Western LRT Corridor

[#Metro]

This one is for the distant future.
A BUZ 450 should be good, but in the future capacity might need upgrading.
A grade-separated busway would be more expensive and require more resumptions
than simply running Light Rail on the street and feeding it using a local bus or bicycles.

A metro would have the capacity but not the length or low enough costs to be very useful or extensive IMHO.

Stops should be kept far apart ~ 650 to 800 meters, and traffic priority installed to speed up the
service.

In the medium term, a green Bridge from Riverhills to Moggill would be an interesting idea to look at.
The idea uses Mt Ommaney as a major interchange and the Centenary Highway alignment as a trunk PT
corridor. The funds could be found by diverting the metro proposed for the Toowong-Newstead metro
and instead put into a light rail solution in the distant future.

Buses could do the route and over a bridge until upgrading to LRT is required.

[#Metro]

I've used train station symbols later on because for all intents and purposes, that's the level of
service I'm dreaming about. Station spacing becomes wider, like heavy rail. Interchange
with bus will allow coverage to spread well beyond those immediately living next to the line.

Just like heavy rail but with the flexibility to run on the street like LRT.

[#Metro]

Service runs straight to Indooroopilly. A tunnel section will likely be required?
An interchange could be positioned between the Shopping Centre and the Rail station and the bus interchange built on top,
so that 4 way connections between bus-rail, LRT-bus, rail-bus, and rail-LRT can occur. Indeed, with this amount of interchanging and a massive shopping centre this could be a massive TOD opportunity right there.

Many buses originating from the Western Suburbs would be taken off the road and feeding LRT, meaning operational efficiency by concentrating passengers into a single line.

[#Metro]

The trip into the CBD was a bit trickier.
It could run down Coronation Drive but that wouldn't really add many new destinations and would compete with rail
and bus. The Go Between Bridge intersection does not help either. It could go underneath Coronation Drive... so I'll leave that idea open.

Tunneling at Toowong to interchange with Toowong Rail, a new station could go at the site of ABC Toowong. Again a TOD opportunity. Over to West End Via Bridge or Tunnel to run in the Montague Road corridor. It could be underground or above ground- above ground seems better. More stations in West End than the proposed metro too.

Access to the CBD could be performed via the Victoria Bridge. However the busway may need a tunnel anyway as capacity increases, so there is great uncertainty over what could happen. However, there is a car park underneath the State Library which might be worthwhile to consider converting to a underground station and interchange. This car park might be connected to the carpark under the Museum which has direct access to the current Cultural Centre busway. The service could continue underground to stations in the CBD, Valley and Newstead.

[#Metro]

Just an idea.

[somebody]

Has a couple of interesting aspects.  The part about going to Moggill via Riverhills means more potential passengers.  One wonders why Moggill should be more developed than Pinjarra Hills though. 

Not a fan of a Riverhills Rd routing.

[Golliwog]

Just a further idea, once in West End, I would argue that you WOULDN'T head into the city. Perhaps down Vulture street instead and go to Woolongabba? and onwards somewhere from there? My main argument being that you have interchange with rail at Indroopilly and Toowong, and once across in West End, you have 199/Cityglider or the Metro if they ever get around to building that.

Other option is that as a Metro can be built to be basically an underground LRT then it could just feed into that.

[#Metro]

Not a fan of a Riverhills Rd routing.

I thought about this too. I was thinking Sumners Road as it is straighter and faster IMHO.
But if you go via Sumners Road, then you miss out on Middle Park Shops and catchments from Horizon Drive.

I would argue that you WOULDN'T head into the city. Perhaps down Vulture street instead and go to Woolongabba? and onwards somewhere from there? My main argument being that you have interchange with rail at Indroopilly and Toowong, and once across in West End, you have 199/Cityglider or the Metro if they ever get around to building that.

Well I was thinking this would be instead of the metro. But it is possible Golliwog. Toronto does it/is planning to do it, and AIUI they have a metro line feeding into... another metro line.

Other option is that as a Metro can be built to be basically an underground LRT then it could just feed into that.

Some examples in Germany I think- stuttgart stadbahn?

At the station


Emerging into the street (makes you think of Queen Street Bus station doesn't it?)


On the surface


Frequency looks good

[#Metro]

I would argue that you WOULDN'T head into the city.

Coming to think of it (not saying this should be done, just looking at ideas) it might be possible to just build the Indooroopilly-Riverhills Moggill section and then start running it without any connection to the CBD. While that is operational, do up the Indooroopilly-Toowong-West End section!

[somebody]

Not a fan of a Riverhills Rd routing.

I thought about this too. I was thinking Sumners Road as it is straighter and faster IMHO.
But if you go via Sumners Road, then you miss out on Middle Park Shops and catchments from Horizon Drive.

Yeah, you need at least 3 routes to properly serve the Centennary suburbs.

[colinw]

Rather than going via West End, why not continue from Indooroopilly to the Uni, thence across the river via the Schonell bridge?  If service frequencies are sufficient, interchange to train at Indooroopilly will be more than sufficient, so a routing onward to Woolloongabba via the Uni will add an important cross-city link.  Route it right and you'll tie together Western Suburbs, Ipswich Line, Uni, Beenleigh/Gold Coast line, South East Busway, Eastern Busway, Cleveland Line and the Woollongabba TOD with one connecting service.

[#Metro]

Rather than going via West End, why not continue from Indooroopilly to the Uni, thence across the river via the Schonell bridge?

Why not just a branch off the line at Toowong or West End, emerge into Schonell Drive terminate Campbell Place UQ?
I'm estimating this metro system would cost about... $1.5 - $2 billion dollars IMHO. Easily.

The Toronto Transit Commission is focusing on LRT as an alternative  to extend their system further.
http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html

Mitch Standler, Manager of Service Planning for Toronto explains about LRT and Subway:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/tmp/lrt/jun_19/toronto_mitch_stambler.wmv

Now in a city that has long been in love with its subways,
the idea of going to Light Rail instead of subways was a very hard sell, I mean
this was an uphill battle and was not initially well recieved at all.

We argued that we should however go to LRT because firstly it is much
cheaper to build than subways, so you can get more bang for your buck
and yet you can still provide excellent quality service. Quiet smooth and
comfortable rides...
...

We believe that Light Rail can provide all the capacity we need for
projected demand in the future.

Based on the population and employment projections from
these 7 light rail lines alone will carry over half a million
revenue passengers per day, or an annual ridership of 175 million passengers annually

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/tmp/lrt/toronto_en.pdf (PDF of Slides)

[#Metro]

"We argue that we can provide 4 to 5 times the coverage of rapid transit if we build light rail than if we continue to obsess about subways"

Mitch Standler, Manager of Service Planning for Toronto explains about LRT and Subway:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/tmp/lrt/jun_19/toronto_mitch_stambler.wmv

[colinw]

If that 4 or 5 to 1 ratio holds, then Brisbane could have quite an extensive inner city LRT for the cost of that one subway line to Toowong.

I really do not buy into the idea of Metro / Subway lines for Brisbane at all, other than running metro-like frequency on the existing heavy rail network + extensions like CRR.

[mufreight]

Rather than going via West End, why not continue from Indooroopilly to the Uni, thence across the river via the Schonell bridge?  If service frequencies are sufficient, interchange to train at Indooroopilly will be more than sufficient, so a routing onward to Woolloongabba via the Uni will add an important cross-city link.  Route it right and you'll tie together Western Suburbs, Ipswich Line, Uni, Beenleigh/Gold Coast line, South East Busway, Eastern Busway, Cleveland Line and the Woollongabba TOD with one connecting service.

Impossible, it's too simple, would not cost enough, would probably work and would not provide sufficient justification to employ another thirty or so seat polishing otherwise unemployable bureaucrats doing studies, advisory papers, ministerial briefings and reports for the next ten tears.   

[#Metro]

Its interesting that Toronto has extensive signal priority all over the city. The guy speaking actually said that the new LRT services would take a lane away from cars. Too bad if that meant less car lanes. The changes would mean that less vehicles could fit on to the road, however, the flip side was that more people could be put through the corridor.

[colinw]

Its interesting that Toronto has extensive signal priority all over the city. The guy speaking actually said that the new LRT services would take a lane away from cars. Too bad if that meant less car lanes. The changes would mean that less vehicles could fit on to the road, however, the flip side was that more people could be put through the corridor.

This may be good news for us longer term.  Queensland Transport has already shown a tendency to follow Canadian thinking (Ottawa busways), so in about 15 years the news from Toronto might start to filter through ...

Regarding my post above about routing via the Uni, before implementing LRT even a BUZ route following this approximate route would be a very good thing.

[somebody]

I think you may find that idea is a non starter.  The Eleanor Schonell Bridge was given no connection to the St Lucia road system completely intentionally, to prevent such a bus route or road.

[colinw]

I think you may find that idea is a non starter.  The Eleanor Schonell Bridge was given no connection to the St Lucia road system completely intentionally, to prevent such a bus route or road.

Brilliant idea that.  Build a busway to a not particularly convenient terminus, and prevent it by design from being extended to make a useful cross town route.

Add it to the list of failures.

