Returning Light Rail to Brisbane (concept)

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'm not against light rail. It's a very key piece of infrastructure when used in the right locations. The only place I can see it really sustaining full day loads and not just peak hour only (I've said it before but 6pm-last service inbound Gympie road really struggles with patronage (there's simply no trip factors let alone the 14bph minimum and that was before covid) is in the city replacing the blue glider route. I'm just against expensive and redundant infrastructure based on false and misleading details and when some fundamental issues with the entire point of lrt are pointed out it gets shrugged off because they don't work for tmr/Translink/engineering etc. Even something as simple as naming a few bus routes that aren't a buz route with a 30 minute or better frequency is a challenge. I mention that as you plan to have park and ride and interchange features instead of relying on walk up patronage. And the Translink review was done by themselves without input from bcc. The brisbane part of the network review was transferred to bcc who stated that there was nothing wrong with the network except that the 335 inbound didn't go into the taigum interchange and that since the 315 was removed by Translink  left a massive void on Sandgate road so the 335 was extended to Sandgate.

Alignment plans have been done for NWTC but not in great detail due to costs and variants ie alderley and Carseldine sections. The bulk of the reserved corridor has been done in further detail. The majority will be at grade with cut and cover tunnels in the hillier sections with fill and elevated tracks used in the lower areas to prevent flooding which makes your grade argument redundant. Before Stafford road the tracks will dive under Stafford road and the Kedron Brook. As I mentioned earlier there have been different alignment plans but this is dependant on costs ie tunnel to Victoria Park or join the Ferny grove line. Joining the Ferny grove line isn't a major hurdle and can easily be modified to join the existing network. Joining the exhibition line also isn't a big difficultly either and can be done with flat junctions, timings (this is already the case at the moment) and new flyovers or using existing flyovers depending on network configuration/setup. The main bulk of the reserved NWTC has been public knowledge for quite a while. The original petrie station design allowed for possible NWTC short haul workings via the Ferny grove line until such a time other lines came on line ie CAMCOS/Tunnel to Victoria park/Roma street. IIRC peak services would continue to Petrie where it would then either stable at Dakabin yards, Redcliffe yard or turn around and resume local running but these features in the Petrie works for MBRL were removed by Newman as they were gold plating - further impacting future needs. The main reason for nothing happening has been due to lack of investment in public transport, flip flopping on CRR/BAT/CRR2/NGR and constraints within the existing network. CRR has been the main hurdle for a lot of extra infrastructure being added to the network. The BCC report is redundant as it's a state owned corridor. They might want a busway or a road but state has the final say. It's state owned land and BCC can't legally access it as it's a reserved state transport corridor.

Also you have completely glossed over my crossover, Gympie arterial road bridge and alignment points. That being cost. Costs which will sink any LRT proposal so damn fast. As I said I'm not against LRT but when I raise the serious issues that would hinder it you simply shrug it off. And costs is something that you love to harp on about. Sorry if you don't like my comments but I'm just addressing the flaws with your promoting LRT in a few corridors that I have quite a bit of knowledge about. I'm not commenting on the eastern proposal as I'm not too familiar with the eastern suburbs but if you propose infrastructure for particular parts of the Northside that I have quite a bit of knowledge of and have personally seen change or not change over the decades I will address the flaws and issues instead of sidestepping which you have done a whole lot of in this thread.

[#Metro]

HTG, how can you suggest that Gympie Road is too narrow for Light Rail but also suggest that the Blue CityGlider route is suitable for Light Rail when Montague road is even narrower than Gympie Road and built up on both sides with apartments?

Also how does your lrt corridor interact with the beams road level crossing project/crossing the railway line at Carseldine??

HTG, just wondering if you are looking at the right map?

An LRT running in the Gympie Road corridor is not suggested to cross the rail line.

This is an image of where the LRT concept line crosses Beams Road. The QR rail line and crossing are about 1.6 km to the East of where the LRT concept corridor crosses Beams Road (black line).

So where is this rail line crossing at Beams Road in Carseldine by the LRT corridor that you are talking about?

[Gazza]

This is the Melbourne trams/European model of LRT. It's not the only model around.
I think LRT can also be used for longer distance line haul more similar to the North American model as well.

You often cite 'models' and 'precedent' from elsewhere.

