely built by Labor administrations, it was actually designed by the State Government purpose built to be upgraded to light rail. So there’s still hope.
meanwhile those of us who live outside the greater Brisbane area barely get any public transport options. My town is between two rather quickly growing cities (Roughly 45 minutes drive to both) and despite there being a fully functional railway line running between those two cities, with 3 older (but still serviceable) mothballed stations that were closed in 1994 we get a single, slow, inefficient bus service that follows the railway line (in 2 cases literally using the station carpark as the bus stop) that barely goes half way to the western city (Toowoomba). There is literally no way to get to Toowoomba without driving yourself (or catching an exceedingly overpriced and inconvenient private coach service) but if you want to go East, to Ipswich or on to Brisbane you have the public transport option. Each time that improving public transport options in Non-Brisbane areas is brought up we are told 'there is no money available for such a project' and having seen the stupidly high price for this 'Metro' and the Cross River Rail BS I can see why. It is one of the reasons that the state election recently when the way that it did because over 95% of the state has been neglected for at least 40 years at this point in favor of Brisbane
The larger Main Line stations west of Rosewood aren't mothballed. Laidley, Gatton and Helidon are still served weekly by the Westlander. There's just no service with better intervals. The Range Crossings makes operating such a service infeasible; it takes the train 30--45 minutes to cross the Little Liverpool Range due to low speeds and a very meandering route, but 5 minutes by car. Takes over an hour to ascend the Toowomba Range by rail. Building a tunnel underneath Little Liverpool would at least fix the issue on the Brisbane side, but the Federal Government has reserved that option to allow the Standard Gauge-Only Inland Rail to cross from the South side of the Main Line to the North side (IIRC ARTC has refused to dual gauge the range crossings citing signalling complexity, defacto denying QR access). It's all far more effort than getting a bunch of Chinese-made busses to rebrand a bunch of existing services. And it's the council burning most of the money on this, not the State.
@@jdenm8 at the end (1994) we had a regular railmotor to Helidon and a coach up to Toowoomba and there is no reason a modern equivalent couldn't be arranged to tie in with the electrics at Rosewood to provide a service. The bus is crap, slow, unreliable and most of the day ends at Gatton.
CRR will allow massive expansion of the rail network with new lines to Greenbank (dual gauging and duplication of the interstate line) with a new branch to Beaudesert, extension of the Gold Coast line to Coolangatta Airport, new Sunshine Coast line to Maroochydore, new western line and range crossing to Toowoomba.
Here in Australia, I don't believe most are too hung up on the "metro" name seeing that each city used that name differently for branding. Having visited Brisbane to trial the Metro buses running on the 169 service, I can say I'm quite impressed with it. I feel Brisbane truly hold the high standard in what buses should be.
I was lucky enough to ride the tram to Mt Gravatt when I was 4 ! They were stopped not long after that and it's all been downhill since then IMO. Bring back light rail I say. Gregg .
It is amazing how often the word "Metro" is used. Brisbane call their buses Metro and Melbourne call their trains Metro. The only Australian rail system that I believe could currently be referred to as a Metro would be the driver-less trains in Sydney, though that may not even be correctly named. As far as I know the original "Metro" would be the underground train system in Paris France. The new Brisbane metro bus system seems to be quite unique, especially with all electric buses along with all the new stations there. It is just a pity that the Brisbane tram system wasn't retained and upgraded to light rail, like in Melbourne and Adelaide. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it all works out.
The upgraded Cultural Centre station is exactly the same as the original - a horrible mess. The busway is a massive peak hour traffic jam. The review came out a week ago and they are removing hardly any routes from the southeast busway. The only way to make real capacity improvement is to remove many bus services from cultural centre and terminate them further out and connect them to the Metro. Which still doesn’t have enough capacity because it’s not a Metro and just a fancy bus that offers no additional seated capacity to a regular bendy bus.
It's important to remember that these efforts are likely in preparation for the Brisbane Olympics. However, I feel they aren't doing enough. The population is growing and Brisbane's public transport is poor in comparison to some of Australia's other major cities.
Certainly a more concise 'Metro' than our 'Metro' network here in Minneapolis, which is a brand that includes all light-rail, BRT and rapid bus services. These services in general are good and a big improvement on their former regular route bus counterparts, but they vary from the 10 minute frequency rapid bus lines running in mixed traffic, 12 minute frequency light-rail lines, up to the 30 minute frequency RED line BRT.
Rail is, and always will be much more comfortable to use than any road based bus service. If you call it a Metro, it doesn't change the fact that you use a bus because there is no alternative. Rail on the other hand, you tend to choose because it is the best option. If you want to replace cars, investing in a real metro gives the best bang for buck. If buses were equal to rail in customer preference then O-Bahn systems would be everywhere. But they are not, because at the end of the day, they are still buses.
its not a bus. Bus can turn and go anywhere, to any usual street in city or suburbs, with all usual road traffic, just erect bus stop signs and go. Like OBahn in Adelaide. THIS can not.
@ A bus is a vehicle with engine tires, and runs on a road surface as opposed to trains which run on steel rails. This might be a strange bus variant with two trailers, but it is still a bus.
@@JamesFFiT Also rolled out on the ferrys. They could have also easily rolled it out on the metro buses since the buses are new. They chose to install the old system on the new buses rather than the new system. These are brand new buses and they installed the old system on them. That was stupid, and a waste of money. I understand that the old system is still on the old buses.
They're on GC light rail, ferries, trains and buses in Sunny coast and a few Brisbane areas. They're fumbling the staggered release. They'll be there soon.
The Metro was originally going to be light rail infrastructure, and it would have been considerably cheaper, however, the Liberal Party won the City elections in Brisbane in 2016, and although it was originally still going to be a tram for a little while into the discussions, it was eventually transformed into the Liberal's plan which is what it is now. The projects were both slated to take six years to complete. The tram line (what i often refer to as the B;link, after Gold Coast's tram line - the G;link) would have been able to deliver much better services at a much higher frequency, with easier ability for expansion across the entire city - like G;link has done in only a decade in Gold Coast. The metro is EXTREMELY disappointing as a brisbane resident - the 169 Metro (Metro 1) is technically high frequency during peak hours, but the bus service it replaced - the 169 - had a higher frequency during off peak hours, so it makes waiting for the Metro during off peak hours much more tedious, especially considering the termination of the Metro is at the University - meaning many people are often trying to leave at off peak hours - the frequency of the Metro needs to be expanded, and it very easily could be because there's about 70 of these vehicles afaik. Additionally, the plans to expand the Metro are basically doomed because of the Queensland elections which have shut down any actual support behind their expansion. I like the Metro as an expansion to the Bus Network, however, it doesn't claim to offer that, and it shouldn't be offering that, because quite frankly - although we do need an expansion to our buses, we would need a much bigger overhaul than just two bus rapid transit lines, we would need a full fleet of Metro vehicles - a tram system would have been able to deliver better results, cheaper, and probably, sooner - which is extremely disappointing. That being said, the Metro itself is fairly pleasant - it's much faster than the comparative 169 Bus Route it's actually pretty astonishing, and the ride is very smooth and good. But, it's just not worth it considering the massive investment that's been put behind it, rather than what would have been a much better system of public transportation renewal for the city
Just for context: The original Metro proposal would have been an autonomous rubber-tyred Metro just like the ones in Montreal, running from Herston to Woolloongabba. This was later revised to bi-articulared electric buses as we see now due to cost savings (A third of the cost) and I think because Victoria Bridge couldn't support the weight of the metro cars. The name stuck because I guess they didn't want to admit downgrading a metro proposal to a BRT upgrade. Regardless, I think it still a valid project and probably better than the original proposal - a feature of the bus network is the BUZ (Bus Upgrade Zone) and CityGlider network, where there are 19 bus lines running at 15 minutes or better frequency throughout the entire day (so fairly comparable to Melbourne's tram routes that run high-floor single/double trams), and the current project allows these routes to continue into the city as the previous one would require a change at the terminus of the Metro route.
It functions as a metro being a turn up and go service similar to Sydney but unlike conventional metros this one can go practically anywhere for different reasons
@@Secretlyanothername It also carries a fraction of the passengers, the Sydney Metro is already carrying significantly more passengers than all the trains in Queensland put together, and the final stage of Sydney Metro isn't even open yet; when the final stage opens Sydney Metro will likely be carrying similar passenger numbers to the entire Brisbane busways and rail network. Also Brisbane Metro(bus) does cost billions, it cost $1.7bn just for this project too despite the infrastructure all already existing except the new depot which cost peanuts, any extensions will also be running into the billions.
@@MaxS-hn8we he said FUNCTIONS like it being turnup and go every 5 mins. That's all he likened it to. He didn't say it was like their metro trains in size, capacity etc lol
There’s a lot of anger in these comments about what could have been, but as a Brisbane resident who depends on the busway, I’m just happy it’s getting better.
Metro actually is short for metropolitan. If metro meant train then the current train network could just be renamed the metro. But the name metro is in reference to bringing people from the suburbs to the metropolitan, aka cbd. Also london's metro is actually reference to the metro train line which full name is call *drumroll please* the metropolitan line. So then logically calling this service a metro does in fact fit within the definition of the word.
There's a difference between what it TECHNICALLY means and what people take it to mean... Also, fun fact: Adelaide's entire public transport network is called "Adelaide Metro", covering bus, tram and train services
It doesn’t matter, when you say metro, people imagine an underground train line, also called subway in US. Calling something a metro when it’s just a bus line is misleading.
@ it’s not misleading though as I already stated. Doesn’t matter how people use it. It’s not the meaning of the word. But hey if it makes people upset to use a word correctly that’s pretty funny.
@ respectfully… that’s not how language works. The “correct” way to use a word is whatever way people generally use it. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive - its trends and conventions, not rules. Any language rules that get in the way of clear communication, will not and should not last. The definitions of words change based on how they’re generally understood to be meant, for the sake of clear communication, and in this case the word “metro” (distinct from “metropolitan”) refers to an intracity railway network, usually underground - the Tokyo Metro, Paris Metro, Mexico City Metro, Sydney Metro, etcetera. So for this new busway system to call itself the “Brisbane Metro” ISN’T clearly communicating what it is - therefore it is misleading. There are reasons WHY a potentially misleading name was chosen, mainly to keep this system clearly distinct from the existing bus network… but it’s still a misleading name because it uses a word in a context that it is not generally understood to apply to.
It is not a metro. But nor is Melbourne's. Both are brand names. Interestingly, I'm currently in Antwerp, and their underground tram stations are called "metro". Eg Astrid Metro Station, Diamant Metro Station, and many others. The "Metro" name disappears from the surface tram stops, even though they're the same routes.
It’s a bus, a good bus, maybe even a great bus, but just a bus . Unfortunately yes it does get stuck in traffic. I know this because I witnessed it on Wednesday morning near Buranda. You see, the busway itself is still interconnected with the jam packed roads. So it still gets stuck in traffic on the busway just like any vehicle not on completely separate rights of way. Don’t get me wrong I am looking forward to riding it. But the choke points are still there and these buses don’t have the scalability of a rapid transit rail. And like you said it is a lot of money for a modest amount of transit value. We still need a proper Metro. I suspect the name is deliberately misleading to dampen voters’ demanding the real thing.
I think 50c fares will have / has had a bigger impact than this. BUT it has been branded well and some kids I know are super excited about it. Time will tell if adults get excited too!
Cost isn’t that extreme when considering that it fixes issues that just had to be fixed no matter what while also allowing services to continue unlike rail projects which just close the line for months to a year, and not really comparable to an infrastructure project with a completely preserved ROW and motorway corridor to build in (while also building limited stations and not having rolingstock included in the price tag) A more accurate comparison would be the G class tram order, a order with a higher price tag for vehicles with the same or lower capacity with also no real significant infrastructure upgrades (because most station upgrades for Brisbane metro are not related to charging infrastructure unlike what you stated in the video, only one station actually has charging equipment (UQ Lakes) and has seen greater upgrades outside of that, most charging equipment is at lay-by areas like the roundabout near RBWH and countess street near Roma street, or just the depot near 8 miles.
I'm curious about how Perth has been able to do so many rail projects recently that are completed fairly quickly and cheaply? Do they have the land reservations already and just build as opposed to Brisbane/ Sydney/ Melbourne where they need to tunnel?
One thing about Perth public transport is the bus system, except the 900 series and inner city services, all bus lines are actual feeders, always station to station or one station loop. So Perth can cut a lot budget on bus costs, it's more like forcing people using the train, you can see QRail in SEQ has more tracks than Perth, but the annual riderships on rail are almost the same. Perth city to Bull Creek is not far, but no bus, only train, in Brisbane or even Sydney there would be bus and train service, so Perth found a way to provide services matching the city with 2.2m people, so new Ellenbrook line would cause the same bus route cuts as well, which I am not sure it's good or bad, it's just a Perth way. Look at J1 or 500 series in Adelaide, all the way to Elizabeth, if they are in Perth, all been cut or shortened due to the train line to Gawler, so if you live in middle subs in Perth, in other cities you can have the direct bus routes near your home to the city, but in Perth, you have only one choice: feeder bus to nearest train station, then train to the city. I am not saying it is wrong, but Perth is negligent in bus (except 900s).
Existing reservations help, but also utilising existing large motorway corridors with rather large stop gaps so less stations overall on these lines too. Like the projects are cheap but sometimes cheap isn’t a good thing. Sure it’s great for the short and medium term, but if you long term ever want to start dealing with sprawl as an issue, I think they’ll find this will bite them in the long term.
it's a metro, simple as that, trianspotters may be offended. The simple point is that compared to 'light rail' which have a disgusting global history in cost explosions and failed value for money, due in most part to the unnessecarily onerous task of relocating all underground services and uprooting indigenous and european cultural heritage artifacts as well and numerous difficult ground conditions. Easy to complain about if you've never constructed anything, but if you compare it like for like with a realistic comparison it clearly delivers on its mandate
Branding makes a difference but "metro" is the wrong pick. Western Sydney has a rapid transit bus service called the "T80", it works really well and has it's own identity in the region. Buses however aren't metros for a reason, this could backfire and put the people of Brisbane against metro when a real one is proposed because they won't know the real experience of it
I don't like it, but at some point we're going to have to admit that "metro" is just a buzzword. We already have some cities using the word for inner-city many-stop services and other cities using the word for suburban high-speed services. It doesn't have any actual meaning. Brisbane is pushing the term further than most, but it doesn't ultimately matter.
As a Brisbane resident I’m very disappointed that we’re spending billions of dollars on extra bendy busses without any real plans to even start on a true metro system.
How long before it gets upgraded to a proper Tram system? This would cut costs long term due to a single driver being able to drive a much larger vehicle (5 or more cars) plus lower road maintenance due to steel wheels on steel rails, and vehicles lasting much longer.
I recall seeing the busway tunnels around the Brizzie CBD last time I was there (from Perth)… and thinking “impressive scale…but buses?”! Presumably the Brisbane busways are mostLy focussed towards the SE suburbs as there isn’t much commuter rail out that way - and it’s too hard to retrofit / shoehorn one in? As you know, Perth is more “commuter rail” focussed - either drive your car 5 mins to a massive cheap carpark at the suburban station, or get a bus which does figure 8s around the nearby suburbs then drops off at the train stations - the buses (in suburbs near train lines) dont go into the CBD, they just feed the trains. Some Perth buses do go all the way into the CBD - if they’re collecting from inner suburbs or from mid / outer suburbs which don’t have nearby train service (though I suspect the latter will likely decrease as new train lines are being added…. I suspect many current “into the city” bus runs from Ellenbrook / Morley / Noranda will convert to feeding the new train stations instead.
Yep, the busways predominately serve areas without train access. However, the planning between buses and trains in SEQ has never been very integrated. Council has a lot of sway in bus planning, while the state controls the trains.
just me, or are the current busways in brisbane (and also the other motoways that go through the inner city) like a great opportunity for an elevated rail network like montreal's rer? idk why this isnt really being discussed as an idea
The comparison with Perth's Ellenbrook (spur) Line isn't really valid, as that was built in the middle to outer suburbs, in highway medians in parts. Building in the inner city like with Brisbane Metro will always be more expensive.
These buses simply don't have the legs to do what a proper Light Rail Vehicle could do: -they hold less than half what a proper LR Vehicle can (150 whereas Sydney LRVs can hold 400+). LR running only every 6min still has way more capacity than Brisbane Metro running every 3min. -they are more difficult to achieve full disability access with a slow awkward ramp at 1 of the 3 doors being lowered with is a potential point of failure whereas LR achieves a higher degree of level boarding at all doors and can have significantly more doors. -they can't run on overhead which is less efficient and the vehicles need to go out of service constantly to recharge. -they are more difficult to set up full signal & corridor priority and get approved than LR. -the ride quality on these buses is significantly worse than on LR and will get worse quickly as the road surface detiorates and needs higher maintenance than th LR tracks do. -the buses will need replacing much quicker than the LR vehicles, possibly within 15 years whereas trams can easily run for 30+ years. I think a new independent driverless Metro line running east-west should absolutely be on the cards and if done right with strategic interchanges it could solve a number of problems on the Brisbane public transport network in swoop. However I also think they should be prioritising finishing the North-South line above all else, with the NWTC (Trouts Road) corridor potentially with 4 tracks in the North; and on the southern end an extended tunnel to Kuraby or Beenleigh with a new SE busway interchange stop and potentially another station or 2 on the way. The Greens proposal of Light Rail down Ipswich Road also definitely has merit. Lots to do!
Maybe once they kick all the outer busses off they can install heavy or light rail. far better, and no tyre dust pollution. but i do get how flexible this system is, at least on paper. to me it’s been a network that is all about spending the minimum for a long time now. shame they ripped up the trams in the first place, then felt they couldn’t afford to put them back.
They should learn from the French. They advised the Chilean engineers for the construction of their first Underground Railroad metro in the 70s. Theese engineers kept working for the Chilean govt and did all the technical, feasibility and engineering studies for line two, saving the gvt billions in profits for private engineering companies, since theese chilean engineers did all that work for salaries only. They also designed a master plan with 9 lines, that allowed the govt to spare land for the future lines. This work also saved billions, since separate private studies for each line were avoided. Now Santiago has 7 lines and there are another two under construction. The engineering team has accumulated more than 50 years experience and are very efficient. They divide the construction of every new line into separate contracts: one for railroads, one for tunnels, one for ticket booths, etc. that reduces costs because many small private companies can bid for the smaller bits of construction. The new lines use driverless trains and every station has glass doors to prevent suicides. Even though Chile is a extreme right wing country, the Santiago metro is one of the few honorable exceptions to private enterprise.
Ok… sooo I was under the impression that we’ll get light rail? But now just bus??? Did we forget the clusterF that was the riverfire? Where you have to wait for like 30mins to hop on the bus??? Because it was sooooooo crowded??? And it was impossible for ppl with pram to get on those bus, because everyone just pushed their way in 🙄🤦♀️ now, we get more bus??? Uh! 😖
if you deep think about the whole thing it is "JUST" adding only anther "bus" to the system - they REALLY should be looking to Perth, before the Joondalup line they had lots of busses feeding into the city, built the train line, buses feed from one station through the subbs to anther station - just have "ONE" super high frequent big bus go down the busway and other routs feed off this NOT running with the big buss along the busway into the city
All of this looks good. And also not. Quality bus infrastructure is still quality transit infrastructure. Good to see major bus lines get upgrades that mean higher capacity vehicles and frequent services. But to really get bus infrastructure up to that high level it costs a lot of money and at that point it makes more sense to invest that money in a rail system. Be it surface street LRT in their own lanes or fully segregated rail like Vancouver's Skytrain. Invest in bus infrastructure? Yes please! But don't try to rename it to confuse the public about what it is. And focus on getting more bus lanes where congestion is an issue and wide-spread signaling priority for buses.
If it’s a bus, but calling it a metro gets more people to utilise it, then good on you for calling it a metro. Everyone upset over the naming should grow a brain, build a bridge and get over it
As a Brisbane resident (moved here from Sydney 20 years ago), I just don’t use the buses much. Much prefer the train. The only time I’ve even been on the southern busway was when it was closed and used for a charity bike ride! On the northern busway - never. And I live in the northern suburbs!
Not really. Just because it's using rubber tyres and not on steel tracks doesn't mean it's not really a metro. Paris and Montreal "metros" run on rubber tyres as well, but are never referred to a not being a train.
@@Leo-hv9mmThe Paris metro has 5 lines that uses rubber tyres out of 16 lines and the 4 new lines that are under construction use regulae steel wheels. In any case even the robber tyre ones operate on a regular standard gauge track and also has steel wheals to keep the trains on track. The same system (from Alstom) exist in Montreal, Mexico city and a few othe places. A metro system is a guided system (rails), fully grade separate and high capacity (more than 180 pax). Brisbane added two bus lines with a bit more capacity on existing infrastructure which might be a bit better than the current bus lines but it's in no way a metro. Buses are great and should be an important part of any system ut a city with 2.7m people cannot count on buses as the main transit system, atleast not at the city center.
"How do we justify $1.7 billion for new bendy buses?"
"We call it Metro."
Don't forget the wheel covers
I might be wrong, but I believe the majority of the cost comes from busway works rather than the Metro busses themself
@@wilkgryou’d be right. Lots of dedicated busways right under the city
@@commando_spz5943Love that 😂😂😂
It was called metro before buses got involved. Obviously most of the cash was spent of making the busway better and more high capacity (for the metro).
simple. it's a bus.
identifies as tram lol
It’s a really nice bus…. But it’s till a bus
@@JamesFFiT "trackless tram " but it has TIRES and a steering wheel therefore it's a bus
It runs on a busway. What runs on busways?
@@dralligator69 They're trying to SCAM us by labelling it as "trackless tram" trackless means it has tyres and a steering wheel there for its a bus
Just a note, the Victoria Bridge was already changed years ago to no longer carry car traffic. The footage of cars using it is very old since you can see how early in construction the Queens Wharf project is (not even out of the ground in the footage). It has been undergoing upgrades recently though as part of the Bus Rapid Transit (badly named “Metro”) project.
The reason for the name, by the way, is because the opposition party (Labor) for a City Council election was promising to build a light rail system, so “Metro” was used by the political party in power (Liberal National Party) to basically try and trick voters into thinking that they were actually going to build a real Metro.
I’m pleased to see that somebody else remembers the truth of why we are getting a second class “metro”. It’s just extra long bendy buses that will STILL be mixing it with traffic when buses come off the Victoria Bridge at North Quay.
Brisbane Metro is a much needed bus upgrade. But a genuine metro it is not. With Greater Brisbane set to be the home for 3M residents by 2030, and 4M by 2050, the city needs to start planning and building a genuine MRT network. The Busway Network should be a major supporting character, not the Public Transport heavy lifter.
A pity an agreement couldn’t be reached on moving the Cultural Centre Station underground. But at least we have proposals now to get the busways to Chermside and Carindale. But I’m not holding my breath for construction to start.
The northern transit way to Chermside is all we will get (tight arse solution lol) but we need the gap in the middle at Windsor to be built!
The Northside gets nothing due to nimbies and also Northside gets only half the ridership compared to southern suburbs so clearly they prefer driving there
There is about $33B worth of investment currently improving the SEQ rail network, but it looks like it is going to take a lot more investment before the busway becomes the “support character”. In the meantime if we can expand the busway to Chermside and Carindale we will buy the rail network the time it needs to play catch up.
I think a proper driverless Metro line should absolutely be on the cards and if done right with strategic interchanges it could solve a number of problems on the Brisbane public transport network in swoop. However I also think they should be prioritising finishing the North-South line above all else, with the NWTC (Trouts Road) corridor potentially with 4 tracks in the North; and on the southern end an extended tunnel to Kuraby or Beenleigh with a new SE busway interchange stop and potentially another station or 2 on the way. The Greens proposal of Light Rail down Ipswich Road also definitely has merit. Lots to do!
Does it not seem at all like a red flag to be placing the station closest to the flooding river underground?
glad you included the quotation marks in the title
its weird how often projects are mislabeled like that, though none quite as bad as the autonomous trackless trams that china came out with awhile ago
"Autonomous" "Trackless" "Trams"
Many metropolies world wide named their BRT’s metrobus. Maybe metrobus would be better?
@@tipi4923 Metrobus is a great and simple name for the system, should've been picked instead. I remember there were advocacy groups asking BCC to change the name to BERT (Brisbane Electric Rapid Transit) in which the name is even stupider than the "Metro"
@@Crushery BERT sounds too nerd :) . Anyway I find this Brisbane’s system quite interesting and attractive looking too. Time will tell whether it will be a successful? This kind of big, modern, double articulated eBus system is still a relatively rarity and that’s why I would be happy to test the system and the ride quality…
It's a bus
Yeah it is
It’s a bus, but also the South-East and Northern busways were already connected via the Queens Street bus station. The reason they’re building the tunnel below Adelaide street is that the Queens Street bus station is running at or above capacity at peak times, there are so many buses trying to go to Victoria bridge they all get stuck in bus-only traffic. Also the bus routes actually already existed, they’re just getting new buses and renamed.
Queen street bus station will also be closing down in the future as what was the Myer centre is planned to be demolished to make way for a new redevelopment
@@electro_sykesso a second station to relieve congestion only for the first station to be closed down to create congestion. Typical LNP boondoggle.
I think the metro name came from the early proposal which was closer to a train than what it ended up. It sounded interesting in its first incarnation but what have we ended up with, electric buses and some improvements to existing busway for $1.4 billion. the LNP who are now the government complained about cost blowouts to projects like CRR yet the metro doubled in cost under the LNP council. CRR is a major infrastructure where as the metro is just an expensive improvement.
To be fair CRR lost some major features that are super disappointing for the big dollars being spent and compormise its ability to revolutionise the rail network:
-The southern end tunnels were meant to go all the way to Moorooka which would have freed up the freight track for significantly more freight and cut Gold Coast journeys by several minutes plus meant the Gold Coast and Beenleigh could both run alot more service from day 1 without getting in each others' way as much and also GC passengers could have simply transferred to a South Brisbane bound train with a cross-platform or same-platform transfer. They haven't even built stub tunnels for this future extension so this would require a fairly annoying shutdown now.
-The northern end tunnels were meant to get stubs to that they could one day be extended up to the Trouts Road corridor which would have slashed journey times by a huge amount for Sunshine Coast trains and for Ferny Grove passengers through a strategic transfer, plus added new stations in unserved/underserved areas and freed up the existing corridor of a huge amount of traffic between Strathpine and Northgate. They will either have to do this in future via a sub-optimal routing on the Ferny Grove line corridor or through disruptive & more expensive works to retrofit stub tunnels.
@BigBlueMan118 fair enough you obviously know more about it than me, but one things for sure it's better than nothing and would not have happened under an LNP government ( check out the bat tunnel saga which Newman said himself was a furphy). My point is the hypocrisy of talking about one cost overrun and not another.
blame the state governemt, and the unions, not the council
@haydenramm1751 why?
@@haydenramm1751 oh yeah so not the LNPs management skills - okayyyyyyyy!!!
The only city in Australia that has pulled their finger out and realised that they are no different from the rest of the world is Sydney, constructing a real Metro system. All other Australian cities seem to be under the delusion that they are different from other international cities that all have Metro systems, and that they can get by without it, that their suburban rail trains can feel the same function like in Melbourne or that a bus can replace the function like in Brisbane. It is embarrassing.
That's because Syd is the only city built like cities in other parts of the world except north America: rail based transport hubs are the centre of the subs, just like every city in Japan/Europe. other cities are total shit, new Ellenbrook line will open soon, the station called Morley is not in real Morley, you have to take a bus from the station to all council facilities in Morley and the shopping centre, Melbourne is the same, biggest shopping centre in Oceania locates 1 km from two railway stations, who planned that! Only Sydney, you walk outside the station, bang, shopping centre, library, police station, council buildings, court. Sydney is the only city in Australia functioning like a proper city, but still a lot of gaps inbetween the lines, hope metro west and metro south west can improve more.
Thinking that Sydney metro isn’t suburban rail is kinda funny ngl.
The Sydney Metro is not a metro either. It is just another brand name for a suburban rail service which the marketing gurus decided needs a different name from the rest of the suburban network. A metro is a criss-crossing, usually inner city network. It is at least a standalone service, unaffected by incidents on other lines.
@@thestargateking it’s a very different type of suburban rail to Melbourne, where trains come every half an hour. The two are not comparable.
Frankston line runs at 10 mins and trains run to Dandenong every 10 mins. Have you even been to Melbourne? Like don’t get me wrong Sydney metro is good and is good for Sydney, but in no way is it a reflection on what other countries are doing. It’s a reflection of our suburban sprawl needing more suburban rail focused on getting people to the suburbs quickly.
Like the only project in Europe that would match what Sydney metro did in both line and cost is crossrail in London which is also suburban rail. And they did that after having an extensive metro network in the city.
The trunk and feeder system works well in Perth with train connections
Brisbane City and Queensland Transport compete, even though Queensland Transport pays through Translink.
You got it a bit wrong why they actually decided to call it the Brisbane Metro. Originally when first announced the plan was to build an underground rubber-tyred driverless metro but then decided to change it to a bi-articulated bus on the existing busways at a third of the cost. Although the change in plans the name was kept the same, hence the metro name.
Also funnily enough they were still planning to build a tunnel under the river connecting King George Square Station with South Bank Station and move the Cultural Centre Station underground. Due to increasing costs they decided to change Victoria Bridge to a bus-only bridge instead to keep the project on budget (even though the project still went over budget by almost $500million).
So if before we plan to have High Speed train and decided we don't have the money and buy normal Train we should still called it High speed trains? Is that so hard to called it as it is? BRT?
This really reminds me of Seattle's King County Metro Bus network. Started with a bus tunnel and everything
Thank you. I've argued, lightly, with people calling it a metro, telling them it's really a bus rapid transit system. I'd suggest that calling it a metro is more a marketing thing. Edit: End of video, and I was right thinking it's marketing BS.
a bus isn't a metro, even if they tried to make the buses look like trams. so silly.
It should be referred to as BRT of which it basically is, but who makes any rules defining who can call what "a metro"? Nobody!! Its operation fits with most criteria that defines a metro anywhere. The difference in Brisbane is that other metros operate in much higher population densities and therefore require vehicles able to carry greater numbers of passengers. We don't refer to Paris or Montreal metro vehicles as buses do we? Well, their metro "vehicles" are rubber tyred!!
@ yep words have no meaning. Yay. 😕
Totally disagree that "metro" can only be called such if its steel wheeled and steel tracked. The Brisbane version called as a metro fits the criteria except it's wheels. Would you call a Paris metro carriage a bus? No! Yet the vehicles that run on the Paris metro system have rubber tyres + as do the Montreal and Mexico City "metros".
It's a perfectly fine bi-articulated bus, it's just that it should be called the BERT.
I've said this before, but BERT is a stupid name for a BRT system like this. It's not rapid transit, which is what the name suggests and "Electric" is just a stupid buzzword for more attention (yes ik it's electric)
Should be called the “Brisbane Bendy Bus” or “Brisbane Banana Bus” to use local lingo.
@@Crushery Sounds like your contention is with the R in BRT rather than the E in BERT.
BERT is what it is, "Metro" is just the branding. Kinda like what the Paris Metro which is a range of transport lines including a rubber-tired rapid transit service.
@@fauzirahman3285 Have you been on the Paris Metro? People who didn't look carefully might not even realise those vehicles weren't normal trains - the rubber tyre rolling stock are still trains, on some lines they are 8 cars long (120m). They run on special tracks and on the lines that still have drivers (several are automated), the driver doesn't steer them. It's nothing like the bi-articulated busses that Council have bought here in Brisbane!
A bus. It's an articulated bus. We've had them for over 100 years
95% of the "metro" project could simply be done with bus reform and greater use of articulated buses, which brisbane is terrible at using. The only northside buses that see articulated or tri axle buses are the 60 cityglider (which is only a recent change) and the 66, which doesn't even go that far north. Keep in mind metro 1 is just replacing the 111 and 160 bus, which is astounding the 160 has lasted this long. And the metro 2 is just replacing the 66, which under the metro it's frequency is barely changing. And the frequencies aren't even that high for something called a metro anyway.
The adelaide street tunnel is really the only proper improvement as it helps eliminate what is effectively a one lane road through the queen street bus station section. The cultural centre rebuild hasn't done alot to actually improve the station or services. IMO, king george square has gone backwards because they've effectively removed an entire stop, and two have been converted so only metro vehicles can use them, and because the doors are at such different distances to any other bus nothing else can use them, so where now stuck with them for ever.
For similar money they could have just built the salisbury to beaudesert passenger railway line, or fixed the northern busway north of the RBWH.
Not to mention that Brisbane's western suburb routes are basically unusable
Metro is a city council project. Rail is state government.
@nicholasbyrne6485 Finally someone who understands their not playing city skylines
@@scottcornford1644 also the commenters not realising that governments don't have play money to use
@@wilkgr Brisbane's western suburb public transport routes were always fairly poor even back in the tram days - don't get me wrong the trams were way better than the buses that replaced them especially before traffic got insane. But compared to the routes in the rest of the network, the western tram coverage was poor and slow as I understand it. Need a new East-West proper driverless Metro line like Sydney and Melbourne.
Hopefully one day you can cover a real Metro in Brisbane from:Indooroopilly, UQ, West End, City, New Farm, Newstead, Bulimba, Hawthorn.
I’d like to see Brisbane kick off a true MRT with two simultaneously built lines (but with more pre-planned).
Downtown: Skygate-Hamilton-Bulimba-Newstead-New Farm-KP-City-South Bris-West End-Indro-Kenmore-Jindalee
NorthSouth: NWTC-Paddington-Rosalie-Milton-West End-UQ-Yerongpilly.
But all fantasy given we can barely get a functioning bus network under our current transport paradigm.
I would like to see 2 lines. One running from Capalaba to Easton’s Hill via Carindale, UQ and Chermside and the other line would run from Ripley, convert the existing Springfield corridor, through to Jindalee, than across to UQ, share the same route as the other line and then branch off to the airport via Hamilton
Love your videos moose! I'm moving to Australia in a few months, can't wait. Your content is great and very informative 🙏
Fantastic video. One benefit to the metro that you missed is that all buses must run through the cultural centre using the existing infrastructure. The stop there is at 90% capacity currently, and so additional services are not possible at the moment, without the de-centralisation of the routes.
great video! the rationale behind brisbane "metro" reminds me of what Ottawa did with its transitway. for many years Ottawa got away with only using buses along high quality busways that fed into the CBD, but eventually bus congestion got so bad they decided to consolidate service into an underground city tunnel. but instead of choosing more buses like brisbane, they went with a light metro service (which uses low floor trains for some reason). the system has had a lot of growing pains, and a common complaint similar to brisbane is that a lot of riders lost one seat rides to the CBD. for what it's worth, the system is growing with extensions under construction to triple the length of the existing line.
It’s an astronomically expensive bendy bus which can’t even go as fast as a regular bus. 🤦🏽
Typical LNP boondoggle.
As for the busway network, entirely built by Labor administrations, it was actually designed by the State Government purpose built to be upgraded to light rail. So there’s still hope.
They are speed rated for 90 like the rest of the BCC bus fleet
And BCC has contributed to busways before like the bridge connecting to UQ
Yeah, they invested the cost of stage 3 of Glink into some swiss busses so that they can replace them. There is no hope
meanwhile those of us who live outside the greater Brisbane area barely get any public transport options. My town is between two rather quickly growing cities (Roughly 45 minutes drive to both) and despite there being a fully functional railway line running between those two cities, with 3 older (but still serviceable) mothballed stations that were closed in 1994 we get a single, slow, inefficient bus service that follows the railway line (in 2 cases literally using the station carpark as the bus stop) that barely goes half way to the western city (Toowoomba). There is literally no way to get to Toowoomba without driving yourself (or catching an exceedingly overpriced and inconvenient private coach service) but if you want to go East, to Ipswich or on to Brisbane you have the public transport option.
Each time that improving public transport options in Non-Brisbane areas is brought up we are told 'there is no money available for such a project' and having seen the stupidly high price for this 'Metro' and the Cross River Rail BS I can see why. It is one of the reasons that the state election recently when the way that it did because over 95% of the state has been neglected for at least 40 years at this point in favor of Brisbane
The larger Main Line stations west of Rosewood aren't mothballed. Laidley, Gatton and Helidon are still served weekly by the Westlander. There's just no service with better intervals. The Range Crossings makes operating such a service infeasible; it takes the train 30--45 minutes to cross the Little Liverpool Range due to low speeds and a very meandering route, but 5 minutes by car. Takes over an hour to ascend the Toowomba Range by rail. Building a tunnel underneath Little Liverpool would at least fix the issue on the Brisbane side, but the Federal Government has reserved that option to allow the Standard Gauge-Only Inland Rail to cross from the South side of the Main Line to the North side (IIRC ARTC has refused to dual gauge the range crossings citing signalling complexity, defacto denying QR access). It's all far more effort than getting a bunch of Chinese-made busses to rebrand a bunch of existing services. And it's the council burning most of the money on this, not the State.
@@jdenm8 at the end (1994) we had a regular railmotor to Helidon and a coach up to Toowoomba and there is no reason a modern equivalent couldn't be arranged to tie in with the electrics at Rosewood to provide a service. The bus is crap, slow, unreliable and most of the day ends at Gatton.
