Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Poll

What do you think?

Support LRT
12 (85.7%)
Don't Support LRT
2 (14.3%)
Undecided
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: August 25, 2010, 12:03:58 AM

Author Topic: Election Light Rail Rumblings  (Read 3963 times)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Election Light Rail Rumblings
« on: August 18, 2010, 12:03:58 AM »
Snap poll.

What do people think of the latest rumblings of light rail?
Is this just going to be another kippa-ring?

Where should it go, should it be in a tunnel? on busway?

Your thoughts.

 :tr
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2010, 11:37:00 AM »
Seems like steady support.
But what features? Places? above or underground?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2010, 12:46:11 PM »
Start with the main roads where there are 3 lanes or wide road corridors (e.g Gympie, Ipswich, Old Northern, Moggill Roads to name but a few)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2010, 12:49:22 PM »
Quote
Gympie
What about the Nth Busway then?


Quote
Ipswich
This might be a bit hard with all the trucks etc. The trucks cause a lot of damage to the road surface.
This is why I think a freeway connection near Salisbury to the SE Freeway and then reclaim Ipswich Rd for PT is a idea worth looking at.

Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline O_128

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2591
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2010, 01:50:37 PM »
Though many oppose it I would like to see the 412 and 444 replaced by light rail.
"Where else but Queensland?"

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2010, 08:50:47 PM »
Light rail along roads and a busway/rail line service different travel marks/purposes.  Light rail on road are shorter, cross network trips what a busway/rail line is faster longer distance transit.  The 2 co-exist to create a networked transit system.  Thus Gympie and Busway can co-exist.  It is not where you start but eventually you do both.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 08:58:58 PM »
TT, I think ideally you would want the light rail to have its own lane so trucks wouldn't be so much of an issue. They would probably cross it at an intersection but you can make the road surface stronger there and have the usual material for the rest of it. If light rail is fully segregated you can (and I believe it is actually cheaper per km to construct) run it on a conventional ballasted track bed.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2010, 09:07:39 PM »
Quote
Light rail along roads and a busway/rail line service different travel marks/purposes.  Light rail on road are shorter, cross network trips what a busway/rail line is faster longer distance transit.  The 2 co-exist to create a networked transit system.  Thus Gympie and Busway can co-exist.  It is not where you start but eventually you do both.

True, though it is also true that closely spaced lines compete with each other.
A significant amount of passengers may shift to the Nth busway (or will that be Nth LRTway by then?) meaning that an upgrade to LRT for Gympie road might not be necessary and can be handled by BUZ. (just playing devil's advocate here).


Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2010, 09:20:33 PM »
Perhaps, but the government knows that the Gympie Rd corridor is at capacity road-wise, so they are trying to find ways to reduce congestion and make the most of the space they have. So they know they can't provide more space for private cars so if demand warranted it then they would convert it from bus to LRT (provided of course that LRT is being considered).

I agree with previous comments (not in this thread) that once the LRT on the Gold Coast gets up and running I think it will change the minds of SEQ residents about light rail.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2010, 09:25:23 PM »
Quote
TT, I think ideally you would want the light rail to have its own lane so trucks wouldn't be so much of an issue. They would probably cross it at an intersection but you can make the road surface stronger there and have the usual material for the rest of it. If light rail is fully segregated you can (and I believe it is actually cheaper per km to construct) run it on a conventional ballasted track bed.

I would like to see LRT eventually down Ipswich Road. The problem is the trucks, which damage and warp the asphalt could also damage the trackbed if they turn at intersections. The height of the trucks also needs to be considered if there is electrified catenary overhead.
The environment is also not very nice from a pedestrian perspective-- massive trucks whizzing past at high speed. The trucks IMHO need to be removed and then the lanes re-claimed, possibly with the speed lowered

Narrowing this road (lane reclamation) will also impact on truck freight movements, exclusive lane or not.
If this option was taken, I would like to see a connection between the Ipswich motorway and the SE freeway, and all trucks etc asked to use that.

To put it briefly, there is the space for LRT, but the pedestrian environment would be very poor with LRT in the middle of the road and trucks whizzing past. Running in the kerb lane is an idea (this has its own problems), but it would have to be made exclusive so truck wheels do not damage the rails.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2010, 09:40:37 PM »
Melbourne seems to survive and they have tram lines everywhere.  Maybe the tram lines add structural strength.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2010, 09:53:15 PM »
I doubt they would add strength. They are put in a cut out channel and (usually) surrounded by a tough durable resilient but pourable material such as a resin or corkelast (I believe the latter is a specific material marketed by a company). In this way the rail is well supported but isn't directly attached to the road so if hte ashfault or concrete material the track is set in shifts over time the rail doesn't necessarily shift with it. If anything they would reduce the strength of the road however given how small this cut out would be this would be a very small effect.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2010, 09:57:20 PM »
Ok but Melbourne does notcseem to have issues

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2010, 10:42:30 PM »
I think the problems should be dealt with. Too many trucks, they need to go.
Which Melbourne arterial road is comparable to Ipswich Road in terms of trucks and truck movements?
What solutions have they come up with?

Not saying that there is no space. There is space.
But its going to be like putting a tram stop in the middle of the SE freeway. Not a nice pedestrian experience.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2010, 08:42:35 AM »
Though many oppose it I would like to see the 412 and 444 replaced by light rail.
Are you thinking of trams running along Coro here?

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2010, 09:23:06 AM »
Are really big trolleybus Lightram buses an alternative here?
You would still need the overhead wires IIRC and the pavement might need strengthening.
There are diesel/electric battery hybrids available.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/super-bus-trial-for-brisbane/story-e6freoof-1111113942299
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 09:25:08 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2010, 10:08:06 AM »
That would be a possibility which would cause less disruption to the existing road than trams.

Offline O_128

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2591
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2010, 10:22:13 AM »
Though many oppose it I would like to see the 412 and 444 replaced by light rail.
Are you thinking of trams running along Coro here?

unfortunately yes i know it would cause massive delays during construction and etc but the 412 is already running every 5min in peak so where do we go from there?
"Where else but Queensland?"

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2010, 11:22:42 AM »
I think light rail along Coro would have benefits. But as a where to from here RE: 412, articulated buses could be looked at. I'm assuming there's a reason now as to why they aren't so this could be looked at and ways around it could be found.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2010, 12:06:49 PM »
I think light rail along Coro would have benefits. But as a where to from here RE: 412, articulated buses could be looked at. I'm assuming there's a reason now as to why they aren't so this could be looked at and ways around it could be found.
Toowong depot doesn't have any.  I would suggest that is the major reason.

Perhaps when Sherwood depot opens, that will take over 101-108 and the Toowong part of the 598/599, which may mean Richlands depot is free to take over more of the 450-464 and perhaps some of the Kenmore routes too.  That would free up space in Toowong, but it may be better to have it take over routes from Virginia instead, particularly 38x and 39x.

Of course, I don't actually know that Toowong or Richlands do any of the 101-108, but I am assuming it.

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2010, 12:42:19 PM »
Toowong depot drivers are not trained/doesn't have the license class to drive artics.

The depots with drivers trained to drive artics are Garden City, Willawong, Larapinta (all southside depots), and Bowen Hills (the only northern depot with drivers trained to drive 14.5s to my knowledge).
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2010, 01:35:41 PM »
Not exactly an insurmountable problem though.

Bowen Hills has drivers trained to drive artics ???  Do they have any artics, or even 14.5m buses?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 03:00:44 PM by somebody »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19674
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2010, 02:44:13 PM »
Quote
Ok but Melbourne does notcseem to have issues

Larger vehicles need a permit to travel in the tram zones.

Quote
Permits for travel across train or tram lines
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Moreinfoandservices/HeavyVehicles/RouteInformation/PermitsForTravelAcrossTrainOrTramLines.htm

Vehicles and combinations that exceed certain dimensions must obtain a permit before travel across train or tram lines.

    * 26 metres length; or
    * 3 metres width; or
    * 4.3 metres height (for tram lines); or
    * 4.9 metres height (for train lines).
These permits are required everywhere in Victoria, including crossing of non-active lines and tourist railway lines.

Though victoria has developed some good tram priority measures: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Moreinfoandservices/PublicTransport/TramProjects/TramPriorityAndSafety.htm#newrules
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline paulg

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 166
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2010, 04:18:58 PM »
The Greens have released a map of their proposal: http://qld.greens.org.au/content/front-page-content/Light%20Rail%202010a.pdf

http://qld.greens.org.au/content/front-page-content/greens-call-for-brisbane-light-rail-service

Cheers, Paul

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2010, 05:48:20 PM »
The bit through UQ is particularly kooky.  As if that is going to occur.

Offline MaxHeadway

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 300
    • My Behance account (Some transit map attempts)
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2010, 08:02:33 PM »
Nor will light rail to Bridgeman Downs and Moggill.  ::)
"Good design is as little design as possible."
—Dieter Rams

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2010, 08:48:12 PM »
Bowen Hills has drivers trained to drive artics ???  Do they have any artics, or even 14.5m buses?

Bowen Hills depot have 1x 14.5m vehicle atm (Bus A1709).  

A1709 is currently being used as a training vehicle for driver training/licensing/familarisation, since Bowen Hills is scheduled to get (a new batch of) 10x Volgren bodied 14.5m Volvos (as reported in the ATDB).  
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2010, 08:13:18 AM »
Bowen Hills has drivers trained to drive artics ???  Do they have any artics, or even 14.5m buses?

Bowen Hills depot have 1x 14.5m vehicle atm (Bus A1709).  

A1709 is currently being used as a training vehicle for driver training/licensing/familarisation, since Bowen Hills is scheduled to get (a new batch of) 10x Volgren bodied 14.5m Volvos (as reported in the ATDB).  
I presume that doesn't mean they can drive artics though - just 14.5m buses.

Offline longboi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2010, 05:50:04 PM »
Bowen Hills has drivers trained to drive artics ???  Do they have any artics, or even 14.5m buses?

Bowen Hills depot have 1x 14.5m vehicle atm (Bus A1709).  

A1709 is currently being used as a training vehicle for driver training/licensing/familarisation, since Bowen Hills is scheduled to get (a new batch of) 10x Volgren bodied 14.5m Volvos (as reported in the ATDB).  
I presume that doesn't mean they can drive artics though - just 14.5m buses.

They're the same license class so in theory they can. In practice, they would have had to do internal BT training before being allowed to drive an artic - for obvious reasons.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Election Light Rail Rumblings
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2010, 08:00:01 PM »
They're the same license class so in theory they can. In practice, they would have had to do internal BT training before being allowed to drive an artic - for obvious reasons.
Thanks for that.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan