[rydoz]

Does anyone know when this is expected to be up and running? Also who is operating the buses.

 

[indiekid]

Was there any point in starting a new thread? You could have asked on the Public Transport thread.

 

[thewonder]

oh, bitch!

 

[M_Riaz]

Hi Rydoz Welcome back to SSC GMA dont see you posting that often these days.

With all due respect Indiekid i think this thread was needed as the transport thread is being congested with several diiferent transport subjects around the city and i feel the Fastlink will mean a lot more to Glasgow than what meets the eye.

Spt have a few documents here what when and how the Fastlink will be implemented in the future,

The most recent detailed document that was published on the Fastlink subject from SPT is here from january this year.

Regards Mo.

 

[GlasgowMan]

I think a separate thread for the Fastlink is a good idea, especially if the project is to go the full way and be transformed into a tram line.

 

[rydoz]

Hi I've been busy the last year. But anyway the fastlink is a great thing for glasgow I think.So it deserves its own thread. I think they will put trams in edventualy. Everything will be ready so we woulkdnt have the Edinburgh cary on...

 

[M_Riaz]

This was also posted in the Transport thread a few weeks ago.

 

[rydoz]

Does anyone have some photos

 

[maccoinnich]

If they want to make it into a tram network one day, they should start it as a tram network. Once it's open as a guided busway, it will take an extended closure to run tracks, install overhead lines, etc.

And aye, guided busways are rubbish. On the handful of times I used the West Edinburgh Busway (now closed, cause they're turning it into a tramway) the ride quality was terrible. Basically offers few of the advantages of trams, with all the disadvantages of buses.

Shame the current government has such unexplained antipathy towards trams, and funding is somewhat tight at the moment anyway.

 

[indiekid]

It was never meant to be bitchy, was just saying

 

[milton]

I see no need at all for trams, I'm afraid. Beyond sentimentality anyway.
The modern standard of electric buses is at the stage now that it can supercede trams.
Electric buses are also cvheaper and kinder on the environment. It seems crazy to me that one of the loudest-shouted reasons for trams has been the environmental argument, yet we're talking about a system that involves massive energy consumption in the digging up of ground and laying of tracks.

 

[maccoinnich]

Well, if you want to use electric buses on a dedicated right of way, once you build all the roadway, cables (if you're talking trolleybus), level floor boarding stations etc, you're really not short of the infrastructure required to build a tram network. But really, when you're talking about infrastructure designed to be there for at least a century, I think you can discount the embodied energy argument.

But there are real advantages to trams over buses. People who wouldn't use buses are more likely to use trams. This isn't just true for locals; think of last time you were on holiday in a city with a light rail network. I'll hazard a guess that you used the trams, and didn't use a bus unless you really needed to. Trams promote urban development in a way that other forms of transport just don't do (obviously something we'd like to promote along the Clyde.) And of course even a two car tramset has a much higher carrying capacity than any bus, which makes trams ideal for major high capacity corridors.

 

[rydoz]

Exactly trams are futureproof. Anyway Who realy wants first rapping their fingers around somewhere new and without some bus saying here mate were no in service.

 

[gme]

Once it's open as a guided busway

Fastlink isn't a guided busway. It's just a set of dedicated corridors with specialised vehicles. Drivers would still need to steer the vehicles, even on the dedicated corridors.

Regarding the status of the project, I asked Glasgow City Council some time ago (January), and this was their reply:

Clyde Fastlink® as originally conceived was granted planning permission in 2006 for a route from Central Station to the Glasgow Harbour development site. Unfortunately, application to the Scottish Government for funding for the project was unsuccessful and at the time the Scottish Government suggested that the scheme should be funded regionally through Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. In order to qualify for such funding the scheme needs to satisfy regional transport objectives and cross council boundaries. To that end we are currently working on a feasibility study for an expanded route taking in Pacific Quay, Govan, Braehead, Clydebank and The Southern General and Golden Jubilee Hospitals. This work is due to report in Spring this year. I would presume the website will be updated to reflect the outcome of the current study.

then after another reply asking for clarification...

Effectively, yes it has been mothballed.

The status could have changed since I asked.

But it's not exactly positive, and some of the corridors (e.g. Broomielaw) have already been built.

 

[maccoinnich]

My mistake. I thought it was a guided busway. So it is just a glorified bus lane then?

 

[milton]

Well, if you want to use electric buses on a dedicated right of way, once you build all the roadway, cables (if you're talking trolleybus), level floor boarding stations etc, you're really not short of the infrastructure required to build a tram network. But really, when you're talking about infrastructure designed to be there for at least a century, I think you can discount the embodied energy argument.

