The Return of Brisbane Trams?

[verbatim9]

Courier Mail---> RACQ says city tram network could help ease transport issue

RACQ says city tram network could help ease transport issue

The solution to South East Queensland's troubled public transport system is to re-establish the city's tram network, but not as Brisbane once knew it, the state's peak motoring group says

I wouldn't say no. Hopefully the LNP can start building a couple of lines when they come to power, as I can't see Labor doing it unfortunately.

[Jonno]

Only after analyzing and defining which Step 1 BRT Routes will become future Metro/LRT.

Never build LRT if future transport needs dictates a Metro!

[verbatim9]

A surface tram from West End to Newstead via the CBD and  New Farm would be needed once BRT reaches capacity.

I also think that a tram loop around the city would be good as well as a City Fortitude Valley Loop, especially as density increases.

Surface trams can comfortably complement rail and underground metros similar to that of Melbourne and Sydney. Furthermore, it can enhance the streetscape and provide much needed traffic calming, as we have seen in Sydney, Newcastle and on the Gold Coast.

[ozbob]

The RACQ were suggesting electric buses (gliders) not trams per se.  It is a bad headline.

Bus reform will do what the RACQ was pontificating about.

[verbatim9]

Yes a bit ambiguous, but I still think a West End to Newstead tram as well as a CBD loop and Fortitude Valley loop could be doable.

[Jonno]

Only after analyzing and defining which Step 1 BRT Routes will become future Metro/LRT.

I suspect there will be a Metro through this area


Untitled by

Never build LRT if future transport needs dictates a Metro!

[ozbob]

The RACQ were suggesting electric buses (gliders) not trams per se.  It is a bad headline.

Bus reform will do what the RACQ was pontificating about.

This was the article with the dodgy headline ...

Couriermail --> RACQ says city tram network could help ease transport issue $

The solution to South East Queensland's troubled public transport system is to re-establish the city's tram network, but not as Brisbane once knew it, the state's peak motoring group says.

The solution to South East Queensland's troubled public transport system is to re-establish the city's tram network using European-style electric bus gliders, according to the state's peak motoring group.

The innovative plan from RACQ for a glider network would improve connectivity between the city's rail, bus and Metro networks and solve one of the biggest barriers to people in Brisbane using public transport – convenience.

It comes as every major council in the region sounds the warning over how they will maintain liveability in their communities in the midst of huge expected population growth and a lack of investment in transport infrastructure. ...

[ozbob]

There is no chance for trams in Brisvegas. 

They can't even manage the basics of bus network reform yadda yadda.

Costs would be very high due to the issues with underground services and so forth.

[andrewr]

The old tram network does give Brisbane a good model for BRT/dedicated bus lanes IMO. On the south side, roads like Ipswich Rd, Logan Rd, Old Cleveland Rd and Vulture St make a lot of sense for uninterrupted, high priority bus service.

[Jonno]

There is no chance for trams in Brisvegas. 

They can't even manage the basics of bus network reform yadda yadda.

Costs would be very high due to the issues with underground services and so forth.

Have I shown you our 20 lane freeway plans!!!

[Marshal]

There is no chance for trams in Brisvegas. 

They can't even manage the basics of bus network reform yadda yadda.

Costs would be very high due to the issues with underground services and so forth.

Have I shown you our 20 lane freeway plans!!!

You'd be surprise how many of these freeway plans were dying in the business case stage even before the Federal government came in and pulled stacks of funding for road projects across QLD.



Anyway, as Ozbob points out the RACQ concept is presented in a rather misleading way. They basically want high capacity electric buses running old tram routes. Now to be fair that's a good idea, but for them to suggest it as a "fix" to public transport makes them seem woefully disconnected from reality because we've basically been doing it for the past decade as is.

