RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Warning: This post contains Light Rail promoting-material. 

Returning Light Rail to Brisbane

The following sets out a concept to return Light Rail to Brisbane. (CLICK LINK)

In their heyday, Brisbane's former tram network carried 160 million passengers annually, more than twice the patronage of Brisbane City Council's current bus network (70 million). Indeed, to match the capacity of LRT, buses need their own dedicated Priority A busway which has similar prohibitive costs to heavy rail construction.

Light Rail offers the ability to provide high-capacity rapid transit at a lower cost than dedicated busways or heavy rail by running in Priority B. This LRT concept suggests two LRT lines, and further, suggests that the Northern busway to Chermside be scrapped in favour of a rapid transit Light Rail up Gympie Road.

Classically, Light Rail is operated in dense inner-city suburbs with frequent, closely spaced stops. Brisbane is lower density and spaced out further, so a Light Rail service needs to adapt through adopting network design features more similar to commuter rail than traditional tram systems.

Design features are inspired by the publication Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement

Instead of a classic Light Rail model, a rapid transit commuter Light Rail model is proposed. This is an adaptation of how Perth runs frequent heavy rail services in low density and over longer distances, but using Light Rail vehicles in place of trains. Internationally, this rapid transit commuter model would be similar to how Light Rail operates in Seattle, USA or in some mid-sized Canadian cities.

Features of a rapid transit commuter Light Rail:

(a) The majority of patronage will be collected through the use of feeder buses and bus hubs at Light Rail stations and not through walk-up patronage
(b) Light Rail stations in outer urban areas may feature park-and-rides, similar to QueenslandRail train stations
(c) Station spacing will be similar to train station spacing on the Queensland Rail network (generally, about 1 km apart or more)
(d) Light Rail vehicles will run in a dedicated corridor either in the median of roads or alongside (similar to Gold Coast Light Rail and Canberra Light Rail)
(e) High-Speed LRT vehicles will be used (80 km/hr) and the corridor will be designed to maximise speed and prioritise LRT vehicles over general car traffic (e.g. intersection priority).

In this concept, two LRT lines are suggested:

Line 1: CBD to Bald Hills Rail station via Chermside. The service originates at Queen Street LRT transit mall, travels through Fortitude Valley, RBWH (ground level), and then into the Northern Busway corridor, exiting the Northern Busway at Kedron to continue through to Chermside in the median of Gympie Road, then in the A3 arterial road corridor at high speed to connect to the Queensland Rail network at Bald Hills station. Length 18 km, expected travel time 35-40 minutes.

Line 2: CBD to Eatons Hill via Kelvin Grove and Old Northern Roads. The service originates at the surface on Roma Street opposite King George Square, travels along Roma Street, up Countess Street and then into the median of Kelvin Grove Road. The service continues along Enoggera Road, South Pine Road and along Old Northern Road corridors. Park and Rides are proposed for the LRT stations north of Everton Park. Length 17.5 km, expected travel time 35-40 minutes.

Line 3 (Depot Line, 6.3 km): Line 3 serves the function of connecting Lines 1 and 2 to the LRT depot on Linkfield Road, Brendale, so that LRT vehicles can access both lines on the network. Linkfield Road also has a grid substation, and the LRT network can link into this for power supply.

Patronage Sources
As the Light Rail service will primarily collect patronage from feeder bus services, it is expected that bus patronage will be able to support at least 10 minute service frequency all day. For reference, Newcastle, Canberra, and Gold Coast LRT services all run 10 minute frequencies or better during the day.

Line 1: Patronage from bus users of BUZ 330, BUZ 340, 370 and most Northern Busway bus services and Park & Rides.
Line 2: Patronage from bus users of BUZ 345, 360, 390, 372, 373, and part of 599/598, and Park & Rides.

For the avoidance of doubt, although the LRT is suggested to run on the current Northern Busway and entail the conversion of the busway between Federation Street to Kedron, it is not proposed to use the current inner-northern busway infrastructure (e.g. the current RBWH station, INB, King George Square Busway etc). Rather Light Rail services will be routed through Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley, which will be converted to a transit mall.

Promoting.... I don't know where to start with the flawed parts so I'm not even going to bother. Your depot is also located on a flood plain fyi.

Former Brisbane Tram Network, for reference.

Note that the trams ran along Kelvin Grove road for its entire length, and into some quite hilly and windy terraces in the west around Paddington and Toowong (Milton Rd). Including along Waterworks Road to Ashgrove. Trams also ran the entire length from the CBD through to Chermside.

CLICK to ENLARGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Brisbane

Gympie road was two lanes in each direction at the time. Traffic was also substantially less meaning people could cross without the need for traffic lights. Most of the corridor has also been realigned/widened along with bridges being replaced and new intersections. The tram also terminated at Enoggera which is pancake flat compared to the roads further north. Take the 345. That has a 11% grade that it has to climb mid trip and it's got some good elevation differences along Maundrel Terrace.

Times also change. Just because trams back then we're popular doesn't mean they would be today. The popularity was due to not everybody being able to afford a motor vehicle. Your options were very limited. It's a fantasy idea with many flawed ideas and alignments while only a few areas really set up to have it enabled and even then it's not a cheap or popular option. It's pure foam like 9 car electric trains to Toowoomba or maglev sky rail at Geebung no matter how you try to spin it. You'll also find roads now also have a minimum height restriction making electrification quite difficult eg Gympie road is tmr controlled road with different goods and height restrictions in place vs BCC controlled roads. Also take the new Telegraph road upgrade which included raising the height of any power or phone cable that crossed over it.

QuoteGympie road was two lanes in each direction at the time. Traffic was also substantially less meaning people could cross without the need for traffic lights. Most of the corridor has also been realigned/widened along with bridges being replaced and new intersections. The tram also terminated at Enoggera which is pancake flat compared to the roads further north. Take the 345. That has a 11% grade that it has to climb mid trip and it's got some good elevation differences along Maundrel Terrace.

Are you aware of the Northern Busway to build busway on viaduct and in tunnels to Chermside? In my view LRT on the surface would be much simpler and cheaper to accomplish than Priority A busway in tunnels and on viaducts.

Also, I am uncertain why you mention route 345. Nobody is talking about replacing route 345 up Maundrell Tce with a tram. For reference, the NSW Light Rail Track Requirements technical booklet has acceptable LRT grades as 7%.

Quote
Times also change. Just because trams back then we're popular doesn't mean they would be today. The popularity was due to not everybody being able to afford a motor vehicle. Your options were very limited. It's a fantasy idea with many flawed ideas and alignments while only a few areas really set up to have it enabled and even then it's not a cheap or popular option.

The density is the same or better than then. The service will be faster and more reliable than buses in Priority C, which seems to be what you are favouring. Furthermore, LRT systems have opened in Canberra, Gold Coast, Newcastle and have expanded in Sydney with the L1 and L2 services in the Sydney CBD and extensions in Adelaide. There are a lot of options now for purchasing tram equipment and having it serviced in Australia.

Light Rail is making a comeback. Perhaps you should take a trip on the GC Light Rail system, which is being expanded.

The northern busway has had many plans and many different alignments over the years and it's had many different terminus locations and the best they could come up with was a few skinny transit lanes. North of Chermside a busway really is on edge but north of Aspley it's not needed. And you have no idea of the past. The median, right lane and turning lanes are where the trams used to run. You are going to need to do a hell of a lot of resumptions for an LRT which for an elevated corridor could be cheaper which is what you like to harp on about heavy rail on the M1.

Sorry to be harsh but LRT would struggle in brisbane. The best option is transit lanes and a proper bus network. If you can't implement a dedicated transit lane quickly then what hope do you have of LRT infrastructure being approved.

QuoteThe northern busway has had many plans and many different alignments over the years and it's had many different terminus locations and the best they could come up with was a few skinny transit lanes. North of Chermside a busway really is on edge but north of Aspley it's not needed. And you have no idea of the past. The median, right lane and turning lanes are where the trams used to run. You are going to need to do a hell of a lot of resumptions for an LRT which for an elevated corridor could be cheaper which is what you like to harp on about heavy rail on the M1.

Sorry to be harsh but LRT would struggle in brisbane. The best option is transit lanes and a proper bus network. If you can't implement a dedicated transit lane quickly then what hope do you have of LRT infrastructure being approved.

I think you should reconsider what is possible. A proper bus network will support LRT options by doing what buses do best - feeder services in the suburbs and give the line haul over to Light Rail.

The viaducts and tunnels do not already pre-exist for the rest of the busway to Chermside, so I am not sure why you seek to apply an unreasonably strict requirement for a pre-existing clear corridor as a pre-requisite for Light Rail so as to exclude it. I also note land was resumed for the Northern Busway, Wynnum Road upgrades and will be for the Gold Coast - Beenleigh Faster Rail project, so I am equally not sure why this particular mode cannot also be provided the necessary space as it is with other modes, should it be required.

Buses running in bus lanes can certainly go into effect as an interim measure, and will be from 2023*, but their capacity is limited to much less than either Priority A Busway or Priority B Light Rail. And a bus lane would also involve removing a lane from cars, so with either mode a road lane on Gympie road would be lost. I note the Gold Coast Light Rail required a section of the GC highway through Surfers Paradise to be set aside and that was approved.

QuoteThe median, right lane and turning lanes are where the trams used to run. You are going to need to do a hell of a lot of resumptions for an LRT

This is true for some sections of the former tram network, but for Chermside it seems it was in the median.


https://www.facebook.com/BOQChermside/photos/a.1801011616828191/2668905463372131/?_rdr

It is worth exploring a surface Light Rail option for the remainder of the Northern Busway; it could give us the capacity, patronage and speed without the cost of constructing a busway on viaducts and in tunnels.

* Northern Transitway https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/Northern-Transitway

For me, the #1 candidate for LR would be old Cleveland Rd since it has a wide median in most parts or has 2 lanes and a parking lane, and you'd build this instead of the eastern busway.

I wouldn't bother with Enoggera Rd/ South Pine road since that would be in the catchment of the NWTC, so if you are relying on feeders, send them to the NWTC

For Gympie Rd, I am not joking when I say that should be a full bored tunnel driverless metro built in the 2030s or 2040s. In the meantime the bus lanes can do the job.

