• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Premier Statement: Premier makes official bid for 2018 Commonwealth Games

Started by ozbob, October 02, 2010, 19:38:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ozbob

Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh
02/10/2010

Premier makes official bid for 2018 Commonwealth Games

NEW DELHI: Premier Anna Bligh has today taken the Gold Coast's bid to stage the 2018 Commonwealth Games to members of the International Games Committee in Delhi, highlighting the city's natural fit as host venue.

Speaking at the Commonwealth Games Federation Assembly meeting in Delhi - attended by representatives of each Commonwealth country - Ms Bligh highlighted the coastal strip's international standing as an elite sports training venue and plans to build future sporting infrastructure, as well as informing delegates about the city's spectacular natural environment and safe reputation.

"The time is right for the Gold Coast," Ms Bligh said.

"I think all Queenslanders understand the sheer magnitude of what hosting an event like the 2018 Commonwealth Games could do for our state and for proof you need look no further than the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane.

"We grew into an international class city after those Games and we know from experience that the 2018 Games - which would be the first held in a regional city should the Gold Coast be successful - are the ideal platform for the coast to transform itself into even bigger and better things.

"We have been able today to show the Commonwealth delegates why the Gold Coast is truly up to the task.

"The work carried out by our bid team in the lead up to today's official pitch to the Games Assembly showed the Gold Coast is well placed to stage a successful Games and we have what it takes to host such a massive event."

The Gold Coast is facing off against the city of Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Ms Bligh said the competition was not to be underestimated.

"Hambantota is a developing city but their bid to delegates today has shown they have firm plans to host the Games also and nobody should just assume the Gold Coast is home and hosed.

"There's still a lot of work to do before our official bid book is lodged in May 2011 and the Commonwealth Games Federation announces the successful country in November next year."

Ms Bligh said a range of infrastructure projects will be undertaken on the Gold Coast should the bid be successful, bringing millions in future infrastructure to the region and creating thousands of jobs.

These include:

·A new velodrome

·An upgrade of the Gold Coast Aquatic Centre

·Further works on the new Carrara stadium to accommodate track and field

·Construction of accommodation for the Athletes Village at Gold Coast Parklands in Southport

·Temporary conversion of existing non-sporting facilities for use as squash courts and boxing and weightlifting arenas

"This would not only be a huge boost to infrastructure on the coastal strip - it's infrastructure that builds for the future beyond 2018.

"For example after the Games, the accommodation built at Parklands for the Athletes Village would provide new high-density housing and office space for the region, close to Griffith University, the new Gold Coast University Hospital and the future Rapid Transit Stations.

"This would be a win-win for the Gold Coast and shows how smart planning could turn Commonwealth Games facilities into long-term infrastructure for the Coast.

"It's estimated more than 30,000 jobs would be generated if the Games go ahead on the Coast, across a range of industries including construction, manufacturing, recreation, cultural and business services.

"That's not an opportunity our government is about to overlook."

Ms Bligh was joined at the Games Assembly by the 2018 bid team chief former Olympian and respected businessman Mark Stockwell. Ill health prevented Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke from making the journey to India however he addressed the delegation in a pre-recorded video message.

"There is no doubt we've got some competition but our sleeves are rolled up and we are getting on with the job of securing the Games because I can think of no better place than the Gold Coast to put on a show for the world," Ms Bligh said.

==============================================================
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

ozbob


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1YJ0wtAjYo

The video presented in Kuala Lumpur 11th May 2011, by Premier Anna Bligh as part of the Gold Coast bid for the 2018 Commonwealth Games.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

SurfRail

Quote from: ozbob on May 11, 2011, 19:18:44 PM
The video presented in Kuala Lumpur 11th May 2011, by Premier Anna Bligh as part of the Gold Coast bid for the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

At least there were no kangaroos in it (animated or otherwise).
Ride the G:

O_128

If we get the games at least it means that light rail will get to helensvale.
"Where else but Queensland?"

SurfRail

Quote from: O_128 on May 11, 2011, 21:22:04 PM
If we get the games at least it means that light rail will get to helensvale.

Don't be so sure. 

The current preference (as is mine) is for it to go further south before it goes further north.  The return and utility will be much greater - people do happen to live here and make journeys that have nothing to do with long-distance intercity travel, hard as that is to believe.  Both directions would be desirable of course - but it would also be desirable to build the whole thing in one hit.  Just a question of funding priorities.
Ride the G:

Fares_Fair

Quote from: SurfRail on May 12, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: O_128 on May 11, 2011, 21:22:04 PM
If we get the games at least it means that light rail will get to helensvale.

Don't be so sure. 

The current preference (as is mine) is for it to go further south before it goes further north.  The return and utility will be much greater - people do happen to live here and make journeys that have nothing to do with long-distance intercity travel, hard as that is to believe.  Both directions would be desirable of course - but it would also be desirable to build the whole thing in one hit.  Just a question of funding priorities.

ouch ! SR   ;D
Regards,
Fares_Fair


colinw

I don't actually like the selected route to Helensvale much. Too circuitous. I can see some utility in northward extension at least as far as Harbour Town.  Another major trip generator won't go astray, but going to Helensvale via Harbour Town is somewhat indirect.

My preferred route for connection of the light rail to CityTrain is actually a spur from Broadbeach to Nerang town centre via Carrara.  That will link Nerang, Nerang Station, the Commonwealth Games site (and AFL ground), Broadbeach & Surfers.  I.e. it will give the light rail an important local inter-town role within the Gold Coast, rather than just being an extension purely for transport to/from Brisbane.

Besides I want to be able to catch a tram to the footy when there's a Lions vs. Suns game at Carrara :)

#Metro

My view is that priority #1 for any LRT extension on the Gold Coast is to get the connection with the train at Helensvale.

For everything else: you can have bus plus interchange with LRT while you wait for the extension to your area. To get to Helensvale after stage 1 opens you will need to do two interchanges. As much as I like interchanges, this seems a bit much.

Bus on the Gold Coast needs a lot of improvement as well. We should not forget that.
The Gold Coast has some nice fast arterial roads such as Ferry Road/Bundall Rd, Ashmore Rd and Wardoo St that would be great for rapid BRT style services like CityGlider.

Light Rail costs $35 million dollars per kilometre to install, a lot of concrete, planning, digging and waiting. The time to put on a bus is only as fast as TransLink approving it through their usual process, which would be 6 months to 1 year I would think, so we can get mobility now while we wait.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

colinw

The problem is that the extension of the light rail beyond Harbour Town to Helensvale won't serve any real purpose other than interchange with the rail system, and is a fairly indirect way of linking the heavy rail to Surfers.

That is why I suggested the Nerang option.  Such a spur line actually has a local transport role to play, and adds some trip generators to the system.  It would also be faster & more direct for Brisbane to Surfers trips.

#Metro

I'm not so worried about the particular route via Helensvale. I think the faster option is better, but they ruled that out (probably due to Harbour town being a destination).

The link to Nerang station is much harder IMHO due to the sheer cost and distance. You are going to be waiting a long time for that and asking for a lot of money which is going to reduce the chances of getting those funds. It is also going to result in a "branch" which splits frequencies- with two or up to three different operating patterns (Nerang-Southport, Nerang-Coolangatta, Coolangatta-Southport?) versus just one (up and down the coast).

My thoughts are that the LRT should just stick to the Gold Coast- go straight up and down the Coastal strip where the high volume of passengers are and interconnect with rail at either end- Helensvale and Tweed Heads/Coolangatta Airport. Use BRT and bus for everything else.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with priority and frequency would be much cheaper and faster to do between Nerang and Pacific Fair and you could interchange with LRT near the Convention Centre there.

I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

I ultimately believe there is scope for 2 northern services:

- Hope Island/Paradise Point/Runaway Bay/Biggera Waters/Frank St to Southport
- Helensvale/Harbour Town/Griffith Uni to Southport

feeding into a common corridor between Southport and Broadbeach, and then going

- Broadbeach Waters/Mermaid Waters/Bond Uni/Varsity Lakes/Robina
- Mermaid Beach/Miami/Burleigh/Palm Beach/Tugun/Airport/Coolangatta

with an inland service as follows:

- Broadbeach interchange/Nerang Broadbeach Rd/Nerang Rail/Nerang/Southport-Nerang Road/Ashmore/Southport/Surfers/Broadbeach interchange and terminate.

I don't consider frequency splitting to be a relevant consideration, because the lower frequencies on the legs will be apt for those areas compared to the density of service required between Southport and Broadbeach.  It should be no trouble to have these 3 services all operating a basic 10min headway, which gives you 18 trams per hour through Surfers, and up to say 24 or more in the peak.  Plenty of room for more too if needed.

I'd like to think of staging as follows:

- 2014 - current length being built
- 2018 – Broadbeach to Nerang, Robina and Airport legs in place for Commonwealth Games.  This connects the 2 stadiums, the airport and the athlete's village, and most venues.  Service would probably be 2 routes – Nerang to Airport, and Griffith Uni to Robina.  HR extension to the Airport should also be progressed.
- 2018-2026 – Helensvale, Hope Island and Nerang-Southport legs installed, review densities along other corridors such as Southport-Robina, Nerang-Surfers.

Frequent BRT services should be implemented along all of these corridors until LRT is installed.

Colin, I don't know how familiar you are with Nerang-Broadbeach Rd, but frankly as a local I'm baffled by your argument that it would offer more of a patronage base than Brisbane Road between Harbour Town and Helensvale.  (Your point about it being a better rail connection is quite valid though.)
Ride the G:

#Metro

Quote
I don't consider frequency splitting to be a relevant consideration, because the lower frequencies on the legs will be apt for those areas compared to the density of service required between Southport and Broadbeach.  It should be no trouble to have these 3 services all operating a basic 10min headway, which gives you 18 trams per hour through Surfers, and up to say 24 or more in the peak.  Plenty of room for more too if needed.

Perhaps. But we need to know what we are sacrificing when we branch a line. I have a feeling the patronage on the GC LRT is going to be above expectations...
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html

Replace "San Francisco" with "Southport"; "SFO Airport" with Pacific Fair/Nerang Station service and "Millbrae" with Coolangatta.
We have the same situation here.



The frequency will be lower on the branches and come at the cost of eating up a train path on the main line.
(So now we have some idea about why QR branches all start with fantastic 30 minute frequency, and why Shornciffe and
Doomben lines have terrible frequency in the peak)

Lower frequencies on the branches also imply that patronage on the branches are low. BRT can take you up to ~ 8000 pphd.
There is no need for this type of capacity on these extra branches at least for many decades I would think, and I'd rather support
spending the money on other mobility improvements such as higher frequency on the Gold Coast Line and a Core Frequent Bus network
for the Gold Coast with frequent rapid buses operating at wider stop spacing on the arterial road network there.

So I'm skeptical about spending $ 35 million/km (possibly billions in total) on something like that yet, at least for many decades.
People will also have to wait longer for "their" LRV, so it is less useful IMHO than simply running trams every 5 minutes up and down the Coast
to all stops with high frequency interconnections to BRT at certain points.

Spend less on concrete, more on services
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

colinw

Quote from: SurfRail on May 12, 2011, 12:07:22 PM
Colin, I don't know how familiar you are with Nerang-Broadbeach Rd, but frankly as a local I'm baffled by your argument that it would offer more of a patronage base than Brisbane Road between Harbour Town and Helensvale.  (Your point about it being a better rail connection is quite valid though.)
I'll defer to your local knowledge on that. I thought Brisbane Rd from Harbour Town to Helensvale was mostly industrial, with a bit of residential toward the railway line.  The Olsen Ave bit from Griffith to Harbour Town will be a winner 'though.

Nerang-Broadbeach Rd & Hooker Blvd are all low density residential (with a bit of floodplain around Carrara), but the route would pick up the stadium, and my intention was for it to cross the motorway and go right into Nerang town centre.  I agree that if it just went to Nerang station it wouldn't be as good as the proposed Helensvale route (although faster for rail connection).

By the way, I like your suggestion of a loop service doing Broadbeach - Nerang - Southport - Broadbeach.

For others to see what we're talking about:

Brisbane Rd: click here

Nerang-Broadbeach Rd: click here

TramTrain, I can see what SurfRail is getting at with these proposed services.  They would provide a tremendous residential & commercial catchment for the system.  The frequencies proposed for this system, and the potential for tight headways with light rail, should easily support two routes sharing the corridor from Southport to Broadbeach.

Question - what is the throughput of a modern light rail line?  How many "trams per hour" can be crammed through a Gold Coast style system?

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 12:17:27 PM
Quote
I don't consider frequency splitting to be a relevant consideration, because the lower frequencies on the legs will be apt for those areas compared to the density of service required between Southport and Broadbeach.  It should be no trouble to have these 3 services all operating a basic 10min headway, which gives you 18 trams per hour through Surfers, and up to say 24 or more in the peak.  Plenty of room for more too if needed.

Perhaps. But we need to know what we are sacrificing when we branch a line. I have a feeling the patronage on the GC LRT is going to be above expectations...
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html

Replace "San Francisco" with "Southport"; "SFO Airport" with Pacific Fair/Nerang Station service and "Millbrae" with Coolangatta.
We have the same situation here.



The frequency will be lower on the branches and come at the cost of eating up a train path on the main line.
(So now we have some idea about why QR branches all start with fantastic 30 minute frequency, and why Shornciffe and
Doomben lines have terrible frequency in the peak)

Lower frequencies on the branches also imply that patronage on the branches are low. BRT can take you up to ~ 8000 pphd.
There is no need for this type of capacity on these extra branches at least for many decades I would think, and I'd rather support
spending the money on other mobility improvements such as higher frequency on the Gold Coast Line and a Core Frequent Bus network
for the Gold Coast with frequent rapid buses operating at wider stop spacing on the arterial road network there.

So I'm skeptical about spending $ 35 million/km (possibly billions in total) on something like that yet, at least for many decades.
People will also have to wait longer for "their" LRV, so it is less useful IMHO than simply running trams every 5 minutes up and down the Coast
to all stops with high frequency interconnections to BRT at certain points.

Spend less on concrete, more on services

Thanks, I also read Jarrett's blog.

For clarity, under my 2018 plan, the Nerang service would be oriented to the south, no matter what happens, because the Broadbeach South interchange is located to the south of Hooker Blvd.  It makes sense to continue that as a Coolangatta service, so that in fact the only shared section would be between Hooker Boulevard and wherever the Robina service branches off (ideally no further south than Markeri Street).  In that sense the network becomes very Perth like, with a hub and 4 routes, fed at all major locations by buses (and by trains at Nerang, Robina and hopefully Coolangatta).

Clearly, Surfers Paradise needs more service density than Nobby Beach, when even with today's network it gets barely a smidgen more than Nobbys.  I don't see the merit in running the same level of service all the way up and down the coast when there are clearly differentials between the inner and outer stretches.

So, with additional lines added, I reiterate my doubt that branching is a relevant consideration.  A higher level of service is called for along the high-density section, which starts immediately where I propose the branches be made (ie Southport and southern Broadbeach).  Comparisons with the Northgate-Darra corridor are futile as none of the half-hourly train routes are good in and of themselves.  If each of the basic services here ran at 10 minute headways, you would not have that problem, and the central core through Surfers would enjoy the higher density it needs. 

To make any serious dent in the congestion, you need concrete.  Extra buses cease to be meaningful in places like the Goodings Corner roundabout or the Robina CBD during peak times.  You may as well build something with cheaper operating costs if you need to bung in something fixed (ie LRT).  LRT is clearly the best mode for integration with the local environment constraints we have down here, when its capacities are taken into account. 

In short, I have no interest in making Brisbane's mistake by paying 5-6 times as many drivers and servicing and fuelling 5-6 vehicles for several years, when we could get it right up front with a single tram.  8000 pphd?  That's something like 100 buses an hour in current terms, and only in one direction.  Buses go for about $500,000 these days and can vary considerably depending on what you buy.  Fuel is not getting cheaper either.

Make the investment in fixed LRT for line-haul work, with high-capacity buses where that is not feasible for various factors (eg Gooding Drive, Cotlew Street, Bundall Road) and use buses to serve local catchments.
Ride the G:

SurfRail

Quote from: colinw on May 12, 2011, 14:03:17 PM
I'll defer to your local knowledge on that. I thought Brisbane Rd from Harbour Town to Helensvale was mostly industrial, with a bit of residential toward the railway line.  The Olsen Ave bit from Griffith to Harbour Town will be a winner 'though.

Nerang-Broadbeach Rd & Hooker Blvd are all low density residential (with a bit of floodplain around Carrara), but the route would pick up the stadium, and my intention was for it to cross the motorway and go right into Nerang town centre.  I agree that if it just went to Nerang station it wouldn't be as good as the proposed Helensvale route (although faster for rail connection).

It's a fair point.  The stadium needs high-capacity transport in and out, but isn't exactly going to see use everyday.  I believe the immediate environs of Helensvale and Pacific Pines are probably going to provide a better population base for the service than the fairly empty areas adjacent to Nerang Broadbeach Rd (golf courses, flood plain, the Nerang River, isolated estates one of which I live in so you can't accuse me of self-interest ) - although in fairness the Helensvale route crosses through wetlands and Lake Coombabah.

The Westfield at Helensvale is also going to be a much bigger trip attractor than anything you would find in Nerang – and don't discount the people who come down from north of Coomera just to shop at Harbour Town and to study at Griffith Uni.

For that reason, if you built the Nerang leg in time for the Commonwealth Games, I would in fact be happy to just leave it at Nerang Station for the time being.  There isn't that much further west, and you will have satisfied the main transit task – getting people to and from the stadium and further north/south by QR services.  Later extensions could bring it back around to Southport, but no immediate need.
Ride the G:

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 12:17:27 PM
So I'm skeptical about spending $ 35 million/km (possibly billions in total) on something like that yet, at least for many decades.

I'm happy to reconsider timeframes, but ultimately I see a need for LRT beyond the coastal strip - perhaps we keep it at that.
Ride the G:

colinw

Quote from: SurfRail on May 12, 2011, 12:07:22 PM
- Hope Island/Paradise Point/Runaway Bay/Biggera Waters/Frank St to Southport

Can you elaborate on this proposed route after Frank St?  Where would the terminus be?  Does the route have the potential to reach the future Coomera town centre and Dreamworld? (Obviously a big bridge required, but ...)

#Metro

QuoteQuestion - what is the throughput of a modern light rail line?  How many "trams per hour" can be crammed through a Gold Coast style system?

I would expect that it would be similar to a train system. Tram systems could probably do more but are slower IMHO.

Quote
To make any serious dent in the congestion, you need concrete.  Extra buses cease to be meaningful in places like the Goodings Corner roundabout or the Robina CBD during peak times.  You may as well build something with cheaper operating costs if you need to bung in something fixed (ie LRT).  LRT is clearly the best mode for integration with the local environment constraints we have down here, when its capacities are taken into account.

I doubt if LRT capacities are warranted anywhere else on the alternative roads suggested. Buses currently ply these routes and with the road space available and medians would be good for BRT implementation. There is much scope for improved bus services and bus lanes. I'd rather see the money spend on services rather than concrete right now and into the near future. This means higher frequency on existing GC Rail infrastructure and higher frequency on buses going East-West.

To make a dent in congestion (which I also doubt, there will always be congestion no matter what) you need frequency, a wide scope of hours and prioritisation and this should be possible with less work than LRT. I support the idea of LRT, but am not for branching the network. Buses can do the branches.

Quote
In short, I have no interest in making Brisbane's mistake by paying 5-6 times as many drivers and servicing and fuelling 5-6 vehicles for several years, when we could get it right up front with a single tram.  8000 pphd?  That's something like 100 buses an hour in current terms, and only in one direction.  Buses go for about $500,000 these days and can vary considerably depending on what you buy.  Fuel is not getting cheaper either.

It is possible to get electric buses and electric trams. It is possible to get diesel trams and diesel buses. Therefore what energy source you use is independent of mode and is not necessarily a reason to choose LRT. 180 buses flush through Cultural Centre busway in afternoon peak hour, at 65 seats per bus and 80% capacity this is around 9000 pphd in Class B ROW with traffic lights at either end. Headways on buses can be below 1 minute (Cultural Centre ~ 24 seconds) and you can get high capacity vehicles as well. You will need a LOT more demand before you need LRT IMHO.

Quote
Make the investment in fixed LRT for line-haul work, with high-capacity buses where that is not feasible for various factors (eg Gooding Drive, Cotlew Street, Bundall Road) and use buses to serve local catchments.

Agreed. I'm sure there will be extension proposals in the future, but these are likely to be further south to Tweed Heads IMHO to connect to the Airport.

I'm interested in service. Not symbols of good service.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

O_128

If the coast gets the games then at least 1 rail station must be connected to light rail. I dont care which one but one must be.
"Where else but Queensland?"

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 15:03:51 PMI doubt if LRT capacities are warranted anywhere else on the alternative roads suggested. Buses currently ply these routes and with the road space available and medians would be good for BRT implementation. There is much scope for improved bus services and bus lanes. I'd rather see the money spend on services rather than concrete right now and into the near future. This means higher frequency on existing GC Rail infrastructure and higher frequency on buses going East-West.

On this, we agree – for the next few years anyway.  It's not just about flinging rails at outer suburbs and stadiums, its about densifying along major corridors too.  All goes hand in hand, although mentioning the prospect of light rail will get any developer's pecker up.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 15:03:51 PMTo make a dent in congestion (which I also doubt, there will always be congestion no matter what) you need frequency, a wide scope of hours and prioritisation and this should be possible with less work than LRT. I support the idea of LRT, but am not for branching the network. Buses can do the branches.

I don't understand this.  LRT doesn't automatically mean stupefyingly high 1-3min frequency, it means you can have it if you need it eventually, for the same initial capital outlay when you are running one only every 10 min. 

Buses are dandy but at the same frequencies, LRT wins in capacity terms, which means you save on crewing.  At capacities comparable to LRT you have serious inefficiencies with line-haul buses, which are self-evident in Brisbane every day.

Branches will always be necessary - I don't really see why modality comes into it.  What matters is how radial they make your network - the Gold Coast does not have the same issues in that regard as most other cities.  If necessary, you can just run a shuttle on one leg, but I have no problem with the concept of lower but still attrative frequencies outsode of Southport/Surfers/Broadbeach.  Waiting even 30 minutes for a service to Broadbeach from the west is a problem I would love to have, believe me.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 15:03:51 PMIt is possible to get electric buses and electric trams. It is possible to get diesel trams and diesel buses. Therefore what energy source you use is independent of mode and is not necessarily a reason to choose LRT.

Agreed, but we are getting electric LRT, so it is a moot point.  Electric buses are not doing so great in this country because they don't like our suburban topography – range, speed and power are all quite limited.  I certainly wouldn't want to try an electric bus going up Heeb Street.  Maybe the technology will improve, but it is still uneconomical – buses too expensive and too limited outside of a very flat, highly urbanised environment.  Diesel is getting cleaner all the time too and is mature, so it will be around for ages yet.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 15:03:51 PM180 buses flush through Cultural Centre busway in afternoon peak hour, at 65 seats per bus and 80% capacity this is around 9000 pphd in Class B ROW with traffic lights at either end. Headways on buses can be below 1 minute (Cultural Centre ~ 24 seconds) and you can get high capacity vehicles as well. You will need a LOT more demand before you need LRT IMHO.

You're claiming we should emulate the Cultural Centre?  That's an interesting view.

In my mind, the CC stinks of inefficiency – too many drivers, a bigger road reservation than you need for LRT, limited boarding times because you are more or less restricted to 2 doors for most vehicles, infrastructure that costs just as much to build, a confusing network, a passenger-unfriendly boarding environment generally. 

Why not get it right to start with and maximise the benefits immediately?  30 trams instead of 180 buses.  Even with a quarter of either type (eg 7-8 v 45), we still end out in front in the long run, and both environments still give you turn-up-and-go.

Buses for line-haul should be limited to where there is no prospect for LRT, or until LRT can get there.  Feeding is what they are good at.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 15:03:51 PMI'm interested in service. Not symbols of good service.