Precedent is really just a means of proving that something is physically possible.
But it doesn't actually demonstrate if something is a good idea just because someone did it, need to look at at how it actually performs.


As they saying goes, "it's been done"


The reality is, just about every configuration of transport exists somewhere. Mode, stop spacing, class A, B, C, frequency, line length, whatever.
Finding something similar to what you are proposing isn't necessarily a slam dunk.


Imagine this, a city was looking to redesign it's bus network.
Someone says "Hey have you heard of Adelaide or Brisbane down under? They have these bus systems where everyone gets a direct bus to the CBD, how good is that?"
The city then proceeds to implement the Brisbane model based on precedent, and it turns out to be rubbish.

This is why precedent alone can only ever be a starting point.

This brings me to my discussion about the North American LR model.
For those that don't know, I have a sister who lives in the US, so I've been over there 9 or so times, and have been to a few of these mid sized cities.


To put it lightly, rail networks in America mostly sucks and is under developed, except for a small number of standouts like NYC.

Here is the rail system in Atlanta, population 6 million:


 :yike:
You have a city bigger than Sydney, yet with a rail network smaller than Perth.

And this is not an unusual case, its so common to have cities similar in population to Brisbane, often bigger, with only 1 or 2 light rail lines, and maybe a Diesel Bi-Level commuter rail line that runs in peak hour only on leased freight tracks.

For example St Louis.


Minneapols/St Paul


Phoenix


Pittsburgh


Houston


Charlotte


And the list goes on.

Why do I think this happens?

-Lack of funding/political will for rail projects, and preference for building roads.

-So of funding means downtown tunnelling like in Australia is out, so surface running becomes the norm.

-People in the suburbs want rail as much as the desner inner areas, so they end up with systems that try to be all things to all people and end up being average at all, and you get these 30 or 40km LRT lines going out to suburban park and rides essentially. Here in Australia we are fortunate that we have suburban trains for people going longer distances.

-Because the intial part of the system is LR, they end up hinging off that. Again no prospect of doing a proper HR system due to budget constraints.

-No rolling programme of projects or expertise in many parts of the US, so the LR they do build ends up costing mega bucks, reducing the appetite to build more.

-In the end, it seems many cities bottom out with only a couple of lines built.
You think in SEQ where you have a couple of busways, an LR system, suburban extensions, and a major inner city tunnel happening within a 15 year period, would just never happen in most american cities.

For me, the US type LR systems are a symptom of the poltical situation there, and it would be a retrogade step to adopt North American practices.

[#Metro]

And there we have it (modified quote):

-Because the intial part of the system is busway, we end up hinging off that. Again no prospect of doing a proper Light Rail system due to budget constraints.

And why are we even considering 200 pax pseudo-metro buses going out to distances such as possibly Bracken Ridge, Capalaba etc... because we are now locked into the busway, which works well for BCC given that its the bus operator... The network overall would be soooo much simpler if buses simply did the passenger collection and the line haul was left to rail (light and heavy) to do.

and I think you even addressed HTG's points about improving local buses, which we can and should improve:

To date, public debate has often had residents arguing about priorities. For example some question the need for billion dollar light rail when cheap improvements to low frequency local routes are ignored. In reality, all improvements are necessary and valuable.

It's not just cost, Light rail has less strict engineering requirements and can go places you can't or would be very expensive to insert a heavy rail line, because heavy rail must always be in Priority A. Light Rail can run in Priority A, but it doesn't have to.

Edit: Canadian systems are also "North American" and they seem to not have half the funding issues with US ones. Eglinton Crosstown LRT in Toronto, for example is being built rather than a subway... the previous mayor actually wanted subway, but it was absolutely cost-prohibitive.

 

[Gazza]

Ok what about the other points I raised?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Ok what about the other points I raised?

He's not a TMR, translink or engineer so he can't answer that.

HTG, how can you suggest that Gympie Road is too narrow for Light Rail but also suggest that the Blue CityGlider route is suitable for Light Rail when Montague road is even narrower than Gympie Road and built up on both sides with apartments?

It wouldn't be the exact alignment as the bus. But for the majority of the route you'd simply run it as a glorified bus. Sweden already does this where the stops are simply raised footpaths that share the road with cars. Good for high density areas such as West end, New Farm, Tenerife and the CBD.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3592695,17.9797641,3a,75y,92.42h,79.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSiPliCQa5G28yKV3vogP_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US

HTG, just wondering if you are looking at the right map?

Sorry confused it with all the bracken ridge busway talk that goes past Carseldine station. But the same remains. How do you address the flooding on Gympie Road with the LRT infrastructure at Aspley and Carseldine? How do you address the depot location being built on a flood plain (yes that area has been under at least 4 times in the last 11 years - 2011, 2013, 2015, 2022).

And no one wants a busway to Bracken Ridge. Most people here have said Chermside/Aspley at the most. The busway to Bracken Ridge is a legacy proposal that keeps getting traction around election times. Just like the 7 car CityTrains.

I never said you couldn't put LRT down Gympie Road. There's no way you could install LRT in the same corridor width and not lose capacity without making massive resumptions along the corridor. Losing capacity just shifts the issue onto other corridors where you are now impacting the overall network flow. Nothing at all you have mentioned has in the slightest made your project viable. You can't even justify anything because you aren't a TMR/Translink employee/Engineer. You don't have to be. But you need to show you understand the network you are talking about otherwise you just look like an ass and the proposal not seriously. You can't even address the basic flaws I and others have mentioned. You just palm it off. I've only listed just a handful. I can just point out failure after failure in your plans but you just ignore it. The fact you don't understand the corridor, the network and how the area actually functions just makes your justification even worse. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Can you clarify how LRT would operate down Gympie Road (from the current busway portal exit to Bald Hills railway station and where would it run on Linkfield road to access the depot)? How many traffic lanes northbound and how many traffic lanes southbound along Gympie Road? I assume you are aware of the topography and the required land resumptions?

Still waiting for more 30 minute or more frequent services to be listed. Surely the 680 can't be the only service with the 30 minute frequency north of Chermside... And this is the network you want to spend a ton on money that

The majority of patronage will be collected through the use of feeder buses and bus hubs at Light Rail stations

you can't elaborate anything on

and not through walk-up patronage

or say where are all these park and rides going to be put

Station spacing will be similar to train station spacing on the Queensland Rail network (generally, about 1 km apart or more)

or in terms of Gympie Road ignoring the popular stop locations

RBWH (ground level), and then into the Northern Busway corridor

while sidestepping massive corridor problems such as Lutyche Road corridor as they aren't a TMR or engineer.

Its hard to take this thread seriously at least in terms of the northside section so I'll refer to the very first post.

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.

[#Metro]

It wouldn't be the exact alignment as the bus. But for the majority of the route you'd simply run it as a glorified bus. Sweden already does this where the stops are simply raised footpaths that share the road with cars. Good for high density areas such as West end, New Farm, Tenerife and the CBD.

That's a streetcar, no priority essentially. I'd have trouble supporting that, as would BCC. Plus there is the Victoria Bridge issue (new bridge required) and the 3x studies which were unfavourable to it, including the one done by BCC in 2007 which was pretty comprehensive.

Sorry confused it with all the bracken ridge busway talk that goes past Carseldine station. But the same remains. How do you address the flooding on Gympie Road with the LRT infrastructure at Aspley and Carseldine? How do you address the depot location being built on a flood plain (yes that area has been under at least 4 times in the last 11 years - 2011, 2013, 2015, 2022).

Well, given that it's a concept, the depot can be shifted elsewhere. As long as the tracks on Gympie Road are not washed away, it should be OK to run LRT following the M3/A3 corridor. Happy to hear better locations for the depot.

Can you clarify how LRT would operate down Gympie Road (from the current busway portal exit to Bald Hills railway station and where would it run on Linkfield road to access the depot)? How many traffic lanes northbound and how many traffic lanes southbound along Gympie Road? I assume you are aware of the topography and the required land resumptions?

In the median my friend, as per the map. As I already wrote, there used to be a tram in its own median all the way to Chermside. I even posted a photo of it. LRT can do 7% grades.

Your're right that I'm not a TMR... but I agree it would be good exercise to get a proper engineering study done on potential Light Rail corridors in Brisbane, not just this one, but citywide generally. That would be a good start so we can get the TMR levels of detail that you demand. Let's do that.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The median is such a non specific answer. Traffic lane reductions yes or no?

[#Metro]

Also the 22 Alvik Tram from Stockholm, if you showed the rest of it, it looks like this, in its own ROW.

I assume you are aware of the topography and the required land resumptions?

