The Inner Northern Busway Tunnel under King George Square is set to cause up to 10 months of heartache for Albert St retailers as hoardings will be erected around the demolition of the Albert St tunnel entrance. Initial consultations spoke of only 10 weeks of disruptions but this has clearly blown out of proportion.

Albert St retailer Rush Surf Clothing was shocked at the severity of the impact.

Council said it would do all it can to protect retailers such as rent rebates etc. Cr Hinchliffe said the tunnel would create long term benefits.


Project cost - $140 million

Also you have to consider the pedestrian disruptions through KGS. The footpaths on Adelaide & Ann St will become very crowded. It will be good in the end though with a proper pedestrian mall from QSM to KGS.

I really hope it doesn't take anywhere near 10 months, but as you said the final product should be worth it.

What exactly are they doing with this? How will buses on Adelaide St get into the Queen st bus station? Or isn't that needed anymore?

What exactly are they doing with this? How will buses on Adelaide St get into the Queen st bus station? Or isn't that needed anymore?

At present, buses coming from the INB have to travel down Tank Street, then along North Quay to Adelaide. St

Once the tunnel is in place, buses will simply continue on along Roma. St into the tunnel saving around 10 minutes in peak (traffic is that bad).

All the info on the project is here (http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/busway.nsf/index/INBQueenToRoma).

At present, buses coming from the INB have to travel down Tank Street, then along North Quay to Adelaide. St

Once the tunnel is in place, buses will simply continue on along Roma. St into the tunnel saving around 10 minutes in peak (traffic is that bad).

yeah its REAL BAD around North Quay and Herschel St etc. The 390 took 10 mins to get from Roma St to Adelaide St yesterday

Yeah the tunnel is gonna make a mess of George Street between the QSM and Adelaide Street but in the long run it will be worth it :D

I HATE Lutwyche Road with a passion. Once the Northern Busway bypasses the congestion of Lutwyche Road the northside will be so much better by public transport :D

Yeah the tunnel is gonna make a mess of George Street between the QSM and Adelaide Street but in the long run it will be worth it :D

I HATE Lutwyche Road with a passion. Once the Northern Busway bypasses the congestion of Lutwyche Road the northside will be so much better by public transport :D


FUCKING CLEM FUCKING JONES!

There was a tram right-of-way which travelled through the middle of Lutwyche and Gympie Roads, all ripped up an replaced with two lanes of traffic.

But yes, the plan is to eventually run to Aspley/Bracken Ridge along the Gympie Road corridor, although I can see this at capacity within 5-10 years of it being built.

The trams were obviously excellent back before they were closed down. Obviously it would be impossible to put them back ,the infrastructure costs would be phenomenal. The cost to beneft analysis would not make building light rail infrastructure viable in Brisbane. However, I would love to dedicated bus lanes down both sides of the major transport corridors. Mains Road, Logan Road, Old Cleveland Road, Ispwich Road would be awesome with 2 lanes of normal traffic and the left lane dedicated to bus priority measures in both directions. Completely achievable and cost effective for the Mains/Pinelands/Calam Road corridor as it is already 3 lanes on both directions. Old Cleveland Road would be more difficult but still possible. Logan Road would involve too many resumptions and businesses pissed off about loosing kerb side parking. Ispwich Road is a traffic nightmare just like Lutwyche/Gympie Road. I have little sympathy for single occupant vehicles needlessly causing traffic delays in urban transport corridors. Bus users have a right to travel along the transport corridors without general traffic causing delays.

I HATE Lutwyche Road with a passion. Once the Northern Busway bypasses the congestion of Lutwyche Road the northside will be so much better by public transport :D


The northern busway from what i know will travel along lutwyche rd and gympie rd. the expected traffic reductions as a result of the NSBT and Airport Tunnel means that they can create a bus lane along the existing corridor. Running it elsewhere would result in 100's of resumptions and loss of communities.

Gympie Rd from Kedron on is quite good. It is 3 lanes in both directions, has turning lanes and also has parking lanes on each side. A bus or T3 lane could so easily be put along there and i think ive seen it outlined in the Translink plan.

The worst road corridor on the northside is Kelvin Grove Rd to South Pine Rd in Everton Park. No room to expand, very windy and has heaps of un-syncronised traffic lights.

The trams were obviously excellent back before they were closed down. Obviously it would be impossible to put them back ,the infrastructure costs would be phenomenal. The cost to beneft analysis would not make building light rail infrastructure viable in Brisbane. However, I would love to dedicated bus lanes down both sides of the major transport corridors. Mains Road, Logan Road, Old Cleveland Road, Ispwich Road would be awesome with 2 lanes of normal traffic and the left lane dedicated to bus priority measures in both directions. Completely achievable and cost effective for the Mains/Pinelands/Calam Road corridor as it is already 3 lanes on both directions. Old Cleveland Road would be more difficult but still possible. Logan Road would involve too many resumptions and businesses pissed off about loosing kerb side parking. Ispwich Road is a traffic nightmare just like Lutwyche/Gympie Road. I have little sympathy for single occupant vehicles needlessly causing traffic delays in urban transport corridors. Bus users have a right to travel along the transport corridors without general traffic causing delays.


For sure, they worked well during their short stint before 'Can-do' came in.

Maroon, I hear you. That corridor is a nightmare, but its so long and some areas (Everton Hills) are sparsely populated so a busway couldn't do very much, I suppose all that can be done is bus lanes, better synchronisation at traffic lights and maybe even re-allignment.

In Edinburgh, Scotland they introduced 'Greenways' which are dedicated lanes which can onlybe used by buses, taxis, bikes and emergency vehicles. They run in both directions of the transport corridors and were the result of resumping an existing travel lane and turning it into the transit lane. As a result some of Edinburgh's main transport corridors are 2 lanes of general traffic and 2 lanes of dedicated bus lane. Similar to Waterworks Road here. It has been successful in making public transport reliable and reducing car usage. Taking a similar apporach here would be a political nightmare from car-centric residents complaining but it would be awesome and would work well. Just look at the controversy over turning half a kilometre of Mains Road into a dedicated 24hr transit lane...

Bus users have the same right to our orads as single occupant vehicles. If they get stuck in their own traffic though shit. Transit lanes are vitally important for making public transport relaible and avoding unneccessary delays.

Bus Lanes will be reintroduced in time. wait for the completion of the tunnels on the northside and then we will see some transit lanes from Spring Hill to Aspley.

Nikko, i never thought a busway was the key out along the NW corridor, however the buses are very heavily utilised all the way to Albany Creek. Some road improvements similar to Waterworks Rd would be a great improvement. I also would propose an Enogerra bypass where traffic banks up at the Samford Rd intersection. The intersection alone causes jams back to McDowall.

Seen as though were talking about the area, do u know of the reserved trasnport corridor from Stafford to Carseldine. Thet could connect rail to it or put a busway through there.

Nikko, i never thought a busway was the key out along the NW corridor, however the buses are very heavily utilised all the way to Albany Creek.

I know, I was just...thinking aloud ;)

Seen as though were talking about the area, do u know of the reserved trasnport corridor from Stafford to Carseldine. Thet could connect rail to it or put a busway through there.

Wouldn't it be nice.

Dedicated transit lanes along Appleby Road/Maundrell Terrace/Gayford Street would be awesome for services like the 345. Just turn the parking lanes into transit lanes. Although the cutting through the hill at Caratel Street would be too difficult to widen. The Alderley Fiveways roundabout is going to be turned into a four way set of traffic lights anyway.

EDIT: Removed redundant statement

In the US, HOV lanes can be used in some states by Hybrid vehicles - no matter how many people are in the vehicle.

I don't agree with hybrid vehicles using transit lanes. As they eventually become more popular they will increase traffic in the transit lanes rendering them ineffective and taking away the time advantage.

add another transit lane

add another transit lane

Transit lanes are like Freeways.They just fill up.

More light rail or a metro for Brizzy!

That's why they should be dedicated bus lanes not transit lanes. The lanes should also have a painted boundary to make it quite clear that dirvers should not be using them.

That's why they should be dedicated bus lanes not transit lanes. The lanes should also have a painted boundary to make it quite clear that dirvers should not be using them.


People would still drive in them.
Overhead gantries should be dotted along any road like this (transit/bus lane) with thermal and photo cameras. I'm tired of being on a bus on Coronation Drv and it's full of cars - with less than 3 people.

In Edinburgh Scotland they put a layer of green tarmac over the lanes and use constant monitoring.

I wish the police would enforce the transit lanes here regularly. They would both revenue raise and make public transport users sick of transit lane abuse VERY HAPPY :bash:

Transit lanes are like Freeways.They just fill up.

I dunno if you'd fill a six lane road consisting of 3 24 hour T3s each way in any city in this country...

^lol. about as likely as filling the cross-city tunnel.

ROFL @ Toadman

The Cross City Tunnel is like the transit lane thats open for everyone. Maybe they should convert the whole tunnel to a 24 hour transit lane they everyone will abuse it like they do with regular transit lanes.

That's why they should be dedicated bus lanes not transit lanes. The lanes should also have a painted boundary to make it quite clear that dirvers should not be using them.

i think T3's are ok. i mean, how many cars do u see with 3 ppl in them?... bugger all. you dont even see many cars with 2 ppl in them in the T2's.

I would be nice to see light rail track eventually laid down on all the busways.

I would be nice to see light rail track eventually laid down on all the busways.

i heard at uni that they planned for that and constructed the road bases in a way that would allow them to easily install light rail tracks. whether that happens or not is another story. if they did that, they may as well make them train lines.

I hope that the light rail that they are looking at for the CBD does extend to the busways, as well as along some of the Transit lanes where rail services are poor, like Waterworks Road, not that the latter is likely to happen.

Waterworks Road has the 385 BUZ. The construction of light rail would not meet the requirements of a cost benefit analysis.

Whatever, they should still build it in the future when density is high enough.

It would be a bitch to build and not to mention slow when travelling through Red Hill.

did anyone see the news. the trans apex project looks as though it might get canned coz it will cost too much money. the cross city tunnel has become a major disaster as motorists avoid it due to large tolls. The NSBT will still go ahead. I reckon the NSBT is nothin without the Airport Link. Once u get to the city, there is no jams. all the traffic is between Kedron and Herston. The Airport Link needs to be built if the NSBT is to be justified and i think the Western freeway link is good as well. it would be a shame if those 2 important links were'nt built.

Trams just don't meet the cost benefit analysis.

Trams just don't meet the cost benefit analysis.
Say that one more time....I dare you!

Trains just don't meet the cost benefit analysis :lol:

*waits to be shot*

Vincent, shoot this mutha f**ka!

did anyone see the news. the trans apex project looks as though it might get canned coz it will cost too much money. the cross city tunnel has become a major disaster as motorists avoid it due to large tolls. The NSBT will still go ahead. I reckon the NSBT is nothin without the Airport Link. Once u get to the city, there is no jams. all the traffic is between Kedron and Herston. The Airport Link needs to be built if the NSBT is to be justified and i think the Western freeway link is good as well. it would be a shame if those 2 important links were'nt built.

HOORAY! TransApex is a taxpayer subsidised white elephant for engineering and construction companies (onya Campbell Pooman).

Dont get too excited yet 17 floors, the NSBT and the airport link will still go ahead. I have to say Im a little surprised at how narrowminded you are about this. There is more to this project than just putting more cars on the road, cos god knows that is going to happen anyway. The big advantage is that it will free up space on Gympie Road for Bus lanes, I thought this would have been something that someone so Pro PT would have been happy about.

It is certainly going to make the Inner Northern Busway Tunnel alot better IMO.

of course the NSBT and Airport link will go ahead
the other projects are not feasible yet - however its great we have a plan already in place for when they are needed - this is planning - this is something Australian cities lack!

its amazing that we complain about lack of planning - and when someone has the balls for amassive upgrade of brisbane roads we criticise it. PATHETIC

I don't think I'm the one who's being narrowminded about this, I reckon its the roads lobby that is. Why can't they spend the billions of dollars upgrading and expanding underground rail or light rail (that EVERYONE can use). Now there's some forward thinking! The road tunnels will only create more traffic and increase pollution. To decrease traffic congestion you improve PT not build new roads in the hope that it'll provide more capacity. People just start driving more cos there's more capacity - its self defeating.

well zach, they're suddenly scared because as seen in Sydney, the rate of tolling on these projects may be too high for the broader community to embrace. There's no point even continuing planning if you can't afford to build it...

17 floors I would love for it to be that simple, but the fact is that at this stage Brisbane doesnt have the population to support a huge network of underground rail or a large network of light rail yet, so at the moment we have to make do with busways and bus lanes, which is exactly what they are giving us. If we were starting from scratch I would agree with you, but were not, we are starting with a car based society and this cant be ignored.

Why can't they spend the billions of dollars upgrading and expanding underground rail or light rail (that EVERYONE can use). Now there's some forward thinking!

Isn't both light rail and an underground rail line part of the brisbane CBD plan? Extensions to the busways system are underconstruction and in planning as well. Perhaps some people are thinking forward.

Light rail plans for Brisbane were scrapped after the success of the SE Busway (and the number of people using it) made light rail look like a second rate system. They instead have used some of the land previously set aside for light rail to expand busway services.

I really do think that Brisbane should be looking ahead to the next 2/3 rail lines that it needs (of which I believe at least 1 has been on the books for 20 years, and another for several years at least). Compared to traffic tunnels these are cheap cheap additions but then you can't get a private company to build them and charge the end user or you end up with an air-train solution, too expensive for anyone to bother using.

The Springfield, Redcliffe and Greenbank rail lines need to be built now. That would probably do alot more in the long term for traffic issues in Brisbane (and alot cheaper too) than building five road tunnels. Inner city rail capacity would need to be increased as is proposed in the Masterpan - and I believe inner Brisbane does (or certainly will in the near future with all the new infill res devt going on) have the population to support increased underground rail services that can distribute poeple around the central area. It doesn't have to be anything like a London tube style network - maybe more like a Melbourne Loop thingy.

^"melbourne loop thingy" - you can tell I'm an expert can't you? ;-)

That all sounds good, but who is going to pay for it? And we are talking about a State Govt responsibility with rail, and a Council responsibility with the tunnels and busses. Personally, I would like to have all of the above, but thats just not realistic is it.

The rail line for Springfield is scheduled for a 2015 opening. The Greenbank line is under evaluation. The Redcliffe line has been a proposal for more than 100 years.

^
Isn't Redcliffe rail being transformed into a busway?

Light rail plans for Brisbane were scrapped after the success of the SE Busway (and the number of people using it) made light rail look like a second rate system. They instead have used some of the land previously set aside for light rail to expand busway services.


I'm talking about the light rail in the Brisbane Masterplan which certainly has not been scrapped. I also have not heard of the cancelling of plans of the transferal of the busways eventually to light rail - the state government was talking of it only a few months ago.

See later posts for corrected figures

Light Rail is not a good replacement for the Busway in my opinion, no matter how shiny light rail is.

The way the INB or SEB works is that feeder buses join the busway at a certain point, then all the buses go down the busway to the city. The Busway is terrific at serving city-bound commuter trips.
Assuming your stations are made big enough, and alot of the buses skip minor stops, you could essentially have buses running every 3 seconds (just like the 3s gap you're supposed to keep when driving). But lets just say 5 seconds, so we to leave a margin for acceleration and deceleration. And if there's 75 pax per bus (we're not talking articulated buses or 14.5m Scanias here) that works out to
54,000 passengers per hour capacity.
Now, I highly doubt such a capacity will be reached in the burbs, but somewhere between Buranda and Queen St, trips/hr could reach close to this theoretical capacity.

Light rail won't be able to do the same job and won't have the same capacity - capacity will be the biggest problem at the city-end of the route. Lets use one of Melbourne's lovely Citadis for capacity purposes, ignoring for a moment the crappy max speed of 70kmh compared to 100kmh for a bus.
Alstom (the manufacturer) claims 150 pax/lrv, Yarra Trams' website claims 190 - I'll go with the more conservative figure from the manufacturer here. Now trams can run at headways as small as 45 seconds. So that means 80 trams per hour, and therefore 12,000 passengers per hour. Also, would anyone really want to run 80 trams an hour? Imagine the cost to hire drivers.... (altho compared to the buses before its no where near as bad).
And to get the rail working at its peak, you still need feeder buses to coordinate or have decent frequencies (buses every 10 min) to minimise transfer time. And bus operators are pretty inempt at this imo, in Australia atleast.
Nevertheless, you can see theres a big difference between the capacity of the busway and tramway.

Wait a mo, I hear you say. Since its a dedicated Right-Of-Way, we could run longer trams. That may be so, we could run two coupled LRTs, except that would require a 50 metre long stop instead of the normal 24 metre. More $$$ on longer stations. And you've only doubled capacity to 24,000 pax per hour, a long way away from the busway's 54,000. NB, using a coupled tram could be an excuse to cut tram frequencies down to 80 secs, so your back to square 1 - same cpapcity of pax/hr (CityRail-gunzels will be reminded of Michael Costa's spin when he reduced the no. of trains on weekends, but lengthened them to 8 cars to make up for capacity).

IMO, the way the SE Busway is the best at the job it does now. Light rail is no comparison. If you want to meet demand the best way is for some Medium or Heavy Rail. And the trouble with Rail is while it may be cost effective at the city-end, its rather inefficient further you go into the burbs where there is less travel demand. The SE Busway is basically a commuter busway, just like any railway you put in will become a commuter rail line (light or heavy rail). You will need to tinker with alot of local planning (re zoning and densities) to get transit services and trip demands that resemble those on a metro line - to make the cost of implementing a heavy rail service worthwhile.

snip

Excellent post there Smeghead :okay:

The South East Busway is working awesome, don't bugger it up with light rail that reduces capacity.

Why don't you guys go and marry and bus if you love them so much. :)

Why don't you guys go and marry and bus if you love them so much. :)

from the way ppl flog light rail to death in here, i swear you all wanna root a tram

Eaxctly. Light rail has bloody expensive setup costs and don't produce decent patronage. You can move 3 times more people on buses than light rail for a the same setup costs. Or move just as many people on buses as light rail for one third of the price. Light rail is not practical. Buses are flexible and easy to setup and can be adapted to suit patronage needs.

...you could essentially have buses running every 3 seconds (just like the 3s gap you're supposed to keep when driving). But lets just say 5 seconds, so we to leave a margin for acceleration and deceleration. And if there's 75 pax per bus...

Let's try 60 per bus...


And I seriously doubt it's possible to run better than 15 second headways even with acceleration and deceleration lanes at your stations...

Another thing about the South East Busway is that not all routes go through Mater Hill/Southbank/Cultural Centre Busway Stations. There are many Rocket routes that go directly through Buranda and then across the Captain Cook Bridge directly into the city. This means that the capacity of the South East Busway is significantly increased because the section with the highest volume of traffic between Buranda and Mater Hill does not require any stopping.Furthermore, because the South East Busway acts as a shuttle with routes travelling directly from the suburbs to the city the is not need for feeder services that require a transfer to light rail or heavy rail. There are capacity issues at Mater Hill and Garden City due to popularity but none the less the South East Busway is able to carry a massive number of passengers at a competetive infrastructure cost.

Let's try 60 per bus...

And I seriously doubt it's possible to run better than 15 second headways even with acceleration and deceleration lanes at your stations...

Somewhere between 60-75 is the figure that Sydney Buses cites for its range of low-floor buses so you do have a point. Let use 67 then. 15 sec headways so thats 240 buses per hour. The you've got the nice number of 16,080. I quoted LRT capacity at 12,000/hr - running 1 Citadis LRV every 45 secs.

There's a lot of factors that go into bus headways
- we need pretty large bus station to accomodate a largeish number of buses at the station at any one time
- how often buses actually stop or skip stops
- loading and unloading times at bus stops

The 5 second headway I quoted assumes alot of the buses will be express buses making minimal stops or no stops closer towards the CBD. Hornetfigs stats would be closer to buses doing all stops, at large-ish bus stations that can probably cater for 4 buses per directions at any one instance, not including any additional platforms or bays you'd want to add.

In my opinion the busway still doing a better job (short term, maybe not long term when considering operating costs), unless we want to run coupled Citadis every 40 seconds. Although, busways are probably more inefficient than any rail-based transit when it comes to land consumption, although there are other costs besides land.

Buses also have a lot of wasted runs during peak times. For example:

- Depot to Sunnybank.
- Sunnybank to City (Route 133)
- Empty run back to Sunnybank
- Sunnybank to City (Route 133)
- Empty run back to Sunnybank
- Etc.

^^

I've seen worse:

Chermside<>Strathpine (338)

Blank back to city

City<>Eatonvale (357)


Anyway, our busway is essentially running at 5s frequency already (Logan City operates spine services for Brisbane aswell) during peak and people are using it. The INB is having two new stations opened up very soon and they're working well. Light Rail should be reserved for areas which has no other options (i.e. New Farm, West End). Smeghead has the right idea :) nice post.

Somewhere between 60-75 is the figure that Sydney Buses cites for its range of low-floor buses so you do have a point. Let use 67 then.

A 12.5m low floor bus will seat 45-47 and have a regulatory maximum standing load of 15-17 people. While often buses will be overloaded and some bodies (eg some Bustechs) have higher seating capacity, I think 62 is the magic number for the moment. But sure run with 67

That's correct, at the moment Garden City and Mater Hill are having problems during peak passenger activity. The headway can be down to a few seconds during the day at some points. There is still more capacity available then what is being utilised, none the less it's working well.

Let's try 60 per bus...


And I seriously doubt it's possible to run better than 15 second headways even with acceleration and deceleration lanes at your stations...

Considering that before it was expanded to acutally even have a passing lane, the busiest stop had 24 second headways, it's pretty easy to see how they could be halved.. (Previously all busses had to stop, and couldn't go until all the busses in front of them were ready).

A 12.5m low floor bus will seat 45-47 and have a regulatory maximum standing load of 15-17 people. While often buses will be overloaded and some bodies (eg some Bustechs) have higher seating capacity, I think 62 is the magic number for the moment. But sure run with 67

62-67 Whatever. That's not even taking into account that some of the busiest routes use articulated busses with double that capacity. Remembering that the 'generous' tram figures are using multi car trams. Most trams I've been on would be lucky to pack in 50 people.

I also have not heard of the cancelling of plans of the transferal of the busways eventually to light rail - the state government was talking of it only a few months ago.

Why go backwards? Light rail's only advantage is that you can have narrower vehicles. An advantage lost when you already have the ROW built for busses.
Light rail also couldn't handle the curves and gradient on some busway sections without some fairly non standard track and vehicles.

To be serious, the only thing that can effectively upgrade a busway is modern heavy rail which can carry more, with better speeds. It's only worth it though in much much much higher densities than the area's that the busway serves. And given the economic background of the area's that the busway serves it's unlikely that rail would prove to be more popular.

^
I'm not saying i agree with such a conversion (I don't) but in your post you wrote any light rail plans off when that is hardly the case.

Considering that before it was expanded to acutally even have a passing lane, the busiest stop had 24 second headways, it's pretty easy to see how they could be halved.. (Previously all busses had to stop, and couldn't go until all the busses in front of them were ready).

But what was the average stop length? It will increase as you approach capacity. And I don't see how you can say simply it's 'pretty easy to see' that 12 second headways are attainable. How?

62-67 Whatever.

That's what I said.

That's not even taking into account that some of the busiest routes use articulated busses with double that capacity.

Double the length, not particularly close to double the capacity....

Remembering that the 'generous' tram figures are using multi car trams. Most trams I've been on would be lucky to pack in 50 people.

Ditto most buses

Why go backwards?...

This is not my quote. You should probably have indicated that is was Orfeo's.

I am not suggesting that light rail is or is not a better option than a busway, I am simply playing Devil's Advocate and ensuring that we don't see distorted (even be they innocently distorted) capacity figures

Excel-Calculated Numbers. Criticise away. Forgot to add: these are capacity per direction

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7577/capacities1yv.png

Vehicle capacities
Tram = Melbourne Z-class http://www.railpage.org.au/tram/z.html
Light Rail = Yarra Trams/Alstom Citadis - I misquoted the stat previous and have corrected/will correct previous posts http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/Products_and_Services/RAIL_VEHICLES/Passenger_trains/Urban_trains/10831.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/Products_and_Services/RAIL_VEHICLES/Passenger_trains/Urban_trains/&docLink=7630
Bus = Sydney Buses Low Floor Median-ish, with Hornetfig's input http://www.sydneybuses.info/busfleet/
Articulated Bus = Sydney Buses Mercedes Artics (the old non-low-floor ones) http://www.sydneybuses.info/busfleet/
CityRail = Sydney CityRail Double Decker 8 car set - estimate - cant find official source.From James (also an SSC forumer). I know it's not comparable to QRs trains, but its the only example I could get at short notice.
Connex Melbourne = 2 coupled Siemens single decker sets - 3 cars each, 6 all up. http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&traintype=Siemens

Headways/Vehicles per hour
Tram/LRV/Bus/Articulated bus, estimates - based on precedent.
Train - grapevine figure, with some precedent - Eastern Suburbs Railway is constantly quoted to be able to cater for 20 trains/hour one the BJ turnback is completed

^
QR commuter trains range between 499 - 524 for each 3 car set. City train (http://www.citytrain.com.au/about/fleet/smuii/smuii.asp)

Can someone change the thread name to just 'Brisbane - Busways' because perliminary information has been released about the Eastern Busway. It seems this time it will cater for the neighbouring city, unlike one busway that didn't bother doing this (*ahem*South-East Busway to Logan*ahem*)

Why is an Eastern Busway needed?

The need

* Population growth is placing pressure on our region, our lifestyle and our transport system.
* Busways allow buses to bypass peak-hour congestion.
* Public transport demand between the city and Brisbane's eastern suburbs and the Redland Shire is expected to grow significantly between now and 2026.
* By 2016, the busway could cater for over 35,000 busway trips in a day.


The benefits

* Cuts bus travel times in half between Capalaba and Buranda - trips would take just 15 minutes, even in peak hour.
* Saves commuters almost 3.5 hours a week or 150 hours a year.
* Makes public transport more frequent, reliable, comfortable and easy to use.
* Provides better connections to where people live, work and play.
* Reduces growth in car travel on Old Cleveland Road and neighbouring streets.
* Reduces congestion, pollution and traffic noise - for every full bus of commuters, there are 40 fewer cars on the road - over a week, this would save 400 car trips and about 20,000 car trips a year.


Part of a bigger plan

The Eastern Busway is part of the Queensland Government's response to the growth pressures facing our region and community desires to improve public transport and protect our lifestyle.

Almost $8 billion has been allocated to boost public transport and cycling infrastructure over the next 20 years as part of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program. This includes $530 million to deliver the Eastern Busway.

The Eastern Busway has also been identified as an integral part of a more sustainable and integrated transport system for Brisbane in other key planning documents, such as the South East Queensland Regional Plan, Draft TransLink Network Plan and Transport Plan for Brisbane.


Planning so far - preferred corridor selected

TransLink has recently undertaken preliminary studies to identify a preferred corridor for the Eastern Busway between Buranda and Carindale, and on to Capalaba.

This early planning was done to select a broad project corridor that would deliver the most benefits and the least impacts. The preferred corridor generally follows Old Cleveland Road. Investigations of the preferred corridor included transport and traffic issues, existing public transport services, social and community issues, land use and urban design issues, engineering issues and environmental values. Feedback from consultation on other projects, such as the Draft TransLink Network Plan, was also considered.
As part of this next phase of planning TransLink will identify a preferred alignment for the busway within this corridor, including busway station locations and whether the busway is above or below ground.

Why was the preferred corridor selected?

The key benefits of the preferred corridor include:

* faster travel times
* services more people
* caters to areas without rail services
* fewer impacts on residential areas
* better connections to community facilities and destinations
* less environmental impact.


Next steps in planning

Before a decision can be made on the future of the Eastern Busway, the preferred corridor will undergo a series of in-depth studies to assess its benefits and impacts.

The next step is a Concept Design and Impact Management plan (CDIMP).

The CDIMP will investigate potential environmental, social and economic benefits and impacts of the Eastern Busway and identify a preferred alignment between Buranda and Capalaba.

Because the CDIMP is a very detailed and robust way of planning, it will allow for greater community involvement in the project and achieve better planning and design outcomes.

The CDIMP starts in late 2005 with the release of draft Terms of Reference and is expected to finish by mid 2006.

A business case will be prepared at the same time as the CDIMP, detailing the need, benefits, impacts and affordability of the proposal.

TransLink will submit the CDIMP and business case to the Queensland Government to make a decision on whether the busway should proceed, and if so how and when it would proceed.

^yeah I remember hearing about that, does anyone have the map of the route. There was two routes or something, one with a couple of tunnels.

Wrong busway, but similar issues for residents in the southern suburbs...
Busway's heavy cost

SOUTH-EAST ADVERTISER

http://www.questnews.com.au/images/2005/11/16/sea16nov05001.jpg

NOVEMBER 16: Stones Corner, Coorparoo, Camp Hill and Carina residents will inevitably bear the brunt of a State Government focus on improving travel times for the fast-growing Redlands area.

At the impromptu launch of the Eastern Busway on Thursday, Minister for Transport Paul Lucas confirmed TransLink's preliminary studies identified a preferred corridor with two options linking Buranda and Capalaba.

Mr Lucas said the busway would take 15 minutes off travel times for commuters between Capalaba and Buranda, but would not confirm exactly how many homes and commercial properties would have to be resumed.

Option A is a combination of tunnels, overpasses and road which runs from Ipswich Rd, through Langlands Park, on to Holdsworth St and joins Old Cleveland Rd at Bennetts Rd.

The Option B busway runs from Ipswich Rd, down O'Keefe St and on to Old Cleveland Rd. From there, the preferred corridor goes eastward following the old tram lines along Old Cleveland Rd.

Premier Peter Beattie said the busway would cost $530 million.

In Parliament on Thursday, Member for Chatsworth and Opposition spokesman on transport Michael Caltabiano placed "considerable pressure" on his counterpart to admit an alternative route existed.

Mr Lucas said in parliament: "There are very many problems with it being on the Old Cleveland Rd corridor in certain parts ... we already have traffic issues at Coorparoo junction and they are of great concern to the community."

However, he later told the South-East Advertiser that "Option B would be more difficult".

"There are very significant problems in terms of resumptions," he said. "But I want to hear from the community. We will leave no stone unturned."

He said the Government would take the best part of a year to decide the route. TransLink is preparing a Concept Design and Impact Management Plan.

Some residents and businesses along the corridor have received leaflets. Personalised letters will also be sent to those immediately affected.

Member for Greenslopes Gary Fenlon assured his constituents that nothing was inevitable.

"It's only a proposal, it's not set in concrete," he said.

"Within that corridor technicians have thrown out two broad options ... there may indeed be alternatives."

Mr Fenlon said the draft Terms of Reference would be released on Friday for public feedback. Submissions can be made until December 16.

Send submissions to Eastern Busway Study Team, Reply Paid 213, Brisbane, Qld, 4001, phone 1800550277 or visit www.translink.com.au/easternbusway.

Consultation
November 19, 9.30-11.30am, Stones Corner Library, 280 Logan Rd
November 25, 11am to 2pm, King George Square
November 26, 9.30- 11.30am Carina Library
December 3, 9.30-11.30am Carindale Library

What do you think of the State Government's Eastern Busway plans? SMS a text message to 0411 119 000 or email sealetters@qst.newsltd.com.au.