Sea World updates 2016

[Jamberoo Fan]

15 hours ago, djrappa said:

So basically you're saying that you know nothing about the usage of the spit and then arguing that I'm wrong with my info on the usage of the spit?

I know a lot about the usage of The Spit but not about how often locals travel to The Spit to utilise these uses (apart from SW) and no, I definitely don't think you are wrong.

15 hours ago, djrappa said:

Gold Coast basically has summer for around 10.5 months of the year so...

If visitation to the beaches of The Spit is enough to produce constant sufficient demand throughout those days for a cable car/gondola, then yes I think it would be fine to have a cable car/gondola connecting Southport with SW.

[Bush Beast Forever]

On 23/12/2016 at 0:41 AM, djrappa said:

But all these ideas seem crazy. We have the light rail. A deducted spur line is the way to go. 

You can move hundreds of people a minute, not dozens. 

Presume you mean a dedicated spur line...

In any case I have some issues with your post.

Firstly you don't support your argument why a dedicated spur line is the way to go. Contrary to what you imply a spur line wouldnt be all that simple or cheap.

1) Simply joining the spur line to the existing tracks just north of Main Beach Station and running a portion of the trams to the Spit would impose unacceptable future capacity constraints on the existing line. Essentially you would be sharing the capacity north of Main Beach with the Spit when the Stage 2 expansion is just about to massively increase patronage of passengers on this segment of track. As a result even if trams eventually ran every 3 mins from the Broadbeach South Station they would only run every 6 mins from Helensvale and The Spit. 

E.g. Sydney's Eastern Suburbs Light Rail demonstrates this. Trams will depart every 4 mins from Circular Quay but only every 8 minutes from each of the Kingsford and Randwick spurs. At 304 passengers per tram on G-Link (80 seated + 224 stading at 4 per sqm) this would limit capacity to 3040pphpd on each of the Helensvale and Spit spurs.

2) Given simply splitting the capacity and using the existing station infrastructure is unattractive you would need to build dedicated station platforms adjacent to the current Main Beach Station (if you can find the space) and run a shuttle service between Main Beach and the new Spit station. The problem with this is cost. At 2.5km the alignment would be more than a third the length of Stage 2 light rail (7.3km) and would see essentially 2 new stations built (Main Beach duplication + The Spit.) vs 3 new stations for Stage 2. Additionally it would need at least one new tram set (which I estimate would be enough to provide 8 minute headways or 2,280pphpd of capacity - 50kmh average speed between stations + 60 seconds load unload time). 

Given Stage 2 is $420m of capex I think a conservative estimate of cost for a Spit spur line would be $150-200m (2/3rds the station infrastructure required + c35% the track length + construction in a much more congested corridor with existing utilities highly likely to be present.)

Now compare the alternative of a high capacity cable car like Dopplemayr's 3S installation in Koblenz that crosses the Rhine.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/khPeFLSDpMw

http://gondolaproject.com/2010/09/13/the-koblenz-rheinseilbahn-part-1-introduction/

It is a fairly comparable alignment to what could be built to link Seaworld / the new casino to the Broadwater Parklands Station. I.e. Koblenz is 1km in length and two stations vs c1.2km needed on the GC and two stations.

Koblenz cost $US20m in 2011.

Converting at $0.72 = $27.8M.

Say we add 20% for length (although added station and gondola numbers are the key cost drivers in cable systems not cable length). Then we add 100% for.the Australia tax. This would still see a similar system on the Gold Coast come in at $66m vs $150m + for a spur line.

This for a system that moves 3700pphpd (could easily be 5000 if they just ran the line speed at the 3S system's capacity of 8m/s) + vehicles arriving every 34 seconds (important when you are interchanging).

So explain how that's crazy again?

