Returning Light Rail to Brisbane (concept)

[Gazza]

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.

Ok so if its 1020 on the website, you shouldn't have said 400-500 pph in the first place.

So are we talking about capacity or service levels.

Because the two are different numbers.

they are saying they will run buses every 5 mins (or better) service level, but thats not the ultimate capacity, we know that a bus lane can go much higher than that if needed.

On the other hand, LR can do 450 person trams every 2 mins (13,500 per hour) as the capacity, but it's unlikely that level of service would be warranted.

Higher frequency of services at bus stops within the project corridor, increasing from every 15 minutes to every 5 minutes or better during peak periods.
More local residents with greater access to high frequency bus services.

More local residents with greater access to high frequency bus services.

Final note,  what is being said here is that with the stop rationalisation upgrades that are happening the current yellow stops will go from having the 370 only, to being serviced by the 333 and 340, so those stops will go from having a bus every 15 mins to every 5 mins.
Of course, the bus lane infrastructure will be used by the 330 and 77 as well.

They wouldn't be cutting back on the overall 26 bph frequency on the sector.

[#Metro]

If you're running buses every 5 min then it is already worth planning what comes next. It is a main corridor with busway planned for it, so clearly it did indeed warrant higher capacity, otherwise TMR would not have drawn up busway plans for that corridor.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What do you expect the transit times to be? Are those that catch the 330 going to lose their express service Chermside-RBWH with a interchange time now applied along with having to make stops along Gympie road and a windy route through the valley or are they going to transfer to a metro service at RBWH.

What mods at RBWH are required to address conflicts?? Or is this a question you can't answer as your not a tmr, Translink or engineer??

If you're running buses every 5 min then it is already worth planning what comes next. It is a main corridor with busway planned for it, so clearly it did indeed warrant higher capacity.

Which shows how flawed the network design actually is which I keep banging on about. There are other modes of transport such as heavy rail with plenty of capacity but bcc insist on bussing everybody to the city. There's a reason Translink wanted to cut the 340 buz route. Also bus capacity has also been reduced. In the 90's the Northside had a bunch of bendy buses running. Now it doesn't.

Fix the network first instead of these massive pie in the sky projects. Bus lanes are the only thing needed.

[#Metro]

Fix the network first instead of these massive pie in the sky projects. Bus lanes are the only thing needed.

Yes, but this is fixing the network, HTG.

When LRT is placed in the median those buses will then be freed up to run more service in the suburbs, just as they were with the Gold Coast Light Rail and the Canberra Light Rail projects.

The simple fact that TMR has prepared busway plans for this corridor, and intends to run buses 5 min frequencies, shows that much more than bus lanes in peak hour are needed in the medium and long term.

What do you expect the transit times to be? Are those that catch the 330 going to lose their express service Chermside-RBWH with a interchange time now applied along with having to make stops along Gympie road and a windy route through the valley or are they going to transfer to a metro service at RBWH.

This will really be up to BCC / TransLink to decide whether (a) they want to feed the LRT with these passengers or (b) continue to run a non-stop service to the CBD via the INB and AirportLink. Given that passengers have the opportunity to jump on trains at Zillmere, they might focus on perhaps improvements to get pax on the trains at Zillmere station (speculation).

[Gazza]

Lets talk real figures.

GCLR3 is costing $150m/km, and I think that's going to be the sorts of costs you'd expect going forward by the time it was ever built.
Canberra was more like $60m/km but had the advantage of having a wide grass median on Northbourne Ave, so a lot less service relocation and ripping up roads.

I think $150m/km is probably a realistic estimate for a Chermside LR line on balance.
-This will have the start up cost of the depot and rolling stock that will work into the average.
-Some cost savings from building on the existing northern busway.
-Some higher costs for construction through the CBD, Valley, Kedron on a mixed road environment (A lot of service relocations, as Sydney found out)

It's a 10km line so at least $1.5b which sounds about right, and would offer a mixture of Class A & B.


The 2nd option is to fill in the blanks on the busway and provide non stop class A from King George Sq to Chermside.
Main costs would be

-Metro Vehicles - $90m (Based on contract for the current BCC metro project with Volgren/Hess)
The Depot already has space for extra vehicles.


-1.4km from Federation St to Truro St & station at Windsor, Probably $700m.

-2.5km from Kedron Portal to Chermside, with 3 stations , Probably $1.2b.

Thus it comes down to a choice.
$1.5b for LR to Chermside
$2b for a finished busway to Chermside.

Using the larger metro type Bi Articulated buses solves the issues of staffing costs compared to the large number of buses in use now.

Personally I think the extra $500m is worth it to secure class A infrastructure but happy to hear alternate views.

[#Metro]

So not only would be $500 million cheaper even assuming a high cost estimate, but it would also have the urban development dividend that we haven't seen with busways in Brisbane.

The larger BRT-metro buses are 180 pax; LRT can really scale and run in train mode with up to four linked multiple units to around ~ 900 pax per 1 driver.

An alternative use of the $500 million saved would be to use that money to fund a Stage 2 from Chermside to Bald Hills.

This would extend the line along the A3/M3 corridor to plug into the QR network at Bald Hills. This would add commuter-rail style LRT
stations at Aspley, Carseldine, Linkfield Road and Bald Hills.

[Gazza]

The urban development is happening on Gympie Rd Regardless:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.385305,153.0308244,3a,80.8y,203.45h,107.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stkJ1RhxtpfUkZfsQVnVWqA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4191029,153.0350395,3a,75y,13.47h,98.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNbtLvC2phPygduwv0GdRSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.domain.com.au/project/2842/estilo-on-the-park-chermside-qld/

https://thechaussy.com.au/

etc


Having said that, when you say there was no lift in value or development from the busway, what year are those figures from?

Here's Buranda now:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4975923,153.0399301,3a,75y,353.48h,124.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sosareR-CX5PqI6jYtm9jdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's 8MP
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.5766881,153.1026715,3a,75y,310.16h,104.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSTqJzUne4h3DvKS7iu81sQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's Upper Mt Gravatt:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.5601747,153.0799508,3a,73.9y,3.71h,109.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKqQ7R5DCt6SO903iz4og8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So there certainly has been an urban development dividend.
Other parts of SEB will struggle to get a good amount of TOD because its next to a motorway, or in the case of Griffith, is surrounded by protected bushland.

I think Gympie Rd would do better in the long term if the infrastructure was actually built.

LRT can really scale and run in train mode with up to four linked multiple units to around ~ 900 pax per 1 driver.

Thats more passengers than a 6 car QR train, and you think that sized vehicle will be running down Queen St?

[#Metro]

I would suggest those changes are urban centre changes due to state planning policies, which allows for zoning for larger buildings around centres such as Chermside, Upper Mount Gravatt, and Stones Corner/Buranda. I was on an advisory panel/community planning team for BCC so I do know about the Stones Corner case and we certainly pushed for higher densities to be allowed around there.

Langlands Park busway isn't located near a motorway. Opened in 2011, nothing really took off there. Same story with Federation Street, Truro Street and Lutwyche.

There is some evidence of property value uplift, but overall, LRT seems to draw in the actual development. If it were placed down Gympie road it would really accelerate mixed-use apartments right up and down that corridor IMHO.

I have to admit, I am not sure what the reason for this bias/preference for LRT is with developers, might be a community perception issue, as rapid transit is rapid transit in theory it shouldn't matter whether it was steel wheel or rubber tyre on the vehicle.

One thing is for sure - no developer is going to fund development over a bus lane that only exists in peak hour.

Land value gains attributable to the light rail system on the Gold Coast, Australia, are estimated. Using the full history of statutory land valuations of Gold Coast properties, a model of location-specific gains is estimated, allowing for price effects at multiple distances from stations across time. Total value gains to nearby landowners are $300 million, or 25% of the capital cost of the project, This estimate is net of automatic property tax increases of $4.8million in 2015-16. Substantial additional scope to fund transport investment from value gains is apparent.

Reference

Murray (2006) Land Value Uplift from Light Rail http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/abstract/566.pdf

[Gazza]

I would suggest those changes are urban centre changes due to state planning policies, which allows for zoning for larger buildings around centres such as Chermside, Upper Mount Gravatt, and Stones Corner/Buranda. I was on an advisory panel for BCC so I do know about the Stones Corner case.

Yes and aren't those changes in policy due to planning for the Busway?

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/planning-guidelines-and-tools/neighbourhood-planning-and-urban-renewal/neighbourhood-plans-and-other-local-planning-projects/neighbourhood-plans-adopted-in-2013#Chermside


Why Chermside Centre?

The Chermside Centre area:

•   is situated approximately 10 kilometres north of Brisbane's CBD
•   is located along a major transport route


The Northern Busway is a Queensland Government initiative.

Chermside is a hub in the Queensland Government's northern Brisbane bus network.

This strategy was written based on Brisbane City Council's preferred busway station locations along the Gympie Road corridor. It will need to be revised once the Queensland Government release the final locations of the busway stations.

The draft Chermside Centre Neighbourhood Plan Strategy focuses on supporting further retail, commercial and residential development close to the existing centre activities and the proposed future Northern Busway stations.


https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Chapter4_MtGravattCorridor_NP.pdf

To the north along the eastern side of Mains Road,
additional medium density residential development
takes advantage of its close proximity to Griffith
University and direct access to high frequency public
transport accessing the South East Busway.


Not all areas had this support, as I understand it Greenslopes didnt get uplift because nimbys wanted to preserve the old queenslanders.

There is some evidence of property value uplift, but overall, LRT seems to draw in the development. I have to admit, I am not sure what the reason for this is, might be a community perception issue, as rapid transit is rapid transit.

Because those areas had state planning policies too.

In CBR it was because they are building up Gunghalin and Northborne Avenue is ripe for renewal.
In Sydney, well its Sydney so they are going to build on every square inch.

Newcastle came about because they closed the rail line to free up waterfront land, and the LR supported broader urban renewal in the newcastle cbd
https://www.google.com/maps/@-32.9259629,151.7684842,3a,75y,259.66h,96.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBTPIxqrYQPqUXp8PwgRD6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The Gold Coast was almost reverse egineering. Basically huge numbers of people want to live next to the beach, it has been booming since the 70s.
So the LR supports the development along the coast.

[timh]

The busway absolutely is a reason for land value and density increases.

There is a huge TOD style development going in at Lutwyche:
https://www.conradgargett.com.au/projects/lamington-markets/

Kedron Brook station has a bunch of apartments newly built around it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fz3gW8diwJJJkDrf8

Federation Street even has apartments, as does Eight Mile Plains.

I have long been a proponent of the Northern Busway completion. With the Bi artic electric buses in a class A corridor, you are able to best utilise the existing infrastructure and get high frequency, and high capacity, without the additional infrastructure of light rail.

There are plenty of sections that were planned to be at grade. Sadlier Street-Strathmore street was planned to be done as such, by resuming all the car yards on the western side. That's why no one has moved into the old bowling alley.

You can do a similar surface run from Kitchener road-Rode road, by again just resuming the car yards. Much cheaper + easier to resume than other types of properties. You only need a small section of tunnel under the cemetery, and need to work out the whole Prince Charles-Chermside dealio (do you bypass it, do you deviate to it, is it elevated, tunneled or at grade, etc.). I think a Class A can be done to Rode Road fairly cheaply in all honesty.

And if you fill in the missing link fed st-truro st, you can then get "Brisbane Metro" on that corridor, with high frequency high capacity service. No need to reinvent the network. Accept that Brisbane Metro is here to stay and move on.


Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[#Metro]

Yes and aren't those changes in policy due to planning for the Busway?

Yes, but HTG and yourself are only backing a bus lane, not a bus way, right?

[Cazza]

Yes and aren't those changes in policy due to planning for the Busway?

Yes, but HTG and yourself are only backing a bus lane, not a bus way, right?

Have you even read any of his posts?

Personally I think the extra $500m is worth it to secure class A infrastructure but happy to hear alternate views.

[SteelPan]

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!

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.

The QldGovt, always dragged kicking and screaming to GCLR!  Heavy Rail, still sits at somewhere called Varsity Lakes - never gone on to Coolangatta. Springfield Central still terminus, never gone to back of Ipswich. No real enhancement to Bris/Beenleigh, No railway to Sunshine Coast, No railway to Toowoomba, No planning of next phase of Brisbane underground [CRR Ph 2] to follow-on from current CRR project!

If the current QlfGovt were in biotech, they'd be getting turned on....by a pack of bandiads!

The current Qld govt is a total disaster, when it comes to serious rail based infrastructure - we're [Qld] now so far behind, just about every other state when it comes to rail, we're likely to soon be lapped by a steam engine!   

I'm NOT suggesting wild reckless development, DECADES upon DECADES roll-by and bleeding obvious projects never get DONE! Our main northern line up to Gympie North....hardly World class Infrastructure!!!!   

[Gazza]

Yes, but HTG and yourself are only backing a bus lane, not a bus way, right?

In the medium term, yes.

Everyone knows that you can get more capacity and or speed with certain modes.

The question is how urgently that capacity is needed and what is worth spending to achieve that.

Because right now the concept is a line on a map and a declaration that we need something that can do 10,000+ pph

$53m is already being spent on the northern transitway and you get 26bph on opening day to all stops on the corridor and what should be LRT levels of reliability.

So on opening day, you get 1690 pph for $53m.

(Lets set aside the hours of operation for a second, that could be fixed with a stroke of a pen, and LRT is going to get the same whinging from certain business owners for taking parking, so call it a tie)

If you do LRT and build something with Sydney sized trams (450pax) at GC Frequency (8tph)

So on opening day you get  3600 pph for $1.5b

[#Metro]

Touring the just-completed third stage this morning, Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the final element connecting Kedron to Bracken Ridge may need reconsideration.

It was planned to be built by 2026.

"We are committed in terms of doing the best we can with the money we've got but the reality is we've inherited a very difficult financial situation from the previous government," Mr Emerson said.

Brisbane's Northern Busway final stage may be scrapped says Scott Emerson
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-northern-busway-final-stage-may-be-scrapped-says-scott-emerson/news-story/a8f1feefe5c46a100b48e20411f4ae36

The Northern Busway- all  Priority A - was intended to be built by 2026. The SEB does 12,000 pphd in the AM peak, so not unreasonable to think that a Northern rapid transit line (whatever mode) would attract similar demand when built out and opened.

'Opening day costs' are not used in the transport department AFAIK to assess the value or viability projects, rather the BCRs, NPV and other project indicators are.

Not only that, it is not an either-or-case, the transitway will open sometime in the next 12 months, the transitway costs are now unavoidable and a sunk cost. The construction of Priority A busway for the remainder hasn't actually happened yet, and as such IS an avoidable cost, and so reasonable to consider an LRT option to Chermside is coming after that transitway opening.

