Northern Busway extension

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Northern Busway extension leaves homes in limbo

Northern Busway extension leaves homes in limbo

    * by Ursula Heger
    * From: The Courier-Mail
    * September 22, 2010 12:01AM

DOZENS of properties in Brisbane's north have been placed in the firing line for the city's next big transport project, the Northern Busway extension.

The draft route released by the State Government shows homes and businesses in Chermside may need to be resumed for the second section of the Northern Busway.

Under the options being considered for the busway route, homes or part of Bradbury Park could be resumed from Rode Rd in Chermside, while properties along Gympie Rd may also be bulldozed.

The draft proposal also shows the graves in Lutwyche Cemetery may be disturbed, with options to tunnel under or near the Gympie Rd site.

The busway, which will service the Prince Charles Hospital and the Chermside shopping centre and eventually run from Kedron to Bracken Ridge, will be built by 2026 at a cost of $1.1 billion.

It will link with the almost-completed Northern Busway Windsor and Kedron section being built as part of the $5.6 billion Airport Link project.

Local councillor Fiona King said the State Government should revive an earlier proposal to build the busway along Gympie Rd because it would mean fewer resumptions.

"The Lord Mayor and myself would have liked to have seen (the busway) go straight down Gympie Rd to minimise impacts on homes and also on sporting facilities in the area," she said.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the project team would work closely with property owners potentially affected by the plans.

"Planning for the busway corridor now will ensure the land required is identified and protected for our future public transport needs but it will also give residents and property owners greater certainty in planning their future," she said.

[longboi]

Thats progress.

Serving PCH with the busway is going to be imperative to this project, Its an important destination for Northside residents.

[#Metro]

I don't think Brisbane should be building any more busways.
They should be train lines, which have 2x higher peak capacity and cost about the same per kilometre.
3 car units could be used if higher frequency is desired.

After 10 years or so the busway will be full of buses, flooding the already congested CBD. Then there will be faced with the extreme expense and delays of converting it to something else. Hasn't something been learned from the SE Busway?
Trunk routes will be frequent, but most people get on the busway system from street stops in the suburbs. The buses that fan out into the suburbs are likely to be far less frequent, but nonetheless improved...

(or will they now spend money on light rail while they busway is not 'busy' so it is easy to convert? A smokescreen argument IMHO).

[somebody]

I don't think Brisbane should be building any more busways.
They should be train lines, which have 2x higher peak capacity and cost about the same per kilometre.
3 car units could be used if higher frequency is desired.

After 10 years or so the busway will be full of buses, flooding the already congested CBD. Then there will be faced with the extreme expense and delays of converting it to something else. Hasn't something been learned from the SE Busway?
Trunk routes will be frequent, but most people get on the busway system from street stops in the suburbs. The buses that fan out into the suburbs are likely to be far less frequent, but nonetheless improved...

(or will they now spend money on light rail while they busway is not 'busy' so it is easy to convert? A smokescreen argument IMHO).

The SE busway will never be converted to something else.  The same will apply to this one.

I don't know, there has been a reluctance for rail to provide a decent service.  I'm not convinced this has been broken down.  The priority is getting a decent service on the existing lines, not new lines.  It is the same in Sydney.

[#Metro]

The SE busway will never be converted to something else.  The same will apply to this one.

Exactly. Because they do not intend to convert it to anything else.
It is LRT 'compatible' but it never will be converted to LRT.

I don't know, there has been a reluctance for rail to provide a decent service.  I'm not convinced this has been broken down.  The priority is getting a decent service on the existing lines, not new lines.  It is the same in Sydney.

A line is simply where passengers flow, the mode is what kind of vehicle is used to service that line. The Northern Busway is a new line, and the mode chosen to service that is bus. I'm not arguing that the line is in the wrong place, I'm just saying that I do not agree with the mode chosen to service the said line, based on previous experience with the SE Busway.