Edited December 26, 2016 by Bush Beast Forever

[rappa]

1) not part of a greater integrated transport system

2) great proportion of patrons won't want to alight the rail and change to a cable car as that's just how the public mentality works

3) private operator is not going to operate the cable car for $2 per trip which is a comparable price with the light rail

4) building the cable car will still end up costing about $100m here because construction here ends up costing you much mor than you would think. 

[Bush Beast Forever]

16 minutes ago, djrappa said:

1) not part of a greater integrated transport system

2) great proportion of patrons won't want to alight the rail and change to a cable car as that's just how the public mentality works

3) private operator is not going to operate the cable car for $2 per trip which is a comparable price with the light rail

4) building the cable car will still end up costing about $100m here because construction here ends up costing you much mor than you would think. 

1) No reason why it couldnt be fully integrated into fare structure. The tech has nothing to do with the ability of the fares to be integrated. No reason the cable car couldnt be under the same zone system as the tram. 

See the forthcoming Toulouse 3S system that will interchange with Light Rail and Metro:

http://gondolaproject.com/2016/12/22/3s-urban-gondola-approved-in-toulouse-telepherique-urbain-sud-south-urban-cable-car/

Plenty of other fully integrated fare systems involving cable around the world also (see Roosevelt Aerial Tram in New York). I.e. essentially cable solving last mile problem where topography makes it the most suitable tech.

2) Aleady explained to you why it is highly unlikely they would just build a branch line for any tram line built to the Spit due to massive loss of capacity entailed north of Main Beach. With all due respect did you even read my post before responding?

They will have to run a shuttle on dedicated platforms at Main Beach = your mooted tram line will require an interchange with far longer wait period than a cable car given c8 minute headway on a 2.5km long spur.

As to the public's mentaility against interchange that only really applies if there is an alternative that doesnt require interchange. Stage 2 of Light Rail is entirely predicated on interchange at Helensvale with heavy rail. Think people won't use it?

Also in this case you have to account for  the fact a substantial number of the riders will be tourists (many with kids). Judging by my kids' reactions to the cable cars they have been on I'm pretty sure they'll be happy to interchange.

3) Private operators will do whatever they are incentivised to do. Logically the G-Link consortium should build it and run it for a capacity payment under a Build Own Operate Transfer agreement and State Govt would keep farebox revenue (as they currently do on G-Link) as part of a fully integrated fare structure.

I would have ASF, Sunland and Seaworld make a capital contribution, with Council, State Govt and the Feds also maybe chipping in.

I am NOT proposing a standalone privately owned system outside of Qld Govt fare structure.

I'm merely saying that in this particular case a cable car is easily the lowest cost solution to the Spit's current transit issues (which will only get worse with a casino and Sunland's development). This is because the presence of the broadwater (and cable technology's unique ability to cheaply go over it) make other technologies much more expensive as they have to travel 2x as far to interchange with the closest light rail station (2.5km to 1.2km).

4) The Koblenz system I linked to cost only $20m USD. I already increased the cost by a factor of 120% to get to A$66m. Again did you even read my post?

Toulouse is building a 3km, 3 station, 3S system for USD$57m so the math for Koblenz (1km, 2 stations) seems about right:

http://gondolaproject.com/2016/12/22/3s-urban-gondola-approved-in-toulouse-telepherique-urbain-sud-south-urban-cable-car/

In any case though  even if my estimate is out by 100% a cable car will still be cheaper than a spur line on the tram, have higher capacity and importantly much lower interchange time (and similar transport time).

[Gazza]

You could do either, but they both have flaws/positives.

Cableway

-More touristy

-Less restricted corridor. 

-More direct for passengers coming from the north.

-In terms of integrating with the existing system, you could do something like the Emirates Air-Line in London, where you can pay with oyster. Adjust the fares accordingly, eg have a surcharge on top of the standard zone 5 fare if needed.

Tram

-Single seat journey from the southern suburbs 

-Allows for extra stops on the spit...Eg stop at Tedder Ave, Marina Mirage, Sea World, Spit North.