[Gazza]

so not unreasonable to think that a Northern rapid transit line (whatever mode) would attract similar demand when built out and opened.

I think it is an unreasonable assumption because most of the SEB is well away from HR, whilst on the northern busway you get closer to HR the further you get out, and HR 'takes over' once north of Bracken Ridge.

Also because the SEB has branches and has to deal with demand from UQ, the Gabba Spur and a good number of OCR services.

Also the SEB is longer anyway so more catchment.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Fix the network first instead of these massive pie in the sky projects. Bus lanes are the only thing needed.

Yes, but this is fixing the network, HTG.

When LRT is placed in the median those buses will then be freed up to run more service in the suburbs, just as they were with the Gold Coast Light Rail and the Canberra Light Rail projects.

The simple fact that TMR has prepared busway plans for this corridor, and intends to run buses 5 min frequencies, shows that much more than bus lanes in peak hour are needed in the medium and long term.

What do you expect the transit times to be? Are those that catch the 330 going to lose their express service Chermside-RBWH with a interchange time now applied along with having to make stops along Gympie road and a windy route through the valley or are they going to transfer to a metro service at RBWH.

This will really be up to BCC / TransLink to decide whether (a) they want to feed the LRT with these passengers or (b) continue to run a non-stop service to the CBD via the INB and AirportLink. Given that passengers have the opportunity to jump on trains at Zillmere, they might focus on perhaps improvements to get pax on the trains at Zillmere station (speculation).

What a mediocre response to something that you are proposing. According to BCC there is nothing wrong with the Northside bus network. What a load of BS. There is too much duplication and not enough services in areas. You do not need LRT before you can do a network review so you can have some extra buses. Metro is a load of crap where a network review can only be undertaken once that's completed. Give me a break. You do not need city buses running everywhere. We need more east/west and feeder services which the proposed Translink network review largely delivered for the Northside.

[#Metro]

What a mediocre response to something that you are proposing. According to BCC there is nothing wrong with the Northside bus network. What a load of BS. There is too much duplication and not enough services in areas. You do not need LRT before you can do a network review so you can have some extra buses. Metro is a load of crap where a network review can only be undertaken once that's completed. Give me a break. You do not need city buses running everywhere. We need more east/west and feeder services which the proposed Translink network review largely delivered for the Northside.

Hey HTG. Sure, buses are not great where you are. That's because of the network design focuses on sending them all to the CBD. And that direct-service CBD commuter model which BCC loves to bits will likely continue even with a busway there and even with the pseudo-metro bus services there also. The rocket buses to the suburbs model was started by BCC in the 1970s, shortly after the trams were all shut down as that seemed appealing. What wasn't considered was that model really is only supported during peak hours, after that service frequency has to fall dramatically as express buses skip too many stops and serve too few destinations to collect enough passengers to support their existence outside of peak hour.

Now, when you do that you have very good service between a centre and the CBD, and poor service everywhere else because the buses aren't pooling passengers to different destinations on the same bus. With a connected network based on interchange to rail/LRT it's just all one bus route.

With LRT/rail buses will be free to travel East-West across Brisbane and link up with CBD services at stations. Gazza has provided a map that shows that sort of network design with the NWTC/Trouts Road if it becomes rail. But the concept is similar for an LRT. Both cross-town passengers and people going to the CBD can catch the same vehicle, and so there isn't really a need to run one class of buses to the city and then have a dedicated class of buses doing cross-town services, or buses doing L-shaped routes, due to the formation of a grid.

Its worth noting the Gold Coast and Canberra residents took the reorganisation of their entire bus network well, mainly because they perceived that they were getting something for the pain of change - a tram.

[HappyTrainGuy]

It's not just where I live. It's the entire Northside. Home of the 60 minute and peak direction only services. Name every 30 minute or better service north of Chermside interchange. In fact. Let's play the game are there more 2 hour bus services than 30 minute services north of Chermside. To make it fair we won't include the buz and their rocket services eg 330/P332/P332/333/340/345 etc etc. Don't Translink/tmr/engineer me now. I'll start. 336/337 both have a 2 hour inter peak frequency (and that's the only time they run too. 314 is another one of our favourites. I could be sneaky and chuck in the 338 but that only applies to the weekend so I won't for now. I'd be generous and start you off with one of the peak direction only services like the 329 but even that only operates on a 34, 42 and 60 minute frequency. Go on name a service that's 30 minutes or better north of Chermside in the BCC area.

[Cazza]

The 680

[HappyTrainGuy]

The 680

Yep. A hornibrook service too. What else

[Paul B]

The whole area is set up "how nana likes it" 

[SurfRail]

I don't see surface LRT a la Gold Coast, Sydney L2/L3 etc as being useful in Brisbane unless it was to replace the Blue Cityglider.  If the artics start not being able to cope then we would be talking about that.

When I contemplate LRT on the busway corridors, that is North American style LRT along the lines of what you would find in Calgary - high-floor vehicles and platforms, 90km/h speeds (or better), multiple unit operation with capacities of between 500-1,000 depending on the configuration and number of seats. 

The reason for this is to deal with specific limitations in getting these things through places where QR or other heavy rollingstock would not be able to operate for technical or safety reasons.  For instance, the grades and curvature on a north-south route using the busway alignment through the CBD is not going to accommodate anything beyond an LRV, and with this arrangement you can have street-level running in places like Carina, or at the northern end of the Victoria Bridge.  The lack of signalling system beyond conventional signals and turnout indicators (a la Gold Coast and Melbourne), and the high frequency, also mean you can have branches at the extremities that still run at high frequencies.

I don't see this kind of operation extending to corridors where busways have not already been rolled out at least in part (ie Old Cleveland Road, Gympie Road, M1 and west of UQ Lakes), or where extensions are being considered (Eastern/Northern Transitways, SE Busway extension towards Loganholme), or where there is some kind of passive provision (Mains Road corridor) or plenty of room (Redland Bay Road).  Maybe also a Gabba spur if the Gabba busway cannot be converted to an on-line station.  For the most part operations would be fully grade-sepped from traffic through tunnels, off-road reservations or the like, but this mode of operation allows a degree of interaction with pedestrians.

Off-board ticketing would also be standard.

The big issue with this (not so big in my view) is you could no longer have buses running through the busway corridors as the station infrastructure would no longer suit it.  By the time we get anywhere near this, the system would be a lot more transfer-based anyway.

A Gold Coast style of operation would not suit anywhere in Brisbane outside the Cityglider inner-city area.  Everything else is far too tidal - needing high capacity at specific parts of the day and then scaling back dramatically in the off-peak.

[Gazza]

The thing I don't really like to much about a Calgary style conversion is that it's just continuing to throw money at one area.

In my mind, Brisbane Metro is a perfectly acceptable solution that gets the busway running efficiently and extra capacity.
(Though needs Cultural centre done right)

If the "Metro" starts reaching capacity, then that is a signal to look at building a relief corridor rather than shut down the busway to retrofit and squeeze a tiny bit more juice.

For example a subway line under Logan Road could be considered if the SEB was getting full, but this would be more than 20-30 years away.

[Arnz]

"BuZ tEh 314!!!!!111"

[Arnz]

On a serious note however, where LR or a metro style operation could work apart from the busways is the existing BlueGlider route, along with a potential BulimbaGlider.

[Paul B]

the 310 runs "every 20 mins" between 7:05 and 7:25am 

[Aydin]

I've actually held some ideas regarding this topic and have just waited for an adequate time... I guess my patience paid off haha

Regardless, I've long had the idea to convert Adelaide Street to an exclusive bus and tram-way - sharing the same two current lanes seen along the street. I suggest that when we do commit to LR, we should adopt the laws regarding driving in a tram zone seen across Melbourne. This includes the fact that cars must remain stationary until all tram passengers have disembarked and cleared the road. Clearly, this approach wouldn't work along arterial roads as it'd create too much congestion, which is why I think trams should be exclusive to the inner-city with ONE key exception (more on that later). I understand arterial roads feed into the city and that many inner-city roads have multiple lanes for either direction of travel, but if we want a 'car-less' or 'car-free' Brisbane, we MUST convert these roads into more simple, single or double lane (per direction) road.

I believe that as of right now, NO TRAMS are needed across Brisbane, but as we're tasked with preparing our city for an influx of tourists never seen before, I support the notion that we should build several tram routes to at least appear future-orientated from the perspective of all Australians. The current routes I suggest would be the 60 (Blue CityGlider), the 199 (except extended to RBWH, thus removing the need for the 393) as well as a new route from Buranda Station to Teneriffe Ferry via Logan Rd, the Woolloongabba Precinct, Mater Hill, Vulture St and Montague Rd. For much of their routes, I believe that they should run either alongside regular traffic or along a median unbound to any segregation from the road. Sure, land resumptions may be needed at certain parts; however, I believe this is the best solution to reducing congestion along the busway as well as the inner-city. In addition, wherever justifiable, unnecessary roads should be converted to exclusive pedestrian plazas and tramways (e.g. the segment of Logan Rd between Wellington Rd and its northern terminus near the Gabba - this road, for many road-users, serves as an abnormal parking lot for the Woolloongabba precinct and I believe, it wouldn't hurt many people to just convert its land use).

Regardless, the one exception I alluded to before IS...
The Redland Shire - specifically Cleveland to Redland Bay (Point Talburpin) via the course of Cleveland Redland Bay Road.
I believe this road should incorporate a tramway as the road essentially works as a feeder carrying people from Thornsland, Victoria Point and Redland Bay to Cleveland and beyond. Along with Cleveland HR duplication, this tramway would essentially cover much of the 250 and would act as a more appealing method to feed patrons into Cleveland station. In addition to this, the project may act to re-gentrify the entire Redland shire into the likes of its own small CBD (think Dandenong in Melbourne). After all, this is what the Redland City Council have been banging on for the longest time - a proper CBD in the heart of their region (otherwise known as Cleveland/ Raby Bay).
I understand that in doing so, congestion will pile up along the arterial road which is why I suggest that Wellington Street (to the west of Cleveland Redland Bay Road) should act as the new arterial and almost as a bypass to the whole suburban mess created along the coast.
I believe LR would do an adequate job in feeding Cleveland Station due to the nature of the suburb orientation - a vertical row of suburbs based around Cleveland Redland Bay Road with vast nature reserves directly to the west of them. Because of the orientation, it would be simple to walk to the station as for much of the suburbs (mainly Clevleand, Thornlands and Redland Bay), the outskirts of the developments are just over a kilometre away from the arterial road.

