Article: No trams as Bligh looks underground

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

No trams as Bligh looks underground

No trams as Bligh looks underground
TONY MOORE
November 19, 2009 - 1:52PM

Be the first to comment

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has finally ruled out any return of trams in Brisbane's CBD, saying underground rail is the way to go.

Speaking at a business luncheon this afternoon, Ms Bligh said a massive investment in heavy rail was a better solution for Brisbane's struggling public transport network.

"There have been many discussions about a return of trams and light rail to our city streets," she said.

"But outside of our busways, which were designed to accommodate light rail if needed, the time for trams in the CBD is over.

"The future of rail planning for the centre of the city is underground."

Ms Bligh said the proposed route for Brisbane's underground rail network would be announced in the new year.

But she warned the $8 billion first stage would be unable to go ahead without Federal Government funding.

"It's almost impossible for a state government to deliver a project of this size and scale alone," she said.

Ms Bligh is speaking at the Leadership Queensland Tourism and Transport Forum at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.

More to come...

[O_128]

How come the Airport link and Clem 7 can be delivered for billions cheaper?

[#Metro]

Underground rail will be excellent. RailBOT has asked for more rail.
At 8 billion, how is she going to fund it?
I hope she thinks of a light rail back up plan (or a congestion tax) in the event that the Federal Gov does a Traverston on her (ouch!).

We have light rail coming to the Gold Coast, and possibly light rail for the Busway. It seems logical to extend LRT from the busway to centres along BUZ routes if the demand is there. Sydney and Adelaides LRT systems are good but don't have much patronage yet, and I think this is mainly due to the network being so small (one or two routes). Further extensions will see more passengers come into the net...

[#Metro]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-light-rail-tunnel-vision-20091119-io6g.html

Right. Looks like it is now a "Light Rail Metro"?

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Brisbane's light rail tunnel vision

Brisbane's light rail tunnel vision
TONY MOORE
November 19, 2009 - 5:23PM

Light rail was on the agenda for Brisbane, but Premier Anna Bligh ruled out a return to trams on the city's streets.

Rather, the Premier today launched a vision for an underground light rail project linking Toowong, West End, the CBD, Newstead, Bowen Hills, Bulimba and Bowen Hills by 2030.

Queensland Rail was already midway through a $20 million feasibility study for an underground rail tunnel to replace the Merivale Rail Bridge at South Brisbane, which would allow extra trains to connect some new CBD underground stations by 2016.

But Ms Bligh said Brisbane's Rapid Metro, which would be the city's own version of the London Metro, was the next step in public transport infrastructure spending.

"What I am talking about today is beyond that cross river rail link - which is all heavy rail - and talking about an underground metro system like you see in some of the great cities in the world," she said.

"We need an entirely new metro system - just in the CBD - that will be run with a light rail transit system completely separate to the heavy rail system.

"This is a new way of thinking about Brisbane that takes us to 2030."

Part of Ms Bligh's rationale was that twice as many people will be trying to get into Brisbane's CBD in the next 25 years to work.

"Employment in the same area will double from 200,000 to 400,000 - double the number of people trying to get into the CBD just to get to work," she said.

In April last year, ARUP Global Rail director Colin Stewart told a Brisbane business forum that a "very frequent" underground light rail project was essential to tackle Brisbane's congestion.

Plans had previously been announced for an underground heavy rail loop, with an underground river crossing and additional stops in the CBD.

Ms Bligh said the preferred routes for the $8 billion heavy rail project would be released in the new year.

Earlier today Ms Bligh ruled out a return of trams to Brisbane's streets.

"There have been many discussions about a return of trams and light rail to our city streets," she said.

"But outside of our busways, which were designed to accommodate light rail if needed, the time for trams in the CBD is over.

"The future of rail planning for the centre of the city is underground."

[Jon Bryant]

Again whilst trams in the CBD streets maybe over their travel underground through the CBD and along/underground all our major roads is not!!!!

[#Metro]

Why not just integrate the two? Light rail down the busway and then down a portal into the LRT underground metro?
A unique solution for Brisbane.

Let's hope they get the gauge correct. There may even be scope for light freight in the non-passenger periods.