Quote
Times also change. Just because trams back then we're popular doesn't mean they would be today. The popularity was due to not everybody being able to afford a motor vehicle. Your options were very limited.

I think LR as a whole would do well. It did spectacularly on the GC so nothing to do with the price of cars.

QuoteThe majority of patronage will be collected through the use of feeder buses and bus hubs at Light Rail stations and not through walk-up patronage

I think it needs to have both. GC LR (And in fact most new LR systems in Australia) have a strong level of development along the corridor.

Obviously gaps sometimes exist, (For example between GCUH and Helensvale, or between Dickson and Well Station drive in CBR) But on the whole you need a good proportion of the stops to have density and walk up passengers for baseline demand.

What's the general vision behind the two lines proposed? Is it shuttling people to and from the CBD, or is it connecting several suburban destinations and supporting hop on hop off demand along that corridor?

I know what's possible when I know the area and know what engineering and costs would be involved to deliver it. And your centre lane lrt bus interchange idea doesn't fly either. You will still rely mostly on walk up patronage. Peak hour on Gympie road is the problem which can be fixed with full time bus lanes. Before covid the 330/340/333 inbound are all air parcels from 6pm while other areas are lucky to even have coverage running in any direction at that time. Even outbound buses had the same problem due to timings. Not uncommon to have one bus just packed to the brim while 2 buses on the same direction following are nearly empty. Kelvin grove bound passengers also played havoc on this with those going there crowding 330/333/340 services to then leave KGBS nearly empty (a problem they could have been resolved by extending other terminating services such as the 222 to RBWH.

If you are going to go on tangents I suggest you know the areas first. The only way lrt would go down Gympie road is elevated which won't happen due to height clearance requirements or massive property resumptions. And to show your lack of consideration why don't you go via the largest employment and visitor hub on the Northside being the Prince Charles and holy sprit hospital and associated public and private services which at the moment has next to no public transport (and don't give me this but the 340 does bs. It's like getting the 335 and getting off at Federation street to go to the RBWH).

The the majority of the northern busway land resumptions was actually to do with Airport link construction and not for the busway itself. The busway just piggybacked off it as part of the project so much so that buses using it weren't even considered at the time as the planned routes using were only announced in a week before it opened (at the time it would have been 8bph with 2 of those express not stopping). They even sent the 330 along it which took as long as the 333 and was slower than the off peak 370. Some drivers ignored running on the busway in the off peak and just drove along Lutyche road as it was faster until they dived into the airport tunnel when it opened. The southern portal just resumed the citybound lanes on Lutyche road and some of the park.

Quotethis rapid transit commuter model would be similar to how Light Rail operates in Seattle, USA or in some mid-sized Canadian cities.

Seattle is actually primarily elevated and tunnelled system over its 40km length, with a caveat that it cheats for 6km Between Mt Baker and Rainier Beach stations and runs in the median of Martin Luther King Junior Way, plus two LXs in SODO.

Personally, I think its a dumb way of doing things. They've gone to great expense to build infrastructure similar to what you'd see on the Vancouver Skytrain or on the Sydney Metro.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4627946,-122.2856698,3a,48.9y,330.25h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZX2K43Py_1QelyneUX0C8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

But then dropped the ball on those other stretches.

So most of the expense of class A, but only achieving Class B capacities.

QuoteWhat's the general vision behind the two lines proposed? Is it shuttling people to and from the CBD, or is it connecting several suburban destinations and supporting hop on hop off demand along that corridor?

Hey Gazza, thanks for your interest. General vision is rapid transit line-haul collecting pax through buses connections based on an adaptation of the Perth model. It would also be more like a mini-commuter rail than a tramway. After 20 years we have a mostly complete SEB but the rest of the network (Eastern Busway and Northern Busways are still incomplete and disjointed, and the per km cost is just ratcheting up like the 450 million it cost for 1km of busway at Stones Corner).

Building on our expertise with the GC Light Rail the idea is to roll out LRT instead of Priority A busway, much faster to plan, approve, and construct. Certainly agree with Old Cleveland Road corridor, and happy to add it - just would like to ask you about how you see that making the river crossing into the CBD from the southside?

Did you have a map or a description of where you envisage LRT for the Old Cleveland road corridor? Would that go to Carindale or beyond that?

I think the 2 potential approaches would be as follows:

1.  Calgary style LRT to replace the busways / Brisbane Metro corridors

This would give you vehicles capable of running in MU configuration, with high-level platforms and which can carry 500-600 people no sweat.  High level platforms will work better as it enables you to have cheaper bogie vehicles for what would be very curvy routes in places, thus dodging the issues fixed truck low floor trams would have (or needing to shell out more on low-floor bogie trams which are more expensive).