Undoubtedly a sop to the St Lucia NIMBY contingent.

[STB]

I don't think it was St Lucia residents per se, moreso Uni of Qld.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I heard it was UQ too. They didn't want people rat running through their campus, ignoring the 30km/hr speed limit.

[O_128]

yeh i doubt st lucia residents would have an issue, UQ would only let construction go ahead if it did go through, something ive been thinking of is having another bus stop close to the UQ lakes stop to make transfers more convenient

[somebody]

I don't think it was St Lucia residents per se, moreso Uni of Qld.

I think it was both, but UQ where the more powerful opposition as it was their land.

I'm sure everyone would be in favour of a more convenient UQ Lakes station.  I'm not sure why that couldn't be achieved.

[Golliwog]

The lakes on one side (aka, UQ's water tank for the gardens) and the hill on the other. I have been told all underneath the great court and stuff is solid rock. Very expensive to tunnel through. To plant the trees that they have in the great court at the moment I have been told the Uni paid for the rock to be removed where the trees would be planted so that they could have deep enough soil for the roots.

[#Metro]

IMHO tunnel should only be used where absolutely necessary, in order to keep costs right down.
IMHO a branch to UQ might be better, but this would be an addition to, not a re-routing of, the route above.

Toowong is a major destination... an opportunity for a proper interchange with Toowong Rail presents itself.
There were once busway plans (full blown busway too) to go from Toowong to St Lucia floated in the 1997 IRTP.

Just reading the IRTP from 1997, you can't help but wonder if the authorities were feeling a bit... lost???

Keep it simple... minimise the expensive stuff.

[#Metro]

There is a possibility to deliver Western LRT in multiple distinct stages and operate them in stages.
For example:

A bridge Riverhills-Bellbowrie, run by buses and a BUZ to the CBD

Piece #1: Indooroopilly-Riverhills-Bellbowrie LRT
Piece #2: City-West End Ferry (CityGlider Route)
Piece #3: UQ-Toowong (not shown in maps)

Then later you would come and connect them up in a "join the dots" way, by installing the connections.
Connect West End to Toowong (bridge/tunnel, although a tunnel would likely integrate better with underground rail station at
Toowong already). This would allow direct access to the CBD by LRT from UQ, replacing BUZ 412. A portal to underground could be placed in Benson St. (more expensive, but hey, if you are going to spend 300 million/km on a metro, then compared to that this is crumbs)

Connect Indooroopilly to Toowong (this is more complicated).
This would allow passengers to travel from Bellbowrie-Indro-Toowong-West End-CBD directly.

Who says that LRT projects can't be delivered in stages? They can, just takes some thought.

[Golliwog]

I wouldn't support the LRT being built UQ to Toowong as its own seperate thing. Once the rest was up and going, yes, but not before. IMO, the cost of that individual piece would far outweight the benefit it would give without the other sections. I would much rather see West End connected to Toowong first.

Also, what would you do with the LRT in the city? Just terminate it in something like the Queen St bus station, have it run through the city and go somewhere out the other side, or make a loop around the city? I would think given the number of one way streets in the city a loop would be better, and would in future allow for other routes to simply be added on as another leg. Each light rail vehicle would come in, run around the loop and then go back out the leg it came on. Something like George St, Turbot st, Wharf st, Eagle Street, Mary/Margaret St and back on to George. I'm assuming access via the proposed Adelaide St bridge.

[#Metro]

Also, what would you do with the LRT in the city? Just terminate it in something like the Queen St bus station, have it run through the city and go somewhere out the other side, or make a loop around the city? I would think given the number of one way streets in the city a loop would be better, and would in future allow for other routes to simply be added on as another leg. Each light rail vehicle would come in, run around the loop and then go back out the leg it came on. Something like George St, Turbot st, Wharf st, Eagle Street, Mary/Margaret St and back on to George. I'm assuming access via the proposed Adelaide St bridge.

All things take time. Often inordinate amounts of time.

The next post is outside the scope of the Western LRT idea, it is a separate proposal IMHO.
As others have pointed out, it could simply feed the heavy rail system or UQ while other pieces are being constructed.

[#Metro]

By the time this proposal was ready, the SE Busway would probably require conversion to LRT or something more. SE Busway has specifically been designed to do this. To handle the capacity required, an underground tunnel will almost certainly be required to enter the CBD. There are disadvantages to this, but there might not be much choice. It's either that, or buses banking up all the way to Mater Hill in my view. Alternative routings into the CBD will only buy time and will not address the issue of the huge labour and fuel requirements to continue operating the system using buses only.