Just to point out, I wouldn't hold my breath. Ms Bligh is expecting cash to rain from the Infrastructure Deities in Canberra, and that adds a whole layer of uncertainty to the project.
Brisbane also has a shockingly bad history of Light Rail/Tram projects failing:

Early 90's: "Brisbane Light Rail Transit"
1997: Briztram
1998: Brisbane Light Rail
2007: Peter Beattie's "Smart Cities- rethinking the city centre"
2007?: The Greens' Light Rail for Brisbane
2009: Anna Bligh Tram Tunnels Metro

In all cases, money, associations (Property Council), NIMBYs (West End opposed LRT down Boundary St, despite 1969 tram path through W'End) or lack of interest on the public sector's part (state gov, treasury or BCC) saw the project die.

Money is an issue, property council and NIBMYs will have a bit of a problem thinking up excuses as to why the project should be shot down if it is underground and BCC might be more willing now that the busways are filling up with buses, although it would have to compete against a underground bogota-like superbusway as a competing alternative.

[Jon Bryant]

Having slept on it.  I take my previous comments back.    Yes an Underground is the way to go but this can and must be complemented by a series of trunk tram routes along all our major roads so that we create a web of interconnected suburban, metro and tram lines.  If we can have bus lanes on our roads (and we should tomorrow) then we can have trams.  The do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[#Metro]

Yes an Underground is the way to go but this can and must be complemented by a series of trunk tram routes along all our major roads so that we create a web of interconnected suburban, metro and tram lines.  If we can have bus lanes on our roads (and we should tomorrow) then we can have trams.  The do not have to be mutually exclusive.

I agree Jon B. Buses can run in tram lanes where required, and because BCC buses are "kneeling" buses they can change their heights- possibly to that of the same level as a platform. A case of pick the right vehicle for the right job IMHO.

[stephenk]

How come the Airport link and Clem 7 can be delivered for billions cheaper?

Because roads don't have stations.

Why not just integrate the two? Light rail down the busway and then down a portal into the LRT underground metro?
A unique solution for Brisbane.

No! Light rail and buses on the same right of way would be an operational disaster. Light rail may suit new rights of way, but converting the existing busways would have no benefit and would not be cost effective.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-light-rail-tunnel-vision-20091119-io6g.html

Right. Looks like it is now a "Light Rail Metro"?

"Light rail metro" may refer to an underground metro using light rail style trains (i.e. light metro) such as those used in Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Copenhagen, Lille, London's DLR, Porto, Seville.

I wonder how this affects the plans for the 2nd cross city heavy rail line which was planned along a similar route?

[#Metro]

Hi StephenK

No! Light rail and buses on the same right of way would be an operational disaster. Light rail may suit new rights of way, but converting the existing busways would have no benefit and would not be cost effective.

I will just say this: seeing is believing.

Jon B said:

...They do not have to be mutually exclusive.

In the below three YouTube videos, light rail and buses share the same track and stop at the same stations in an orderly and co-ordinated way. At this particular location (Germany), electric trolleybuses were used; For Brisbane this would not be required (as we have Natural Gas buses which power themselves). A guide wheel arrangement may or may not be required depending on how the LRT track was laid (in mass concrete or on sleepers).

I think dual mode bus and dual mode LRT working with buses and heavy/light rail have the potential to reclaim the city streets from the car by running on roads and then jumping onto the exclusive busway, heavy rail line or Ms Bligh's LRT Metro (gauges, operations permitting). No transfer required, and you might be able to take your bike along as well. However, I think the planners will probably opt for separate systems that require transfers at stations for interchange.

but converting the existing busways would have no benefit and would not be cost effective.

This is a question of sourcing the cash and working out which choice is more worthwhile and what to include/exclude from the design as well. I have seen no plans and no business case, so I can't make a judgement on whether it would be worthwhile or not (yet). The announcement was very vague indeed, so we shouldn't hold our breath.

[#Metro]

The three videos.  

(Tram, followed by a bus in a tunnel)

(In this one buses and LRT vehicles share track and power sources. The buses disconnect from the rail power supply, move off the track and drive into suburban streets)

[stephenk]

Tramtrain - try using an example that is still in use. As far as I'm aware, Essen stopped running buses and trams on the same right of way nearly 10 years ago.