Sounds like a normal, large transport project. And I would suggest reclaiming the median lanes of Gympie Road. The Gold Coast LRT took lanes off the Gold Coast highway and the traffic through the entire centre of Surfers Paradise had to be reconfigured... still got accepted and built.

This is RAIL Back on Track... and we absolutely need to get rail back on track - light and heavy, and in Brisbane too, not just Sunshine and Gold Coasts. I would have thought that on a forum like this one, taking a lane from the median from motorist was not unreasonable.

Light Rail is probably the most controversial PT mode to install - just look at the huge campaigns on the GC when Stage 1 was built. But then again, neither was bus reform in 2013. The later stages of GC LRT have been well accepted.

[Gazza]

So Metro did you take a quote i made, changed the words, and then treated it like a gotcha moment?

Cringe.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Stop answering like a politician that doesn't actually give an answer to the question.

The current medians are not wide enough to install LRT and the associated safeworking , overheads and stations. Does your proposal recommend removing traffic lanes to allow them in the same corridor? Yes or no?

The arterial is road is a 100kph section of road. Where does the LRT cross over to the western side and where will the traffic lights be to do so?

Are you aware of the elevation differences between the north and southbound lanes of Gympie Road at multiple locations at Aspley next to the hotel, the shops in Aspley and Graham road to Murphy road??

Give direct answers please.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Also a bit sad that no one can list a bus other than the 680 with a 30 minute frequency. Either people here don't know the network or maybe... there simply aren't any on this fantastic network... which would mean there are more 2 hour frequency services than 30 minute services. And also that there are 3 2hr services on the weekend 336/337/338 vs the 3 buz of 330/340/345...  

[#Metro]

The current medians are not wide enough to install LRT and the associated safeworking , overheads and stations. Does your proposal recommend removing traffic lanes to allow them in the same corridor? Yes or no?

Disputed. In what way is it not wide enough? It's wider than the GC corridor. Median lanes would be resumed from motorists.

The arterial is road is a 100kph section of road. Where does the LRT cross over to the western side and where will the traffic lights be to do so?

That's good. A tram can be selected to match that speed - 100 km/hr. Why are traffic lights required at all? A tram can go down a ramp in the median, no traffic lights required.

Are you aware of the elevation differences between the north and southbound lanes of Gympie Road at multiple locations at Aspley next to the hotel, the shops in Aspley and Graham road to Murphy road??

You're right that Brisbane isn't a flat city. At its maximum the network was 109 km and it certainly did not travel in only the flat parts of the city. I don't really see the difference in road elevations as something that would prevent LRT along the corridor as mitigations would be considered. It mostly impacts station location.

To answer your question, I considered sections of the older Brisbane tram network where trams might have ran in a corridor where a difference in elevation between opposing carriageways may have existed.

Trams ran in Priority B along Old Cleveland Road, and you can see the difference in the profiles between sides at Carina and Old Cleveland Road.

Carina



Old Cleveland Road

[#Metro]

Calgary LRT
Example: Exiting a high-speed road if the LRT is in the median

The image here shows a ramp being used to exit the motorway alignment. Perhaps a similar feature could be used to terminate the LRT at Bald Hills railway station. No traffic lights required.



Aspley Shops

Here you can see the difference in road profiles between carriageways. This is also an issue for pedestrians crossing the road. But you can see that TMR has placed a ramp that connects the two different levels.

Could a simple ramp be the solution to connecting platform sides where this is the case? Looks like it could. Platforms might need to be offset, but I wouldn't want to pre-empt what TMR engineers would apply in this situation.

[#Metro]

Application of a Commuter Light Railway to Low Density

Calgary LRT - Perth style set up.

- Runs about 17 km to the edge of the city
- LRT placed into motorway median for high speed
- Stations spaced widely apart, just like heavy rail
- Bus hub to collect passengers rather than rely on high-density development/walk-up
- Park and Ride

[Paul B]

I thought of another route that runs half hourly, the 691

[Cazza]

And the 626!!

[HappyTrainGuy]

C'mon guys we have to let Metro get some of these buses. To make it fair should we only make it BCC buses??

Metro, oh you really do have no idea what you are talking about do you. Don't want to pre empt. Give me a break. You clearly are saying what should be done while having no idea at all about the active transport network, the public transport network and the road network for Brisbane's northside do you.

This is Brisbane. Not the Gold Coast. The gold coast highway doesn't handle the same type of traffic that Brisbane does as the network flows differently. Just because the Gold Coast did something that means it would work here. Another thing you aren't mentioning about the gold coast is how they changed their road network changed. Speed limits changed. Road capacity changed. Traffic congestion is worse in particular areas. Roads elsewhere upgraded to compensate for the additional traffic. New roads were built. Intersections had property resumptions to allow for the traffic flow change. You also failed to mention how the corridor where there are stations on the Gold Coast Highway can be 45m wide vs 31m at Aspley, 30m at Kitchner Road etc etc. Other parts of the Gold Coast corridor frequently exceeds 35m or how the southport stop has a 60m wide corridor. But hey cherry pick sections to make your argument. You are good at that.

Take the Aspley shops. TMR only recently changed the grade to face the other way to meet DAA compliance. That would require significant engineering works. As would up near Beams Road where there is about a 2.2m elevation difference. How much money do you wanna throw at this for what benefit it would actually produce. Its infrastructure that is not needed in the slightest.

Further explain Beams Road to Bald Hills. At some stage you have to cross from the median either to the east or west to access Bald Hills station. So now you want a flyover that would have to have a 4.8-5m minimum clearance on a section of road that increases in elevation to clear the railway line (fyi, this is where the real height restrictions start). Or do you want the LRT station ontop of the railway bridge which it wasn't designed for so you'll then have a 200m  interchange walk at the minimum.

And just look at that sh%t show of Calgary LRT you have posted. So convert Stanley Park into a park and ride or do you want to use the flood plain? I spose we also don't need the girl scouts/the hill/marchant park so we can convert that into a park and ride too. All those dead people taking up space that a fantastic park and ride could be built on. Don't need the shops on the east through aspley so they can bugger off for a park and ride. And that creek/flood plain at Gympie and Beams Road can become a park and ride too. It never floods so cars can park there. For example.



whoops that was near Rode Road a few years back as you can still see Montezuma's in the background (now a petrol station if you didn't know metro). Lets try this.


For reference it flooded in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2021 and 2022. Some years it flooded multiple times. I think its flooded 3 or 4 times this year and twice last year that I know of.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=145229740836978

Sorry, but you are just talking out your ass. I don't mean to offend but you clearly have no idea at all in regards to the northside and its hard to take this thread seriously. Corridor width problems. Traffic lane removal issues. Intersection issues. Elevation issues. Property resumption issues. Flood issues. Public transport issues. Patronage issues. Access issues. Congestion issues. Bus interchange issues (this is going to add to the next part). But the biggest problem is the bloody big cost issues. All which you fail to address because you aren't a TMR, Translink or engineer.

[#Metro]

Sorry, but you are just talking out your ass. I don't mean to offend but you clearly have no idea at all in regards to the northside and its hard to take this thread seriously. Corridor width problems. Traffic lane removal issues. Intersection issues. Elevation issues. Property resumption issues. Flood issues. Public transport issues. Patronage issues. Access issues. Congestion issues. Bus interchange issues (this is going to add to the next part). But the biggest problem is the bloody big cost issues.

Sounds like the usual objections raised against a normal light rail project. Most of these issues have solutions, as they were on the GC.

Comments like these really mirror the feedback that was encountered in Stage 1 of the Gold Coast light rail.

Light Rail projects are more popular than ever. It's just a matter of time before it comes to Brisbane IMHO.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Sorry but what a load of crap. Just more evidence of you not knowing the network or what you are trying to push. Just another bland comment rather than addressing issues people raise.

Why is LRT needed on the northside? Can you answer that atleast as you are heavily for it.

I'm not negative against LRT proposals. I'm against BS infrastructure that does absolutely nothing for the area.

This is Brisbane. Not the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast. The majority of the Sunshine Coast population corridor fits inbetween your floodplain depot at Brendale and Gympie Road. How's that for dead running. Same for the Gold Coast.

C'mon answer my question about bus service frequency. Name a 30 minute frequency. You have a list of services that you used as sources for your patronage which is also flawed by the way. You have patronage sources such as the 370 which doesn't service the same stops that the LRT does. The 345 is included but the 325 isn't despite it sharing a large portion of the same corridor. Countless street is one direction so you are going to have that problem. Next issue is the Normanby 5 ways as the road tunnel would fully be resumed for the LRT forcing cars to go via the College road intersection which then impacts traffic turning off the ICB and hinders buses using the ICB busway crossover. Lots of flaws let right and centre but hey you don't know the area at all, don't know the network, not a tmr, translink or an engineer. You just like to ignore everyone and thing yours if the best.

[verbatim9]

The first LRT routes should be Teneriffe to CBD loop and the conversion of the Doomben line from Eagle junction. That can also service Hamilton North Shore and Skygate.

[#Metro]

Sorry but what a load of crap. Just more evidence of you not knowing the network or what you are trying to push. Just another bland comment rather than addressing issues people raise.

Come to me with some solutions. When I say I'm not a TMR or an engineer, I'm simply being honest!

The first LRT routes should be Teneriffe to CBD loop

That's a reasonable idea Verbatim9, doesn't have the Victoria bridge issues and could possibly go up KSD to Northshore Hamilton.

[verbatim9]

Re Vic bridge, Apparently because of structural issues. LRT to West end would require a tunnel or new bridge across the river. A tunnel is preferared option as this would be flood proof.

Eagle Junction to Hamilton North Shore and Branch to Skygate. Loop back to the Teneriffe to CBD line via the outside lanes of Kingsford Smith Drive.

That would be the most cost effective.

[verbatim9]

Obviously a person wanting to get to Clayfield, Hendra and Ascot would catch a train or bus to Eagle Junction and transfer to LRT there. Other destinations enroute people could catch the tram from the city.

I reckon the City Valley loop would be a viable and well patronised first stage. It can run the current downtown loop the down Wickham St then the Valley and Teneriffe loop via Commercial Road and Brunswick St via New Farm.

[Gazza]

For what its worth, I dont think there is a technical impediment to having LRT on Gympie Rd, like yeah you can have the track on split levels or build up a retaining wall and have it one or the other, you can have flyovers to get into medians and stuff like that.
The flooding sucks too, but thats an issue with the stormwater and could presumably flood underground stations too.
I guess you'd just shut down in extreme weather, as happened with QR.

I dont have a problem with taking lanes either. If public transport mode share was higher, you wouldnt need massive 6 lane arterials carving up brisbane, and over time if you take away road space and give it to PT, habits adjust.


That all said, some points to consider:

-GCLR4 will take a lane of the GC Highway, but in return the M1 has been widened and a new service road will be built. Still people are complaining, but overall i think it will work.

-I think on the northside, people would want something like a road/rail corridor on trouts rd as an alternative to Gympie Rd in return for taking lanes.

-One factor to consider is that the idea of a continuous grade sepped busway is already in the public realm, and tunnelled sections already exist that people can see in action.
If you tried to put a surface option/lane removal to the public, you might get pushback as it could be seen to be 'cheaping out' and people might be like "Hang on wheres the proper busway we were promised?!"


-In terms of Calgary its a city of 1.4 million, and what they have is passable, but come on we are 2.4 million and have a much bigger system, more lines etc.

On the whole I think Canadian cities are a bit tight with infrastructure, for example how long have they been dilly dallying with the UBC skytrain?
How long as Toronto put up with a ridiculously overcrowded Bloor-Danforth Subway?
Why did the national capital, Ottawa only get the confederation line in 2019 despite a population 4x that of Canberra?
Why is it only 12.5km long.....Why is the Trillium line still only single track?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Sorry but what a load of crap. Just more evidence of you not knowing the network or what you are trying to push. Just another bland comment rather than addressing issues people raise.

Come to me with some solutions. When I say I'm not a TMR or an engineer, I'm simply being honest!

And yet you still persist with the flaws rather than listening to people who have detailed knowledge. I also note that you still can't list any bus services or acknowledge them. And it shows how little you have read anything here. I have said solutions. Redesign the bus network. Transit lanes to Chermside/Aspley depending on the network. Get on with NWTC. If you really want to persist with LRT along Gympie road you need to resume a lot of properties along the corridor to widen it without doing large amounts of traffic upgrades on surrounding corridors such as Webster road and Maundrel terrace which are BCC controlled, NWTC/trouts road and Sandgate road which are both TMR controlled. You could also end up with worsening rat running corridors such as Newman road and Shaw road. The only reason for the expensive works on Gympie road for the transit lanes is because the lanes aren't designed for moving traffic and movement of associated infrastructure.

