Doubt on Perth LRT future

[Merc & Renault Bus_1]

I agree with the use of bi-articulated buses, more passenger capacity, but unfortunately we can't use them in some suburban streets because the road width around bends does not support extra long vehicles

And bi-articulated buses are about the length of a two trailer truck plus cargo on the rig itself, so they are road worthy, as long as it is not used in suburban streets that does not support extra long vehicles (as mentioned above)

At the end of the day, it is a cheaper alternative to a light rail system, even though it is fully subject to road conditions, it will still hold a good capacity of passengers.

[tonyp]

I agree with the use of bi-articulated buses, more passenger capacity, but unfortunately we can't use them in some suburban streets because the road width around bends does not support extra long vehicles

And bi-articulated buses are about the length of a two trailer truck plus cargo on the rig itself, so they are road worthy, as long as it is not used in suburban streets that does not support extra long vehicles (as mentioned above)

At the end of the day, it is a cheaper alternative to a light rail system, even though it is fully subject to road conditions, it will still hold a good capacity of passengers.

Something put the kybosh on them in NSW, I thought it was something to do with road regs but you could be right, which is good.

When you see them snaking around the streets in cities like Zurich you wonder whether there is a major issue with narrow streets. But I guess if you're using them in bus lanes there may be less of an issue..

I checked the capacity of a Hess double-articulated, it's actually 180, which is significantly short of a tram. A single-articulated in Europe is typically about 150, but these buses require multiple doors to effectively load them to capacity in a short dwell. None of this front-entry-only stuff!

[Mr OC Benz]

This idea went up a few years ago in NSW and iirc ran up against road regulations that effectively prohibited the use of bi-articulated buses. I imagine those regulations would be national.

In any case, bi-articulated, going by the Hess ones in Europe, max at about 200 passengers, still below tram capacity (or well below, depending on the length of the tram). And that would assume European-style passenger handling - plenty of doors (including behind the rear axle so that there are no "caves" in the bus), all-door entry, 100% low floor. There are quite a few institutional and systemic obstacles to fully optimised bus operation in Australia as you know! At least Perth is the most progressive city.

If they do BRT as you describe, then they're effectively building light rail - as long as it's designed to be convertible eventually.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Depending on what the limitations were that prohibited it in NSW, doesn't necessarily apply in other states. I mean look at that Volgren double decker which they tried to bring into NSW. It's now in use in Melbourne. But anyway, the PTA have had permits for buses which did not meet regulations on the roads before. If they really wanted bi-articulated buses on the road, then anything could happen...

Considering that the majority of buses used along the proposed transit corridor presently are 12 metre buses licensed for 82 passengers (but on average don't generally carry anywhere near that amount even in peak), there is a long way to go before a bus which can carry 200 or more would be at capacity anyway, by which time light rail or heavy rail would well and truly be on the cards.

Also in comparison, the articulated 20m Mercedes-Benz Capacity is rated for 190 passengers.

Like I said, the network should be fully contained regardless of what sort of buses are ended up in use, but the flexibility of bi-articulated buses is surprisingly higher than what most people would perceive. And in comparison to other Australian cities, the majority of suburban streets in Perth are quite sufficient to handle it, even though there would be little justification for them to be using suburban streets anyway as the proposed route sticks primarily to main transport corridors.

[TP1462]

I don't think their really is an issue with bi artics and narrow streets and round-abouts I found this on YouTube of a driver doing a left hand turn in a B9SALF 7500 in Gothenburg, Sweden the driver mentioned that it's the same as driver a regular artic just need more space when turning so you don't hit street signs, poles and the like

https://youtu.be/7fqqM5kh8mk

[tonyp]

Of course, Jarrett Walker's viewpoint is that the CBD tunnel for BRT was never built so it can't be said that BRT has been tried and failed.

That's the infrastructure trap that BRT advocates (and Brisbane and O Bahn) fall into. If you're going to invest in very expensive infrastructure you should put a high capacity mode (generally rail) on it.