-As mentioned though, doing a spur line means you permanently restrict the Southport and Helensvale branch of the network to only half the system capacity. This could be even more problematic if they ever branched at GCUH and build the line up Olsen Ave to Harbour town, since you'd be splitting again.

[Bush Beast Forever]

44 minutes ago, Gazza said:

As mentioned though, doing a spur line means you permanently restrict the Southport and Helensvale branch of the network to only half the system capacity. This could be even more problematic if they ever branched at GCUH and build the line up Olsen Ave to Harbour town, since you'd be splitting again.

They will only ever build this line as a shuttle  with interchange required given capacity reductions to north it would entail.

Given this if cable is a step too far I would go for monorail like AlexB proposed (a proper Hitachi or Bombadier transit monorail though not a toy train). At least that tech is fast to build, could have the station at Main Beach directly over the light rail one and could make use of the median on seaworld drive for the pylons.

Dont want to sound like a hater on trams. Just dont think they work well in this instance.

[rappa]

I get all the arguments, and yes I read posts before I reply to them. 

 

However I think I can say with probably 99% confidence (because sometimes weird things do happen) that there is zero chance a cable car or monorail will be built. If nothing else, public objection. Regardless if right or wrong people tend to see (in this country) those modes of transport as novelty toys and won't get behind them. 

 

My argument behind trams is that as these already exist they are the closest chance you have of something being built to service the spit. 

[Bush Beast Forever]

9 hours ago, djrappa said:

My argument behind trams is that as these already exist they are the closest chance you have of something being built to service the spit. 

Don't disagree with sentiments here.

Unfortunately this is why highly unlikely they will ever build anything once they do the cost benefits analysis on the project...

[Jamberoo Fan]

I don't see any reason why a branch light rail line from Main Beach to Sea World would not work. With concerns about capacity, just purchase more trains and fit them into the timetable. There are about 8 or 9 light rail trains operating on the existing line in it's peak operating periods. You would need minimum 2 for a Spit branch line terminating at Sea World - one heading north and one heading south. This would mean a frequency of about 1 every 25 minutes. 6 or 7 new trains maximum would see light rail arriving at Sea World every 7.5 minutes & increasing the frequency of the line between Main Beach & Broadbeach South to every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

[red dragin]

@Jamberoo Fan not quite that simple, as the light rail interacts with traffic lights etc, that has to be factored into the headway. Plus ease of use for passengers to not get the wrong service. 

I'm struggling to see why a dedicated bus or three can't handle this job as a shuttle?  

Rail is intended to do the "heavy lifting" with buses etc feeding to and from interchanges. The time lost to transferring to a bus should be less than waiting for the one every 25 minute light rail service. 

 

And yes, that's a train nut telling you to catch a bus 

Edited December 27, 2016 by red dragin

[mba2012]

^ To be honest, I'd much rather catch a tram than a bus. I don't know what it is, but they're so much nicer than buses, and I'm sure many others would agree. In regards to getting the wrong service, I think people would be much more likely to get the wrong bus (even with a dedicated one existing) than to get the wrong tram, just purely given the larger volume of potential buses to get on.

As for frequency of the light rail, I don't think it needs any more services than it does now. It never gets particularly full, only really through surfers paradise. I'd suspect the best way to do it would be increase the frequency of the light rail from main beach south, and then split them either way to the spit or to helensvale. Plus the occasional service from the spit to helensvale during peak time for people coming form brisbane. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by mba2012

[Jamberoo Fan]

3 hours ago, red dragin said:

@Jamberoo Fan not quite that simple, as the light rail interacts with traffic lights etc, that has to be factored into the headway.

True but I'm sure it can be worked around. I based those statistics on the current route so it should be roughly correct and similar for a Spit branch line. There is only 1 set of traffic lights between Main Beach & Sea World so the total delay shouldn't be too long. There are probably more traffic lights to negotiate on the entire existing line than a future Spit branch line.