[#Metro]

For what its worth, I dont think there is a technical impediment to having LRT on Gympie Rd, like yeah you can have the track on split levels or build up a retaining wall and have it one or the other, you can have flyovers to get into medians and stuff like that.

Agreed. I don't think a flyover is needed to access Bald Hills, just a ramp down and go under... but this is a concept.

The flooding sucks too, but thats an issue with the stormwater and could presumably flood underground stations too. I guess you'd just shut down in extreme weather, as happened with QR.

Yes. Once the water drains away, the track will still be there. You could run replacement buses into the busway as well during shutdowns if safe to do so.

I dont have a problem with taking lanes either. If public transport mode share was higher, you wouldnt need massive 6 lane arterials carving up brisbane, and over time if you take away road space and give it to PT, habits adjust.

Agreed. It is very likely that the NWTC will feature a road no matter what the ultimate PT mode choices are. I'm not automatically against road construction, merit principle applies, and it could complement the rest of the grid roads in the Northside.

That all said, some points to consider:

-GCLR4 will take a lane of the GC Highway, but in return the M1 has been widened and a new service road will be built. Still people are complaining, but overall i think it will work.

-I think on the northside, people would want something like a road/rail corridor on trouts rd as an alternative to Gympie Rd in return for taking lanes.

Agreed, and not against a road featuring in the NWTC so long as prioritised PT is also included.

-One factor to consider is that the idea of a continuous grade sepped busway is already in the public realm, and tunnelled sections already exist that people can see in action.
If you tried to put a surface option/lane removal to the public, you might get pushback as it could be seen to be 'cheaping out' and people might be like "Hang on wheres the proper busway we were promised?!"

Governments change plans all the time, I think they will be OK. But LRT is a controversial mode, so expect some heat.

Northern Busway Resumptions

In terms of Calgary its a city of 1.4 million, and what they have is passable, but come on we are 2.4 million and have a much bigger system, more lines etc.

You're right, and we have the QR system and Calgary doesn't. Also we are extending a superbus (pseudo metro) so its not even rail, light or heavy...its a bus.

On the whole I think Canadian cities are a bit tight with infrastructure, for example how long have they been dilly dallying with the UBC skytrain? How long as Toronto put up with a ridiculously overcrowded Bloor-Danforth Subway?

The thing I like about Canadian cities is that they would rather spend their money on more intensive service rather than more extensive service. Heavy rail extension proposals to just run two trains per hour all day, would not really fly in Canada IMHO. And I'm inclined to agree with that approach.

Why did the national capital, Ottawa only get the confederation line in 2019 despite a population 4x that of Canberra?

They had the Ottawa Transitway and priority bus lanes and they were running with that. Had they started with LRT from the beginning like Calgary and Edmonton did, they would have an extensive LRT network. Rather, Ottawa had to invest in a mode change, and thus had to pay a transition cost to upgrade the core to LRT which enhanced capacity but didn't really add new extensions to anywhere new.

[#Metro]

And yet you still persist with the flaws rather than listening to people who have detailed knowledge. I also note that you still can't list any bus services or acknowledge them. And it shows how little you have read anything here. I have said solutions. Redesign the bus network. Transit lanes to Chermside/Aspley depending on the network. Get on with NWTC. If you really want to persist with LRT along Gympie road you need to resume a lot of properties along the corridor to widen it without doing large amounts of traffic upgrades on surrounding corridors such as Webster road and Maundrel terrace which are BCC controlled, NWTC/trouts road and Sandgate road which are both TMR controlled. You could also end up with worsening rat running corridors such as Newman road and Shaw road. The only reason for the expensive works on Gympie road for the transit lanes is because the lanes aren't designed for moving traffic and movement of associated infrastructure.

Some thoughts:

- Redesign of the bus network was already done in 2013, and of course would be necessary if either busway or LRT is built regardless

- Transit lanes are already happening

- NWTC could provide a compensatory road for having LRT on Gympie Road. And it could be built to handle the larger traffic volumes/trucks etc. I expect BCC will announce a preferred solution that will be a mixed corridor - road plus some PT corridor.

