Bus Link

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Free ride ferries to cost $6 million

Free ride ferries to cost $6 million
June 21, 2012 - 3:00AM

Some of Brisbane's single hull inner-city ferries will be renamed 'City Hoppers' and run free of charge from July 1, yesterday's Brisbane City Council budget revealed.

Lord mayor Graham Quirk, who flagged the program during the April election campaign, said the City Hoppers were geared towards tourist visiting Brisbane.

"That's the three mono-hull ferries that will run up and down the river and I think it will be a welcome addition to the city," he said.

"Again it will show we are a friendly city to tourists."

The 2012-13 budget allocated $200,000, which would largely let the three ferries be painted red and re-branded as City Hopper services.

Overall the move will cost the council $6 million over four years from its $34.7 million budget for ferry operating costs.

Other public transport announcements in the budget included a new CityCat terminal at Milton ($5 million over four years) and a new "Maroon" CityGlider ($9 million over four years), linking Paddington and Stones Corner.

The council has also set aside $1.4 million for its proposed cross-river bus link to tackle congestion on the Victoria Bridge.

In December 2011, Cr Quirk put forward an option for a "Suburbs 2 City" bus link after brisbanetimes.com.au highlighted major problems with buses banking up over the Victoria Bridge.

Cr Quirk in December proposed a 3.6 kilometre bus-only link between South Bank and Fortitude Valley, comprising two sections; a new bus-only link from Melbourne Street across the river to Adelaide Street.

It would run over the Riverside Expressway, under Adelaide Street, link to the existing busway network and come back to the on-street level at the intersection of Wickham and Ann Streets.

The feasibility study will take about 18 months to complete. Funding will be requested from state and federal governments once a proposal concept firms.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/free-ride-ferries-to-cost-6-million-20120620-20o4n.html

[ozbob]

Mind boggling ....  this is the crowd that pedals Legacy Way as being able to be used by up to 2000 express buses daily but cannot manage to sort out the failure to connect Legacy Way to INB.

[O_128]

This project is all wrong. Firstly you need to decide on a mode first not just choose one. Second If anything these tunnels should be for cars and the buses stay on the surface so that the valley can be gentrified.

[somebody]

This isn't needed.  What is needed is increased running via the Captain Cook Bridge, Cultural Centre platform 3 and 4xx O/B via Grey & Peel Sts.  And Toombul routes out of CC.

[Golliwog]

This isn't needed.  What is needed is increased running via the Captain Cook Bridge, Cultural Centre platform 3 and 4xx O/B via Grey & Peel Sts.  And Toombul routes out of CC.

When I suggested that here you didn't support it. I still don't like the idea of a 3rd platform at CC, at least not before you sort out the traffic lights between CC and the Melbourne St portal. And when I say sorted out, I mean removed.

[#Metro]

I agree with Golliwog.

CUT!

Class A ROW is perfect for CBD and high volume areas.

Core rail capacity upgrades = cross river rail
Core busway capacity upgrades = City Busway (I refuse to call it 'City 2 suburbs')

Yes, they should look at rail options, but they're not going to spend money on anything so it might have to be rail-convertable busway tunnel. Cut stations to save costs - one station at City Hall/King George Square, one at Central (resume the Anzac Square car park), one at Valley then on to the surface.

A spur (like Wooloongabba, but underground) can be constructed to take rockets and funnel them to the Financial District in Creek Street and turnaround.

[SurfRail]

This is not needed at all.

[somebody]

This isn't needed.  What is needed is increased running via the Captain Cook Bridge, Cultural Centre platform 3 and 4xx O/B via Grey & Peel Sts.  And Toombul routes out of CC.

When I suggested that here you didn't support it. I still don't like the idea of a 3rd platform at CC, at least not before you sort out the traffic lights between CC and the Melbourne St portal. And when I say sorted out, I mean removed.

I think I explained my position reasonably enough in that thread.

I will add having the 130 running every 5 minutes in the PM peak isn't reasonable.  Fix the rockets, increase them, reduce the via South Bank options.  I also don't think it makes much sense to have the lesser routes running via the Captain Cook Bridge.

[Gazza]

I will add having the 130 running every 5 minutes in the PM peak isn't reasonable.

I think it is.
It's much better to have one simple route that is heavily used than a whole bundle of rockets that don't necessarily have to even exist at all.
Don't fix the rockets, get rid of them, and turn the marginal bits at the end into feeders.

[#Metro]

This is not needed at all.

Disagree. The purpose of this project will be to free up CC capacity and take buses off city streets. It probably should be rail but it might start off as bus in the first instance. Who knows.