That being said, make of what you will to my thought process, I expect it to be flawed in some aspects but I believe what the bigger picture aids in is Brisbane heading in the direction of a car-free society.

[#Metro]

Brisbane's busways are modelled on Ottawa's transitways (Canada). To increase capacity, they shut down their busway and put commuter-rail standard Light Rail in it to get more juice out of it.

A key disincentive to transit expansion in Brisbane is the enormous expense of engineering Priority A busway with huge viaducts and extensive tunneling into what is very hard rock. E.g. $465 million on 1 km of busway at Buranda. For that, we could have got 10-15 km of double track surface LRT.

If Brisbane took a more pragmatic "IKEA" approach and didn't put everything in tunnels or on viaducts to avoid social loss aversion reactions from resuming surface road median lanes away from motorists on arterial roads (like Gympie Road), we'd have more transit to more places.

When I contemplate LRT on the busway corridors, that is North American style LRT along the lines of what you would find in Calgary - high-floor vehicles and platforms, 90km/h speeds (or better), multiple unit operation with capacities of between 500-1,000 depending on the configuration and number of seats.

Essentially, the current view of LRT in Australia is dense, inner-city distribution roles like Melbourne's tramways (Brisbane: West End to Newstead). I guess you could call it a "European" model of LRT. I'm looking at this from the other end - as a way to expand near-commuter rail like service experience in areas or corridors where you couldn't engineer heavy rail and adopt the Perth model of Application of a Commuter Railway to Low Density, replacing trains with trams. This way we can get at places further out.

Maybe we could call it Application of a Commuter Light Railway to Low Density.

I wanted to share an extract of some of the North American LRT specs: (Click attached image at below)



The way LRTs are used in North America is pretty much as a substitute for commuter rail. This tram is capable of travelling at 105 km/hr in service (and has a maximum speed of 120 km/hr) which is pretty much comparable to what Queensland Rail trains can do when the station spacing is wider.

Not only that, each 230 pax tram can be linked four times to give a capacity of around 900 passengers per LRT vehicle, again capacities comparable to what you would get from a Queensland Rail commuter train. A service every 2 min would give 30 x 900 = 27,000 pphd which is pretty much a metro minus the cost of one.

The Perth model adapts train network design and operations to deal with lower density (by using bus hubs to expand passenger catchments), and deals with lower density and longer distances by spacing stations out more widely and running services at much higher speeds. That model is possible in Brisbane too, but I would be using an LRT vehicle in place of a train. Hence, a Stage 2 option would extend beyond Chermside, through Aspley and Carseldine and connect with trains at Bald Hills.

[Gazza]

Hey Metro, again you are fudging figures to make yourself look good.

$495 for the Eastern busway and you're saying it gets you 10-15km of LRT

But we know a low range estimate is 60m/km (Canberra), mid range is 150m/km (GCLR3) and high range is 200m/km (Parramatta)

Can you show me a calculation where you can get 10-15km for $495m thanks.

[HappyTrainGuy]

How do you get LRT to Bald Hills under the Gympie arterial road? The only clearance is currently on the western side for a 4th track. Now your duplicating Carseldine-Bald Hills section of the railway line. The proposed busway is on the eastern side and that would turn right onto Telegraph road. IMHO the busway should never ever have been designed to duplicate the railway line. Send it through Fitzgibbon where people live. If you were to install it that would mean a lot of housing resumptions to the west or a bloody massive expense in shifting the railway line further to the east locking in a 3 track corridor and preventing a quad from ever being installed. Also how does your lrt corridor interact with the beams road level crossing project/crossing the railway line at Carseldine?? Another note if budget plays a part and trouts road joins the NCL before telegraph road what impact does your LRT have in interacting with the NWTC junction. Are these stupid questions or am I going to get the aren't an engineer or a tmr or Translink employee response?  You can see why I am heavily against your LRT proposal for the Northside. The information you provide simply does not stack up to your claims of frequency, services, coverage, road congestion which would impact other PT services such as Webster road, expected usage and most importantly cost.

Still waiting for you to name a bus that has a 30min frequency north of Chermside. All we got so far is a Redcliffe-Chermside bus that has a 30 minute weekday frequency (once again we get another 60 minute bus on a weekend for the Northside) so currently its 3v1 in favour of 2hr buses or do you simply not know the area where you keep having these grand visions??? The BCC Metro will allow us to change our network was bullsh%t just like your building LRT will enable the Northside bus network mods is BS. Bus/Transit lanes are all that Gympie road needs for quite a while. Many of the people using it now can easily be shifted onto heavy rail with a better designed network. You mention Zillmere but why aren't passengers being fed into Carseldine where the interchange is direct, the peak frequency is higher than the bus network and there is capacity to spare along with the added benefit of span of hours. This is just one example of why the network needs to be redesigned to actually provide services. Remember the Translink review had the expansion of the 336/337 to form the Northside super feeder bus? It replaced the 325/326/327/335/336/337/340 and branched into other areas that have never had buses before. Along with it being a Northside feeder bus it provided redundancy. Train line out at Geebung then use the bus to get to Chermside interchange or Boondall interchange. Gympie road congestion then catch the train to Geebung and catch the feeder. Train line out from
Virginia then catch the shorncliffe train to Geebung and catch the super feeder to taigum interchange, Carseldine interchange or stay on it because it might have been your feeder bus you used to access the station. You could also catch the hf to Chermside and transferred to the Aspley direction leg of the super feeder bus. There were lot of different back up options. The Northside super feeder bus was the absolute best thing about Translink network review. It had redundancies that didn't throw the entire Northside road and public transport network into chaos.

[Gazza]

Also, IMO if you extended busway or whatever north of Chermside it would make more sense to connect with Aspley station on the NWTC than to try and get up to Bald hills or Carseldine.

[#Metro]

Hey Metro, again you are fudging figures to make yourself look good.

$495 for the Eastern busway and you're saying it gets you 10-15km of LRT

But we know a low range estimate is 60m/km (Canberra), mid range is 150m/km (GCLR3) and high range is 200m/km (Parramatta)

Can you show me a calculation where you can get 10-15km for $495m thanks.

Depends on the nature and construction of the alternative LRT corridor. I didn't have a specific one in mind.

$465 in $2011 is about $560 in todays dollars after inflation adjustment... divide by 60 and you get 9.3 km. I rounded to 10.

In any case, it's a lot more ROW than 1.05 km of busway at Stones Corner.

There is Appendix D-3 also in the Lord Mayors Mass Transit Report 2007, which is a bit dated but useful nonetheless; this puts the reasonable range of LRT costs within a 10-100 million/km band. Depends on the engineering.

E.g. Yarra Trams' Box Hill extension in 2003 of 2.3 km cost $28 million, so say $13 million/km, and adjusted for inflation... $19 million/km. The tram runs in a grass median in the middle of Maroondah Hwy. Note: I'm not suggesting LRT costs will be this low in QLD.

(in inflation adjusted today's dollars, this range is about 15 million/km to 140 million/km)

[#Metro]

How do you get LRT to Bald Hills under the Gympie arterial road? The only clearance is currently on the western side for a 4th track. Now your duplicating Carseldine-Bald Hills section of the railway line. The proposed busway is on the eastern side and that would turn right onto Telegraph road. IMHO the busway should never ever have been designed to duplicate the railway line. Send it through Fitzgibbon where people live. If you were to install it that would mean a lot of housing resumptions to the west or a bloody massive expense in shifting the railway line further to the east locking in a 3 track corridor and preventing a quad from ever being installed. Also how does your lrt corridor interact with the beams road level crossing project/crossing the railway line at Carseldine?? Another note if budget plays a part and trouts road joins the NCL before telegraph road what impact does your LRT have in interacting with the NWTC junction. Are these stupid questions or am I going to get the aren't an engineer or a tmr or Translink employee response?  You can see why I am heavily against your LRT proposal for the Northside. The information you provide simply does not stack up to your claims of frequency, services, coverage, road congestion which would impact other PT services such as Webster road, expected usage and most importantly cost.

Perhaps the same way that rail lines cross under or over other main roads and other rail lines everywhere else in Australia? This is a concept, if you would like a full detailed engineering and impacts dossier perhaps you could support a TMR-led feasibility study for that. An example of such a study was in 2017 with BCC when they compared LRT vs Big Bus for the West End - Tenneriffe corridor.

Still waiting for you to name a bus that has a 30min frequency north of Chermside. All we got so far is a Redcliffe-Chermside bus that has a 30 minute weekday frequency (once again we get another 60 minute bus on a weekend for the Northside) so currently its 3v1 in favour of 2hr buses or do you simply not know the area where you keep having these grand visions??? The BCC Metro will allow us to change our network was bullsh%t just like your building LRT will enable the Northside bus network mods is BS. Bus/Transit lanes are all that Gympie road needs for quite a while. Many of the people using it now can easily be shifted onto heavy rail with a better designed network. You mention Zillmere but why aren't passengers being fed into Carseldine where the interchange is direct, the peak frequency is higher than the bus network and there is capacity to spare along with the added benefit of span of hours. This is just one example of why the network needs to be redesigned to actually provide services. Remember the Translink review had the expansion of the 336/337 to form the Northside super feeder bus? It replaced the 325/326/327/335/336/337/340 and branched into other areas that have never had buses before. Along with it being a Northside feeder bus it provided redundancy. Train line out at Geebung then use the bus to get to Chermside interchange or Boondall interchange. Gympie road congestion then catch the train to Geebung and catch the feeder. Train line out from
Virginia then catch the shorncliffe train to Geebung and catch the super feeder to taigum interchange, Carseldine interchange or stay on it because it might have been your feeder bus you used to access the station. You could also catch the hf to Chermside and transferred to the Aspley direction leg of the super feeder bus. There were lot of different back up options. The Northside super feeder bus was the absolute best thing about Translink network review. It had redundancies that didn't throw the entire Northside road and public transport network into chaos.

I think you've established your point that you don't like Light Rail anywhere in Brisbane and will be opposing Light Rail no matter what I'm happy to accept that. Is there anywhere in Brisbane where you might perhaps consider LRT as a suitable mode? I note that bus networks were reviewed twice in 2013, first by TL and second by BCC. Bus services will need to improve and they will when each mode is given the tasks that it can do best - rail light or heavy for line haul and bus for feeder services.

I also note that when Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast introduced LRT, they redesigned their bus networks to feed it, and these changes were generally accepted by the community. The alternative is to build the LRT and NOT redesign the bus network, running buses in parallel to trams, all the way to the city, which wouldn't make much sense.

[#Metro]

Also, the long term plan shows the Northern Busway extending over rail and into Bracken Ridge (TransLink in Lord Mayors Mass Transit Report 2007).

So, reasonable to consider LRT in this corridor too. And with a longer corridor, we'll need more line capacity overall as well.

[Gazza]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to get peeved at HTG for not supporting LR, when on the other hand you generally dont support most Heavy Rail projects?

[#Metro]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to get peeved at HTG for not supporting LR, when on the other hand you generally dont support most Heavy Rail projects?

This topic is about Light Rail concepts in Brisbane. I intend to stay on that topic.

PS: Full support for Regional Rapid Rail upgrades, Gold Coast faster rail and Sunshine coast line upgrades, Gold Coast HR extension to OOL. 

No support at this stage for your HSR proposals.

[timh]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to get peeved at HTG for not supporting LR, when on the other hand you generally dont support most Heavy Rail projects?

No, he just supports heavy rail in nonsensical places like Samford and Carindale.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[Gazza]

 So to summarise my thoughts.

-LR is best suited to medium density and high density areas with a lot of hop on hop off. I would agree with other comments that routes like the Blue Gilder are the right context for LR.

-For the route to Chermside, the majority of the route is already class A busway, so it doesn't make sense to introduce a different mode. Finish what was started  and run with Electric Bi Artics.

-In the meantime, the transitway will offer travel times and reliability similar to LR.
Whilst the wages cost is higher, its not like they are going to spend 1.5 billion on wages, so construction of LR the basis of labour cost savings is probably a false economy.

-For the route to Albany Creek, this would be relying on feeder buses and very closely parallels the nwtc, so thefore the NWTC is a superior project because it can also have feeder buses, has higher speed, and has broader economic benefits from speeding up the Sunshine coast line that a standalone "Mini heavy rail LRT" wouldn't achieve

-An extension of the Busway to Aspley would connect with the NWTC and would be shorter and cheaper than the plan to go to Bracken Ridge

[#Metro]

-LR is best suited to medium density and high density areas with a lot of hop on hop off. I would agree with other comments that routes like the Blue Gilder are the right context for LR.

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.

-For the route to Chermside, the majority of the route is already class A busway, so it doesn't make sense to introduce a different mode. Finish what was started  and run with Electric Bi Artics.

Whereas the already constructed sections of busway are sunk costs, the new sections of busway (possibly all the way to Bracken Ridge) are avoidable costs, and as such should be reviewed as to their merits vs the alternatives. This has to happen anyway, as each new stage of the project needs to go through comprehensive evaluation - financial, social, environmental etc.

-In the meantime, the transitway will offer travel times and reliability similar to LR.
Whilst the wages cost is higher, its not like they are going to spend 1.5 billion on wages, so construction of LR the basis of labour cost savings is probably a false economy.

The transitway is committed to already, it's a sunk cost.

-For the route to Albany Creek, this would be relying on feeder buses and very closely parallels the nwtc, so thefore the NWTC is a superior project because it can also have feeder buses, has higher speed, and has broader economic benefits from speeding up the Sunshine coast line that a standalone "Mini heavy rail LRT" wouldn't achieve

The NWTC is a wildcard. Nothing has been planned or committed to for this corridor. There are also geographical constraints (hill at Hamilton Road) and exactly how it will plug into the QR network is unknown and uncertain at this stage (could be plugging into the FG line, or alternatively via a 5 km tunnel to Roma St which would cost around $1-1.5 billion).

No real view on NWTC at this stage, there are too many unknowns. Support Regional Rapid Rail to Sunshine Coast as it would be good.
Will wait to see what BCC comes up with when they release their NWTC corridor report later this year.



PS: I would not be surprised if BCC proposed a road with a transitway for buses on the NWTC as the preferred solution...