- Resumptions are the cost of doing government business. It's just like personal income taxation.
That said, I don't expect major resumptions. And there should be no expectation of parking cars along a main arterial road. 
Indeed, some countries ban parking along main roads as a matter of regulation.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No redesign was performed. Translink promoted a heavily modified version of the BCC network to make it more efficient and provide better connections as part of their state wide review. State copped some backlash on it during consultations near election time and handed it over to BCC - who by the way on 6 different occasions refused to consult with Translink about the network review and we're the only operator to do so - who said it was fine and didn't need modifications. 6 weeks after this bcc wanted more money from the state to pay their drivers overtime as they couldn't meet OTP on routes such as the 325/335 that got caught in traffic on Webster road. Which was also on top of BCC propping up its own network because Translink doesn't cover the overall cost. Not sure if it's still the case but it was around 30 million pa and increasing at the time.

[Gazza]

Heavy rail extension proposals to just run two trains per hour all day, would not really fly in Canada IMHO.

But the entire GO Transit heavy rail system in Toronto is low frequency, and some lines even are bustituted off peak.

The most recent heavy rail extension, the UP express to the airport runs half hourly.

Finally, in Australia, most heavy suburban lines , and new extensions run high frequency actually.
(Brisbane and some of Adelaide being the odd one out)

So my point stands that Australian cities on the whole have better infrastructure and more services than Canadian ones

[#Metro]

My understanding (happy to be corrected) is that much of the GO Transit network is freight railway owned by Canadian National, a private freight company.

(Brisbane and some of Adelaide being the odd one out)

Which is a huge problem if the line cost $1 billion to run 2 trains/hour.
I'd rather see money (capital & operational) being spent on existing lines to intensify services on the current heavy rail network (e.g. Sunshine Coast) as a priority rather than expansion of mediocre service.

Calgary
Interesting paper...would be interesting to see what the costs are for BCC passengers on buses.

Calgary's CTrain – Effective Capital Utilization
Link to Paper

Operating Costs
Although this paper has focused on capital costs, it is noteworthy that the effectiveness of
Calgary's LRT has resulted in a low operating cost per passenger. For 2005, the average hourly
operating cost of LRT is approximately $163.00 ($139.40 USD). This figure includes operating,
maintenance and utility costs.

With an average of 600 boarding passengers per operating hour the average cost per LRT passenger is only $0.27 ($0.23 USD). In comparison, the average cost for bus passenger boardings is approximately $1.50 ($1.28 USD) or almost 6 times the cost of carrying an LRT passenger. Of course buses have considerably lower capital cost and have different capabilities.

[Paul B]

I recognise that "home owner" from the 10 news youtube clip. He's the pharmacist from that joint right near the chermside bus station.

[#Metro]

Bus Networks & LRT

Canadian cities show a tight level of integration with buses. Completely different model to what BCC is doing (and Translink is facilitating) in Brisbane.

For members' interest, there is a link to the system map.

I can't screenshot the C-Train map and bus due to copyright notices on the map but it can be loaded by clicking the link.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/dam/transit/rider-information/19-0000422_calgary_transit_2019_2020_system_map_-_design_web.pdf

[Gazza]

My understanding (happy to be corrected) is that much of the GO Transit network is freight railway owned by Canadian National, a private freight company.

Yes but so what?
From a passengers perspective you only care about the frequency of speed available and fares.
Not the ownership structure of the tracks.

Australian cities on the whole have made efforts over the years to segregate freight, to allow electric passenger services to operate smoothly.

-South Sydney Freight line
-3rd track along the Cleveland line and freight flyover at Dutton park.
-Inland rail will separate freight from the Ipswich line
-Perth has an almost entirely segregated network.
-Melbourne has the Jacana& albion  freight link, 3rd track on the Werribee line for freight to Geelong/Adelaide
-Goodwood ARTC flyover in Adelaide

etc

Is the argument that Toronto gets a free pass because its got a couple of well integrated Subway lines, and they don't have a responsibility to provide good services to the suburbs because the corridors are freight owned.

4 legs good, 2 legs bad?

[#Metro]

"Toronto's network is shorter than Melbourne's but carries far more people for its length."

[Gazza]

Thats light rail not heavy rail which I was talking about.

[Gazza]

RM Transit does some good videos, but at the end of the day it's just a dude and I don't necessarily agree with all of his opinions.

For example, on his CRR video he brings up that  we didn't necessarily need CRR for capacity reasons if we instead routed via Tennyson and used spare Ipswich line capacity
(Remember when the Tennyson solution was almost a thing in the 2000s