[somebody]

A line is simply where passengers flow, the mode is what kind of vehicle is used to service that line. The Northern Busway is a new line, and the mode chosen to service that is bus. I'm not arguing that the line is in the wrong place, I'm just saying that I do not agree with the mode chosen to service the said line, based on previous experience with the SE Busway.

Ok, I'll re-phrase.  If another line goes through, unless it is a completely new bureaucracy would have to be a QR style line.  That means done like every other QR style line.  There is a need to improve the way QR does things before it is expanded.

I do not support a competing rail bureaucracy.

[#Metro]

Ok, I'll re-phrase.  If another line goes through, unless it is a completely new bureaucracy would have to be a QR style line.  That means done like every other QR style line.  There is a need to improve the way QR does things before it is expanded.

I think it is more to do with the poor frequency on all QR lines.

[somebody]

Ok, I'll re-phrase.  If another line goes through, unless it is a completely new bureaucracy would have to be a QR style line.  That means done like every other QR style line.  There is a need to improve the way QR does things before it is expanded.

I think it is more to do with the poor frequency on all QR lines.

And what would be different on a new line?

[longboi]

The SE busway will never be converted to something else.  The same will apply to this one.

Exactly. Because they do not intend to convert it to anything else.
It is LRT 'compatible' but it never will be converted to LRT.

I don't know, there has been a reluctance for rail to provide a decent service.  I'm not convinced this has been broken down.  The priority is getting a decent service on the existing lines, not new lines.  It is the same in Sydney.

A line is simply where passengers flow, the mode is what kind of vehicle is used to service that line. The Northern Busway is a new line, and the mode chosen to service that is bus. I'm not arguing that the line is in the wrong place, I'm just saying that I do not agree with the mode chosen to service the said line, based on previous experience with the SE Busway.

Realistically, the busways could be easily converted to trunk+feeder services in the future using high frequency, high capacity buses.

[#Metro]

Well I just hope they have *some* kind of actual conversion plan than the vague iffy generalisations and hand-waving to deal with when the busway actually comes under the pump. Let's see a plan on paper.

At the moment suggestions of any kind of conversion are warded off by trotting out "the busway is light rail compatible" line (even though the level of difficulty/ease or whether they ever actually intend to exercise this option is up in the air and it may well be revealed that although the busway might be light rail convertible in theory, it might actually be impossible in practice) or "feeder bus services to superbuses"  (the feasibility of this this too does not seem to have been evaluated in great depth either).

The Mass Transit Report (2007) talks about this, in particular (page 47).

Although using larger capacity vehicles could reduce the number of buses in the CBD, these
vehicles are not appropriate for all routes. Articulated buses could be run on most BUZ
services but bi-articulated buses may not be suitable on all routes due to their length and
handling characteristics. Bi-articulated buses would be best operated in corridors designed
to accommodate the vehicles.

The question is, are these corridors designed to accommodate this? And are the newer corridors designed to do this?

IMHO, the South East Busway is not because there is a missing link from the SE Busway portal into the CBD. Are bi-arctic buses going to be run on Adelaide Street, Elizabeth Street and on the Riverside Expressway? Can Bi-arctic buses fit through the snake in QSBS?

or will we need an underground tunnel, and how will that fit in with the Cross River Rail tunnel?

Maybe bigger buses are the way forward, but to my knowledge nothing in the Connecting SEQ document even touched the subject of what might need to be done with the busway come 2031...

[justanotheruser]

Thats progress.

Serving PCH with the busway is going to be imperative to this project, Its an important destination for Northside residents.

not just northside. If you want the best heart specialists you go to PCH. It was a long trip travelling from Ipswich area to PCH before or after work each day to visit my wife but glad it was there and not other hospital (although their food dept was terrible)

[#Metro]

Some CM comments:  
As usual, PT got Ursula'd  

People seem to have cottoned on to the capacity limitations... perhaps the conversion of the busway isn't so much
a technical difficulty, but an organisational and project management one...