Likewise.  I just don't consider a huge number of buses to be sustainable, which is why we should skip that step altogether if we can.
Ride the G:

SurfRail

Quote from: colinw on May 12, 2011, 14:39:08 PM
Quote from: SurfRail on May 12, 2011, 12:07:22 PM
- Hope Island/Paradise Point/Runaway Bay/Biggera Waters/Frank St to Southport

Can you elaborate on this proposed route after Frank St?  Where would the terminus be?  Does the route have the potential to reach the future Coomera town centre and Dreamworld? (Obviously a big bridge required, but ...)


I would prefer a service which made a beeline for Runaway Bay.  High-frequency bus services should connect the Runaway Bay and Harbour Town shops/LRT stops.  I've never really looked too closely at the fine details, but sitting here I'm thinking that from the Grand Hotel it could go:

- Marine Parade/Brisbane Road to Brighton Street
- Bright Street to Back Street, possible some realignment/resumption needed
- Bridge across the creek to Bayview Street
- Straight up Bayview Street to at least Matthew Flinders Dr

After this point I am open to thoughts.  Serving the Paradise Point eat-street would be nice, but it gets a bit dog-leggy.

End up on Oxley Drive, head over to the Marina Quays shops where there is some density.

I think a logical terminus would be a new station on the Gold Coast line at Hope Island Road, but that would require some thought in how stopping patterns worked as I wouldn't just want to add it in.  Otherwise, there is room for stabling/depot near the Helensvale Rd/Hope Island Rd big roundabout.

The advantage of most of this alignment is that Bayview Street is where the density is (or is being built), and it is probably wide enough to accommodate the corridor without substantial resumption.  You can see how virtually all the existing water crossings narrow right down (usually to one side of the road reserve) and can easily be duplicated.

I have considered making it a branch from Harbour Town – it would save on cost by linking to the existing network, but it limits the potential for coverage, ignores the density on Frank Street and would have a longer journey time.  I also don't see how you could have an effective interchange there without doing a big dog-leg.  A decent bus service from Runaway Bay down to Harbour Town would get people to Griffith Uni by changing to the Helensvale line.

I have also considered sending it along Oxley Drive after Runaway Bay, but I don't think the density is there, even though the road is nice and wide.  Buses from Runaway to Paradise Point will fill in the gap.

Colin, I know you are in favour of sending it to Coomera, but that notion doesn't sit especially well with me.  I have always thought interchanging at Helensvale or a new Hope Island station would be much faster, avoid duplication and avoid sending it through areas that will continue to pretty much be in the boondocks even when we are pushing 1 million people.  Dreamworld and the other theme parks are best served with either express buses from the coast (it's the one part of the coast that acts a bit like the Brisbane CBD in that respect – up in the morning, down in the afternoon) or with feeders from Coomera and Helensvale, which is effectively what we have now.

The Coomera Town Centre should have the benefit of a much more frequent rail service by the time it is built (fingers crossed it even gets built, let alone has 15 minute frequencies).
Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteOn this, we agree – for the next few years anyway.  It's not just about flinging rails at outer suburbs and stadiums, its about densifying along major corridors too.  All goes hand in hand, although mentioning the prospect of light rail will get any developer's pecker up.

The purpose of Public Transport is to transport the public. Side benefits like development are nice, however this usually follows automatically from speed and improvements to mobility. I see the development aspect of light rail useful but have mixed feelings about. See here:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is-speed-obsolete-.html

Quote
Yes, but Condon needs you to believe that (a) such redevelopment won't happen anyway and (b) no such redevelopment will happen if we just keep improving the already-intensive bus system while adding one or two rapid transit lines.  The reason streetcars currently trigger investment is that the rails in the street symbolize mobility.  The development happens not just because of what will be in walking distance, but because the rails in the street suggest you'll be able to get to lots of places easily by rail.  So rails in the street create redevelopment, which improves access.  But they do that by offering an appearance of mobility.  That may not be the same as actual mobility; in fact, it might be the opposite.

Let's imagine 41st Avenue 20 years from now in a Condonian future.  A frequent streetcar does what the buses used to do, but because it stops every 2-3 blocks, and therefore runs slowly, UBC students who need to go long distances across the city have screamed until the transit agency, TransLink, has put back a limited-stop or "B-Line" bus on the same street.  (Over the 20 years, TransLink has continued to upgrade its B-Line bus product.  For example, drivers no longer do fare collection, so you can board and alight at any door, making for much faster service. Bus interiors and features are also identical to what you'd find on streetcars, just as they are in many European cities.)

Suddenly, people who've bought apartments on 41st Avenue, and paid extra for them because of the rails in the street, start noticing that fast, crowded buses are passing the streetcars.  They love the streetcars when they're out for pleasure.  But people have jobs and families.  When they need to get to a meeting on which their career depends, or get home to their sick child, they'll take the fast bus, and the streetcar's appearance of offering mobility will be revealed for what it is, an appearance.  

The second reason why I'm not so swayed by the development argument is because you could imagine a hypotheical where you put a bus on and then pay a development subsidy to get that development going. And that still might be cheaper than LRT.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

colinw

Quote from: SurfRail on May 12, 2011, 16:21:49 PM
- Marine Parade/Brisbane Road to Brighton Street
- Bright Street to Back Street, possible some realignment/resumption needed
- Bridge across the creek to Bayview Street
- Straight up Bayview Street to at least Matthew Flinders Dr

After this point I am open to thoughts.  Serving the Paradise Point eat-street would be nice, but it gets a bit dog-leggy.

End up on Oxley Drive, head over to the Marina Quays shops where there is some density.

Looks to me like you would go along Hope Island Rd to wherever was a suitable terminus (I don't know where the Marina Quays shops are, sorry).  I'm not sure about putting a rail station in there 'though.  Firstly it would need to be an elevated station, secondly it wouldn't fit in well with the interurban service although it could be a stop on Gold Coast local "urbanlink" heavy rail services as proposed in Connecting SEQ 2031.

Quote
Colin, I know you are in favour of sending it to Coomera, but that notion doesn't sit especially well with me.  I have always thought interchanging at Helensvale or a new Hope Island station would be much faster, avoid duplication and avoid sending it through areas that will continue to pretty much be in the boondocks even when we are pushing 1 million people.  Dreamworld and the other theme parks are best served with either express buses from the coast (it's the one part of the coast that acts a bit like the Brisbane CBD in that respect – up in the morning, down in the afternoon) or with feeders from Coomera and Helensvale, which is effectively what we have now.

I'm not sure if I'm in favour of it or not, was just a suggestion.  I  don't care about Dreamworld or the other theme parks, buses will do for them. I am more concerned about what happens if a major town centre gets built at Coomera.  I guess the heavy rail would suffice, particularly if a local heavy rail service eventuates to supplement the Brisbane trains.

#Metro

Quote
Buses are dandy but at the same frequencies, LRT wins in capacity terms, which means you save on crewing.  At capacities comparable to LRT you have serious inefficiencies with line-haul buses, which are self-evident in Brisbane every day.

Disagree. These alternative corridors I'm not convinced have the patronage yet. In any scenario you could put buses on first and then test for that patronage. I would also like to offer an example from Brisbane- the QR CityTrain that has 900 pax seating but only comes at half an hour and costs $100 million/km to extend. That's the problem I'm seeing here--- I'd rather the buses are improved first.

Don't do what QR does and have a 900 pax train running at 30 minute frequency which totally defeats the purpose.

I'm sure Gazza has a view on this. To be hyperbolic I would not put on LRT unless I can jump from the roof of one bus to another
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 12, 2011, 18:16:48 PMTo be hyperbolic I would not put on LRT unless I can jump from the roof of one bus to another

Currently, even the busiest stretch of the highway between Broadbeach and Surfers has about 18 buses transiting it per hour, which I make as follows during a weekday, excluding the theme park runs (just off the top of my head, feel free to correct me):

- 700 (2)
- 702 (2)
- 703 (2)
- 706 (2)
- 709 (2)
- 745 (2)
- 750 (6)

That is about 10% of the Cultural Centre busway at peak, and that excludes Captain Cook Bridge and other routes out of Brisbane.

When the system is operating, there are still likely to be something in the order of 6 buses per hour virtually mirroring the tramline, to provide closer stop spacing and to service Remembrance Drive through Surfers (probably a rerouted version of the 750 truncated to run only between Pacific Fair and Seaworld from what I have seen)

Are you therefore suggesting the whole project is a waste of time?  Because clearly we don't have the baseline patronage or capacity you believe is required to make it work even in the densest stretch.

Just curious, is all.
Ride the G:

#Metro

No I am not suggesting GCRT being LRT is a waste of time. Rapid Transit is obviously needed and LRT is the right choice for the core section running North-South along the coast. Such an suggestion that I think the GCRT "is a waste of time" is a bit of a straw man.

For background, Bus Rapid Transit could meet the needs of the Gold Coast.
CDIMP Volume 1, page 46.

Quote
A number of previous studies had shown that both light rail transit and bus rapid transit
could meet the needs of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project
(see page 16 for details
of the previous studies that led to these modes being investigated for the GCRT Project.

http://goldcoastrapidtransit.qld.gov.au/the-project/resources/

The difference in cost is also minimal. Page 45:
Quote
"Determining the right solution for the Gold Coast was not just about cost.
However the preliminary business case analysed both BRT and LRT on a whole of
life cost basis, over 30 and 50 years, and found minimal cost difference between the
2 systems"

So if the GCRT was built as BRT it would also meet the needs of the Gold Coast up until about 2026.

The reason why LRT was chosen
was because it had public support and ultimately had higher capacity than BRT running in Class B ROW. And that ultimate capacity
is important for what is going to be a core trunk section of line that is going to be fed by east-west bus routes.


So BRT could well meet the needs of the Gold Coast for a while, and indeed I have noted bus lanes on the Gold Coast Highway
and much larger stop spacing than here in Brisbane. There used to be a bus stop outside the Vibe Hotel before the Chevron Is. Bridge and they removed that.

Branches are a different kettle of fish...

My disagreement with the argument's I've heard however for branches of the LRT system, (i.e. Not on the core section of the network) is that I just don't think LRT capacity is warranted there and certainly not for the costs. When the LRT goes in there will be a lot of surplus buses as the buses no longer need to all travel down the Gold Coast highway. Why would you go out and buy LRT vehicles when you have all these buses now freed up? I would expect that the frequency of buses east-west is even lower that on the main coastal strip, even taking into account the increase in passengers from upgrading the right of way from class C to class B.

This is the reason why I don't think and I am not convinced that we are going to see branches anytime soon. Its great to discuss ideas and future possibilities but the reason why I'm skeptical is that I just don't see it being funded anytime soon or even within the next 30 years.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

TT, far from being a straw-man argument, why are we making the investment in capacity on a 13km stretch excluding several of our major centres when BRT would have given us slightly more system upfront?  For instance, the $1.67bn pricetag would probably buy a bus fleet comparable to the size of the BCC fleet in 2004/2005, and the infrastructure necessary to operate it, and would certainly buy more bus capacity than the 14 trams which are going to be delivered by 2014.

Answer = future capacity and reliability which buses cannot provide on trunk routes without paying more than is needed.

You can either consider all of GCRT an empty symbol in light of the immediate bus upgrades we have forgone, or you consider it an investment in the future of the network, as would be the extensions.  I don't see the rationale for picking and choosing which major centres should be hooked up – only when they should be hooked up.

We need to aggressively tackle the woeful levels of PT patronage, and limiting ourselves to bus-based solutions which need to be upgraded later will only turn out to be more expensive.  Stimulate patronage by providing higher capacity (and more efficient capacity) up front.  There's nothing symbolic about light rail every 10 minutes or better.

Why build any BRT corridors that will ultimately need to be LRT corridors?  Robina is not getting any smaller, and construction pricing is not getting cheaper.  You'll notice I'm not suggesting that Bundall Road, Christine Avenue, Napper Road or other main roads be turned into LRT branches, only those that connect major centres together (including at each end) and form the core of the network.  Bus lanes and greenlinks have their place, but anything beyond that really should be railed.  Similar cost, better capacity in future, no doubling up on build costs later when the inevitable upgrade is needed – no brainer.

Agreed that there will be plenty of buses freed up, which is a major selling point of GCRT, but that is only the immediate position as at 2014 when the system opens.  Those buses are already going to be deployed on other corridors, so you have a shortfall if you want to do anything better than 15 min headways on some key routes and 30 min headways on others.  You can surge the bus fleet, or construct light rail and take advantage of lower building costs by doing it sooner.  (There is plenty of money being washed into the park and ride budget to make a start with...)

LRT does also have a marked impact on development potential as we are seeing in Adelaide and down south - which I am not prepared to ignore on the basis of the North American anecdote supplied above (which related to a system quite unlike GCRT).  Land value capture principles should be used to fund extensions and bus network enhancements.  I would not be surprised if properties near the busiest stations increased in value by up to 50%, which means a better return for landlords and bigger rates and land tax receipts.

As an aside, it has been good thrashing these issues out with people who know what they are talking about and are reasonable to discuss thing with.  I have rarely encountered so many people who are knowledgeable about PT and who aren't elitist, authoritarian snobs like on some other sites!
Ride the G:

#Metro

Hi SurfRail,

Thanks for your reply. We are making the investment in that section as LRT as the price is pretty much the same as BRT along this corridor and it has ultimate capacity which BRT does not. I agree with you there. The possibility of events as well where you need that capacity is also a factor. I will point out that the BRT frequency would be double that (every 3 minutes) as opposed to the LRT when it begins (every 7-8 minutes).

So it is a straw man I feel because I actually support very strongly the LRT on the core section and in any case the BRT could have been good up to 2026, even on the core. What does not have my support is the extension of LRT where it is not required. Places like the branches that have been discussed.

I'm sorry to sound like Prof. David Hensher here and I do not doubt people's good intentions to have good public transport. But so often I see calls for more rail and even busway extensions and they are having the exact opposite effect to what was intended on public transport because they are doing things that effectively replace a rubber wheeled vehicle with a steel wheeled one at large cost with no net improvement to mobility. And not only that they are locking up hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre when those funds could be spent on decent frequency.

What stimulates patronage is not the vehicle. It is the speed, frequency capacity and right of way (prioritisation) you give to that vehicle. Frequency in particular. I think a high capacity bus every 2-3 minutes (20-30 buses per hour) in Class B right of way is about where I would start to think about higher capacity such as LRT or getting an upgraded right of way to Class A ROW. This is what I mean when I said exaggeratedly that I would not put LRT on until I could jump from the roof of one bus to another. Do these proposed branches have this kind of bus frequency off-peak?

If my mind serves me right BUZ 199 carries more patronage than Adelaide's Glenelg Tram.. Adelaide chose to upgrade the tram because it already had the existing tram and for peak capacity. Development occurs because of perceived savings in travel time and improvements to mobility- again something which is not vehicle specific (though I will concede that LRT has a good track record on this).

Quote
As an aside, it has been good thrashing these issues out with people who know what they are talking about and are reasonable to discuss thing with.  I have rarely encountered so many people who are knowledgeable about PT and who aren't elitist, authoritarian snobs like on some other sites!

You're welcome and it is great having you here on this site. Not everyone agrees with everything and often members including myself can get into serious debate. I will do my best to stay factual and stick to attacking arguments not people. At the end of the day we all respect each other, which is great and after all it is a public transport forum, not the minister's office!
:) :-t
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

It can be hard to get a grip or feel on what mobility is.
I found this post helpful... it talks about streetcars, but could equally be applied to busways and light rail.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

I have emphasised particular sections:

Quote
Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before.  This makes streetcars quite different from most of the other transit investments being discussed today.

Where a streetcar is faster or more reliable than the bus route it replaced, this is because other improvements were made at the same time -- improvements that could just as well have been made for the bus route.  These improvements may have been politically packaged as part of the streetcar project, but they were logically independent, so their benefits are not really benefits of the streetcar as compared to the bus.

Quote
Capacity.  (Update)  In other urban contexts, rail transit is important for its ability to carry large number of riders per vehicle, and hence per driver, usually by combining cars into trainsets.  Modern streetcars generally cannot be run as trainsets, but the still have some advantage over buses in this area; they have a capacity of around 200 compared to 120 for a typical articulated bus.  This capacity advantage can be relevant in high-volume situations, particularly when frequencies get down to the three-minute range.  However. most streetcars now under discussion are not this frequent.  Portland's Streetcar System Plan, for example, envisions mostly frequencies of 10-15 minutes, and at these levels the frequency is driven by a service quality standard, not a capacity requirement.

Speed may be one reason why you might go with rail. If you have a very long distance and you have a choice of 130 km/hour train or 100 km/hr bus you might pick train. But this is really for long intercity corridors that are more than say 30 km or so where speed has an impact or where people are making a very long total journey (Sunshine Coast?) and the comfort level makes a difference.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 11:52:56 AM
What stimulates patronage is not the vehicle. It is the speed, frequency capacity and right of way (prioritisation) you give to that vehicle. Frequency in particular.

Agreed.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 11:52:56 AM
I think a high capacity bus every 2-3 minutes (20-30 buses per hour) in Class B right of way is about where I would start to think about higher capacity such as LRT or getting an upgraded right of way to Class A ROW. This is what I mean when I said exaggeratedly that I would not put LRT on until I could jump from the roof of one bus to another. Do these proposed branches have this kind of bus frequency off-peak?

They do not, but that is applying today's current standards geared to patronage of no more than 3-4% of all trips made on the Coast.  I still think that point of view is very much oriented in demand-based thinking.  If we want to be sitting on 20-30% and get a critical mass going, we need to deal with the situation by putting the capacity in place now.

Places like Weston Creek in Canberra are anticipated to have 2 separate 7-8min headway bus routes in the off-peak more or less from day 1, and I suspect Robina could easily sustain that level of patronage from its existing pattern of development.  Densities are increasing too, and there are plenty of trip generators en route in the Varsity Lakes and Bond Uni precincts – Bond in particular is due to expand massively in coming years.

I am concerned about locking in expensive bus infrastructure when we know exactly where higher-intensity uses are being planned, when we know it won't be able to cope with increased patronage and when we then have to spend big bucks replacing it when we knew we would have to.  Nothing against putting on better bus services now though.  

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 11:52:56 AM
If my mind serves me right BUZ 199 carries more patronage than Adelaide's Glenelg Tram.. Adelaide chose to upgrade the tram because it already had the existing tram and for peak capacity.

The Glenelg Tram is less frequent, travels through areas of considerably less density and has few trip attractors along the route outside the CBD and the termini at either end, so that isn't surprising.  That is not a problem with any of the GC corridors I have mentioned, all of which have a combination of important locations located along the length of the corridor, better densities and no sharply defined peak direction.  

The 199 for that matter could also do with light rail, as could Cityglider, as the capacity upgrades will be necessary with the increasing intensity of development in the West End and the northern Valley/Newstead area.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 11:52:56 AM
Development occurs because of perceived savings in travel time and improvements to mobility- again something which is not vehicle specific (though I will concede that LRT has a good track record on this).

That's good theory, but it's not what really happens.  Development happens, at its crudest, because there is money to be made, not because developers are good urban planners.  Planning is relatively easy to get around.  

That's why it is important to attract developers to the right locations and encourage high-density by getting the amenities right, hence the ULDA.  High-quality and high-capacity mass transit is an important one, and investor confidence requires fixed infrastructure.  You may as well make it the type you ultimately need when things start filling up.

Everybody knows Robina is the city's second CBD and will keep on densifying, which is why any assessment of the GCRT project should seriously consider a link there, to stimulate the provision of higher-density accommodation and less of the Delfin / Stockland sprawl on offer.  

It's all about capacity and efficiency.  Buses may be able to do what trams can do to connect these major centres, but they don't do it for cheaper in the long run.
Ride the G:

#Metro

Quote
They do not, but that is applying today's current standards geared to patronage of no more than 3-4% of all trips made on the Coast.  I still think that point of view is very much oriented in demand-based thinking.  If we want to be sitting on 20-30% and get a critical mass going, we need to deal with the situation by putting the capacity in place now.

This is the "Clem 7" argument. "We need to do it now because in 30 years we might need it". The problem is that good service gets pushed over the horizon...

My objection to this argument is that it places heavy infrastructure first when what you need is heavy services. High frequency. You can have a bus stop and bus lane going and later lay down the tracks and wires into that. Something like the BUZ needs to be created on the Gold Coast along major arterials, and that can be upgraded to buses in bus lanes or even median class B busway services. Then you can lay tracks into that, but this is very distant future I feel.

Services and service frequency need to come first I think. Modest improvements to infrastructure will help.

Quote
I am concerned about locking in expensive bus infrastructure when we know exactly where higher-intensity uses are being planned, when we know it won't be able to cope with increased patronage and when we then have to spend big bucks replacing it when we knew we would have to.  Nothing against putting on better bus services now though.  

Light rail is the bus infrastructure right-of-way plus tracks and overhead wires, but this is offset over time by the lower operational costs as the report found along that particular corridor. Rail needs continuous tracks and wires, wires with buses are optional. I'm just not sure that with lower demand on the branches that LRT is justified within the next say 20 years. If BRT could do the job on the core until 2026, then this implies that LRT on branches might not be needed until at least 2030 or 2040. Do people want to wait for 30 years for decent frequency or have services now?

Quote
The Glenelg Tram is less frequent, travels through areas of considerably less density and has few trip attractors along the route outside the CBD and the termini at either end, so that isn't surprising.  That is not a problem with any of the GC corridors I have mentioned, all of which have a combination of important locations located along the length of the corridor, better densities and no sharply defined peak direction.  

The 199 for that matter could also do with light rail, as could Cityglider, as the capacity upgrades will be necessary with the increasing intensity of development in the West End and the northern Valley/Newstead area.

I took a ride on the Glenelg tram to Mosely Square. The frequency is about the same as BUZ 199. In the city is slow. However once it gets to the Class A row it goes like a train. West End buses are approaching the trigger level for LRT. It isn't just about density but also connectivity. I suspect the line isn't being fed by buses...

Quote
That's good theory, but it's not what really happens.  Development happens, at its crudest, because there is money to be made, not because developers are good urban planners.  Planning is relatively easy to get around.  

That's why it is important to attract developers to the right locations and encourage high-density by getting the amenities right, hence the ULDA.  High-quality and high-capacity mass transit is an important one, and investor confidence requires fixed infrastructure.  You may as well make it the type you ultimately need when things start filling up.

Disagree strongly on this one. Jarrett Walker even has a post on this as well. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is-speed-obsolete-.html
Again, fixed infrastructure could be a Class B ROW busway. That's fixed. A lot of trams were eliminated in Brisbane and worldwide as well, so maybe not as permanent as perceived. Brisbane's BUZ network isn't going to disappear overnight...

QuoteCondon is consciously dismissing the value of speed.  The Portland Streetcar that is Condon's model is no faster than a local bus.  Virtually every street on Condon's idealised Vancouver streetcar network map already has frequent bus service running at least as fast as a Portland-inspired streetcar would run.  So Condon is suggesting spending C$2.8 billion on a huge network of services that do not improve mobility at all.  After this huge investment, nobody would be able to get anywhere any faster than they can on the bus system now.  Condon will object that various things could be done to make the streetcars faster, but as I explored in detail here, most of those things could be done for the buses now, which means they're not logical consequences of a streetcar plan even if they're politically packaged with it.

Quote
Everybody knows Robina is the city's second CBD and will keep on densifying, which is why any assessment of the GCRT project should seriously consider a link there, to stimulate the provision of higher-density accommodation and less of the Delfin / Stockland sprawl on offer.  

It should be considered but ALL options should be considered.

Quote
It's all about capacity and efficiency.  Buses may be able to do what trams can do to connect these major centres, but they don't do it for cheaper in the long run.
The buses seem to work just fine between the four town centres of Belconnen, Canberra City, Woden and Tuggeranong with services every 5-8 minutes during the day. There are very large town centres with development, large westfields, employment centres for public services... Compare this to Robina...
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 13:39:38 PM
This is the "Clem 7" argument. "We need to do it now because in 30 years we might need it". The problem is that good service gets pushed over the horizon...

The Clem 7 was an abject waste of money which relied on a dubious business case and complete opposition to the Council's own objectives on traffic management.  It will never do what it was hoped to do.

We need LRT and good bus services to accommodate latent and future patronage demand and to stop people driving, which is exactly what the Clem 7 doesn't do.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 13:39:38 PM
Light rail is the bus infrastructure right-of-way plus tracks and overhead wires, but this is offset over time by the lower operational costs as the report found along that particular corridor. Rail needs continuous tracks and wires, wires with buses are optional. I'm just not sure that with lower demand on the branches that LRT is justified within the next say 20 years. If BRT could do the job on the core until 2026, then this implies that LRT on branches might not be needed until at least 2030 or 2040. Do people want to wait for 30 years for decent frequency or have services now?

There doesn't need to be a natural and inevitable progression.  Busways are expensive, and barely cheaper than LRT, so you may as well get it right in one hit.  This is a point I don't feel you are addressing.  If the corridor will ultimately merit LRT, do it first.  SEQRP and SEQIPP are supposed to give us the certainty to know this sort of thing.

There would be no point in building LRT without attractive services, so again I feel there isn't much in the argument about frequency.  Buses get more frequent because they need to be to compete on capacity, and that is not a good use of human or other resources.  A light rail service operating something like 6-8 services per hour is still perfectly acceptable, I would have thought, because you have a good compromise between cost, capacity and frequency.  With the capacities our trams will be delivering, you will need something in the order of 4 conventional buses to match a single service.  I don't see the higher operating costs as a good outcome when the capital outlay of a busway is nearly the same.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 13:39:38 PM
Disagree strongly on this one. Jarrett Walker even has a post on this as well. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is-speed-obsolete-.html
Again, fixed infrastructure could be a Class B ROW busway. That's fixed. A lot of trams were eliminated in Brisbane and worldwide as well, so maybe not as permanent as perceived. Brisbane's BUZ network isn't going to disappear overnight...

The Gold Coast does not have a radially dispersed pattern of settlement which could justify a collective busway approach like Brisbane's.  Brisbane gets its super frequency from already high frequency branches that bunch back up again closer to the CBD, whereas we would really only have line-haul and feeders.  The busway does not have consistent frequencies up and down, as you are well aware.

Again, Jarrett's point is not apt for Gold Coast Rapid Transit.  It is not a streetcar stopping every few corners, it is not competing with parallel bus services in a densely served area.  It is designed to make travel much faster, more reliable and less prone to general traffic, and therefore improve mobility over the current PT offering available.  Yes you could achieve much of this with a busway ROW or bus lanes, but there are inherent capacity problems you avoid later on for practically the same "set-up fee". 

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 13:39:38 PMThe buses seem to work just fine between the four town centres of Belconnen, Canberra City, Woden and Tuggeranong with services every 5-8 minutes during the day. There are very large town centres with development, large westfields, employment centres for public services... Compare this to Robina...

My problem there is that a city with Canberra's rate of PT uptake is not exactly what you would call "fine".  Canberra also has a lower absolute population to support fixed rapid transit, which is why their 2031 plan is not really that concerned with modality.  For them, capacity is not so much of an issue.  The Gold Coast however is going to hit 1 million people before Canberra gets to where the GC is now (if it ever does).
Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteThe Clem 7 was an abject waste of money which relied on a dubious business case and complete opposition to the Council's own objectives on traffic management.  It will never do what it was hoped to do.

We need LRT and good bus services to accommodate latent and future patronage demand and to stop people driving, which is exactly what the Clem 7 doesn't do.

The proponents of Clem 7 mounted the "we need this in the future" argument. The proponents had good intentions but the result was the exact opposite. We have a piece of infrastructure that is underused and probably won't be well used for the next 30 years. Also it locked up a grand total of $770 million dollars that could have been spent on alternatives to improve mobility. That's the kind of principles that I don't support.

QuoteWe need LRT and
What we need is good public transport so that people can get around. That could be anything from buses, BRT, monorails, LRT, metros etc. What matters is speed, frequency and scope of hours.

Quote
There doesn't need to be a natural and inevitable progression.  Busways are expensive, and barely cheaper than LRT, so you may as well get it right in one hit.  This is a point I don't feel you are addressing.  If the corridor will ultimately merit LRT, do it first.  SEQRP and SEQIPP are supposed to give us the certainty to know this sort of thing.

It is important the improved bus frequency comes first. If route 393 had been done as LRT it would have been a white elephant and then you have all this infrastructure there. Patronage on the Gold Coast Highway bus services is good so there is no uncertainty about that there and I am happy with LRT there.

Quote
There would be no point in building LRT without attractive services, so again I feel there isn't much in the argument about frequency.  Buses get more frequent because they need to be to compete on capacity, and that is not a good use of human or other resources.  A light rail service operating something like 6-8 services per hour is still perfectly acceptable, I would have thought, because you have a good compromise between cost, capacity and frequency.  With the capacities our trams will be delivering, you will need something in the order of 4 conventional buses to match a single service.  I don't see the higher operating costs as a good outcome when the capital outlay of a busway is nearly the same.

You still have to wait up to 5 years or more plus submit funding proposals to three levels of government to get past this one as well. If you have a busway in class B row if you want to convert that to LRT you just add poles, wires, electrical substations and tracks into that right of way. So I don't understand how it can be claimed that constructing that would be cost more.


I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

QuoteThe Gold Coast does not have a radially dispersed pattern of settlement which could justify a collective busway approach like Brisbane's.  Brisbane gets its super frequency from already high frequency branches that bunch back up again closer to the CBD, whereas we would really only have line-haul and feeders.  The busway does not have consistent frequencies up and down, as you are well aware.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. If I have not made it clear already, I support LRT on the core section proposed going north-south along the Gold Coast, and further down to Coolangatta Airport. But I'm just not convinced about these other extension proposals to places like Nerang and Robina.

Quote
Again, Jarrett's point is not apt for Gold Coast Rapid Transit.  It is not a streetcar stopping every few corners, it is not competing with parallel bus services in a densely served area.  It is designed to make travel much faster, more reliable and less prone to general traffic, and therefore improve mobility over the current PT offering available.  Yes you could achieve much of this with a busway ROW or bus lanes, but there are inherent capacity problems you avoid later on for practically the same "set-up fee".  

If I get a bus and put steel wheels on it, and charge $35 million/km for that, and run it at identical frequencies have I improved mobility? No, all I have done is spent a lot of money that could be spent on something else and done a vehicle swap. Once again, I have no issue with LRT going in on the core, my issue is with these other branching extensions out to Nerang et al. It may well be designed to make travel much faster, more reliable and less prone to general traffic, but this comes about because of the right of way and wider stop spacing, not because of the vehicl type. Buses on Belconnen way travelling to the CBD in Canberra in the bus lanes they have there reach 80km/hour.

If capacity becomes an issue, then you get rid of the buses and put down tracks.


I just get the feeling people want light rail because its light rail.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

Quote
My problem there is that a city with Canberra's rate of PT uptake is not exactly what you would call "fine".  Canberra also has a lower absolute population to support fixed rapid transit, which is why their 2031 plan is not really that concerned with modality.  For them, capacity is not so much of an issue.  The Gold Coast however is going to hit 1 million people before Canberra gets to where the GC is now (if it ever does).

Yes, but is Robina and Nerang as big as Belconnen, Woden, Canberra city and Tuggeranong? My point is that bus capacity is not going to max out to these locations such as Nerang and Robina for many decades I would think.

I don't mind the ideas, but if there is going to be a branched LRT extension proposal for the Gold Coast costing many billions proposed then there's a good chance that I won't be lending my support to it. The train frequency at the stations on current infrastructure all around the QR network is terrible and that needs money to iron out those bottlenecks. I'm not sure how much your proposed extensions would cost, possibly another billion or two billion depending on length; I'd rather have that money fix up frequency on trains and buses so that people can get around today.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:26:30 PM
The proponents of Clem 7 mounted the "we need this in the future" argument. The proponents had good intentions but the result was the exact opposite. We have a piece of infrastructure that is underused and probably won't be well used for the next 30 years. Also it locked up a grand total of $770 million dollars that could have been spent on alternatives to improve mobility. That's the kind of principles that I don't support.

The Clem 7 was never a good project, and never will be.  It was only built because it was able to attract investor funding based on extremely questionable figures which we now know may as well have been formulated by playing with a chicken's guts.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:26:30 PMWhat we need is good public transport so that people can get around. That could be anything from buses, BRT, monorails, LRT, metros etc. What matters is speed, frequency and scope of hours.

What we also need is value for money and capacity.  LRT should be employed to connect major centres to form the backbone of the network and provide that capacity.  Anything more intensive (outside our single inter-city line) would not be justified with our population base or urban form. 

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:26:30 PMIt is important the improved bus frequency comes first. If route 393 had been done as LRT it would have been a white elephant and then you have all this infrastructure there. Patronage on the Gold Coast Highway bus services is good so there is no uncertainty about that there and I am happy with LRT there.

The 393 goes though what are virtually industrial estates (and will do even with the Bowen Hills UDA now being established).  Nobody suggested flinging rails and wires around at random – that is a straw-man argument.

Robina is a principal activity centre which currently supports over 30,000 people and is still enormously underdeveloped (in commercial and residential terms), plus it is a major events precinct.  There is demonstrable travel demand in all directions to and from Robina and satellite locations like Varsity Lakes and Bond Uni.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:26:30 PMYou still have to wait up to 5 years or more plus submit funding proposals to three levels of government to get past this one as well. If you have a busway in class B row if you want to convert that to LRT you just add poles, wires, electrical substations and tracks into that right of way. So I don't understand how it can be claimed that constructing that would be cost more.

You make it sound like we can get the traction gear and lineside equipment from Bunnings!   It all adds up.  We know where the growth is going, so we don't need to adopt a "wait and see if it comes good" approach to work out what needs to be built.  Maximise the up-front benefit by providing the capacity and frequency from day 1. 
Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteThe Clem 7 was never a good project, and never will be.  It was only built because it was
able to attract investor funding based on extremely questionable figures which we now know may as
well have been formulated by playing with a chicken's guts.

I note that you have chosen to attack the example but have avoided addressing the principle which
the example was illustrating.

And so what is to say that your proposed LRT lines out to Robina and Nerang, of which
there are no details for what the patronage will be or will eventuate to justify the large upfront capital cost (possibly $2
billion or so, provide your own cost estimate if you disagree) to these areas by 2018 or even 2030?
How do we know that your speculation is also not extremely questionable as Clem 7?

Do these areas have bus services approaching or reaching the trigger threshold for LRT of 20-30 services per hour?
(an arcticulated bus every 2-3 minutes)?

QuoteWhat we also need is value for money and capacity.  LRT should be employed to connect major
centres to form the backbone of the network and provide that capacity.  Anything more intensive
(outside our single inter-city line) would not be justified with our population base or urban form.
Out to places like Nerang and Robina. I just don't think you need something that can do 10
000 pphd by 2018 or even 2030 out to these places. I agree, but I don't think LRT is that tool at
least yet.

QuoteRobina is a principal activity centre which currently supports over 30,000 people and is
still enormously underdeveloped (in commercial and residential terms), plus it is a major events
precinct.  There is demonstrable travel demand in all directions to and from Robina and satellite
locations like Varsity Lakes and Bond Uni.

The population of Belconnen is almost three times the size of Robina. Canberra institute of Technology (CIT), Calvary Hospital, the AIS, and Australian National University are all on this route to Belconnen. And it is done by standard buses every 5-8 minutes traveling in a painted bus lane at up to 80 km/hour. Robina also has an existing train station.
QuoteBelconnen is the second
town centre of Canberra ACT. Development commenced in 1967 and by 2006 its population had reached
84,382. It is larger than many provincial cities in Australia
.
http://www.belconnen.org.au/discover.htm And everywhere to everywhere travel would be well suited to
bus!

QuoteYou make it sound like we can get the traction gear and lineside equipment from Bunnings! 
It all adds up.  We know where the growth is going, so we don't need to adopt a "wait and see if it
comes good" approach to work out what needs to be built.  Maximise the up-front benefit by providing
the capacity and frequency from day 1.  

Bus lanes can be painted over a few months. Buses already exist. It has been a decade to get
light rail going from planning study to tender.

My questions to you are:

1. How much will these branched extensions cost to construct?
2. How long will it take to construct and deliver?
3. Where is the money going to come from (what are we going to forgo to do it?).
4. What will the frequency be on each of these branches?

Maybe we should draw up maps of our proposals. Often good things come from debates.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

SurfRail

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:33:35 PM
If I get a bus and put steel wheels on it, and charge $35 million/km for that, and run it at identical frequencies have I improved mobility?  No, all I have done is spent a lot of money that could be spent on something else and done a vehicle swap.  No, all I have done is spent a lot of money that could be spent on something else and done a vehicle swap. Once again, I have no issue with LRT going in on the core, my issue is with these other branching extensions out to Nerang et al. It may well be designed to make travel much faster, more reliable and less prone to general traffic, but this comes about because of the right of way and wider stop spacing, not because of the vehicl type. Buses on Belconnen way travelling to the CBD in Canberra in the bus lanes they have there reach 80km/hour.

For a start, a 300+ passenger tram is not a bus on steel wheels (aka an A-class tram or similar).

As to your question - yes, you have improved mobility.  You have provided additional capacity necessary to encourage more ridership, and thus reduced congestion on the road network – also making buses travel more efficiently.  Providing that capacity induces travel demand of the sort we need, ie people moving where they need to go without bringing a ton of steel, glass, plastic and rubber with them.  You are also doing so without blowing the budget on maintenance and drivers wages.

Buses in their own ROW do have the same advantage, but sans the capacity and with all the attendant inefficiencies of needing 3 times the drivers at best.  I just don't see why you would waste the money on the lower capacity if your buses are going to be a closed system, which is the only way to do it properly and obtain the same advantages as light rail.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:33:35 PM
If capacity becomes an issue, then you get rid of the buses and put down tracks.

So why not do this first considering the minuscule cost differential?  Every major PT project delivered in Australia in the last 20 years has delivered greater patronage than was expected.

Quote from: tramtrain on May 13, 2011, 16:33:35 PMI just get the feeling people want light rail because its light rail.

Well, yes – with all the attendant advantages it brings to the selected corridors I have suggested.  Nobody is saying it's a whizz-bang fix-all.
Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteFor a start, a 300+ passenger tram is not a bus on steel wheels (aka an A-class tram or similar).

One again you attack the example but you choose to not address the principle behind this. At the end of the day, of you put your proposal to the politicians, I doubt it would be funded. I really do. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you, we all have our own opinions, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.

QuoteAs to your question - yes, you have improved mobility.  You have provided additional capacity necessary to encourage more ridership, and thus reduced congestion on the road network – also making buses travel more efficiently.  Providing that capacity induces travel demand of the sort we need, ie people moving where they need to go without bringing a ton of steel, glass, plastic and rubber with them.  You are also doing so without blowing the budget on maintenance and drivers wages.

There is a difference between capacity and frequency. Capacity = vehicle spaces for passengers x services per hour. The 900 passenger QR train that stops outside the train station I use sure has a lot of capacity and a lot of air!!! If I had a choice of living in Brisbane of living near a busway station or even living near a BUZ route or a train station, I'd choose living near the BUZ route or the busway, because despite all the capacity on the rail network, despite having all the state of the art trains and furnishings etc, the service characteristics such as frequency are all wrong.
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

Quote
Buses in their own ROW do have the same advantage, but sans the capacity and with all the attendant inefficiencies of needing 3 times the drivers at best.  I just don't see why you would waste the money on the lower capacity if your buses are going to be a closed system, which is the only way to do it properly and obtain the same advantages as light rail.

This argument is only true if patronage is high. Are the bus routes to areas such as Robina and Nerang town centres reaching 20-30 buses per hour in the off-peak or anytime within the next 10 years? Because the current bus service to Belconnen, which is almost 3x larger than Robina, and links four town centres using standard bus is only at 5-8 minute frequencies during the day...
I'm not a TMR. Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

🡱 🡳