The whole notion of street PT is that it's relatively cheap and "light" and requires only relatively small changes to the street environment if speed and priority are required. This may be dedicated lanes or traffic light priority, stretching to the occasional overpass or underpass to clear an intersection. If BRT (or trams for that matter) need something as major as a long tunnel then they've failed. I sincerely hope Perth doesn't fall into the same trap.

I'd prefer to describe it as an augmented or priority bus service rather than "BRT" which has gained too many bad connotations of lavish expenditure out of proportion to the relatively small capacity improvement gained. New "light rail" systems also often suffer the same disease. You need to go to Central Europe to see good examples of how tram and bus capacity have been significantly raised by means of relatively small, simple and less costly methods. Many of these systems are far more productive and faster than many expensive glossy new projects.

When I see somebody talking about "BRT" I blanch and see dollar signs and stupid little low capacity streamlined buses pretending to look like trams.

[jonwil]

As someone who has personally experienced just how GOOD the light rail here on the gold coast is, I would say that those who are blanket anti-light-rail either have a vested interest somewhere or they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. Light rail is absolutely the right solution for connecting UWA and the hospital through the CBD then down to Curtin (which was a big part of the original light rail proposal).
The Brisbane Busway system is great (because its grade separated from all the cars and has relatively fast speeds) but "BRT" that is basically using normal roads and has to stop at all the traffic lights and cross streets and stuff is no better than normal buses really. The light rail in QLD has to stop at all the traffic lights and stuff but it can (and does) travel faster than the road speed limit on the roads it goes down AND it carries more passengers than ANY bus can (plus it does all door loading and unloading so the dwell time at stops is very low)

[tonyp]

GCLR doesn't travel at faster speeds than allowed on the roads it travels along (it can't by law) but it does have a fair bit of traffic light priority. Similarly, buses if given dedicated lanes and traffic light priority, can achieve much higher average speeds. A balance needs to be struck that doesn't involve excessive costly infrastructure out of proportion to the capacity of the mode. If Jarrett Walker thinks a tunnel is needed to make a busway work then it shouldn't be a bus, it should be a train.

But Australian buses have a few other impediments to overcome, notably among which is the journey-time blowout caused by long dwells due to single-door loading (together with a general lack of doors).

[simonl]

If you're going to invest in very expensive infrastructure you should put a high capacity mode (generally rail) on it.

On that point we agree.

Not sure what you are calling "very expensive infrastructure". e.g. does the original busway in BNE to Woolloongabba and Eight Mile Plains (a tad over 16km) for a cost of "over $600m" count as very expensive? Or the M2 busway in Sydney?

[User 11872]

Interesting to see Malcolm Turncoat's PT enthusiasm! I saw him on TV walking through the Sydney CBD relating to journos his love for routes 333, 380, but particularly the 389. I hope he will be fully forthcoming with funding to get PT infrastructure happening here in Perth.

[tbc1983]

Bi articulated buses may not be suitable for local roads....yeah, well, that could explain why combination trucks over 19m long are classified as Restricted Access Vehicles, not General Access Vehicles for that reason, as well as others, so the same would apply to articulated buses over 18m.


Cheers!

[theenglishguy]

Barnett's comment on this is fairly promising:

"I'm looking forward to having a discussion with him on state and commonwealth sharing in both road and public transport projects." Mr Barnett said.

"We're about to start the Forrestfield airport link, that is important, but there's clearly a need for more public transport in the city itself and the surrounding inner city suburbs."

The only major inner city public transport project on the books at the moment is MAX, so hopefully WA can get some federal funds for it and get it under construction soon.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/premi ... jscpf.html

[Shoudy Chen]

I couldnt stand with biarticulated buses due to the fact that they are too expensive to run and it may not be suitable for turning into single lane carriageway.
But on the other hand, I'd like to see a bus lane along Albany Hwy between Manning Rd and Nicholson Rd in Cannington especially with the peak hour periods. Not only that but the Charles St, Alexander Dr, Canning Hwy between Freeway and Riseley St and Stirling Hwy.

[User 11872]

Barnett's comment on this is fairly promising:

"I'm looking forward to having a discussion with him on state and commonwealth sharing in both road and public transport projects." Mr Barnett said.

"We're about to start the Forrestfield airport link, that is important, but there's clearly a need for more public transport in the city itself and the surrounding inner city suburbs."

The only major inner city public transport project on the books at the moment is MAX, so hopefully WA can get some federal funds for it and get it under construction soon.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/premi ... jscpf.html

Things are looking up I feel.....if we can get PT investment from Turnbull, it will keep the scumbag commies and watermelons in the desert for longer than I'd hoped. LABOR.....wake up! You aren't the party I loved when young but a classless bunch of ideologically blinded and subversive fools.

[Mr OC Benz]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-23/g ... ix/6799500

Now there's talk of a mixed solution involving both buses and light rail...

[theenglishguy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-23/g ... ix/6799500

Now there's talk of a mixed solution involving both buses and light rail...

The two routes (UWA to Curtin and Mirrabooka to the city) need to either be bus or light rail the whole way. I'm still a big supporter of light rail all the way to Mirrabooka (then improve feeder buses in the area), but if they are going to involve BRT at all they may as well make it the whole route - having to change modes at ECU would be awful.

I think the best outcome from this is MAX going ahead as originally planned, but increased BRT in other areas - especially as Nalder seems to have a bit of a love for it.

[User 11872]

LR all the way from Mirrabooka to Curtin should be the first stage if results prove worthy with the precursory 960. Who knows what can expand from there?

[Mr OC Benz]

First we've heard from the PM on the Perth light rail.

PM wants Perth light rail plan

The Turnbull Government has put the Barnett Government on notice to devise a broad plan for a Perth light rail system so the private sector can start building it from 2018.

The Weekend West can reveal that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has personally sought advice from Curtin University sustainability expert Peter Newman to help devise a national approach to funding public transport.

And the Perth light rail project, which has been on and off the State Government’s agenda for years, could be one of the first funded under the model.

Cities Minister Jamie Briggs said'''' the funding model championed by Professor Newman — “land value capture” — would be an ideal way to build a cross-city light rail system in Perth.

Under this funding model, private developers could build the system in exchange for access to State-owned land adjoining stations for high density housing, retail and office space. The funding concept, which can be extended to ratepayer levies for those who benefit from the light rail, has been used to fund Hong Kong’s subway and up to half of the £27 billion ($58 billion) Crossrail 2 London Underground extension.

“The WA Government has got to do a bit of work on the light rail plan so the private sector can touch, feel and look at them to get these projects moving in what is a tight funding envelope,” Mr Briggs said. “If we just rely on Government funding for these projects we won’t get much done, that is the sad reality.”

Professor Newman, who will meet Mr Briggs in Perth on Monday, said land value capture would allow public infrastructure to be built at little taxpayer cost.

He has proposed a light rail corridor between UWA and Curtin University, with stations at the old Agriculture Department in Kent Street, Victoria Park (Albany Highway), WACA, Perth CBD and Princess Margaret Hospital (Thomas Street).

Mr Briggs will also meet Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi, the Secretary of Premier and Cabinet Peter Conran and ministers Dean Nalder and John Day.

State Lands Minister Terry Redman is drafting guidelines for innovative industry-led development proposals of State-owned land.

Labor’s Anthony Albanese said he backed innovative funding mechanisms that attracted private investment such as value uplift, supported by proposals such as Labor’s $10 billion infrastructure financing facility.

[User 11872]

This is awesome. FINALLY, we have a centre-right government that isn't class envious and driven by pinkist drivel that really puts a great focus on PT. I'm a pig in XXX about it.

This model will ensure quicker action and frankly is a great way to achieve the desired outcomes.