Code Select Expand


Brian of Brisbane  Posted at 6:52 AM Today

Here we go again. Brisbane's obcession with buses as the only way of moving people about strikes again.
This city is so dumb it defies belief.
Light rail could have been put down Gympie Road ages ago, but the people in Government, both local and state,
still with their 1960's thinking mentality, chose to do nothing.
There were even private consortiums prepared to install light rail and trams back when Soorley was Mayor,
at no cost to the taxpayers. Soorley canned it because it would put competetion up against the (still unreliable) Council buses.

And now people pay the price. There are cities even smaller than Brisbane throughout the world that do not rely on outdated buses to move people on mass.
London does have a lot of buses, but is about 10 times the population of Brisbane, but the buses
actually get somewhere, not held up in traffic all the time, due to the roads not being able to cope
with both buses and cars.

Busways are not the answer. Buses should be mainly a 'feeder" service to trains and light rail, with
fewer having to actually go into the CBD.
Brisbane is so out of date with its thinking and planning for the future, and we wonder why people laugh at us all the time.
Comment 10 of 45[/quote]

---------------

Alice H of Kedron  Posted at 7:45 AM Today

Brisbane has grown past the size where buses can do the job.
We need rail, partitcularly if the timescale of these proposals in over 15 years from now.
Twenty years ago buses were able to do the job in Brisbane. Ten years ago they started to struggle.
Today the bus system is at breaking point, and the current bits of busway being added here and there will just buy a few more years before the whole thing comes crashing down.

Ms Nolan, do you really call that forward planning? Maybe you should have stayed at the abattoir, because you and your government seem unable to do anything but butcher Brisbane's transport future.

Comment 18 of 45
---------------

Travel Fan of Brisbane  Posted at 9:09 AM Today

[quote]Brian of Brisbane Posted at 6:52 AM Today

Totally agree with you Brian, why we persist in trying to cover all our public transportation needs with buses is
astoundingly dumb. I visited Barcelona in Spain recently a city not too much smaller than
Brisbane with the population and area, however their public bus system rarely gets to the heart of the city and feeds a network of circular rail services which intersect the city heart on some routes and then changing at the correct (underground) station, puts you in touch with another circular service out to the regions and the network of feeder buses.

The whole system is run around about 20 hours a day from around 5am to 1am the following day..
there is little in the way of waiting the services on the circular routes seem to come along quite frequently, the feeder buses are run on time to keep the whole system on time..

the ticketing is mainly by pass cards or automated ticketing on board the buses and at train stations.
Why don't we look at the bigger picture instead of looking to put buses on the roads everytime there is a need to increase public transport, light rail or suspended monorails would take up less resumption than buses.[/quote]
Comment 27 of 45
----------------------

Son of Anarchy of Brisbane  Posted at 10:20 AM Today
Leave the Busway. Get an underground train system going. This is stupid.
Comment 32 of 45

-----------------------
Charlie of Charleville  Posted at 11:33 AM Today

If we are spending 1.1bn on tunnelling for a busway, can anyone suggest a reason why this should not
become rail/light rail? Much more efficient, better capacity and more likely to run on time. Maybe
Brisbane could then become on track to having a world class public transport system.

Comment 38 of 45
------------------------

[quote]Once a Brisbane fan  Posted at 12:10 PM Today

Why does it have to be buses - can we not provide better train systems?
Can't we spend the money on more trains to go more frequently.
Would this not solve some of the conjestion?
Let's drive all our local Brisbane businesses and people out of the inner cities and their homes - what a joke.
I'm glad I bought at Scarborough now!!

Comment 41 of 45[/quote]


[#Metro]

Reference for above: http://www.couriermail.com.au/property/northern-busway-extension-leaves-homes-in-limbo/comments-e6frequ6-1225927547240

[somebody]

Realistically, the busways could be easily converted to trunk+feeder services in the future using high frequency, high capacity buses.