An underground LRT could be one double track or multiple tracks like heavy rail. Depending on the alignment chosen, it could connect to the new Cross River Rail stations if there was enough foresight there. Access could be similar to how there are stair portals in the Queen St Mall currently and lifts etc inside buildings adjacent.

Stations could be placed in the CBD, Creek St Financial District, Fortitude Valley and then emerge into surface streets for New Farm, Bulimba etc. Again, this is going to be expensive, but at 300 million/km for a metro the financing aspects are probably cheaper for LRT, even if it is underground also. If it is in the CBD then it would be worth spending money to put it underground like many cities have already, and like has already been done for the buses in Brisbane.

Brisbane has become experienced at tunneling thanks to the BCC & tunnel mania, so there should be a locally developed competitive market in tunnel technologies to keep the prices down on these things.



The undergrounding of LRT in the CBD section will isolate the vulnerable core of the LRT system from surface traffic hazards, weather, accidents and interference which could be highly disruptive for the entire Brisbane LRT network if they were to occur in the core. It will also remove objection from the Property Council and remove objections from cyclists and SOV (single occupant vehicle) motorists. It will also allow buses to use the surface streets- as there will always be a need to have some buses in the CBD.

A surface system would be more like a tramway system rather than true LRT, and slower in speed.

[#Metro]

A possible idea (Again outside the scope of the Western LRT, but more to do with the questions about the CBD sections)
Multiple lines- emerging into the surface at 1:50. The gradient looks very steep but seems to be handled by the LRVs quite well. Perhaps Queen Street Busway Station could be used?

With a bit of thought in the design, such as allowing for 6 car LRVs and upgraded signalling, very high capacity is possible IMHO.

[#Metro]

And to clarify- even if the busway is not converted, you might be able to get away with running LRT over the Victoria bridge and in surface streets. However, how to do this at Cultural Centre and keep the busway will be difficult, especially given the very busy nature of the CC. Adelaide St Bridge is possible IMHO, but then the core of the LRT network is exposed to surface unreliability and will be limited to slow speed limits of the CBD streets (40 km/hour and probably lower than this anyway due to pedestrians/cars/buses all interacting).

[#Metro]

Another one  
Very close to the idea...worth looking at but need a good internet connection.

[Golliwog]

Could just do what the train thing at Perisher does to go up the steep slopes which is to have, as well as the two tracks, a third track with teeth for a gear on the train to grab on and use to pull it up the hill. IIRC it is kind of noisy though.

Also, IIRC the Victoria bridge is not light rail compatible? I vaguely remember hearing that somewhere.

[#Metro]

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssb-ag.de%2F&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Facts & Figures on the SSB

[colinw]

Also, IIRC the Victoria bridge is not light rail compatible? I vaguely remember hearing that somewhere.

I don't believe that is true.  Both the BrizTram and Brisbane Light Rail projects proposed to cross the Victoria bridge, using the lanes that are now the busway lanes.

[#Metro]

Also, IIRC the Victoria bridge is not light rail compatible? I vaguely remember hearing that somewhere.

I agree with Colinw. The LRT proposals reached very advanced stages, right down to wheel profiles apparently. I seriously doubt the engineers working on the project would have overlooked the Victoria Bridge issue.

I also seriously doubt that a new Adelaide Bridge is required at all. None of the info from the previous proposals makes any mention of a new bridge. Indeed, all three of the LRT proposals listed in the back of the Mass Transit Report show the line explicitly crossing the Victoria Bridge.

However, I still think that a tunnel solution is the best way forward. LRT in a tunnel under the CBD will be independant of the busway, however, could be connected to the busway system when it is converted. This would require a tunnel under Grey Street probably and a dive down.

[colinw]

I have a vague recollection that "the new Victoria Bridge will be unsuitable for trams" may have been one of Clem's lame excuses back in 1969.

[#Metro]

The other clue is the busway was built at Cultural Centre with one lane originally, because it was anticipated that this would hold over until LRT was required. CC was then rebuilt in about 2004-5 to add another lane and let buses pass.

If a new bridge was required, then CC would have never been built that way in the first place.

[O_128]

The other clue is the busway was built at Cultural Centre with one lane originally, because it was anticipated that this would hold over until LRT was required. CC was then rebuilt in about 2004-5 to add another lane and let buses pass.

If a new bridge was required, then CC would have never been built that way in the first place.

how did this work?

any pics

[somebody]

emerging into the surface at 1:50. The gradient looks very steep

That's not steep at all.  Even the feeble CityRail trains can do 1:30 grades.  (Wynyard->Harbour Bridge).  There are 1:33s and I think 1:31s on the Blue Mountains too.  An SMU should do far better, as 2/3 of axles are powered instead of 1/2, and there is more power/weight.