Pretty much every tram route that use to exist is fairly well represented by modern bus routes in Brisbane. The main loss seems to be service frequency more then anything else. Capacity wise, what the RACQ are promoting as 100 capacity buses, already exist in the articulated buses running around the high frequency bus routes. Most of those handle 100 passengers as is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_B8RLE
This is a non-articulated version of one of our currently running bendy buses, capacity listed on wiki is 50-90, a bit of further digging shows it's 42 seated and 38 standing, so we're pretty much at that RACQ 100 even before considering our larger buses.

So basically the RACQ are saying they want more glider services. I couldn't tell you whether them presenting it as a "fix" to our PT networks is their own take or the Courier Mail's spin, but it's not exactly a revolutionary concept to the existing make up of the network.



Generally speaking, I am highly sceptical of any light rail proposal that suggest anything vaguely resembling a 1960s street trolley. Fully developed modern LRT is leaps and bounds ahead of a modern bus, but the trams the buses replaced in the 1950/60s are nowhere near that level. That's why I voted 'No' in the above poll. A simple assertion that we should bring trams back with no further context given may as well be discarded immediately.

If you want to talk about a specific corridor, with details on potential ROWs, station placement and quality, what sort of rollingstock we'd be considering etc etc, then yeah there is a real conversation to be had there.

If the idea starts and ends with "replace some bus services with light rail" and seems to focus on the idea of a 1 for 1 replacement, just running trams along bus routes with all the same stops, that is going to be a very hard sell for me.

The old tram network does give Brisbane a good model for BRT/dedicated bus lanes IMO. On the south side, roads like Ipswich Rd, Logan Rd, Old Cleveland Rd and Vulture St make a lot of sense for uninterrupted, high priority bus service.

There should at least be transit lanes, if not 24/7 bus lanes on these roads. I think Logan Road in particular is quite under-utilised, given you have the Pacific Motorway running parallel to massive reduce longer distance travel demand (with the SEQ busway preforming a similar function, 100% of bus capacity on Logan Road can be specialised to servicing the catchment along just Logan Road without having to worry about providing for bus routes running beyond Mt Gravatt)

Only after analyzing and defining which Step 1 BRT Routes will become future Metro/LRT.

I suspect there will be a Metro through this area

https://flic.kr/p/2ph3Lta

Never build LRT if future transport needs dictates a Metro!

I do think that a lot of potential modern LRT corridors would end up looking a lot more like metros if they were given the full attention and budget they deserved. If we're talking about dedicated ROWs from West End to South Brisbane to the City to Newfarm, you're probably looking at tunnelling, probably a few new bridges and probably needing a level of patronage to justify it that warrants to sort of LRT vehicles people look at and say "are you sure that's not a metro?"

If you were building the SEQ busway from scratch today, it would probably be a metro (bit hard to justify the cost of converting it, but building one from scratch is a whole different story!)

[Jonno]

Very wisely written.  I read Tram and see Modern Gold Coast LRT

[SurfRail]

"Tram" and "light rail" shouldn't be interpreted separately in my view.  Either is just a kind of railway where the vehicles can be safely driven on sight in a road and pedestrian environment.  The form factor distinctions exist but we don't have to have completely separate terms for them (eg a rigid bus and an articulated bus are still both a bus, and that applies whether they are in mixed traffic or on a busway).

The thing is, most places in the world with tramways have spent the last several decades gradually fixing up the rights of way to increase the level of segregation and priority, whereas some outliers like Melbourne have not done this much at all outside some specific busy corridors.  The conception of trams we have is largely driven by Melbourne but most of the world doesn't follow that.  (Even places like Adelaide and Sydney where the tram lines are more or less 100% segregated are still horribly slow, while the Gold Coast and Canberra systems have avoided that particular issue.)

[timh]

Logan road definitely is one where I can see the corridor eventually turning (back) to light rail. BUZing the 175 when Brisbane Metro starts is a good step in the right direction. The 175 already gets pretty good patronage all day and upping the off-peak frequency to 15 mins is going to help substantially.

From a car traffic perspective, large parts of Logan road are already very wide for the traffic volumes it actually gets, even in peak. I wouldn't just want an electric bus taking the place of the 175 in the long term, I would want a dedicated ROW. There's definitely room for it in a lot of places.

There are some spots where it would be tricky to put in a dedicated ROW. The shopping strip through Mount Gravatt central is one. That's where I could see potentially shared traffic between trams and cars.

Between Klumpp Road and Garden Kessels road is also particularly busy, and tight, owing to all the school traffic. AFAIK there is provision for road widening for parts of this corridor, so with a little road widening and a little bit of loss of on-street parking (no biggy) you could make this work. The intersection of Logan Road and Kessels road is the only really challenging bit.

If you REALLY wanted to go all out you could do the American thing and put the trams in tunnels in some sections. The site of the old shopping centre on the opposite side of the road from Mount Gravatt Plaza is prime location for an underground station box with TOD on top. You could put the trams underground through this bit to avoid the Mount Gravatt central problem.

This is all very foamy but I think long term, Logan road is the prime corridor for it.

[#Metro]

I think trackless trams are a good option. They can be placed in the median yet also run on the busway.

Traditional LRT is going to have integration problems as there isn't a track that allows the vehicle over the Brisbane River.

They have doors both sides and cabs at both ends like a tram. They are offered as guided, but I don't think this is necessary.

[Jonno]

Why go to length of trackless trams and untested technology when bi-artic buses like BCC has bought can do the job until replaced by LRT OR Metro replacement.

My concern with BCC Metro is not the vehicle itself but the cost and the fact it reduces capacity when capacity needs to be at Metro levels.  Buses can be redeployed to be BRT routes in the own lane.

[#Metro]

Because, as I mentioned above, you can get your bus in the median like LRT when it has doors on both sides and is a trackless tram.

That said an ordinary bus or bi-arctic would also do the job sufficiently well.

[ozbob]

Why go to length of trackless trams and untested technology when bi-artic buses like BCC has bought can do the job until replaced by LRT OR Metro replacement.

Exactly. Electric bi-artics all that is needed.

[timh]

My concern with BCC Metro is not the vehicle itself but the cost and the fact it reduces capacity.

Why do you keep on this point? I thought we've been through the discussion and worked out capacity is not being reduced, just consolidated into larger vehicles. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we're losing capacity.

[#Metro]

To Tim's point, if expertise demonstrates an advocacy point is incorrect, the information base should be updated or corrected.

There is a school of thought in media/PR that suggests truth doesn't matter and you can recite something into being true if you get it repeated often enough/repeated by influential people.

Obviously, I don't subscribe to that school of thought.

[Jonno]

My concern with BCC Metro is not the vehicle itself but the cost and the fact it reduces capacity.

Why do you keep on this point? I thought we've been through the discussion and worked out capacity is not being reduced, just consolidated into larger vehicles. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we're losing capacity.

I am led to believe their own business case says it is

https://x.com/brendannatoli/status/1687613577132421120?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

Certainly not the capacity needed

[Marshal]

"Tram" and "light rail" shouldn't be interpreted separately in my view. 

It's all very arbitrary. In my mind you have broad terms in Light rail and Heavy rail, and a whole umbrella of more specific terms to describe more specific light rail and heavy rail implementations. And even then that falls apart then you start seeing these hybrid LRT networks that look an awful lot like a metro for part of their journey but look an awful lot like a street car for other parts.

The conception of trams we have is largely driven by Melbourne but most of the world doesn't follow that.  (Even places like Adelaide and Sydney where the tram lines are more or less 100% segregated are still horribly slow, while the Gold Coast and Canberra systems have avoided that particular issue.)

When I hear tram it is often in the context of "we should never have gotten rid of the trams" and my mind quickly jumps to a Melbourne like system. When I hear LRT, I think of more modern systems like Sydney, Canberra and the Gold-Coast, older systems built to a higher standard then a street trolley like the converted Port Melbourne and St Kilda routes or the Adelaide service, or modernised street trolleys seen on some of Melbourne's updated legacy routes, where street running trams have been given dedicated lanes, higher quality station treatments and more modern style rollingstock. Ultimately though that's not super relevant, there really isn't any set standard after all. You might call something I wouldn't a light rail, but if we both agree on it's pros and cons, then it doesn't really matter.

In my experience, most people who aren't transport professionals or enthusiast don't really think much about the difference between a legacy tram and a modern tram, and will generally be thinking of something more in line with a bus running on steel rails when they start talking about "bringing trams back". That's probably a key factor in why I personally tend to use the term 'tram' more in association with legacy street trolleys, and 'light rail' more in association with modern networks.

I think trackless trams are a good option. They can be placed in the median yet also run on the busway.

Traditional LRT is going to have integration problems as there isn't a track that allows the vehicle over the Brisbane River.

They have doors both sides and cabs at both ends like a tram. They are offered as guided, but I don't think this is necessary.

I just don't see what they do that a fully developed BRT doesn't. A BRT can also just run down the median strip of a road. Trackless trams still have cabs and drivers because they aren't really that automated. They need to be manually steered both in case of emergency and often times in general operations. If you are still employing a driver, then I don't really see the value of automated steering, compared to just using a steering wheel on a regular BRT.

It's not even that I think Trackless Trams would be bad, they'd be great, I just straight up to do see any difference between a trackless tram and a (high level) BRT. With that in mind, I don't see why you would go the the route of investing in niche technology ahead of something that is pretty much universally available.

[SurfRail]

The autonomous trackless trams appear to come with serious rutting issues - from what I have seen of the City of Stirling trial, the one vehicle they have is already busy destroying the car park surface they are testing it on.  I don't think it offers anywhere near the flexibility people claim if you have to reinforce the road just so it won't destroy it in normal use.

No different conceptually to what would happen on HSR if the OHLE wasn't intentionally designed to sweep over pantographs instead of burning a hole into the middle of them.

If you have to rip up the road you may as well put down rails so you end up with less rolling resistance and the ability to run longer vehicles.

[#Metro]

Distinctions
Tram - Operates in Priority C ROW, and generally has closely spaced stops.
Light Rail - Operates at least in Priority B and has more widely spaced stops.

Similar distinction with buses:
Bus - Operates in Priority C ROW
BRT - Operates at least in Priority B ROW, more widely spaced stops (CityGlider is on thin ice with this one as it only has priority when on the busway sections)

I just don't see what they do that a fully developed BRT doesn't. A BRT can also just run down the median strip of a road.

Trackless trams can be employed as a vehicle in a form of BRT.

Island platforms. A trackless tram can service island platforms in road medians as it has doors on both sides. A BRT with doors along one side cannot do this, unless there is a cross-over mechanism where the bus is physically routed to be on the wrong side of the road (Sydney does this at busway stations in the median of the M2 Hills Motorway, for example), OR there is plenty of space in the median that two lanes and 2x side platform stops can be accommodated and contained.

I am led to believe their own business case says it is

The main benefit is decongestion by using larger vehicles, and the expulsion of air being carried on the network in peak. It also avoids having to construct another rail tunnel under the Brisbane River (~$5 billion), which Jonno hasn't mentioned here but is a crucial point in understanding why BRT upgrade was chosen over rail.

The SEB carries 40 million passengers/year, which is on par with the lower end patronage of some Paris Metro lines. So from a purely capacity perspective, the demand could already be served by rail-based metro on current patronage. It is getting the rail vehicles (both light OR heavy) over or under the Brisbane River that is the key problem.

Now, there IS a way to get rail in this corridor AND avoid constructing another rail tunnel under the Brisbane River. It does require some out-of-the-box thinking to see it. The concept that conforms to that performance criteria is the R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail concept. However support for that on this forum has been lukewarm, and some members also object to putting a train in a freeway, so the concept itself hasn't landed smoothly, but you need to know that in principle it IS possible...



1. Oakes Road Busway Stop showing cross-over, M2 Motorway, Sydney


2. R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail Concept showing junction at Dutton Park which allows routing via the new CRR tunnel under the Brisbane River.



3. R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail Concept showing junction at Dutton Park which allows routing via the new CRR tunnel under the Brisbane River.

[#Metro]

I've voted YES

I think this particular mode could be well suited to the Kingsford Smith Drive corridor and would allow branching to the Doomben Line (to Eagle Junction), to Teneriffe, and through the Hamilton Northshore Precinct.

Services could be terminated at the top of Queen Street Mall on the surface to make it all work.

A BRT service would come first, and then as patronage grew, this could be worked up into an LRT service over time. See https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=271616

Image: Hamilton/Doomben Rapid Transit Concept showing three termini.

[Jonno]

All this does not address the point that the business case shows less capacity per hour. 2016 - 25k vs Post Metro 22k.  This is the business case evidence 

Yes there are less buses but also less capacity overall. It completely ignores this in the business case and talks purely about # of buses as if this is somehow the most important factor and the efficiency is what is important.

To move the business case of 21,972 people moved requires 282 buses - 40 of which are Metro.   Let's just visualise that - 4.6 buses every minute or 1 every 12 seconds.  On Victoria bridge is a slightly lazier 150 per hour (110 not Metro) or 2.5 per minute - 1 bus every 24 seconds.  With the Metro being only 1 every 1.5 minutes.  Lets not argue how that seems impossible with 60 buses for both directions and maintenance. Further all 170 buses going via Captain Cook Bridge are still in general traffic/congestion. 

Even if we replaced all the buses on Victoria Bridge with Metro's it would take about 88 buses per hour or a Metro every 40 seconds. This just seems impossible nor efficient/effective. The whole 22k takes 150 Metros or 1 every 24 seconds.  It just DOES NOT SCALE.

Compare this to 30,000 moved by a single Metro train (1000 people - 90m train) every 2 minutes with not a single worry about which bus to catch, does it divert off the SEQ or being stuck in general traffic.  This can be ramped up to 1 train every 60 second headways and move 60,000 people or almost 2.7 times as many as Metro. 

I find it hard to believe 2 trains made of modern materials is any heavier than the bridge full of stationary buses which was/is frequently the case. No need for a $5billion tunnel.  Even if you had to build a separate bridge it would not cost that much.   

[#Metro]

The requirement for:

- a tunnel under the Brisbane River (Victoria Bridge isn't designed for metro trains)
- underground metro train stations ($)
- purchasing a fleet of new metro trains
- a train yard, mtce facility, electrical substations, and control centre
- conversion of the rest of the busway to metro rail (~ 13 km)

... are factors that weigh heavily against the metro rail option. Trams also have a similar issue, but they would need a bridge rather than a tunnel as they can at least be accommodated on the surface in Priority B if need be. Rail based metros in contrast must be in Priority A.

R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail Concept vs Metro Rail on the SEB

The R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail concept would show competitively versus a metro rail service as well IMHO. Building the R1 would avoid the need for a new tunnel under the Brisbane River as it could use the existing CRR tunnel and CRR stations. It could use the existing QR train fleet and CRR stabling yards, and would speed up GC train services, as well as take pressure off the SE Busway by absorbing all Logan buses at a co-located Upper Mt Gravatt station.

At an average speed of say ~ 120 km over 13 km to Upper Mt Gravatt station, plus a minute for stopping at The Gabba and Park Road, we are looking at about ~ 10 minutes to go from Upper Mt Gravatt to Albert Street in the CBD.

Assuming 30 trains per hour as the CRR throughput, and an even split of Gold Coast and Beenleigh trains through CRR in peak (15 trains/hr each line in peak), you could have about ~15,000 pphd during peak on that M1/R1 corridor, which would be a similar peak capacity to having a duplicate SE busway. Passengers would also benefit by having access to the Exhibition station and RBWH as well.

Notes

Report on Victoria Bridge light rail investigation / Nick Stevens Consulting
https://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/permalink/61SLQ_INST/tqqf2h/alma997460324702061

This report is an engineering report that sits in the State Library of Queensland at South Brisbane. It concludes that strengthening would be required to get LRT over the Victoria Bridge. So a 1000-pax metal train plus electric OHLE or third rail is not really feasible.

R1 Time Estimate - Average speed 120 km/hr
13 km (Albert St CRR to Upper Mt Gravatt) x [60 min / 120 km] = 6.5 minutes
+ 1 min stop at Park Road, and + 1 min stop at The Gabba => 8.5 minutes, roundup to 10 minutes. Current trip times on the SEB for BUZ 150 is 22 minutes between these approximate locations.

[timh]

All this does not address the point that the business case shows less capacity per hour. 2016 - 25k vs Post Metro 22k.  This is the business case evidence 
Yes there are less buses but also less capacity overall. It completely ignores this in the business case and talks purely about # of buses as if this is somehow the most important factor and the efficiency is what is important.   

AFAIK the idea is to reduce the number of people going over the Victoria bridge. From meetings with the Metro team I seem to recall that the idea was to consolidate more patronage from the SEB into the rockets that go over the CCB, which are what a large number of customers actually prefer who work in the southern CBD. So what you're reading as "reducing capacity of the SEB", I'm reading as "reducing crowding over the Victoria Bridge". Same numbers.

In any case you can prattle on all you want about a metro on the SEB alignment with as many exclamation marks and pretty lines on your made up map as you want. It's not going to happen. Brisbane Metro is happening, its about time you got on board and maybe say something productive for once that we could actually use to make positive change going forward. Make light of a "less than ideal" situation. Advocate for 24 hour transit lanes and extension of Brisbane Metro to Carindale. Advocate for extending Brisbane Metro into Logan.

You and Metro can do as much maths as you want, it's not helping anything in the current political climate.

[#Metro]

Well, you have a point there Tim H, there isn't any $ for large capital works.

Brisbane Times also suggests today some road project funding is at risk too.

We can always do bus reform though, that is designed to work in a no funding environment 

[ozbob]

The cost of putting light rail in and around Brisbane means it will not happen.

Timh has wisely suggested you need to advocate to make of the best of our lot at present, with an eye to a true metro future IMHO.  Brisbane is locked into BRT and buses for now.

[Jonno]

The cost of putting light rail in and around Brisbane means it will not happen.

Timh has wisely suggested you need to advocate to make of the best of our lot at present, with an eye to a true metro future IMHO.  Brisbane is locked into BRT and buses for now.

which is exactly what I have been advocating for as Step 1. But even that seems to be too much change and criticized as not doable/workable or "Not going to happen". 

[ozbob]

Patience Jonno. The Brisbane NOT a Metro BRT is going ahead.  It will become clear in time that the next steps are proper metros. There will be no intermediary light rail IMHO.

[HappyTrainGuy]

All this does not address the point that the business case shows less capacity per hour. 2016 - 25k vs Post Metro 22k.  This is the business case evidence 
Yes there are less buses but also less capacity overall. It completely ignores this in the business case and talks purely about # of buses as if this is somehow the most important factor and the efficiency is what is important.   

AFAIK the idea is to reduce the number of people going over the Victoria bridge. From meetings with the Metro team I seem to recall that the idea was to consolidate more patronage from the SEB into the rockets that go over the CCB, which are what a large number of customers actually prefer who work in the southern CBD. So what you're reading as "reducing capacity of the SEB", I'm reading as "reducing crowding over the Victoria Bridge". Same numbers.

In any case you can prattle on all you want about a metro on the SEB alignment with as many exclamation marks and pretty lines on your made up map as you want. It's not going to happen. Brisbane Metro is happening, its about time you got on board and maybe say something productive for once that we could actually use to make positive change going forward. Make light of a "less than ideal" situation. Advocate for 24 hour transit lanes and extension of Brisbane Metro to Carindale. Advocate for extending Brisbane Metro into Logan.

You and Metro can do as much maths as you want, it's not helping anything in the current political climate.

Plenty of current capacity as services are at standing room only and others are empty eg 222/111 nearly empty as everyone transfers to 333/330 to get to RBWH as 66 are already at capacity before CCBS. People already can not board 330/333 at KGSBS in morning peak hour outbound and after they get to rbwh they are empty again. Extending Roma Street terminators resolves this problem but bcc/translink refuse to do so.

[Jonno]

Patience Jonno. The Brisbane NOT a Metro BRT is going ahead.  It will become clear in time that the next steps are proper metros. There will be no intermediary light rail IMHO.

Totally agree Need to cure Car-Brain in our Govts who refuse to even think active/public transport should be a priority!

[Marshal]

Trackless trams can be employed as a vehicle in a form of BRT.

Island platforms. A trackless tram can service island platforms in road medians as it has doors on both sides. A BRT with doors along one side cannot do this, unless there is a cross-over mechanism where the bus is physically routed to be on the wrong side of the road (Sydney does this at busway stations in the median of the M2 Hills Motorway, for example), OR there is plenty of space in the median that two lanes and 2x side platform stops can be accommodated and

There is no reason why you can't use purpose built BRT vehicles which multiple door boarding on both side of the vehicle.

Unless you are suggesting that purpose building a BRT vehicle in such a way makes it a trackless tram, at which point we're just playing with labels.

I'm interpreting 'trackless tram' as specifically being the automated steering vehicles designed to follow painted guide lines on a surface. Every other specification beyond that is (in my mind at least) the same as what a best practice BRT vehicle features.

I've voted YES

Image: Hamilton/Doomben Rapid Transit Concept showing three termini.

While the train lover in me would hate to see the end of heavy rail service on one of Brisbane's first railways, this increasingly feels like the inevitable future of the Doomben line.

[#Metro]

There is no reason why you can't use purpose built BRT vehicles which multiple door boarding on both side of the vehicle.

Well, how would median running work with BRT on Kingsford Smith Drive where there is a median but it's narrow?

I would put it to you that a trackless tram with doors on both sides would be able to service a median platform, but a usual bus with doors along only the left side would not.

[JimmyP]

There is no reason why you can't use purpose built BRT vehicles which multiple door boarding on both side of the vehicle.

Well, how would median running work with BRT on Kingsford Smith Drive where there is a median but it's narrow?

I would put it to you that a trackless tram with doors on both sides would be able to service a median platform, but a usual bus with doors along only the left side would not.

Which is why that person specifically said building/obtaining buses built with doors on both sides. Doesn't need to be a "trackless tram".

[minbrisbane]

The autonomous trackless trams appear to come with serious rutting issues - from what I have seen of the City of Stirling trial, the one vehicle they have is already busy destroying the car park surface they are testing it on.  I don't think it offers anywhere near the flexibility people claim if you have to reinforce the road just so it won't destroy it in normal use.

No different conceptually to what would happen on HSR if the OHLE wasn't intentionally designed to sweep over pantographs instead of burning a hole into the middle of them.

If you have to rip up the road you may as well put down rails so you end up with less rolling resistance and the ability to run longer vehicles.

That's a good point - the translohr systems (the single rail rubeer-tyred tram) have pretty shocking rutting issues. 

[#Metro]

Which is why that person specifically said building/obtaining buses built with doors on both sides. Doesn't need to be a "trackless tram".

Disagree. Defining feature of a trackless tram is doors on both sides of the vehicle.

Current rail based trams aren't self driving, they need an operator and some buses like OBahn are guided, so automatic guidance isn't defining IMO.

Likewise Toronto trams had cabs at one end like a bus, so the number of cabs isn't defining either.

By elimination, that just leaves doors on both sides as the essential feature.

[timh]

Which is why that person specifically said building/obtaining buses built with doors on both sides. Doesn't need to be a "trackless tram".

Disagree. Defining feature of a trackless tram is doors on both sides of the vehicle.

Disagree. "Trackless trams" is a silicon valley, VC grubbing, pork barelling political wank of a term. It's a bus. A bus can have doors on both sides. A bus can have level boarding. A bus can be electric. A bus can be bi- or even tri- articulated. It really doesn't matter