Potential corridors would be:

Eastern suburbs to western suburbs cross-town route.  My thinking would be something like:
- Core route from Capalaba to Indooroopilly.  Capalaba to Stones Corner is easy enough.  Stones Corner to PAH I would think you'd need to rebuild Buranda so there are grade-separated platforms a la Wolli Creek for this line and the busway / future conversion of it (see below), and leave the existing junctions/tunnels in for service connections between them.  PAH to UQ Lakes is easy.  Then, you'd need to tunnel to go further west.  If that becomes impractical then UQ Lakes remains the terminus.
- Eastern extensions from Capalaba park'n'ride to both Cleveland along Finucane Road, and Victoria Point along Redland Bay Road.  You would be able to get up to a reasonable pelt along the latter with stations only at the key points.  Station density would be a touch higher on the Cleveland one.
- Western extensions towards Kenmore and towards Darra via the M5 corridor.

You could probably build this with complete or near complete traffic separation.

If you want to get from the eastern suburbs to the city, you can do that by transferring at Buranda or Boggo Road to buses, other light rail or trains.

Busway conversion route.  This would involve:
- Substantial upgrades to the busway corridor from 8MP to RBWH to standardise platform lengths, raise platform heights and otherwise ensure all the tolerances work (eg bridges and tunnels), and ensuring any future extensions are built to the same standards.
- Core route from Griffith Uni to Aspley, which would require completion of the busway / grade-separated corridor from Federation St to Kedron Brook, and extension of the tunnel from Somerset Road all the way to Chermside.
- Northern extensions to Sandgate via Zillmere and Albany Creek via Aspley.  Bunch of different options for the first one.
- Southern extensions would be to at least Sunnybank Hills via Mains Road, and to Loganlea via the busway alignment (which would be the existing projected busway to Logan Hyperdome and then an extension to Loganlea taking in the Grifffith Uni campus, TAFE and hospital).  The Sunnybank Hills one could go to Calamvale and then go to Nottingham Rd (to connect with the heavy rail station that would be in the Algester Parkinson area on the Flagstone line), or Grand Plaza, or a further branching to do both.

There might be at-grade crossings at the city end of the Victoria Bridge and in select other places, but the Calgary system copes with this all through the inner city with pedestrians everywhere, not just some isolated spots.

These 2 lines have the potential to massively reduce the number of buses that go to the city - limiting them to basically surface bus routes that are nearby instead of longer distance journeys except for a few corridors.  For instance, Kelvin Grove Road is still going to be a busy bus corridor notwithstanding all this, the Ferny Grove line, Trouts Rd etc.

2.  Inner city light rail to basically replace the Cityglider.  If you were doing this in addition to the wider plans above, you might get away with using the Victoria Bridge for both as long as there is enough capacity.  AFAIK some parts of Portland share infrastructure like this between the light rail and streetcar elements of their network.

Outside of those corridors I suspect you're looking at on-road bus priority, extension of the heavy rail network (which is basically going to be Flagstone, Trouts Road and possibly an east-west connection between the outer Ipswich and outer Cleveland lines a la Cross River Rail).

QuoteThe only way lrt would go down Gympie road is elevated which won't happen due to height clearance requirements or massive property resumptions.

Could you detail precisely what resumptions would be required for a LRT down the median of Gympie road, which simply replaces the tram that was there in 1969? How many properties and where? I would think very few if any properties would require land resumption as the LRT would be running in the median of the road.

QuoteEastern suburbs to western suburbs cross-town route.  My thinking would be something like:
- Core route from Capalaba to Indooroopilly.  Capalaba to Stones Corner is easy enough.  Stones Corner to PAH I would think you'd need to rebuild Buranda so there are grade-separated platforms a la Wolli Creek for this line and the busway / future conversion of it (see below), and leave the existing junctions/tunnels in for service connections between them.  PAH to UQ Lakes is easy.  Then, you'd need to tunnel to go further west.  If that becomes impractical then UQ Lakes remains the terminus.
- Eastern extensions from Capalaba park'n'ride to both Cleveland along Finucane Road, and Victoria Point along Redland Bay Road.  You would be able to get up to a reasonable pelt along the latter with stations only at the key points.  Station density would be a touch higher on the Cleveland one.
- Western extensions towards Kenmore and towards Darra via the M5 corridor.

Thanks for the suggestions SurfRail. Definitely happy to add these along with Gazza.

QuoteBusway conversion route.  This would involve:
- Substantial upgrades to the busway corridor from 8MP to RBWH to standardise platform lengths, raise platform heights and otherwise ensure all the tolerances work (eg bridges and tunnels), and ensuring any future extensions are built to the same standards.

SEB conversion is a little trickier. Certainly in Ottawa, Canada their transitway busway was changed to Light Rail and fully replaced with LRT. However, for our SEB the peak capacities are pushing the lower boundary of metro systems at 12-18,000 pphd. What do members think about LRT vs say Light Metro (Skytrain, rubber tyre metros etc)??

I will try update the LRT map with everyone's suggestions. 

And what is the benefit of "Mini Commuter Rail" type LRT rather than other than just being cheaper to build?

Because when I think of the Perth model, you catch a feeder bus say 15km from the CBD at Greenwood station, but then once on the train you are in the Perth CBD in 23 mins.
So because the train is so fast, it offsets any slowness from the feeder bus, so there is a willingness for people to make those journeys, making the system a success.