3 hours ago, red dragin said:

Plus ease of use for passengers to not get the wrong service. 

It would be like a bus - electronic signs on the front & sides stating clearly 'To Sea World' while the others saying 'To University Hospital'.

By the way, a bus shuttle probably would work and be easier to set up/manage but it is not the most appealing form of transport and that alone might reduce the number of guests utilising a bus connection from the light rail to Sea World and back.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Jamberoo Fan

[Brad2912]

There may only be one set of traffic lights now between main beach & SW, but there is numerous roundabouts, something I'm certain not aware of trams being able to navigate, so they would need to be converted to signalled intersections 

[pin142]

Just do the usual traffic lights on a roundabout thing Queensland likes to do and call it a day as an easy fix.

[red dragin]

My traffic light comment is more about all the traffic lights on the system, even with the priority setup in place, these do impact headway. 

And as Gazza pointed out, the Harbour Town branch will consume a lot of the services. The crossovers and stub line for the branch are being built as part of stage 2. 

[Life]

Large monorail would be pretty cool and would replace that iconic gold coast monorail which is going to be removed from Broadbeach... If they did it right they could serve: Seaworld, ASF Casino, Marina Mirage, Broadbeach Parklands, Australia fair, and the Gold Coast Aquatic Centre in one loop... would link up with the tram and serve a major tourist hub.

[Bush Beast Forever]

21 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

I don't see any reason why a branch light rail line from Main Beach to Sea World would not work. With concerns about capacity, just purchase more trains and fit them into the timetable. There are about 8 or 9 light rail trains operating on the existing line in it's peak operating periods. You would need minimum 2 for a Spit branch line terminating at Sea World - one heading north and one heading south. This would mean a frequency of about 1 every 25 minutes. 6 or 7 new trains maximum would see light rail arriving at Sea World every 7.5 minutes & increasing the frequency of the line between Main Beach & Broadbeach South to every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

There are a fair few reasons it isn't an ideal solution.

First you do constrain future capacity on the rest of the line by the number of services you choose to divert.

The technical reports on the light rail prior to its construction had 3 mins as the minimum headway of the system. It seems like the traffic lights along the line are the main constraint.

The technical reports had south bound passenger numbers at Southport and Broadwater stations in the peak PM already marginally (c10%) exceeding system capacity by 2041. If you removed 8 services per hour from the Helensvale to Main Beach section in order to provide capacity for 7.5 minute headways from Seaworld this would only leave 12 services from Helensvale or roughly a shortfall of 2500 passengers worth of capacity.

The second issue with simply building a spur line from the existing twin tracks is the small matter of having 16 trams an hour (8 northbound, 8 southbound) or one every 3min and 45 seconds crossing the 6 lanes of the Gold Coast Highway to get to and from Main Beach station.

This would mean yet another set of lights on the highway and a substantial loss of carrying capacity for the highway at that point.

[Jamberoo Fan]

22 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

There may only be one set of traffic lights now between main beach & SW, but there is numerous roundabouts, something I'm certain not aware of trams being able to navigate, so they would need to be converted to signalled intersections 

Yes, there are numerous roundabouts but looking at satellites images, there is enough room on the side of the roads to fit in a light rail and avoid the roundabouts.

4 hours ago, Bush Beast Forever said:

First you do constrain future capacity on the rest of the line by the number of services you choose to divert.

I don't see why services have to be diverted - just buy new trains.

4 hours ago, Bush Beast Forever said:

The second issue with simply building a spur line from the existing twin tracks is the small matter of having 16 trams an hour (8 northbound, 8 southbound) or one every 3min and 45 seconds crossing the 6 lanes of the Gold Coast Highway to get to and from Main Beach station.

This would mean yet another set of lights on the highway and a substantial loss of carrying capacity for the highway at that point.

There are already traffic lights just north of the Main Beach light rail station on the intersection of the Gold Coast Highway & Waterways Drive, the latter road being the likely starting route for a light rail to The Spit.

[Brad2912]

2 minutes ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

there is enough room on the side of the roads to fit in a light rail and avoid the roundabouts.

Not without sacrificing a lane of the road there isn't...

And how do cars wanting to exit the roundabout do so if there is a tram track across the exit the exit they want to take?

As you can see in the snapshot I've taken, there might be room to the left & right of the roundabout, but there is zero room between the road and the hotels to fit a track 

[rappa]

Thing is if the road has to be sacrificed then so be it. Sooner or later Gold Coasters are going to have to accept they need to give up their car culture and start using public transport. 

[Bush Beast Forever]

3 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

I don't see why services have to be diverted - just buy new trains.

Okqy this is the last time i bother explaining this.

It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of trams you have. It is about the maximum carrying capacity of the line from Main Beach to Broadbeach South.

That line can carry AT MOST 20 trams an hour. I.e. it has to have a minimum 3 minute headway between trams to operate safely and keep the traffic from grinding to a complete halt due to the increased prioritisation that would otherwise be required at the traffic lights.

If you run 8 trams an hour south from the Seaworld spur line (to have a tram running every 7.5 mins or c2500 passenger carrying capacity) and run them to Broadbeach South then only 12 trams from the main line from Helensvale can run from Main Beach to Broadbeach South. I.e. 12 + 8 = 20.

The issue as I already stated is that in less than 25 years the line was already expected to be at capacity from the Southport Stations to Surfers Paradise in the PM peak. Reducing the maximum number of services you can run means you get to the line's capacity at the stations north of Main Beach much, much earlier.

Potentially on day 1 of opening the spur line to Seaworld infact given Southbound passenger numbers will have risen significantly when Stage 2 gives commuters living on the Gold Coast beaches a simple interconnect to the Brisbane bound trains at Helensvale in 2018.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Bush Beast Forever

[Jamberoo Fan]

On 28/12/2016 at 7:34 PM, Brad2912 said:

And how do cars wanting to exit the roundabout do so if there is a tram track across the exit the exit they want to take?

Good point. These are rare but combined traffic light-roundabout intersections do exist. Maybe they can have one with the traffic lights only operating when the light rail goes past?

21 hours ago, Bush Beast Forever said:

That line can carry AT MOST 20 trams an hour. I.e. it has to have a minimum 3 minute headway between trams to operate safely and keep the traffic from grinding to a complete halt due to the increased prioritisation that would otherwise be required at the traffic lights.

I said it would have a 3 minute and 45 second headway - just enough to fit in. I agree if it goes under 3 minutes the light rail network is jammed.

And to the everything else you wrote in your post, like I said, just purchase new trains but like you said, not too many that the headway causes the light rail network to jam.

[Gazza]

The point he is making is that if you do a spit spur, then you permanently lock in a situation where the best available frequency to each branch is every 6 mins (a tram every 6 mins from the spit, plus a tram every 6 mins from helensvale = a tram every 3 mins south of the junction to the southern end of the line.

(A tram every 3 mins being the physical limit of the system)

The issue though is that in say a decades time, only having a tram available every 6 mins on the Helensvale branch would be insufficient to deal with passenger loads.

 

See here for an good explanation of the dynamics of serving a rail line that branches: 

http://humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html

Edited December 30, 2016 by Gazza

[joz]

Having read this thread I've decided that you should just have to transfer.  Besides, if you run a tram up the spit you'll need to run it from north and south anyway, be done with the bother.  Transfer, have it stop at the yacht club, Marina Mirage and Sea World/casino, and only have it cross the road once to get to the spit then stay on the Broadwater side of the road the whole way.  Done!

[Gazza]

Just on the point about trams and roundabouts....the road rule in that situation in Victoria is that trams passing through roundabouts have right of way.