C'mon all you loony lefties, why do you still vote "gay"?

lol

[Mr OC Benz]

I was interested to hear the other day, about the announcement that Van Hool had won the contract to supply a fleet of 30 vehicles for the new Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Van Hool developed the Equi.City range, which are basically tram-like hybrid buses which can come in either 18m or 24m length. This is the first RHD order for the Equi.City bus. If Perth is to go ahead with the BRT MAX option, then there is the potential that we could see vehicles of such type in service which aim to ressemble a tram and provide similar capacity, but provide the flexibility and cost savings of a bus.

DRDNI News Article

A fleet of 24m Equi.City LHD version operate in Barcelona:

[theenglishguy]

Speaking of MAX, Turnbull stated again that he will consider federal funding for it. It definitely seems like everyone is leaning towards Light Rail this time though:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... e650bfe5b2

I was interested to hear the other day, about the announcement that Van Hool had won the contract to supply a fleet of 30 vehicles for the new Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Van Hool developed the Equi.City range, which are basically tram-like hybrid buses which can come in either 18m or 24m length. This is the first RHD order for the Equi.City bus. If Perth is to go ahead with the BRT MAX option, then there is the potential that we could see vehicles of such type in service which aim to ressemble a tram and provide similar capacity, but provide the flexibility and cost savings of a bus.

img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... baa99c.jpg[/img]

Honestly, whilst those buses look amazing, I don't think they would work very well for the inner city portion of the MAX route. BRT isn't that great when going down narrow roads with tight corners. I just couldn't see it working efficiently along somewhere like Hay St in West Perth. The only times that I've seen BRT be successful is either when the road is really wide and straight (like in South America) or it is completely grade separated (like in Brisbane).

I know this is a bus forum, but Nalder never should have proposed BRT. He was trying to cut costs but didn't have any idea how the two modes really differ.

On a more positive note, I could definitely see bi-articulated buses being used in the suburbs. BRT could work along somewhere like Fremantle-Coogee or Fremantle-Murdoch. Hopefully Nalder can put his new found passion for buses to use there.

[TP1462]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... evive-max/

Treasurer Dr. Nahan believes the sale of western power could pay for the project, western power is valued at $15 billion the sale could also pay for Forrestfield Airport link

[tonyp]

http://www.news.com.au/national/breakin ... a56683fa41

[system improver]

"Dr Nahan blamed a lack of federal funding on the decision after recently revealing state debt was growing to $40 billion.

He conceded the Liberals had said the 2013 state election commitment was fully funded and costed, but said all hopes of federal funding fell through when Tony Abbott swept to power.

"At the time, we had hoped, we had expectations ... the Commonwealth was going to commit money to it," he said.

"That did not happen."

Is Nahan an idiot or a liar or both?

[Merc & Renault Bus_1]

"Dr Nahan blamed a lack of federal funding on the decision after recently revealing state debt was growing to $40 billion.

He conceded the Liberals had said the 2013 state election commitment was fully funded and costed, but said all hopes of federal funding fell through when Tony Abbott swept to power.

"At the time, we had hoped, we had expectations ... the Commonwealth was going to commit money to it," he said.

"That did not happen."

Is Nahan an idiot or a liar or both?

I think both the state and federal governments have broken their "promises" on transport funding, the light rail is a grey area, it may not be viable now, but it could be viable in the future as Ellenbrook is still growing at a reasonable rate, building railway of any form is a very expensive excersise, plus you need to purchase the rail vehicles to operate on these rails, and there needs to be enough population to have enough tax payer money to fund these projects, which is what we have, but that taxpayer money is going into other unnecessary aspects such as the Elizabeth Quay and the new football stadium. Tasmania is a scenario where they do not have a passenger rail system (apart from uninterrupted appearance of mountains and hills), simp,y because they do not have the population to sustain such system. You are right on both answers, the state government is part to blame for the mismanagement of funding, Mr OC Benz will have a better idea than me, so my views are based of what I see at the moment. And apologies in advance if I'm rambling on a bit.

[Shoudy Chen]

A transport plan highlighting the possible plans for future transport demands in perth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDLaBFbNw