Cultural Centre Congestion

[#Metro]

Found myself at Cultural Centre recently watching buses being sheparded into bays to ease busjam.
I know that there are plans for an Adelaide St bridge (unfunded, unevaluated at this stage) to cope with an increase in bus demand.
IIRC this would mean that Cultural Centre would have to be rebuilt again, for the 2nd time.

Was there another solution? The Victoria Bridge is quite a big bridge, so why do we use so little of it?
So I thought of an idea:

* Extend the busway platforms onto the bridge
* Close the existing car lanes, and make them exclusive busway as well
* Jackhammer the concrete divider on the outbound platform, remove 2 glass panels to allow passenger movement
* Install 2 platforms & 1 lifts on the QPAC side (this would create one island platform from the current outbound platform)
* Put a tunnel underneath South Brisbane Station exiting to the existing Sth Busway for this new "QPAC platform"

There are problems, but it might be worth exploring these.

Buses from/to West End and the Western Suburbs would use the current platforms 1 & 2.
Buses to the Sth Busway would use the new "QPAC" platforms 3 and 4 & the tunnel.

One downside I could see is the current carpark exit and light rail.
LRT can't use the current bridge as it isn't strong enough.

[Jon Bryant]

I think an easier solution is to replace the multitude of different routes on the busway with ablimited (5 to 10) trunk routes and then have feeder buses at busway station or major stops.  This way people can jump on the next bus running down the busway rather than having to wait for the exact bus they need.  Trial it and see.  Would need good advertising and comma

[somebody]

I think an easier solution is to replace the multitude of different routes on the busway with ablimited (5 to 10) trunk routes and then have feeder buses at busway station or major stops.  This way people can jump on the next bus running down the busway rather than having to wait for the exact bus they need.  Trial it and see.  Would need good advertising and comma

I actually quite strongly disagree with this idea.  There would be no advantage in travel times, and pax despise it.  Unless you think a 2 minute frequency off peak or better is doable, I don't see this working out at all.  We need to make public transport attractive.

And also, at most points on the busway, there is no provision for the feeder services to turn around.

At least a bus/rail interchange potentially can get a better travel time overall.

I think that the best solution to these problems is multi-pronged:
1) Routes such as the 300 which have no real reason to run here can be cut back to Adelaide St
2) Routes such as the 130/140/150/555 which are slowed by running via South Bank should use the Capt Cook Bridge and Elizabeth St
3) 4xx series routes probably don't need to run here at all
4) Other interchange locations (such as Buranda and Roma St) need to be further encouraged.

The main problem with the above point (1) is that there isn't an obvious turn around location in the CBD

[Otto]

Only problem with that suggestion is that the Cultural Centre is the busiest interchange point on the system due to its position and convenience, thus the reason why many services from the west and north terminate there..

[#Metro]

I agree with Otto, it is like Roma St for buses.

Routes such as the 130/140/150/555 which are slowed by running via South Bank should use the Capt Cook Bridge and Elizabeth St

This is a good alternative idea worth exploring. Where would the busway station go? Would there be a bus station or leave it as is?

[#Metro]

I think an easier solution is to replace the multitude of different routes on the busway with ablimited (5 to 10) trunk routes and then have feeder buses at busway station or major stops.

This is what would happen under a light rail or superBUZ proposal. A few trunk routes, and a LRT, with everything else being a feeder service. The higher the frequency is at the transfer connection, the less of an issue transfers become.

@dwb
You could build a bus station near Parliament/QUT/under the freeway that tucks into INB at QSBS removing the horrific tunnel exit at William St... Adelaide St services could continue to use Vic Bridge along with Glider and the Cultural Centre, South Bank, Mater stations.

See--> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3035.0

[somebody]

Routes such as the 130/140/150/555 which are slowed by running via South Bank should use the Capt Cook Bridge and Elizabeth St

This is a good alternative idea worth exploring. Where would the busway station go? Would there be a bus station or leave it as is?

I think just leave as is.  The current 555 path through the city is terrible, and the 250 is worse.  Putting the other Elizabeth St services into the QSBS and swapping out the 130/140/150 to Elizabeth St means congestion stays the same.

Only problem with that suggestion is that the Cultural Centre is the busiest interchange point on the system due to its position and convenience, thus the reason why many services from the west and north terminate there..

yeah, that's true.  A double size Cultural Centre station would be the ideal solution, but I don't think that's very easily constructible at all.

[SockGap]

yeah, that's true.  A double size Cultural Centre station would be the ideal solution, but I don't think that's very easily constructible at all.

Not without extending back over the bridge (not enough room without removing the traffic lanes) or extending across Grey St - which would mean closing that part of Grey St.   Which with the through streets being Merivale and Cordelia Streets and the opening of the Go Between Bridge is not as silly as it sounds...

[O_128]

I think the new bridge is the best option. One of the main reasons for the congestion is becuase of the lights. Build the new bridge then send it underground to connect to the south east busway

[#Metro]

I like that idea.
Hopefully the grades will be good enough to allow future LRT.

I have a bad feeling that none of this is going to be funded.
- ICRCS
- Metro
- More trains, more frequently
- Cultural Centre Upgrade
- Adelaide St Bridge
- More people catching PT
- Road projects

[STB]

Routes such as the 130/140/150/555 which are slowed by running via South Bank should use the Capt Cook Bridge and Elizabeth St

This is a good alternative idea worth exploring. Where would the busway station go? Would there be a bus station or leave it as is?

I think just leave as is.  The current 555 path through the city is terrible, and the 250 is worse.  Putting the other Elizabeth St services into the QSBS and swapping out the 130/140/150 to Elizabeth St means congestion stays the same.

One of the interesting things about the 250 inner city route elevates a debate between transport planners on which is seen as more important, a faster bus route through the city or shorter walk distances to reach the stops to board the bus.  The 250 route is designed to allow shorter walk distances and spread the passengers across the city, so it's not one big bunch at one stop.  Thus, Elizabeth St Stop 85 is for the Central City passengers, Creek St (Stop 149) is for the Northern City passengers, Ann St (Stop 7) is for the NW City passengers, Ann St (Stop 11) is for the SW City passengers, while the Margaret and William St stops (Stop 107 and 108) are for the Government part of the City.

For some passengers, a shorter walk distance from their workplace to the stop is more important, while for others a faster bus route though the city is seen as more important and those passengers are generally prepared to walk further to reach the stop.

The 555 inner city route is actually quite quick, even though on paper it doesn't seem so, the other Logan City peak routes are even faster, and get out of the city very quickly, however, depending on where you work or originate in the city to reach the stop, the walk can be quite long (up to 15 to 20 minutes in extremes), especially for the NW and SW City passengers.  Keep in mind too that from the moment you walk out of your office building it's considered by Transport Planners as part of the overall journey, even though most passengers only see it from the moment they board the bus/train/ferry home.

[somebody]

The 555 inner city route is actually quite quick,

I thought it wasn't too bad inbound.  It's outbound that it's a pain.  Maybe even 5 minutes slower to Buranda than a direct trip from Albert St.

[Otto]

One of the interesting things about the 250 inner city route elevates a debate between transport planners on which is seen as more important, a faster bus route through the city or shorter walk distances to reach the stops to board the bus.  The 250 route is designed to allow shorter walk distances and spread the passengers across the city, so it's not one big bunch at one stop.  Thus, Elizabeth St Stop 85 is for the Central City passengers, Creek St (Stop 149) is for the Northern City passengers, Ann St (Stop 7) is for the NW City passengers, Ann St (Stop 11) is for the SW City passengers, while the Margaret and William St stops (Stop 107 and 108) are for the Government part of the City.

I can't figure out why TL still persist in having the 250 detour into Woolloongabba .. It made sense before integrated tickeking was introduced, but now pax can use their ticket to change at Mater Hill to to to the Gabba or dests beyond.

[STB]

Out here most of the public are against route 250 been taken out of Woolloongabba, it stems back from a history of the old single digit routes accessing Woolloongabba based on the old operator thinking that it's in the customer's best interests for them not to have to transfer and has since stuck in the passengers mind that this is what they want.  TransLink did indeed provide that option when consultations occurred with the original changeover to the three digit numbering back in 2005 but was rejected outright by the travelling public, hence it was retained.

I have since sent a suggestion to TransLink that route 250 be taken out of Woolloongabba busway station and have route 270 be redirected along Logan Rd after stopping at the Stones Corner stop to access Woolloongabba busway station to maintain that option for passengers out here.  Route 270 is expected to eventually be a half hourly service all day every day to overlap with route 250 to provide a 15 minute frequency between Capalaba, Carindale and Brisbane City and half hourly between Capalaba/Cleveland and Thornlands (250) and Capalaba/Victoria Point (270) and a half hourly service between Victoria Point and Redland Bay (250/280).

[stephenk]

Some interesting suggestions here.

I would disagree with having trunk routes, and passengers having to change to/from feeder buses. Generally a direct one seat ride is attractive with buses. However, if busway capacity does become critical, then review of routes will need to be made to make the most efficient use of capacity.

Extending the station towards onto the bridge isn't really an option. What if you are waiting at bay 1, and the bus pulls in at bay 12? If more platform/bay capacity was required, then island platforms would be needed.

Some of Cultural Centre's congestion is caused by the traffic junction adjacent to it. Maybe changes could be made to the road layout such as an under/overpass at the Grey St/Melbourne St junction to eliminate or reduce this congestion. A 2nd Victoria St Bridge, or Adelaide St bridge along with road layout changes could also increase capacity. Unfortunately these all cost $$$. There is also only so much capacity that can be increased at Cultural Centre before the congestion is moved to the next bottleneck on the busway.

Another option if SE Busway capacity becomes critical, is to terminate some services at Park Rd/Boggo Rd after the construction of the 1st Cross City Rail tunnel. This would provide approx. 36tph of train services to change to in the 2021 am peak. Of course, this option also has many flaws and contradicts an above statement.

Before anyone mentions it, it would be very difficult for LRT to match the SE busways capacity. Converting the busway to LRT is not a realistic option.

[#Metro]

Converting the busway to LRT is not a realistic option.

LRT!

[somebody]

Extending the station towards onto the bridge isn't really an option. What if you are waiting at bay 1, and the bus pulls in at bay 12? If more platform/bay capacity was required, then island platforms would be needed.

That problem is easily solved by using 2 lead stops, each with 4 bays.  I believe this has already been tried, but dividing such a small amount of stops didn't work out.  It would be different if the platforms were double length.  In fact, it's not really any different to your proposed solution of "island platforms", just longitudonal rather than lateral.

[Jon Bryant]

Why is light rail Not a realistic option? Our government just had over 4 billion spent on about 8 kmnof road.  Conversion to light rail would be a fraction of this cost, reduce congestion further and as shown by US studies attracts more pasengers. 

[ButFli]

Making alterations to Victoria Bridge is not possible. Council wanted to add shade awnings to the pedestrian walkways but were advised that it is not safe to do so because the bridge is structually unsound. If it can't handle a shade awning, what hope does it have for extended busway platforms (that would include shade awnings)?

[#Metro]

Then don't extend the platforms. It is not essential to the proposal put forward.

I find it hard to believe that the Victoria Bridge is so weak that the mere weight of a shade awning, let alone a small 5-inch concrete platform would have it collapse. I know that the weight of LRT isn't compatible (apparently) with the bridge. But shade awnings?

What if a truck or a bus drove over the Victoria Bridge? Would it collapse?

[stephenk]

Why is light rail Not a realistic option? Our government just had over 4 billion spent on about 8 kmnof road.  Conversion to light rail would be a fraction of this cost, reduce congestion further and as shown by US studies attracts more pasengers. 

Conversion to light rail is not a realistic option, as:
1) It would cost a lot of $$$ to convert, which could be better spent on other PT infrastructure.
2) Converting the SE busway to light rail would actually decrease capacity.
3) Many passengers would have to change to/from feeder buses to the light rail, rather than a direct one seat ride.

[somebody]

Before anyone mentions it, it would be very difficult for LRT to match the SE busways capacity.

Not to mention that LRT would be less flexible than the busway is currently.

[#Metro]

1) It would cost a lot of $$$ to convert, which could be better spent on other PT infrastructure.
2) Converting the SE busway to light rail would actually decrease capacity.
3) Many passengers would have to change to/from feeder buses to the light rail, rather than a direct one seat ride.

These are what I call the "Graham Currie" arguments which featured in the "Stop Light Rail" for the Gold Coast.

1. If we are going to get an Adelaide St Bridge or a Riverside Expressway Busway then may as well
2. I haven't seen any reports that say LRT on the busways decreases capacity.
3. There would likely be an interchange for some (but not all) bus riders. If the frequencies are high, then the change of service becomes less of a problem. After all, we don't have direct buses running to the Gold & Sunshine Coasts. We have a rail-bus interchange which seems to be accepted by the community.

[somebody]

2. I haven't seen any reports that say LRT on the busways decreases capacity.

Well, multiply the pax/vehicle by the maximum frequency.  No need to commission a report.  What do you consider the max frequency anyway?

[#Metro]

But that line of thought would suggest that is better to put 4 wheel drives or cars on the busway to increase capacity?
Surely not... but maybe I'm wrong so I'll see...

[somebody]

But that line of thought would suggest that is better to put 4 wheel drives or cars on the busway to increase capacity?
Surely not... but maybe I'm wrong so I'll see...

Err, no.  The headway between two buses isn't much different than between 2 cars, but the capacity is noticably different.  Buses versus trams, the opposite applies.  And you didn't answer the question.

[Jon Bryant]

I would find it hard to believe a double length tram every 2 mins would move less people if riders along the main route of busway were able to jump on the first tram that came along or a least only have to wait for 1 or 2 trams not 30 buses. You also need to factor in the rider experience at the Cultural Centre stop.  It is like a rugby scrum as people try to predict where their bus is going to stop.

Ps here is the link to a study that show rail gives better returns than buses.http://www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf.  Please read it!!!

   

[#Metro]

Something like this could be done for the Busway.
All BUZ routes would be removed from the busway, and instead would go to the nearest station.
All non-BUZ routes could probably continue along the busway as usual

A new bridge would be required along with a re-do of cultural centre (it has to be done anyway).  A tunnel or an alternative entry portal would be required (Hale St Link, Riverside Expressway parallel bridge, Adelaide St Bridge, William Jolly etc)

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRVBL6M0reo&feature=related

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQBBNq8Q8k&feature=related

Lots of buses could be taken off the busway and rather used as feeders.
This would reduce congestion and busjam substantially.

[#Metro]

This one explains how joint rail/bus operations work:
* LRT trains every 10 minutes
* a bus every 60 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShJcMOuH7RQ&feature=related

[somebody]

I would find it hard to believe a double length tram every 2 mins would move less people if riders along the main route of busway were able to jump on the first tram that came along or a least only have to wait for 1 or 2 trams not 30 buses. You also need to factor in the rider experience at the Cultural Centre stop.  It is like a rugby scrum as people try to predict where their bus is going to stop.

Ps here is the link to a study that show rail gives better returns than buses.http://www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf.  Please read it!!!

Without reading your link (yet), it's obvious that a tram coming every 2 minutes would need to carry as many people as 10 buses to replace buses which are coming every 12 seconds.  I know of no such tram system, and even the combined might of the south rail lines would only equal the current capacity of the SE busway, which has a lot of room for additional buses in the Capt Cook Bridge corridor.

[#Metro]

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/about_council/documents/sept07_final_report_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway

BTW p52 has a viaduct over the river for the Kingsford Smith Drive for a busway...

There is a table on page 44 of the Mass Transit Report.
Methodology:
1. Peak hour load is the criteria
2. Define the demand during peak hour (10746 pax)
3. Work out how many vehicles you need and the average distance between each (headway) required to transport that load.

To service 10746 passengers during peak hour trips on the SE Busway:

• Standard bus- 154 buses @23 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 2.6 buses per minute)
• Arctic bus - 127 buses @ 28 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 2.1 buses per minute)
• Bi-arctic bus- 60 buses @ 60 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 1 bus per minute)
• Light Rail 36 LRTs @ 100 seconds between each vehicle (i.e 0.6 LRTs per minute)

So to achieve the same capacity you need many more buses than a LRT service.
LRTs would be once every 2 minutes or so.

I'm not certain if the headway above is the mimimum technically possible (i.e can you run a tram every 1 minute?).
IIRC the headway reported above is the (average) time required between each vehicle to transport 10746 passengers.

[#Metro]

Imagine taking most of those buses off the Busway!
You'd need 36 operators...
or 154 bus drivers...

[Jon Bryant]

I knew my maths was right.  The quality of service would dramatically improve as the SRAM le for your bus would be eliminated.  Bring on LRT NOW!!!   

[somebody]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

But that aside, where would you see a LR line going?

Maths point: demand on the busiest section is greater than a bus every 23 seconds.  This is shown at other points in that report, so I'm not completely sure where they get the 10476 pax number from.

Not sure what "SRAM le" is.

[stephenk]

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/about_council/documents/sept07_final_report_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway

BTW p52 has a viaduct over the river for the Kingsford Smith Drive for a busway...

There is a table on page 44 of the Mass Transit Report.
Methodology:
1. Peak hour load is the criteria
2. Define the demand during peak hour (10746 pax)
3. Work out how many vehicles you need and the average distance between each (headway) required to transport that load.

To service 10746 passengers during peak hour trips on the SE Busway:

• Standard bus- 154 buses @23 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 2.6 buses per minute)
• Arctic bus - 127 buses @ 28 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 2.1 buses per minute)
• Bi-arctic bus- 60 buses @ 60 seconds between each vehicle (i.e. 1 bus per minute)
• Light Rail 36 LRTs @ 100 seconds between each vehicle (i.e 0.6 LRTs per minute)

So to achieve the same capacity you need many more buses than a LRT service.
LRTs would be once every 2 minutes or so.

I'm not certain if the headway above is the mimimum technically possible (i.e can you run a tram every 1 minute?).
IIRC the headway reported above is the (average) time required between each vehicle to transport 10746 passengers.

Using the above calculations:-
For LRT to exceed the current capacity of Cultural Centre - then LRT would need 41tph.
For LRT to exceed the current capacity of at the SE Busway's busiest point - then LRT would need 68tph.

Both of these figures would be unachievable if LRT was retro-fitted to the SE Busway's current infrastructure. Thus to retrofit the SE Busway busway to LRT would be a step backwards. 

[somebody]

Both of these figures would be unachievable if LRT was retro-fitted to the SE Busway's current infrastructure. Thus to retrofit the SE Busway busway to LRT would be a step backwards. 

And not to mention unnacceptable disruption during construction.

[verbatim9]

Something like this could be done for the Busway.
All BUZ routes would be removed from the busway, and instead would go to the nearest station.
All non-BUZ routes could probably continue along the busway as usual

A new bridge would be required along with a re-do of cultural centre (it has to be done anyway).  A tunnel or an alternative entry portal would be required (Hale St Link, Riverside Expressway parallel bridge, Adelaide St Bridge, William Jolly etc)

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRVBL6M0reo&feature=related

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQBBNq8Q8k&feature=related

Lots of buses could be taken off the busway and rather used as feeders.
This would reduce congestion and busjam substantially.

That's good how the busses over there don't emit diesel smoke like the ones here. During peak hour at the Cultural Centre you need a gas mask to overcome all the fumes. Also you have the afternoon sun penetrating on the outbound platform. Nice to have it all undercover like the one in Seattle with real time announcements and real time displays. Oh and Seattle never tore down their network of no emission trolley busses. http://ktransit.com/transit/NAmerica/uspnw/seattle/sea_etb.htm

[MaxHeadway]

But none of their trolleybus routes use the Transit Tunnel; they generally use 3rd Ave (except routes 10 and 12, which use 1st Ave). One thing about Seattle is that it's on hydro power; I have no idea how economical using trolleybuses in Brisbane would be compared to diesel or CNG buses. On the other hand, trolleys are much more able to cope with steep hills (the polar opposite of gas buses!). When a Gillig Phantom rigid trolley moves off, you nearly get whiplash, such is the impressive acceleration on those beasts.

Trolleybuses might be good for all-stops corridors such as Waterworks/Musgrave Rd, Latrobe Tce, a possible route through Spring Hill etc. (A shortworking of the 321 as far as RBWH, perhaps?) But on the busway, you definitely want to stick with diesels and gassies, as trolleys are only capable of 60 km/h or so without dewiring.

[#Metro]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

How would this be done?
QR Frequency every 30 minutes IMHO is unacceptable.

[somebody]

For the record, my view is that light rail has had it's day.  If you are going to accept the lack of flexibility of rail, you might as well go with HR.

How would this be done?
QR Frequency every 30 minutes IMHO is unacceptable.

But I didn't propose to do anything!  As (generally) a bus advocate, I tend to think that buses are the way to go for trips <15km.  Heavy Rail is obviously preferable to Ipswich, Caboolture, Robina but places like Carindale, Bulimba tend to be better with a high frequency bus.  Heavy Rail spreads available pax thinly, and is very expensive to build, especially if you need to tunnel.  Having said that, if Indooroopilly was receiving 8tph off peak that could make the trains a lot more worthwhile than the buses on this corridor.  Did I just contradict myself?

An interesting case study is UQ Lakes.  If we had built the Eleanor Schonell bridge as a rail tunnel, then where would it go?  At best to two destinations and places along the way.  As it is, buses now go to 4 places (Sunnybank, 8 Mile Plains, Carindale, City) and this could rise.