Have you observed Cultural Centre in operation in the evening peak? There is no way it could operate with both light rail and bus without serious operational issues, and reduction in capacity!

[#Metro]

Hi StephenK, yes I think it is tram only in Essen now. But I put it up as "proof of concept". It can be done.
Eventually the busway may become exclusive tramway, subject to demand...

Tramtrain - try using an example that is still in use. As far as I'm aware, Essen stopped running buses and trams on the same right of way nearly 10 years ago.

Currently, Seattle has Light rail and buses which share the same busway (video below). The buses do not connect to the power supply, so it is more like Brisbane's case. In the future, LRT will eventually replace the buses as the headways are more favourable to LRT. Note how their buses are articulated, like ours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQBBNq8Q8k&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit_Central_Link

Have you observed Cultural Centre in operation in the evening peak? There is no way it could operate with both light rail and bus without serious operational issues, and reduction in capacity!

Agreed, it was crowded and congested badly when I last looked this week. But this was without trams or LRT. Ergo: they will probably have to re-build cultural centre busway anyway if the Adelaide St bridge goes ahead. And also to cope with increased buses, cityglider and bi-arctics and that horror tunnel exit at Melbourne St. Alternatively, don't use the Cultural Centre.

When they do that, they can make the new station accommodate LRT. And LRT will mean that more buses won't need to travel down the busway. But I do understand your point...

[#Metro]

10 minutes on the platform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgLSmJryaw&feature=channel

They have multi-door boarding, and I don't see them swipe any cards, so I guess they have barriers or readers at the entry of the station (or maybe it is free?). Every bus has a bicycle rack.

This could be Brisbane!

PS: A photo. It looks like Bris too. That could be the riverside expressway down there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_07752.JPG

[stephenk]

10 minutes on the platform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgLSmJryaw&feature=channel

They have multi-door boarding, and I don't see them swipe any cards, so I guess they have barriers or readers at the entry of the station (or maybe it is free?). Every bus has a bicycle rack.

This could be Brisbane!

I hope it couldn't be Brisbane!

You may have noticed that the video is sped up, and it quite obvious that this system handles far less buses than Cultural Centre. By introducing mixed light rail and buses, you would reduce system capacity. That is not good!

The conversion of the Seattle shared light rail/bus route caused a 2 year closure. Would you want this occurring at Cultural Centre or King George Sq?

Did you notice the 10kph speed limits on the buses entering the platform, and the flashing lights required on bus wing mirrors due to the requirements for a platform height that can handle both light rail and buses. Increased risk to passengers of being hit in the head by wing mirrors is not good!

The cost of conversion would be in the realm of $billions, for little benefit? Wouldn't it be better to spend the same money on more buses or improving rail infrastructure?

You mentioned light rail will have a higher frequency. 179 buses/hour, or 40 light rail vehicles/hour. Which one is the most frequent?

I know you have a tram obsession, but in the real world the case for converting Brisbane's busways to mixed bus/light rail, or light rail only operation is very poor. Brisbane's low population density and city shape make bus travel a better solution to serve this city than light rail.

[#Metro]

No pain. No gain.

[O_128]

why not start by at least putting tracks in on the northern and eastern busways?

[#Metro]

The conversion of the Seattle shared light rail/bus route caused a 2 year closure.
Would you want this occurring at Cultural Centre or King George Sq?

I think this is begging the question. Every case is different.
Without a plan, detour contingencies, no info etc, I can?t tell you how long (if ever) it would be.
Ms Bligh hasn't released her metro plans nor busway conversion plans.
I'm not aware of what TL has on file for a potential busway to LRT or LRT-like conversion.
If BCC and others bend over backwards, alter train and bus timetables for the Hale St Bridge, then that could be a yardstick of what is acceptable IMHO.

Did you notice the 10kph speed limits on the buses entering the platform, and the flashing lights required on bus wing mirrors due to the requirements for a platform height that can handle both light rail and buses. Increased risk to passengers of being hit in the head by wing mirrors is not good!

Trains do it by drawing a yellow line. KGS and QSBS have sliding doors so this is a non-issue.
Brisbane buses can adjust their heights, and the difference between 10kph in Seattle tunnels and 20kph in QSBS tunnel is marginal. There are also low floor LRT vehicles easily available.