I'm not meaning that though - I'm talking about the fact that we can now build electrically run buses that do not require on-road infrastructure.
The technology is there, and improving all the time. The costs are a fraction of that of trams, or indeed trolley buses. That means that the scheme can be rolled out over a wider distance.
Think about what we're specifically talking about here: One line, from the centre to the SECC. That needs its own dedicated type of vehicle! Shockingly wasteful imo. And when we talk about a possible roll-out elsewhere, then we really get into the big money. For less cost, you could re-nationalise the entire Strathclyde bus ownership, and use clean, modern buses.

That's before we even touch on the other differences:
The buses are more flexible. If one breaks down, it breaks down; traffic can go around it, and it doesn't block the bus route. This doesn't happen with trams.
The routes can be altered in instances of roadworks, or other accidents, or parades, or festivals, or whatever.

The same fleet of vehicles can be used for the entire network; that's not the case with trams. Trams can only be used on the very busiest routes of a transport network, where the vast installation costs will be at least partly offset by the projected usage. Thay can also only be used either on wide roads that can afford the loss of a lane in either direction, or on narrow roads that we can afford to turn over wholly.

And this infrastructure will not last a century! If it did, it's be near unique. Every time bits of it need replaced, it's adding to the energy consumption that could be avoided, and I sudder to think of the ancilliary knock-on effects in the meantime, such as the amount of pollution and congestion Edinburgh has suffered during the roadworks there recently.

But there are real advantages to trams over buses. People who wouldn't use buses are more likely to use trams. This isn't just true for locals; think of last time you were on holiday in a city with a light rail network. I'll hazard a guess that you used the trams, and didn't use a bus unless you really needed to. Trams promote urban development in a way that other forms of transport just don't do (obviously something we'd like to promote along the Clyde.) And of course even a two car tramset has a much higher carrying capacity than any bus, which makes trams ideal for major high capacity corridors.

I've heard those arguments before, and while I agree with them partly, I'm yet to see any hard evidence supporting them. The holiday reference is probably true, but it's a bit of a red herring, as I'm likely to be visiting the most obvious and popular places in a given city; seeing the famous sights, etc. It doesn't really say anything in favour of the trams when it comes to local people making the less glamerous journeys across their city that we all have to do..


Basically my problem is this: I don't deny for a second that the buses we have are shit, and that the system is shit, but this is something that could actually be solved by running the bus system differently. We don't actually have to install a whole new, very expensive, mode of transport to address these failings.

 

[AshAshAsh]

My mistake. I thought it was a guided busway. So it is just a glorified bus lane then?

Along Lancefield Quay it won't even be glorified, its going to run on the street.

I agree it should be light rail, ideally going all the way along to Larchfield on the old railway alignment.

 

[DMC_GLA]

Be interested to see how they manage it at Lancefield Quay - there is currently parking on the river side of the the road which they'll be hard pushed to remove without compensating the resedents of the flats (currently there is no visitor parking there) and I don't think Lancefield Quay is wide enough to give up 1 let alone 2 lanes for fast link as it is a very busy road (although cutting back the lanes might encourage people to stop using it as a short cut for the Express Way. They build out into the river (most likely this is already going to happen as part of the quay wall upgrade) but they'll have to do it by quite a distance to keep the buses away from the flats that look on to the river as the current walkway is not very wide there.

 

[M_Riaz]

Did a wee scan of this map i have in my files of the proposed routes of the Clyde Fastlink.

I read what you say about the track being extended on to river bank wall at Lancefield Quay DMC_GLA,
it would be very squezed up if they took that route shown on this map on the main road and the residents would loose thier parking & visitor spaces as well...
2 single track bus lanes and 2 normal traffic lanes hmmm we shall have to wait and see,
although i have seen a plan where they used the quay wall extension as a track but this was several years ago
when the scheme was first mooted.

Loops are @ the City Centre/ SECC Armadilo/ Partick Station/ Govan Cross.
Southern General Hospital loop i like particularly as the public transport services there are very bad at the moment and with the expansion of this hospital in the futre will be well in need of the CFL at regular intervals.
No indications of an extension to the east end which will probably change now with the 2014 CWG.

Still lots of planning will need to be done in the future for this to work and make best benefit to the city, lets hope its soon.

 

[M_Riaz]

A couple of PDF docs to explain the scheme as is.

Halcrow 34 pages

GCC which has 3 PDF docs also explaining the scheme.