But if I caught a feeder bus to Albany Creek LRT stop 15km from the CBD, then the nature of LRT means you're still doing 80km/h or less (Generally matching the road speed limit if median running) , so that same 15km is still going to take 45 mins or so, so the benefit isn't the same as the Perth model.

The GC light rail is a success primarily because the GC is polycentric in nature, with a very good level of density at several points.
It is a long line, but passengers do not necessarily ride the length in one sitting, like you would most see in Brisbane or Perth.
Rather you might have some people getting on at Parkwood and getting off at GCUH, but then people getting on at Southport and getting off at Surfers etc ("churn")

The system can support feeder routes and connections with cross town services, but those are not the things resulting in the bulk of the patronage.

So even though the top speed is lower, it doesn't matter because the typical journey is shorter, and emphasis is on accessibility and walkability.

LR can have sections with more sparse station spacing.
For example the GC system has a limited stops stretch for the purposes of getting to HR at Helensvale.
In Canberra the line must cross some grassland and the racecourse etc before it reaches the rapidly densifying Gunghalin area.

These are fine in moderation, but if your whole system is mostly widley spaced stops in low density areas, then you're picking the wrong mode for the urban form.

QuoteBut if I caught a feeder bus to Albany Creek LRT stop 15km from the CBD, then the nature of LRT means you're still doing 80km/h or less (Generally matching the road speed limit if median running) , so that same 15km is still going to take 45 mins or so, so the benefit isn't the same as the Perth model.

You are right that the road containing the track will generally set the speed limit as that it is Class B priority. But it's a lot better than running in mixed traffic. Given the nature of the area, I think the majority of the patronage will be coming from bus feeders, which can do their suburban run and transfer passengers into the LRT.

Did you have more detail about your Old Cleveland Road suggestion?

Metro. Every single property on the eastern or western side. When trams operated it was 2 lanes in each direction. Now we have 3 lanes and shoulders with intersections having dedicated turn lanes. Look at the difficulty that state went though just to resume the shoulders.

QuoteMetro. Every single property on the eastern or western side. When trams operated it was 2 lanes in each direction. Now we have 3 lanes and shoulders with intersections having dedicated turn lanes. Look at the difficulty that state went though just to resume the shoulders.

Below is an image of Gympie Road at an intersection. Do you consider this road too narrow to fit light rail in the middle? (click to enlarge)

How about taking out the shoulder(s) or parking on either side and run the LRT in the middle? There is still median in some parts as well.

Quote from: #Metro on March 10, 2022, 11:41:47 AM

You are right that the road containing the track will generally set the speed limit as that it is Class B priority. But it's a lot better than running in mixed traffic. Given the nature of the area, I think the majority of the patronage will be coming from bus feeders, which can do their suburban run and transfer passengers into the LRT.

It'll be a little bit faster with LR but not groundbreaking, if we use other LR systems as benchmarks.
And you'll get a bit of patronage uplift from the fact its a tram.

Would I spend $1.5b to achieve that?
Probably not, these corridors already have bus and T2 lanes so it's not really adding much.

I mean whats cheaper? A full LRT replacement CBD to chermside, or just filling in the missing bits of busway?

I'm adding an Eastern Busway LRT substitute to the map. How should it access the CBD?

I'm keeping it off the busway at this point, the main approach seems to be along Stanley St and then over the Victoria Bridge or thereabouts.

Or should it just terminate at Cross River Rail and transfer pax there? Might be too much if it requires changing from bus to LRT then LRT to train.

Another option is a bridge parallel to Captain Cook Bridge and then set down on Gardens Pt Road to access the CBD but that is very squeezy.

Thoughts? 

Doubt trams will ever happen. I'd settle for Trouts Rd, GC Line extension, SC line upgrades and extension to coast, Cleveland Duplication, Doomben line to Hamilton Portside.

And if I want to get real out there for Queensland, Metro from UQ/Toowong to Hamilton Portside via West End, City, Valley, Newstead, Balimba.

Quote from: #Metro on March 10, 2022, 11:43:33 AM

QuoteMetro. Every single property on the eastern or western side. When trams operated it was 2 lanes in each direction. Now we have 3 lanes and shoulders with intersections having dedicated turn lanes. Look at the difficulty that state went though just to resume the shoulders.

Below is an image of Gympie Road at an intersection. Do you consider this road too narrow to fit light rail in the middle? (click to enlarge)

How about taking out the shoulder(s) or parking on either side and run the LRT in the middle? There is still median in some parts as well.

Given the traffic that Gympie road handles, the type of restrictions Gympie road is set up for, safeworkings, pedestrian access and the space available then yes the corridor is not wide enough. Also in your photo the left side shoulder turns into a left only lane and then the shoulder dissapears further along.

Quote from: #Metro on March 09, 2022, 22:48:55 PM
Former Brisbane Tram Network, for reference.

Note that the trams ran along Kelvin Grove road for its entire length, and into some quite hilly and windy terraces in the west around Paddington and Toowong (Milton Rd). Including along Waterworks Road to Ashgrove. Trams also ran the entire length from the CBD through to Chermside.

CLICK to ENLARGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Brisbane

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 10, 2022, 14:18:51 PM

Quote from: #Metro on March 10, 2022, 11:43:33 AM

QuoteMetro. Every single property on the eastern or western side. When trams operated it was 2 lanes in each direction. Now we have 3 lanes and shoulders with intersections having dedicated turn lanes. Look at the difficulty that state went though just to resume the shoulders.

Below is an image of Gympie Road at an intersection. Do you consider this road too narrow to fit light rail in the middle? (click to enlarge)

How about taking out the shoulder(s) or parking on either side and run the LRT in the middle? There is still median in some parts as well.

Given the traffic that Gympie road handles, the type of restrictions Gympie road is set up for, safeworkings, pedestrian access and the space available then yes the corridor is not wide enough. Also in your photo the left side shoulder turns into a left only lane and then the shoulder dissapears further along.

Seriously? Gympie Rd not wide enough in its current configuration for light rail?.

It almost needs a packed lunch to just cross it...in a car. 

We are never going to create a carbon-neutral city if we keep 6 lane roads across the city.  Just does not compute. All the EV's in the world could make it carbon-neutral.  We must start to covert car lanes to separated bike, bus and even tram lanes and wider pedestrian spaces to address the road priorisation mistakes of the last 50 years.  15 min Neighborhoods linked by fast direct public transport and bike lanes is the future.

Quote
Seriously? Gympie Rd not wide enough in its current configuration for light rail?.
It almost needs a packed lunch to just cross it...in a car.

Hi Jonno,

I agree that Gympie Road has high traffic volumes, but one lane of traffic is about 1,800 passengers/hour/direction. An LRT could do between 10,000 and 20,000 passengers/hour/direction, and it would simply be taking back a ROW that already used to exist there. And it would result in a net increase in road capacity (measured by people moved, not vehicles moved).

I considered HTG's comments and based on what I could find with the Gold Coast Highway around South Surfers Paradise, I think that Gympie Road could easily fit Light Rail in the median with no or minimal resumptions.

The following images from the Gold Coast Light Rail show that you can indeed fit LRT in the median of a major busy arterial road, in this case a highway. I'm including both the pre-LRT and post-LRT images of an intersection for comparison.

1. Pre-LRT
2. Post-LRT
3. Aerial view

The corridor in the images is about 26 meters according to Google Maps, whereas on Gympie Road it is more like 30 m kerb to kerb. Based on the above findings, I think it is sound and reasonable to say that LRT will fit into the median of Gympie Road.

Bus option requires more space than LRT
I also observe that buses generally need two lanes at stations so that the buses can pass each other, whereas Light Rail does not need this. A median BRT service would not only have a lower capacity in Priority B than LRT, it would also require more space as an additional passing lane would be required at every bus station.

Yes that's what I just said. Wanna read my quote again??

Don't compare to the Gold Coast. They are two different road networks with different attributes. Once again you are assuming without actually knowing the area in question which is what I'm trying to get at. Everyone likes to compare but they do this here so it will work here. That's not always true and it can easily show how little one knows about actual traffic and the problems associated with the area. Google maps also so isn't a good source for distances. Check out the corridor width near the car wash and busway portal exit. For example tell me how LRT and reducing capacity on Gympie road will solve and address the past and current tradie/industrial/shift worker peak hour? That's the peak hour before buz services are running or is this news to you?? There are a lot of industrial and shift worker hubs that feed off Gympie road in both directions. There's a reason why the 3am trains have solid patronage.

HTG, you're not arguing that LRT can't physically fit into the Gympie Road median, rather you are arguing that LRT shouldn't be fit into the median of Gympie Road because of tradies, deprivation of road lanes to motorists, social loss aversion reactions, etc.

Sigh. You know exactly what I mean. You can do many things but just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'll put these questions out there. How do you address Kitchener road to Sadlier Street corridor width problem (remember google maps makes this section look wider)? How do you address Prince Charles Hospital/St Vincent's hospital/Medical services which is the largest employment hub on the Northside let alone all the patients/visitors that also go there? How do you address the congestion (north and southbound)  before morning peak hour if reducing capacity? How do you address thru traffic? How do you address the pre covid lack of inbound patronage? How do you address other corridors with the Gympie road capacity reduction? How do you address the current black spots with the pt network? How do you address the lack of walk up patronage north of Chermside? How does your feeder bus system work? How do you plan on addressing the elevation difference between northbound and southbound? How do you address the Chermside Westfield congestion? Chermside interchange and LRT integration?

You keep wanting to compare and push the agenda so how about trying to resolve a handful of problems.

HTG, I'd love to have ready answers for you but I'm not an engineer and don't work for TransLink or TMR.

Some of these propositions are a bit much as they presuppose that a project should only be approved as viable if the project essentially constructs itself without any effort or dealing with any issues of any kind. That's such an extreme standard to impose on any project, it is rather unreasonable.

I'm not sure why you have mentioned that adding rapid transit to Gympie Road is a reduction in road capacity.

QuoteI'll put these questions out there. How do you address Kitchener road to Sadlier Street corridor width problem (remember google maps makes this section look wider)? How do you address Prince Charles Hospital/St Vincent's hospital/Medical services which is the largest employment hub on the Northside let alone all the patients/visitors that also go there? How do you address the congestion (north and southbound)  before morning peak hour if reducing capacity? How do you address thru traffic? How do you address the pre covid lack of inbound patronage? How do you address other corridors with the Gympie road capacity reduction? How do you address the current black spots with the pt network? How do you address the lack of walk up patronage north of Chermside? How does your feeder bus system work? How do you plan on addressing the elevation difference between northbound and southbound? How do you address the Chermside Westfield congestion? Chermside interchange and LRT integration?

Might be good to consider your questions in a proper in-depth study with input from actual engineers, experts, and TMR.

TMR has managed the building of light rail in Queensland and has expertise over almost a decade now in Light Rail with the GCLRT, as does the consortia the manages the G:Link. I'm not sure what other members know or perceive about TMR/TransLink in Light Rail, would be interesting to hear that.

In any case, trams already ran up Gympie Road previously, so it is not like some impossibility to restore Light Rail to it.

PS: What's the issue with Gympie Road between Kitchener and Sadlier Street? Google maps appears to show road widening works happening - photo attached.

You could def fit LR, measure on Google Earth if you need to, but you would need to do a fairly substantial package of works.

4 lanes plus LR needs about 30m fence to fence, 6 lanes plus LR would make that 37m.

But the question I ask is whhhhhy?

Towards Chermside There's already Class A on several sections, including on the crucial CBD access leg.

But then we're going to downgrade to class B by having the tram diverge from the INB and go through the Valley? Wtf?

Meanwhile finishing the missing link from Truro St is 1.4km.
And then a further 2.4km from Kedron to Chermside.

So whats actually cheaper?

3.8km of busway tunnel or 10km of new LR?

I would hazard guess the former (Since that LR is going to be the expensive part through the cbd), and then you can extend the electric metro buses to Chermside and call it a day.

Everywhere north of Chermside is in the catchment of heavy rail anyway so extending LR or busway to this area is redundant.
(Since you said the idea is that most people are using feeders)

The original busway plans had it going to Aspley, but if the NWTC is built you'd have a rail station within 1km of the Hypermarket, so they'd be sorted.

So a combo of finishing the busway and building the NWTC I feel would satisfy the needs of the northside come to think of it.

The eastern corridor has more options because they've only built 1.05km of an 18km route so there's less harm in taking a different approach and binning older plans.

Quote from: #Metro on March 10, 2022, 21:24:32 PM
HTG, I'd love to have ready answers for you but I'm not an engineer and don't work for TransLink or TMR.

Some of these propositions are a bit much as they presuppose that a project should only be approved as viable if the project essentially constructs itself without any effort or dealing with any issues of any kind. That's such an extreme standard to impose on any project, it is rather unreasonable.

I'm not sure why you have mentioned that adding rapid transit to Gympie Road is a reduction in road capacity.

QuoteI'll put these questions out there. How do you address Kitchener road to Sadlier Street corridor width problem (remember google maps makes this section look wider)? How do you address Prince Charles Hospital/St Vincent's hospital/Medical services which is the largest employment hub on the Northside let alone all the patients/visitors that also go there? How do you address the congestion (north and southbound)  before morning peak hour if reducing capacity? How do you address thru traffic? How do you address the pre covid lack of inbound patronage? How do you address other corridors with the Gympie road capacity reduction? How do you address the current black spots with the pt network? How do you address the lack of walk up patronage north of Chermside? How does your feeder bus system work? How do you plan on addressing the elevation difference between northbound and southbound? How do you address the Chermside Westfield congestion? Chermside interchange and LRT integration?

Might be good to consider your questions in a proper in-depth study with input from actual engineers, experts, and TMR.

TMR has managed the building of light rail in Queensland and has expertise over almost a decade now in Light Rail with the GCLRT, as does the consortia the manages the G:Link. I'm not sure what other members know or perceive about TMR/TransLink in Light Rail, would be interesting to hear that.

In any case, trams already ran up Gympie Road previously, so it is not like some impossibility to restore Light Rail to it.

PS: What's the issue with Gympie Road between Kitchener and Sadlier Street? Google maps appears to show road widening works happening - photo attached.

No they aren't. You are the one proposing infrastructure without addressing concerns existing and then created because you don't know the area and can't answer because you don't work for Translink, tmr or are an engineer. Your not an engineer but are certain? You can get LRT installed without widening the corridor or reducing capacity. And since you aren't an engineer you don't have to answer any issues created by your must run LRT here because trams did in the past. I can bring up a ton of other problems with the Gympie road design. Trams stopped at Hamilton road. They didn't run to Bald Hills. I mentioned earlier about your planned depot location being built on a flood plain at Brendale. What about flooding at various other parts along Gympie road? You like to propose a lot of things then get defensive when people point out the flaws.

For what its worth, here's an extract from my "Creating Better Connections For Queenslanders" personal submission back in September.

At the time I had exactly the same thoughts....that the NWTC combined with a transitway to Chermside (24h none of this peak hour) and decent feeder buses would be fit for purpose.

I actually don't think the transitway is a bad solution for the next decade or so. Gympie Rd is nowhere near bus capacity yet, and the bus lanes will provide similar speeds to LR and should ensure reliability.

If the corridor had nothing I might have a different opinion, but because so much of it is already busway, its got a sound basis.

If Brisbane Metro does well that may result in an Impetus to extend the busway!

Peak hour Bus lanes (let's call a spade a spade) are being used to extend the busway precisely because of the very high expense associated with Priority A busway construction. 'Transitway' is also proposed for what was to be the Eastern Busway.

I actually think its likely the Eastern Busway and Northern Busways will never be built. It's also very curious how big buses (aka Brisbane Metro;  again calling a spade a spade) doesn't run off Busway. Why is that? I know the buses that big need to have the law changed to run at all, but is there a legal or technical reason why they aren't being run off-Busway to Chermside on existing roads?

Light Rail - a great topic for discussion!

We had it [trams], Clem Jones showed the vision of a blind man and trashed it and now's it's just history!

Possibly in one or two places, but that's about it. LR taking over the banana bus pretend "metro" .....could be very interesting!

But it's not a serious answer to rail based public transit questions.

Using the Gold Coast as an example of LR working is far from fair. The GC has its own primarily tourist based dynamic. A far cry from what any LR in Brisbane would ever be.

I'm with Ozbob - the #1 thing we have to do, is restructure the entire concept of public transport planning, delivery and operation for SEQld. ie., "Translink+"

Until we get the above set-up, it's all just will this work wild speculation!  The current Qld Govt has Zero Interest and Capacity to pull it together!  That is tragic for Queensland!

QuoteUntil we get the above set-up, it's all just will this work wild speculation!  The current Qld Govt has Zero Interest and Capacity to pull it together!  That is tragic for Queensland!

The GC Light Rail was built under the Queensland Government, and TMR. It's also being extended under the current Queensland Government.

This isn't speculation, they've delivered. On busways I'm much less confident they'll extend - Light Rail on the surface is competitive in both cost and capacity. Canberra light rail Stage 1 was around 60 million/km which is very favourable vs. busway construction involving viaducts and tunnels.

Furthermore, as the section between RBWH and Kedron Brook is already acquired as busway the cost there would be for incremental conversion rather than starting from scratch. Similarly, the works already done for the Gympie Road transitway would also lower costs, for example left in left out road access has already been done for many streets.

No doubt that busway tunnels are expensive but an LR system from scratch from Chermside to the CBD is expensive too.

Bus lanes are cheaper than both.

If they aren't spending $1-2b on the northern busway due to extreme cost, why would they spend $1-2b on LR?


Finally, on what basis are you sayinh the cost is competitive?
You're not a TMR so im just wondering how you arrived at your estimate?

The Gympie Road transitway is a less for less value proposition, basically "pay nothing, get nothing" costing around 30 million/km to deliver bus priority in peak hour only.

It's capacity is what, 400-500 pphd? 1000 pphd being generous? 

Operationally, it is also labour intensive as you are running 1 driver per 65 or 80 passengers rather than an LRT where labour is used more efficiently at 1 driver per 200+ passengers.

If for example we paid say 60 million/km for LRT, we would get say 10x the capacity of the transitway (bus lanes) for around 2x the cost.

There's also none of the city shaping or development benefits with bus lanes. In Canberra, unimproved land values increased 13.5% next to the LRT corridor... value uplift like this can be recaptured by the QLD Government through land tax and property transaction stamp duties. BCC will also collect more money too as it rates on unimproved land value. This has the effect of both increasing patronage, building the city towards a mixed-use sustainable objective along the lines of what forum member Jonno envisages, and reduces the net cost of LRT even further, plus increases patronage.

QuoteYou're not a TMR

Thank you for recognising that "I'm not a TMR" [sic] it made my morning. 

Reference

Land values increasing along Canberra light rail corridor
https://www.railexpress.com.au/land-values-increasing-along-canberra-light-rail-corridor/

OK Metro it seems like you are deliberately understating the bus lane capacity to make yourself look good.

If it's 400-500 (Let's say 450)

Then 450/65 is just 7bph.

Thats silly.

In peak We know on the Kedron to Chermside sector that is getting the transitway you have 3x BUZ routes (18bph) plus the 77 (4bph) and the 370 (4bph) is 26 bph.

26*60 is 1690 pph.

So if the current mixed traffic arrangements can support 1690 pph why are you saying a bus lane can only handle 400-500 or 1000 being generous?

Maybe he doesn't know the corridor other than from google maps and google street view??

Also Gazza don't forget the rockets P331/P332/P341. That's another 19 or 20 buses across peak hour IIRC.

Official TMR website:

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/Northern-Transitway

QuoteHigher frequency of services at bus stops within the project corridor, increasing from every 15 minutes to every 5 minutes or better during peak periods.

60 min / 5 min frequency  = 12 buses hour x 85 pax on the bus = 1020 pphd.

Again, pay nothing get nothing, and LRT could do 10x this capacity.

Once again showing how well you don't know about the corridor in question.