CRR will allow massive expansion of the rail network with new lines to Greenbank (dual gauging and duplication of the interstate line) with a new branch to Beaudesert, extension of the Gold Coast line to Coolangatta Airport, new Sunshine Coast line to Maroochydore, new western line and range crossing to Toowoomba.
It's a funny bus with a funny name. Hopefully it's future extension to chermside will make the 330 a lot more bearable.
It will have huge effects on the northside
I like that it's called a metro because it annoys transport nerds
Here in Australia, I don't believe most are too hung up on the "metro" name seeing that each city used that name differently for branding.
Having visited Brisbane to trial the Metro buses running on the 169 service, I can say I'm quite impressed with it. I feel Brisbane truly hold the high standard in what buses should be.
It's a trolleybus.
Nope - there are no trolleys
Ridiculous to call a bus a metro
I was lucky enough to ride the tram to Mt Gravatt when I was 4 ! They were stopped not long after that and it's all been downhill since then IMO.
Bring back light rail I say.
Gregg .
Or at least trolleybuses, this time with auxiliary batteries.
It is amazing how often the word "Metro" is used. Brisbane call their buses Metro and Melbourne call their trains Metro. The only Australian rail system that I believe could currently be referred to as a Metro would be the driver-less trains in Sydney, though that may not even be correctly named. As far as I know the original "Metro" would be the underground train system in Paris France. The new Brisbane metro bus system seems to be quite unique, especially with all electric buses along with all the new stations there. It is just a pity that the Brisbane tram system wasn't retained and upgraded to light rail, like in Melbourne and Adelaide. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it all works out.
The upgraded Cultural Centre station is exactly the same as the original - a horrible mess. The busway is a massive peak hour traffic jam.
The review came out a week ago and they are removing hardly any routes from the southeast busway.
The only way to make real capacity improvement is to remove many bus services from cultural centre and terminate them further out and connect them to the Metro. Which still doesn’t have enough capacity because it’s not a Metro and just a fancy bus that offers no additional seated capacity to a regular bendy bus.
It's important to remember that these efforts are likely in preparation for the Brisbane Olympics. However, I feel they aren't doing enough. The population is growing and Brisbane's public transport is poor in comparison to some of Australia's other major cities.
Certainly a more concise 'Metro' than our 'Metro' network here in Minneapolis, which is a brand that includes all light-rail, BRT and rapid bus services. These services in general are good and a big improvement on their former regular route bus counterparts, but they vary from the 10 minute frequency rapid bus lines running in mixed traffic, 12 minute frequency light-rail lines, up to the 30 minute frequency RED line BRT.
Rail is, and always will be much more comfortable to use than any road based bus service. If you call it a Metro, it doesn't change the fact that you use a bus because there is no alternative. Rail on the other hand, you tend to choose because it is the best option. If you want to replace cars, investing in a real metro gives the best bang for buck. If buses were equal to rail in customer preference then O-Bahn systems would be everywhere. But they are not, because at the end of the day, they are still buses.
its not a bus. Bus can turn and go anywhere, to any usual street in city or suburbs, with all usual road traffic, just erect bus stop signs and go. Like OBahn in Adelaide. THIS can not.
@ A bus is a vehicle with engine tires, and runs on a road surface as opposed to trains which run on steel rails. This might be a strange bus variant with two trailers, but it is still a bus.
Oddly it doesn't accept paying by phone or credit card. The buses are brand new, so why weren't the new payment systems added. Very strange decision.
@@matthewxcountry go cards are still only used on the busways. Only rolled out on trains so far.
@@JamesFFiT Also rolled out on the ferrys. They could have also easily rolled it out on the metro buses since the buses are new. They chose to install the old system on the new buses rather than the new system. These are brand new buses and they installed the old system on them. That was stupid, and a waste of money. I understand that the old system is still on the old buses.
They're on GC light rail, ferries, trains and buses in Sunny coast and a few Brisbane areas. They're fumbling the staggered release. They'll be there soon.
And they all have the new readers, just waiting on a release of software and contract agreements between the providers.
The Metro was originally going to be light rail infrastructure, and it would have been considerably cheaper, however, the Liberal Party won the City elections in Brisbane in 2016, and although it was originally still going to be a tram for a little while into the discussions, it was eventually transformed into the Liberal's plan which is what it is now. The projects were both slated to take six years to complete. The tram line (what i often refer to as the B;link, after Gold Coast's tram line - the G;link) would have been able to deliver much better services at a much higher frequency, with easier ability for expansion across the entire city - like G;link has done in only a decade in Gold Coast. The metro is EXTREMELY disappointing as a brisbane resident - the 169 Metro (Metro 1) is technically high frequency during peak hours, but the bus service it replaced - the 169 - had a higher frequency during off peak hours, so it makes waiting for the Metro during off peak hours much more tedious, especially considering the termination of the Metro is at the University - meaning many people are often trying to leave at off peak hours - the frequency of the Metro needs to be expanded, and it very easily could be because there's about 70 of these vehicles afaik.
Additionally, the plans to expand the Metro are basically doomed because of the Queensland elections which have shut down any actual support behind their expansion. I like the Metro as an expansion to the Bus Network, however, it doesn't claim to offer that, and it shouldn't be offering that, because quite frankly - although we do need an expansion to our buses, we would need a much bigger overhaul than just two bus rapid transit lines, we would need a full fleet of Metro vehicles - a tram system would have been able to deliver better results, cheaper, and probably, sooner - which is extremely disappointing.
That being said, the Metro itself is fairly pleasant - it's much faster than the comparative 169 Bus Route it's actually pretty astonishing, and the ride is very smooth and good. But, it's just not worth it considering the massive investment that's been put behind it, rather than what would have been a much better system of public transportation renewal for the city
It’s a bus, metro is reference to underground train networks. It’s weird to call the wrong thing at the right time!
5:10 this has been the case for like 3 years now
This multi-busway system is actually pretty similar to what Pittsburgh has - perhaps they should take some notes!
"What actually is the Brisbane "Metro"?" ---- It's a bendy bus with wheels.
Numerous mentions of "diesel" - BCC hasn't used diesel buses for quite some time, they're CNG. Yes, other outer Brisbane operators still use diesel.
Just for context: The original Metro proposal would have been an autonomous rubber-tyred Metro just like the ones in Montreal, running from Herston to Woolloongabba. This was later revised to bi-articulared electric buses as we see now due to cost savings (A third of the cost) and I think because Victoria Bridge couldn't support the weight of the metro cars. The name stuck because I guess they didn't want to admit downgrading a metro proposal to a BRT upgrade. Regardless, I think it still a valid project and probably better than the original proposal - a feature of the bus network is the BUZ (Bus Upgrade Zone) and CityGlider network, where there are 19 bus lines running at 15 minutes or better frequency throughout the entire day (so fairly comparable to Melbourne's tram routes that run high-floor single/double trams), and the current project allows these routes to continue into the city as the previous one would require a change at the terminus of the Metro route.
It functions as a metro being a turn up and go service similar to Sydney but unlike conventional metros this one can go practically anywhere for different reasons
It’s bus rapid transit. It doesn’t function anything close to Sydney Metro.
@@MaxS-hn8we it also doesn't cost billions of dollars
@@Secretlyanothername It also carries a fraction of the passengers, the Sydney Metro is already carrying significantly more passengers than all the trains in Queensland put together, and the final stage of Sydney Metro isn't even open yet; when the final stage opens Sydney Metro will likely be carrying similar passenger numbers to the entire Brisbane busways and rail network. Also Brisbane Metro(bus) does cost billions, it cost $1.7bn just for this project too despite the infrastructure all already existing except the new depot which cost peanuts, any extensions will also be running into the billions.
@@MaxS-hn8we he said FUNCTIONS like it being turnup and go every 5 mins. That's all he likened it to. He didn't say it was like their metro trains in size, capacity etc lol
@@JamesFFiT so like a BRT... like the greens were proposing...
There’s a lot of anger in these comments about what could have been, but as a Brisbane resident who depends on the busway, I’m just happy it’s getting better.
You said it the best..... ITS A BUSWAY.
Metro actually is short for metropolitan. If metro meant train then the current train network could just be renamed the metro. But the name metro is in reference to bringing people from the suburbs to the metropolitan, aka cbd. Also london's metro is actually reference to the metro train line which full name is call *drumroll please* the metropolitan line. So then logically calling this service a metro does in fact fit within the definition of the word.
There's a difference between what it TECHNICALLY means and what people take it to mean...
Also, fun fact: Adelaide's entire public transport network is called "Adelaide Metro", covering bus, tram and train services
@ probably the best addition to Adelaide. Well that and the fringe.
It doesn’t matter, when you say metro, people imagine an underground train line, also called subway in US. Calling something a metro when it’s just a bus line is misleading.
@ it’s not misleading though as I already stated. Doesn’t matter how people use it. It’s not the meaning of the word. But hey if it makes people upset to use a word correctly that’s pretty funny.
@ respectfully… that’s not how language works. The “correct” way to use a word is whatever way people generally use it. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive - its trends and conventions, not rules. Any language rules that get in the way of clear communication, will not and should not last.
The definitions of words change based on how they’re generally understood to be meant, for the sake of clear communication, and in this case the word “metro” (distinct from “metropolitan”) refers to an intracity railway network, usually underground - the Tokyo Metro, Paris Metro, Mexico City Metro, Sydney Metro, etcetera.
So for this new busway system to call itself the “Brisbane Metro” ISN’T clearly communicating what it is - therefore it is misleading. There are reasons WHY a potentially misleading name was chosen, mainly to keep this system clearly distinct from the existing bus network… but it’s still a misleading name because it uses a word in a context that it is not generally understood to apply to.
It is not a metro. But nor is Melbourne's. Both are brand names. Interestingly, I'm currently in Antwerp, and their underground tram stations are called "metro". Eg Astrid Metro Station, Diamant Metro Station, and many others. The "Metro" name disappears from the surface tram stops, even though they're the same routes.
The only real metro in Australia is the recently opened one in Sydney.
the wheel cover is very funny
It’s a bus, a good bus, maybe even a great bus, but just a bus . Unfortunately yes it does get stuck in traffic. I know this because I witnessed it on Wednesday morning near Buranda. You see, the busway itself is still interconnected with the jam packed roads. So it still gets stuck in traffic on the busway just like any vehicle not on completely separate rights of way.
Don’t get me wrong I am looking forward to riding it. But the choke points are still there and these buses don’t have the scalability of a rapid transit rail.
And like you said it is a lot of money for a modest amount of transit value.
We still need a proper Metro. I suspect the name is deliberately misleading to dampen voters’ demanding the real thing.
I think 50c fares will have / has had a bigger impact than this. BUT it has been branded well and some kids I know are super excited about it. Time will tell if adults get excited too!
Cost isn’t that extreme when considering that it fixes issues that just had to be fixed no matter what while also allowing services to continue unlike rail projects which just close the line for months to a year, and not really comparable to an infrastructure project with a completely preserved ROW and motorway corridor to build in (while also building limited stations and not having rolingstock included in the price tag)
A more accurate comparison would be the G class tram order, a order with a higher price tag for vehicles with the same or lower capacity with also no real significant infrastructure upgrades (because most station upgrades for Brisbane metro are not related to charging infrastructure unlike what you stated in the video, only one station actually has charging equipment (UQ Lakes) and has seen greater upgrades outside of that, most charging equipment is at lay-by areas like the roundabout near RBWH and countess street near Roma street, or just the depot near 8 miles.
Just a bus, I live at Brisbane and use the transport network. It's got a driver and steering wheel.
I'm curious about how Perth has been able to do so many rail projects recently that are completed fairly quickly and cheaply? Do they have the land reservations already and just build as opposed to Brisbane/ Sydney/ Melbourne where they need to tunnel?
Perth is mostly flat and most train lines are down the middle of highway corridors which already existed
One thing about Perth public transport is the bus system, except the 900 series and inner city services, all bus lines are actual feeders, always station to station or one station loop. So Perth can cut a lot budget on bus costs, it's more like forcing people using the train, you can see QRail in SEQ has more tracks than Perth, but the annual riderships on rail are almost the same. Perth city to Bull Creek is not far, but no bus, only train, in Brisbane or even Sydney there would be bus and train service, so Perth found a way to provide services matching the city with 2.2m people, so new Ellenbrook line would cause the same bus route cuts as well, which I am not sure it's good or bad, it's just a Perth way. Look at J1 or 500 series in Adelaide, all the way to Elizabeth, if they are in Perth, all been cut or shortened due to the train line to Gawler, so if you live in middle subs in Perth, in other cities you can have the direct bus routes near your home to the city, but in Perth, you have only one choice: feeder bus to nearest train station, then train to the city. I am not saying it is wrong, but Perth is negligent in bus (except 900s).
Existing reservations help, but also utilising existing large motorway corridors with rather large stop gaps so less stations overall on these lines too.
Like the projects are cheap but sometimes cheap isn’t a good thing. Sure it’s great for the short and medium term, but if you long term ever want to start dealing with sprawl as an issue, I think they’ll find this will bite them in the long term.
it's a metro, simple as that, trianspotters may be offended. The simple point is that compared to 'light rail' which have a disgusting global history in cost explosions and failed value for money, due in most part to the unnessecarily onerous task of relocating all underground services and uprooting indigenous and european cultural heritage artifacts as well and numerous difficult ground conditions. Easy to complain about if you've never constructed anything, but if you compare it like for like with a realistic comparison it clearly delivers on its mandate
In Sydney we called it articulated bus
Its pronounced "mah-ter hill" not "may-ter hill". Love your videos, keep it up 😊
Branding makes a difference but "metro" is the wrong pick. Western Sydney has a rapid transit bus service called the "T80", it works really well and has it's own identity in the region. Buses however aren't metros for a reason, this could backfire and put the people of Brisbane against metro when a real one is proposed because they won't know the real experience of it
I don't like it, but at some point we're going to have to admit that "metro" is just a buzzword. We already have some cities using the word for inner-city many-stop services and other cities using the word for suburban high-speed services. It doesn't have any actual meaning. Brisbane is pushing the term further than most, but it doesn't ultimately matter.
it’s called the metro because the BUZ means “bus upgrade zone” and clearly the upgraded “buses” are mini trains called metros.
As a Brisbane resident I’m very disappointed that we’re spending billions of dollars on extra bendy busses without any real plans to even start on a true metro system.
How long before it gets upgraded to a proper Tram system? This would cut costs long term due to a single driver being able to drive a much larger vehicle (5 or more cars) plus lower road maintenance due to steel wheels on steel rails, and vehicles lasting much longer.
I recall seeing the busway tunnels around the Brizzie CBD last time I was there (from Perth)… and thinking “impressive scale…but buses?”!
Presumably the Brisbane busways are mostLy focussed towards the SE suburbs as there isn’t much commuter rail out that way - and it’s too hard to retrofit / shoehorn one in?
As you know, Perth is more “commuter rail” focussed - either drive your car 5 mins to a massive cheap carpark at the suburban station, or get a bus which does figure 8s around the nearby suburbs then drops off at the train stations - the buses (in suburbs near train lines) dont go into the CBD, they just feed the trains.
Some Perth buses do go all the way into the CBD - if they’re collecting from inner suburbs or from mid / outer suburbs which don’t have nearby train service (though I suspect the latter will likely decrease as new train lines are being added…. I suspect many current “into the city” bus runs from Ellenbrook / Morley / Noranda will convert to feeding the new train stations instead.
Yep, the busways predominately serve areas without train access. However, the planning between buses and trains in SEQ has never been very integrated. Council has a lot of sway in bus planning, while the state controls the trains.
just me, or are the current busways in brisbane (and also the other motoways that go through the inner city) like a great opportunity for an elevated rail network like montreal's rer? idk why this isnt really being discussed as an idea
They call a bus a "metro" 💀
Victoria bridge was already bus only cars have been banned for a while now
i think youre confused about the northern busway. the bus way goes underground, during the section left blank
I must be one of the few that actually like the bus network in Brisbane, haha
It's a Bus
Is it like a trolleybus without continuous wiring?
Basically yes. The vehicles have flash charging at stations and batteries
The comparison with Perth's Ellenbrook (spur) Line isn't really valid, as that was built in the middle to outer suburbs, in highway medians in parts. Building in the inner city like with Brisbane Metro will always be more expensive.
buses on a dedicated track are closer to a metro then "just another bus". The valuable part of a metro are the dedicated tracks, not the rail.
Why don't we name them Spaceship in order to get people even more excited in the first place if name integrity is not honoured anyway ?
I get it 2024 buses can identify as trams but if you want a tram like transport build a tram line
These buses simply don't have the legs to do what a proper Light Rail Vehicle could do:
-they hold less than half what a proper LR Vehicle can (150 whereas Sydney LRVs can hold 400+). LR running only every 6min still has way more capacity than Brisbane Metro running every 3min.
-they are more difficult to achieve full disability access with a slow awkward ramp at 1 of the 3 doors being lowered with is a potential point of failure whereas LR achieves a higher degree of level boarding at all doors and can have significantly more doors.
-they can't run on overhead which is less efficient and the vehicles need to go out of service constantly to recharge.
-they are more difficult to set up full signal & corridor priority and get approved than LR.
-the ride quality on these buses is significantly worse than on LR and will get worse quickly as the road surface detiorates and needs higher maintenance than th LR tracks do.
-the buses will need replacing much quicker than the LR vehicles, possibly within 15 years whereas trams can easily run for 30+ years.
I think a new independent driverless Metro line running east-west should absolutely be on the cards and if done right with strategic interchanges it could solve a number of problems on the Brisbane public transport network in swoop. However I also think they should be prioritising finishing the North-South line above all else, with the NWTC (Trouts Road) corridor potentially with 4 tracks in the North; and on the southern end an extended tunnel to Kuraby or Beenleigh with a new SE busway interchange stop and potentially another station or 2 on the way. The Greens proposal of Light Rail down Ipswich Road also definitely has merit. Lots to do!
Maybe once they kick all the outer busses off they can install heavy or light rail. far better, and no tyre dust pollution. but i do get how flexible this system is, at least on paper. to me it’s been a network that is all about spending the minimum for a long time now. shame they ripped up the trams in the first place, then felt they couldn’t afford to put them back.
They should learn from the French. They advised the Chilean engineers for the construction of their first Underground Railroad metro in the 70s. Theese engineers kept working for the Chilean govt and did all the technical, feasibility and engineering studies for line two, saving the gvt billions in profits for private engineering companies, since theese chilean engineers did all that work for salaries only. They also designed a master plan with 9 lines, that allowed the govt to spare land for the future lines. This work also saved billions, since separate private studies for each line were avoided. Now Santiago has 7 lines and there are another two under construction. The engineering team has accumulated more than 50 years experience and are very efficient. They divide the construction of every new line into separate contracts: one for railroads, one for tunnels, one for ticket booths, etc. that reduces costs because many small private companies can bid for the smaller bits of construction. The new lines use driverless trains and every station has glass doors to prevent suicides. Even though Chile is a extreme right wing country, the Santiago metro is one of the few honorable exceptions to private enterprise.
Who likes the video before watching it knowing it’ll be a good video?
It's a BRT. Just call it that.
And not really that rapid. They can’t go as fast as a conventional bus, be it diesel, gas or electric.
@coasterblocks3420 No shit? So disappointing.
Not a mention of the 50c fare revolution? This vid was out of date before it was published
Best to leave it out. 50c fares are temporary, will go in the first 'emergency budget'.
It's not just a bus.
Do you not see the wheel covers?
It’s a bus made to look like a train to service its own route that only it can use.
It’s weird how they don’t call it a bus
Ok… sooo I was under the impression that we’ll get light rail? But now just bus??? Did we forget the clusterF that was the riverfire? Where you have to wait for like 30mins to hop on the bus??? Because it was sooooooo crowded??? And it was impossible for ppl with pram to get on those bus, because everyone just pushed their way in 🙄🤦♀️ now, we get more bus??? Uh! 😖
Is the Port Dock rail spur in Adelaide value for money?
More like Brisbane BRT
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that is what Brisbane has
Is it a transportation system located within a METROpolitan area?
Just brand it as a goddam extension to the bus network
Can u please do Auckland transport stuff too xx
if you deep think about the whole thing it is "JUST" adding only anther "bus" to the system -
they REALLY should be looking to Perth, before the Joondalup line they had lots of busses feeding into the city, built the train line, buses feed from one station through the subbs to anther station - just have "ONE" super high frequent big bus go down the busway and other routs feed off this NOT running with the big buss along the busway into the city
All of this looks good. And also not.
Quality bus infrastructure is still quality transit infrastructure. Good to see major bus lines get upgrades that mean higher capacity vehicles and frequent services.
But to really get bus infrastructure up to that high level it costs a lot of money and at that point it makes more sense to invest that money in a rail system. Be it surface street LRT in their own lanes or fully segregated rail like Vancouver's Skytrain.
Invest in bus infrastructure? Yes please! But don't try to rename it to confuse the public about what it is. And focus on getting more bus lanes where congestion is an issue and wide-spread signaling priority for buses.
If it’s a bus, but calling it a metro gets more people to utilise it, then good on you for calling it a metro. Everyone upset over the naming should grow a brain, build a bridge and get over it
lemme tell you about King County Metro in Seattle
Sounds like a good project but the price tag screams corruption.
I saw videos of these busses' interiors, they're crammed with too much seating
Why not "Supersonic Metro"?
@5:10 Victoria birdge has been closed to car traffic since 2021.
Metropolitan Public Transport bus service
It’s a bus, fancy bus no-less but still a bus.
As a Brisbane resident (moved here from Sydney 20 years ago), I just don’t use the buses much. Much prefer the train. The only time I’ve even been on the southern busway was when it was closed and used for a charity bike ride! On the northern busway - never. And I live in the northern suburbs!
Its never a metro.
Not really. Just because it's using rubber tyres and not on steel tracks doesn't mean it's not really a metro. Paris and Montreal "metros" run on rubber tyres as well, but are never referred to a not being a train.
@@Leo-hv9mmThe Paris metro has 5 lines that uses rubber tyres out of 16 lines and the 4 new lines that are under construction use regulae steel wheels. In any case even the robber tyre ones operate on a regular standard gauge track and also has steel wheals to keep the trains on track.
The same system (from Alstom) exist in Montreal, Mexico city and a few othe places.
A metro system is a guided system (rails), fully grade separate and high capacity (more than 180 pax).
Brisbane added two bus lines with a bit more capacity on existing infrastructure which might be a bit better than the current bus lines but it's in no way a metro.
Buses are great and should be an important part of any system ut a city with 2.7m people cannot count on buses as the main transit system, atleast not at the city center.