But even the busway services (111 & 160) do not run more frequently than 15 minutes off peak!

The difference in capacity between a bi-artic and an artic isn't actually huge.


What's with the obsession from transport planning academics on capacity?  It ignores the need to make PT attractive.

[Golliwog]

Because its better to have a bus every x time that can carry nearly 200 pax than to have a bus at the same time interval that can only carry less than 100. The frequency argument is slightly link in that if you have lower frequency high capacity service, you can get the same seats/hour as with a lower capacity high frequency service but ultimately the best would to be to have high capacity and high frequency. However the frequency of a service is much easier to change than the capacity of a bus, so once you have the high capacity buses you can run them as little or as much as you want.

[somebody]

Every 15 minutes is NOT high frequency for commuter rail or bus.

[Golliwog]

I never said it was. I think bigger buses are something we are going to need and sometime semi-soon too. However I also think in the meantime they should be focusing on improving the frequencies of the bus routes. For starters I think merging the 111 and 333 to form a trunk route, then focus on improving its frequency. I don't think anywhere near as many routes are needed to run from everywhere to the city, once they get to a busway station it should terminate off the busway (not go onto the busway and terminate at the platform) and people can transfer. If you have a bus on the 111/333 route every few minutes (or whatever you like to keep a high enough level of capacity) the wait at the busway station will be minimal, but this is where what has been talked about where you have a cafe or someother shops as part of the station comes into play so those that dislike the wait can do something. Also, by shortening the routes you can either increase the frequency on the shorter route, or as will need to be done with some keep the level of service the same and reallocate that bus elsewhere (to begin with you would obviously have to but more buses on the combined 111/333 route)

Yes the 333 is not a busway only service like the 111 and can therefore be subject to traffic delays, however if you've got the frequency high enough this is only an issue for that initial 15 minute delay as after that the services are still 15 minutes behind, BUT they are still coming every (say) 2/3 minutes so you wouldn't notice that your bus is late.

You would still keep the express services that run via the riverside expressway.


end rant

[somebody]

For starters I think merging the 111 and 333 to form a trunk route, then focus on improving its frequency.

No way.  For starters you should merge the 111 & 160.  If you want to combine the merged route with the Northern Busway services, I guess you could, but I am with the majority opinion on this one which is that would hurt the reliability too much.  Perhaps when the Northern Busway reaches Kedron, but I'm still not sure if I can support it even then.

[Golliwog]

The reliability is hurt because its such a long route, or because the 333 goes along Gympie Rd?

[#Metro]

Every 15 minutes is NOT high frequency for commuter rail or bus.

I'm starting to agree. See on metro systems the off peak frequency is ... every 10 minutes, and in other places 5 minutes, and this is OFF peak.

For starters I think merging the 111 and 333 to form a trunk route, then focus on improving its frequency.

A 111 + 333 and similar actually is not a bad idea. If the service is exclusively busway, then I don't see why it can't be done. The rail system does exactly this, no trains terminate at central, they run straight through to the other side of the city.

Why can't this be done for Brisbane buses?

The frequency argument is slightly link in that if you have lower frequency high capacity service, you can get the same seats/hour as with a lower capacity high frequency service but ultimately the best would to be to have high capacity and high frequency.

I would agree as well. This is exactly what metro systems do. High Capacity AND high frequency, at all hours of the day. Most people get on the busway not at busway stops but at street stops. Unfortunately, if your route is not a BUZ, then you are probably going to have a low frequency service.

[somebody]

The reliability is hurt because its such a long route, or because the 333 goes along Gympie Rd?

More the latter, but the former as well.  For the rail system, we keep saying we need to sectorise so that delays in one section do not affect another.  Allowing the 111 to be hurt by delays on Gympie Rd would totally go against this idea.

[#Metro]

More the latter, but the former as well.  For the rail system, we keep saying we need to sectorise so that delays in one section do not affect another.  Allowing the 111 to be hurt by delays on Gympie Rd would totally go against this idea.

Only once it was busway all the way.

Route 66 + 160?

[somebody]

Route 66 + 160?

That is something I am inclined to support, so long as the timetable is co-ordinated with the current 111.  It would give the combined route a stop in KGSBS, which is a necessary thing.  The off peak 66 Roma St-Woolloongabba connection isn't on a meaningful frequency.  If you are coming from the north, it is better to change at Central for an Adelaide St bus, I'd suggest, or from the Ipswich line you can use two buses.

I would also question the need for the daytime RB&WH extension.  QUT KG should be good enough.

[justanotheruser]

Route 66 + 160?

That is something I am inclined to support, so long as the timetable is co-ordinated with the current 111.  It would give the combined route a stop in KGSBS, which is a necessary thing.  The off peak 66 Roma St-Woolloongabba connection isn't on a meaningful frequency.  If you are coming from the north, it is better to change at Central for an Adelaide St bus, I'd suggest, or from the Ipswich line you can use two buses.

I would also question the need for the daytime RB&WH extension.  QUT KG should be good enough.

when I have travelled before the 66 existed or on days when it doesn't there seems to be a long wait for buses to RBWH

[#Metro]

At the moment suggestions of any kind of conversion are warded off by trotting out "the busway is light rail compatible" line (even though the level of difficulty/ease or whether they ever actually intend to exercise this option is up in the air and it may well be revealed that although the busway might be light rail convertible in theory, it might actually be impossible in practice) or "feeder bus services to superbuses"  (the feasibility of this this too does not seem to have been evaluated in great depth either).

I just stumbled upon something... VERY interesting.

It is not uncommon to see BRT promoted as a transition to light rail, metro and even heavy rail (e.g. in Brisbane and Pittsburgh), partly to get something started within constrained budgets, but to also appease anti-bus groups who see public transport as singularly rail. What is encouraging is that the success of many of the BRT systems has resulted in its expansion without the need to go to a rail 'solution'. Carrying capacities of BRT (see Figure 1) are increasing all the time and moving the case solely for rail off of many agendas.

http://www.bic.asn.au/ozebus/img/LTAJourneysJournal.pdf

This would suggest that the "ability of the busway to be converted to light rail" or indeed anything else merely is a cosmetic feature designed to ward off future conversion, and is something that in practical terms may actually be impossible to achieve without extreme difficulty and disruption- effectively meaning that the busway system, in practice, might NOT convertible.

No wonder Brisbane is waiting and hoping for the superbuses... (which in itself may not be a bad idea, but would that too still eventually need to be converted anyway?). Future choices appear to is effectively be constrained to that option.

While there is much focus on how cheap construction is (for the SE busway this is true, but for later busways the costs are similar to or greatly exceed those of heavy rail), there does not seem to be focus on the operational cost of things and also whether it really is a good idea to run hundreds and hundreds of buses directly to the CBD, especially during peak hour. And whether this can be sustained in the face of an increasing transport task.

www.bic.asn.au/ozebus/img/LTAJourneysJournal.pdf

[ozbob]

As I have suggested before I don't think the busways in Brisbane will be ever converted to light rail. I have suggested that a separate light rail (or equivalent) is likely in inner Brisbane, combination of roads (surface), elevation and some tunnelling (cut and cover mainly).  The Gold Coast light rail will give that a push no doubt.

It is a matter of modes best for purpose.  The business case for Petrie to Kippa-Ring (MBRL) heavy rail clearly demonstrated that heavy rail was the best solution, particularly wrt to long term operating costs and benefits.

Busways are approaching capacity in Brisbane, fact. Some modification to the modus operandi eg. larger buses with feeders is the next step, but finite.  Meanwhile there is now the recognition that heavy rail is where the real capacity gain is to be got (Connecting SEQ 2031).  Buses are buses, trains are trains, trams are trams ..  all good.

[#Metro]

A separate Light Rail service running on streets (not on busway) is a good idea IMHO.

However, that aside, even if Brisbane does go down that path, we will have this curious situation where line haul high volume PT is being carried by buses, using very high numbers of staff and buses, and the (arguably lower, but still significant) amounts of traffic on main and arterial roads are being distributed by Light Rail.

Isn't that a modal mismatch?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Light Rail on the trunk routes, superbuses on the main arterials?


Superbuses might buy time, but that time should be used to genuinely explore other higher capacity options rather than wait until exhaustion occurs and then be faced with a crisis and no plan of what to do next.

There are many questions-- how are these superbuses (I'm thinking Bogota style double arctics) going to be accommodated on surface CBD streets? How will the transition be performed? Are any capital works at stations required? How will feeder services be accomodated? At what critical point does conversion to feeder or light rail become financially viable? When should conversion take place? How will it be staged? What are the lifecycle costs of each option? How much time will conversion need to take place?

[Luke]

This really seems to be a half-hearted attempt at a busway. Along Gympie Road the busway won't even be separated with general traffic signals controlling the buses.  A section of the actual busway even includes buses running on the road with general traffic.  Considering the huge increase in population that the Fitzgibbon Urban Development is going to bring to this area this really is unacceptable.  If the government are to going to build it then do it right in the first place.  

[somebody]

when I have travelled before the 66 existed or on days when it doesn't there seems to be a long wait for buses to RBWH

If the 330/333/340 timetables co-ordinated properly it shouldn't be more than 8 minutes in theory.  Even with the 333, you shouldn't have to wait more than 15 mintues.

[#Metro]

Hi Luke, there is a feedback form available:
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/N/Northern-Busway-Kedron-to-Bracken-Ridge.aspx

I have looked at the alignment draft options http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/projects/n/northern-busway--kedron-to-bracken-ridge/nbuswaykbrcorridoroptionsstage2.pdf

I don't mind the busway running to Carseldine station (diagram at the bottom of page 2) but then it appears to run parallel to the Caboolture Rail line as far as telegraph road (protected alignment) ... not sure what is happening there IMHO.

[Luke]

Hi tramtrain

The alignment along the railway was developed as part of the Fitzgibbon Urban Development area.  I think it was the most direct route to Bracken Ridge and minimised the impact on this development.  But at least this section of the busway is fully seperated. 

[somebody]

Don't know why I didn't post this before.  A 325 BUZ would provide a reasonable service to PCH, perhaps diverting into the hospital.  You would then wonder about the need for the Busway to divert off the Gympie Rd alignment. 

You'd also wonder about the need to run the 335 south of PCH then.

I've put something in the Proposed media releases.

[Gazza]

See I actually sent off feedback a little while back saying that the busway should just stick to Gympie road to reduce travel times and construction costs, with a sunken T intersection for buses below general traffic at the Rode Rd intersection, and then just have BRT along Rode rd to the hospital (Which is fine since there are no traffic lights between Gympie Rd and the Hospital)

In the future when the Trouts Rd rail line is established you would then have BRT along Rode Rd, linking the rail station to Chermside.

[#Metro]

This is a good suggestion and it makes sense. Why make everyone go via the hospital?
BRT is supposed to be "Flexible" so lets see some of that flexibility. Perhaps they could put in a mini-busway station at the hospital as well.

Frequent services...

[Jonno]

Human Transit
Auckland: high-end median busway proposed for eastern suburbs
www.humantransit.org/2010/12/auckland-high-end-median-busway-proposed-for-eastern-suburbs.html

Auckland Transport is recommending the higher-end median busway solution for a difficult suburban arterial corridor that we studied for them last year.  (The corridor extends from Panmure rail station through Pakuranga to Botany via Pakuranga and Ti Rakau Roads.)  It would be the main radial rapid transit corridor for Auckland's far eastern suburbs.

When you're looking at fitting some sort of "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) into a suburban arterial, the question of median vs side lanes is bigger than it sounds.  It largely determines the scale, prominence, and apparent permanence of the project.

Putting BRT in the median is the high-risk, high-benefit, high-impact choice.  A median BRT solution looks and feels like a separated busway, and its dedicated median station infrastructure makes the service look both prominent and permanent.  It obstructs a lot of turning movements that motorists are used to, and is generally harder to compromise.

On the other hand, putting a bus lane on the side, as Seattle's new Rapid Ride Line A does, delivers a more compromised outcome that has much less impact on car circulation.  Stops on the side risk looking like any bus stop, so unless you make a very strong statement with the station architecture, the service may not look like permanent infrastructure.  A side lane is also generally shared with cars turning into and out of the street on that side, which is often a source of roughness and can mean significant delay at major intersections.

That's not to critique the Seattle-area examples, which are designed to a different scale.  But I  congratuate Auckland Transport for going out to the public with the more ambitious option, and thus triggering a real and enlightening debate.

(Commenters:  Note that I'm speaking to both left-hand-drive and right-hand-drive countries with this post, and thus avoiding all references to left and right!  I challenge you to maintain similar neutrality.)

Photo: Rendering of median bus lane option, presumably by Auckland Transport, via New Zealand Herald.

Beats cutting suburbs in half and destroying busines facing Gympie Road.  Gympie Road is easily wide enough.

[Golliwog]

Humantransit has however previously commented on the Brisbane busways in that they spare no expense to ensure they are fully grade seperated. I agree that a median busway could totally be done, but what compromises would have to be made? With the current seperated design, it's going to cost a lot more, but you avoid intersections with major roads (other than for access).

A median busway could also be totally grade seperated, but that would then mean either no one can cross Gympie Rd, or that you then spend large ammounts of money building over/underpass intersections at the more major streets (minor ones can cope with left in-left out). Either that or you compromise on bus segregation and have traffic light intersections, which like the Queens St intersection would be hard to provide buses priority at if they run at high frequencies, which is ultimately the purpose of a busway.

[#Metro]

Agreed. A median busway is worth looking at, however like Golliwog pointed out it will mean lower capacity, simply because it has to wait at traffic lights and intersections. Of course the fix for that is to get bigger vehicles and priority measures.

We seem to run buses every minute or two down Coronation Drive without a bus lane (with a bus lane is obviously better), and a similar thing happens on Mains Road, Sunnybank, one of the busiest in the city.

So it really depends I think. There are roles for at-grade busways in Brisbane, not every busway has to be grade separated although the "trunk" ones should. Perhaps if a spur off the main busway to Prince Charles is looked at, it could be a median busway, for example.

[Jonno]

I believe the Auckland proposal is for the buway to drop underneath major intersections.  Surely this would cost fare less than the suburb bulldozer approach.  I also returns Gympie Rd to something resembling human scale.

[Golliwog]

This is true, and I certainly think it should be looked at. The thing is though, QT seems to be trying to work on working with BCC, and BCC's policy as I understand it is to never reduce the number of lanes available to cars unless totally avoidable.

[#Metro]

This is true, and I certainly think it should be looked at. The thing is though, QT seems to be trying to work on working with BCC, and BCC's policy as I understand it is to never reduce the number of lanes available to cars unless totally avoidable.

Ahh, this is going to make the cost balloon. Thinking about it, aren't other parts of the northern busway going underground anyway (like at Lutwyche?) Aren't there two long tunnels in the proposal? Why can't it be tunneled under Gympie Road, or run on the surface and then tunneled later when capacity increases necessitate it and funds are available to do it???

Grade separated might be the way to go from the outset. However, I draw attention to the "untouchable sacred car lanes" policy. Has there ever been an examination of this using cost-benefit analysis??? Is it really worth the cost to keep car lanes sacred?