Light Rail in Brisbane

[SteelPan]

Light rail WILL return to Brisbane.  Just not yet.  

We have bigger fish to fry at present.  Namely turning  into  + 

Maybe a joint State Govt/BCC/Private Sector PPP.  ie, like Sydney.

[Mr X]

If we *started construction right away* with no studies first we'll end up with a poorly designed white elephant.

edit: whoops forgot this thread is a month old, sorry! 

[Jonno]

But we hve studied lightrail to death, our busway is full and our city choking on congested traffic.  We need to significantly increase public transport capacity and this is not going to happen by just increasing bus numbers. We need action not studies

[SurfRail]

But we hve studied lightrail to death, our busway is full and our city choking on congested traffic.  We need to significantly increase public transport capacity and this is not going to happen by just increasing bus numbers. We need action not studies

Unfortunately, that argument ignores the fact that all the studies have recommended LRT be deferred indefinitely in favour of CityGlider and similar routes and that the busway network be expanded.

Proves that reports can be made to say exactly what is required by the commissioning party I think.

[ozbob]

Brisbane is shaping up as the only state capital without light rail or plans to move in that direction.  This may change, what if Can Do is a closet tram nut? Building a light rail network would be as nearly as much fun as building tunnels?  No??   

And the Greens have the grand light rail plan as well ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

How about using cars with caravans as light rail? 

[Mr X]

How about using cars with caravans as light rail? 

How about getting two rigid buses following each other at once as light rail? 

[SurfRail]

How about using cars with caravans as light rail? 

How about getting two rigid buses following each other at once as light rail? 

What really got me about the GCRT planning was that all bus-based solutions were predicted to fall short of LRT's initial operating capacity even with the assumption that 2 articulated buses would be following each other in tandem on most trips by the 2020s.

[#Metro]

I don't think that is correct-- I think bus based solution would work up until 2020 or 2016 or something like that and then beyond that point
you would need grade separation (not practical in that corridor).

With regards to West End, LRT could run in Class B in the street (though it would probably be more like a tram system in the sense that you would need a line for Fairfield/UQ, the CityGlider and 199 unless you wanted to run buses on top of LRT tracks? (which is possible).

Alternatively you might want to have a full blown elevated or tunneled busway inserted behind the main set of shops similar to Stones Corner Busway or perhaps like Mater Hill busway. This could be underground.

There are a few possibilities with either bus or LRT. Anything that requires elevation or digging is going to be costly. The buses will have greater flexibility in that they can run off the main ROW and out to UQ or Toowong or wherever. It just depends I guess on how much you want to spend and what impacts you want to or don't want to have on that environment. A tram system/LRT can do 10 000 pphd easily and up to 15 000 in Class B ROW on surface streets (350 pax tram x 30 trams per hour - one every 2 minutes). A bus would make that section VERY  busy...

[Gazza]

Just a little observation, but if it this thing is going to run 100% on surface streets, it's a tram, not light rail. At least the GC system is going to be in its own reservation or off to the side for a lot of the way.

[Mr X]

If we turned the entire SE busway into a light rail corridor, what would happen to all the routes that feed onto it through Woolloongabba? Can buses use the busway if it's turned into light rail?

And would routes like 130/140/150 etc. be terminated at Griffith?

[somebody]

If we turned the entire SE busway into a light rail corridor, what would happen to all the routes that feed onto it through Woolloongabba? Can buses use the busway if it's turned into light rail?

And would routes like 130/140/150 etc. be terminated at Griffith?

I think these issues you raise would be the least of our worries if we did something as stupid as that <ducks>

[Mr X]

Why are you so for buses going into the city? What is wrong with light rail/metro?

[SurfRail]

Light rail is not a metro - and that is the issue.  Installing light rail on the busway would be a very expensive fix for very limited extra capacity (if any).  Metro with above average stop spacing is about all you can do to make a meaningful difference, and that is off in the very distant future.

[somebody]

Why are you so for buses going into the city? What is wrong with light rail/metro?

I see negative extra capacity, for a start.

[colinw]

Light rail is not a metro - and that is the issue.  Installing light rail on the busway would be a very expensive fix for very limited extra capacity (if any).  Metro with above average stop spacing is about all you can do to make a meaningful difference, and that is off in the very distant future.

IMHO any kind of LRT conversion of the S.E. Busway would be at the upper end of light rail, more like a Light metro anyway.  I'm thinking something running relatively long multiple units with a max speed of 100 km/h or so, and with current station spacing.  Something like the Blue Line in LA, or the new Line 11 in Barcelona would fit the bill. While these may be called "light rail" they are actually larger & higher capacity than some of what passes as Heavy Rail in Australia (e.g. 2 car "A" sets in Perth, or some Adelaide trains).

[somebody]

Why are you so for buses going into the city? What is wrong with light rail/metro?

Also coverage and capital cost.  Then there's the transfers and slower journeys which are both disincentives to patronage.  Leave the busway be!  Well, I don't mind getting rid of the loop for a straight path on to the CCB.

[Mr X]

Capital costs for a metro would be lower than having duplicated buses everywhere 

[SurfRail]

Light rail is not a metro - and that is the issue.  Installing light rail on the busway would be a very expensive fix for very limited extra capacity (if any).  Metro with above average stop spacing is about all you can do to make a meaningful difference, and that is off in the very distant future.

IMHO any kind of LRT conversion of the S.E. Busway would be at the upper end of light rail, more like a Light metro anyway.  I'm thinking something running relatively long multiple units with a max speed of 100 km/h or so, and with current station spacing.  Something like the Blue Line in LA, or the new Line 11 in Barcelona would fit the bill. While these may be called "light rail" they are actually larger & higher capacity than some of what passes as Heavy Rail in Australia (e.g. 2 car "A" sets in Perth, or some Adelaide trains).

Yeah - anything at the standard of Gold Coast Light Rail (309 pax at crush loading) or less is most definitely not worth it.

The major advantage for a light metro of course is the ability to negotiate the less than straight existing alignment, particularly in and around the city.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

Capital costs for a metro would be lower than having duplicated buses everywhere

The latter are an example of operational costs, not capital costs. Spending more on the latter can reduce the former in the long run, though.

[somebody]

There might have been merit in a metro connecting city-UQ, then (perhaps) extending to Kenmore and Centenary.  But they didn't do it that way.  I suppose you could argue that the sunk costs are fairly trivial so let's go for a bigger capacity mode, but I for one am relatively sceptical.  I'd want to know what the total operating costs p.a. of the UQ Lakes services really are.