The cost of conversion would be in the realm of $billions, for little benefit? Wouldn't it be better to spend the same money on more buses or improving rail infrastructure?

Well the busway is designed for future LRT conversion; the planners had it in their mind at the time it was planned and constructed. That in itself will avoid many potential retrofit issues.
I haven?t seen the business case for it. But if you look at Seattle?s video, their buses are articulated.
Obviously bigger buses were just not big enough for them. And when a LRT pulls up, you can see multidoor boarding bliss.
I am more interested in moving large volumes of pax, so rubber tyre trams could be an option but we shall see.

You mentioned light rail will have a higher frequency. 179 buses/hour, or 40 light rail vehicles/hour.
Which one is the most frequent?

Well certainly not QR Citytrain that is for sure! 2 services/hour...1970s...  

If the BCC Mass Transit Report is anything to go by, headways would be every 2 minutes or below.
That is an acceptable time to wait between services IMHO. No point having high frequency services you can?t board because they are full. (333 and Nth Busway know what I am talking about). Bus articulation will only delay what I see as the inevitable.
But I wanted both bus and LRT. You can have both, though bus might have to eventually be phased out.

I know you have a tram obsession, but in the real world the case for converting Brisbane's busways to mixed bus/light rail, or light rail only operation is very poor. Brisbane's low population density and city shape make bus travel a better solution to serve this city than light rail.

Wouldn't it be better to spend the same money on more buses or improving rail infrastructure?

It is not logical to argue that LRT or LRT-like vehicles are not viable because of the city shape, density etc, and then argue for that money to be re-directed to heavy rail to serve that same demand, presumably along the same routes.

The economic case for retaining Brisbane?s trams and trolleybuses in 1960s was also very poor. But history shows that when circumstances and conditions change, plans must change as well (motorways appear to be exempt from this observation). Busjam on the SE Busway and an influx of pax say a lot. Adelaide and Sydney have made a start. Melbourne has LRT like routes to St Kilda. Perth is looking at LRT. Brisbane has had multiple proposals, to an advanced planning stage. I think it is likely more to do with a lack of cash (Anna freely admits this) than viability.

Peace!

[somebody]

I'm afraid I side with stephenk.  179 buses/hour is what was getting through the Cultural Centre in peak hour when this was studied in 2007.  That doesn't include the (IIRC) 156/hour going over the Captain Cook Bridge.  If the Northern Busway was built as light rail it would have had to go all the way to Chermside to be any good.  And then you still have the problem that express trams can't pass other trams at stops, and couldn't extend anywhere else like Bracken Ridge (330)/Carseldine (340).  And that's not a problem with the implementation, it's a problem with the mode.

[#Metro]

As it is buses can't overtake each other on the busway (single lane), except at stops.
Express buses could overtake LRT, there is no restriction on that;and would probably be more suited for the express runs seeing they are only used during peak hour. This is not unlike the current situation in Seattle.

However, if overtaking were of high importance, rubber tyred trams (ie LRT-like service) can be used.
Overhead wiring would be optional.

LRT would have line haul function, and would probably stop all stations.

[dwb]

Agreed, it was crowded and congested badly when I last looked this week. But this was without trams or LRT. Ergo: they will probably have to re-build cultural centre busway anyway if the Adelaide St bridge goes ahead. And also to cope with increased buses, cityglider and bi-arctics and that horror tunnel exit at Melbourne St. Alternatively, don't use the Cultural Centre.

Given that almost half of the buses go via the Freeway as it is, wouldn't it just be better to just skip out Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater on the main southern busway line by building a new entrance to the city adjacent/on/near/underneath the Captain Cook Bridge?

You could build a bus station near Parliament/QUT/under the freeway that tucks into INB at QSBS removing the horrific tunnel exit at William St... Adelaide St services could continue to use Vic Bridge along with Glider and the Cultural Centre, South Bank, Mater stations.

But really this is all a bit of a distraction from the press release which is more modally based than anything else. Going by the artists impression on the front of WBTNS, some interesting implications arise. (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/ebfbeb408a930c6/Pdf_wbtns_complete.pdf)

[somebody]

As it is buses can't overtake each other on the busway (single lane), except at stops.

Other than when a bus breaks down or (God forbid) has an accident, that's really the only time you'd want to overtake another bus.

Given that almost half of the buses go via the Freeway as it is, wouldn't it just be better to just skip out Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater on the main southern busway line by building a new entrance to the city adjacent/on/near/underneath the Captain Cook Bridge?

You could build a bus station near Parliament/QUT/under the freeway that tucks into INB at QSBS removing the horrific tunnel exit at William St... Adelaide St services could continue to use Vic Bridge along with Glider and the Cultural Centre, South Bank, Mater stations.

While I agree that many buses (e.g. 130, 140, 150, 555) should use the Captain Cook Bridge all day, as it's a faster route, I don't see that much benefit in another river crossing.  But if it could be combined with the new CBD rail route, that would probably be different.

The tunnel exit/re-entrance at Melbourne St involves 3 sets of lights, and avoiding all of those would be a nice to have, but I think that the constructibility of your proposal would be quite difficult as you'd need to close the QSBS exit for a time.  Ouch.

[dwb]

While I agree that many buses (e.g. 130, 140, 150, 555) should use the Captain Cook Bridge all day, as it's a faster route, I don't see that much benefit in another river crossing.

It could be ON the freeway... but be permanently and exclusively dedicated.

The tunnel exit/re-entrance at Melbourne St involves 3 sets of lights, and avoiding all of those would be a nice to have, but I think that the constructibility of your proposal would be quite difficult as you'd need to close the QSBS exit for a time.  Ouch.

If you built the North Quay Station as I proposed it possibly wouldn't be as bad as you might think, they could do all the work on the new station, open it, transfer all stops from QSBS to North Quay during the "through" works on the tunnel. Effectively the only routes badly affected would be the through routes such as 66, 111 etc... it would be similar/ probably less disruption than was experienced on Adelaide St routes when they did the tunnel for KGS.

[somebody]

If you built the North Quay Station as I proposed it possibly wouldn't be as bad as you might think, they could do all the work on the new station, open it, transfer all stops from QSBS to North Quay during the "through" works on the tunnel. Effectively the only routes badly affected would be the through routes such as 66, 111 etc... it would be similar/ probably less disruption than was experienced on Adelaide St routes when they did the tunnel for KGS.

Yeah, that might work out.  I guess the main problem with that is that you would probably need to make the North Quay station larger than it might otherwise be, and a bus turnaround which wouldn't be needed in the long term.  No plan is perfect.

[stephenk]

Given that almost half of the buses go via the Freeway as it is, wouldn't it just be better to just skip out Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater on the main southern busway line by building a new entrance to the city adjacent/on/near/underneath the Captain Cook Bridge?

That would be huge inconvenience to the many people who work, school, or travel to South Brisbane, and the Mater hospital area.

[#Metro]

That would be huge inconvenience to the many people who work, school, or travel to South Brisbane, and the Mater hospital area.

True, but currently as it is, there are (more?) people (and potential people) who are currently inconvenienced by having to go Mater Hill-South Bank, Cultural Centre, QSBS. It seems good enough for trains and the new connection.

[somebody]

Given that almost half of the buses go via the Freeway as it is, wouldn't it just be better to just skip out Cultural Centre, South Bank and Mater on the main southern busway line by building a new entrance to the city adjacent/on/near/underneath the Captain Cook Bridge?

That would be huge inconvenience to the many people who work, school, or travel to South Brisbane, and the Mater hospital area.

So long as there is a frequency busway service along the present route, it would be OK IMO.  Just change somewhere on the SE busway.

[dwb]

@stephenk

That would be huge inconvenience to the many people who work, school, or travel to South Brisbane, and the Mater hospital area.

No it wouldn't. There's too much traffic at the moment causing congestion. I'm simply saying a bunch of that traffic + new growth in the line should be redirected. There would still be services that go via Mater, South Bank and Cultural.

And besides, you could add another station before Mater on the main line and passengers could get off there. Easy.

[somebody]

I'd also want a Woolloongabba-8 mile plains service, at least in peak hour.  A lot of people work in Woolloongabba.