There are many reasons why core bus capacity upgrade is worthwhile project:

1. High volume area - putting the buses underground will save heaps in operational costs and avoid the massive delays from jams when leaving Adelaide St in peak

2. Lots of traffic on Adelaide Street and congestion in peak hour plus heaps of jaywalking pedestrians - very dangerous

3. Removing the buses off the surface will allow two full car lanes on the surface to be dedicated soley to cyclists in copenhagen lanes - a major improvement to cycling and the start of a core cycleway network. ALL buses should be taken off Adelaide street and put underground.

4. Better and safer waiting environment for passengers

5. Getting buses off the surface - nicer environment

6. Much better connection between the bus network and the rail network - A city busway would have a good connection to buses at King George Square and FINALLY THE HOLY GRAIL of Busway-Railway Interchange at Central Station - just resume the Anzac Square Underground Car Park - you can't get better interchange than that.

7. In future years, this can be extended to include spurs to Financial District and under the valley mall / new farm as well

I think it is.
It's much better to have one simple route that is heavily used than a whole bundle of rockets that don't necessarily have to even exist at all.
Don't fix the rockets, get rid of them, and turn the marginal bits at the end into feeders.

I agree with this. The 130 is already express most of the way anyway, the rest is really for load relief, so just one or two supporting rockets is more than enough - the current situation resembles a scattergun/sprinkler approach!

[somebody]

I will add having the 130 running every 5 minutes in the PM peak isn't reasonable.

I think it is.
It's much better to have one simple route that is heavily used than a whole bundle of rockets that don't necessarily have to even exist at all.
Don't fix the rockets, get rid of them, and turn the marginal bits at the end into feeders.

Ok, then you are pro this investment, +parallel investements to increase the capacity at South Bank and Mater Hill then?

2. Lots of traffic on Adelaide Street and congestion in peak hour plus heaps of jaywalking pedestrians - very dangerous

Pedestrians are only jaywalking if they are within the defined distance of a recognised crossing, traffic lights in this instance.  I believe the distance is 60m.

[Jonas Jade]

I think it is.
It's much better to have one simple route that is heavily used than a whole bundle of rockets that don't necessarily have to even exist at all.
Don't fix the rockets, get rid of them, and turn the marginal bits at the end into feeders.

Feeders are great if there is enough capacity for the route that they're feeding to absorb the passengers.

Is that capacity there with 5 minute services on the 130? How much more frequent do they need to run to absorb the capacity of the rockets? Or are they going to have to feed into the Busway anyway because there isn't capacity in the 130?

How much extra space is needed in the city (Mater Hill ->) Busway stations to cater for these extra peak services required to absorb the feeders?

[Gazza]

Ok, then you are pro this investment, +parallel investements to increase the capacity at South Bank and Mater Hill then?

You could always send some of these longer BUZes via the CC Bridge. Golliwog was thinking along these lines in the other thread.

I think it's cute how you imply opinions and put words in my mouth.

[beauyboy]

I refuse to accept this option when other parts of the network need more funding. Building a platform 3 & 4 at culture and routing the glider, 196, 199 and 192 would remove 15% of the services out of the existing platforms.
That is enought that would make things flow much smoother.

Culture is the problem at the moment. Removing through car traffic from Adalaide Street would also solve much of the time problems that currently exist.

Donald

[somebody]

Feeders are great if there is enough capacity for the route that they're feeding to absorb the passengers.

Is that capacity there with 5 minute services on the 130? How much more frequent do they need to run to absorb the capacity of the rockets? Or are they going to have to feed into the Busway anyway because there isn't capacity in the 130?

5 minute frequency on the 130 is only in the PM.  It is 10 minute frequency in the more intensive AM, presumably because the rockets carry a far higher % of the passengers.  I think that says it all.

Ok, then you are pro this investment, +parallel investements to increase the capacity at South Bank and Mater Hill then?

You could always send some of these longer BUZes via the CC Bridge. Golliwog was thinking along these lines in the other thread.

I think it's cute how you imply opinions and put words in my mouth.

Well, it's a bit inconsistent to be pro a certain manner of service while being against infrastructure to support it. 

Interesting that sending BUZes via the CC Bridge would be OK.

I refuse to accept this option when other parts of the network need more funding. Building a platform 3 & 4 at culture and routing the glider, 196, 199 and 192 would remove 15% of the services out of the existing platforms.

+1

[Gazza]

5 minute frequency on the 130 is only in the PM.  It is 10 minute frequency in the more intensive AM, presumably because the rockets carry a far higher % of the passengers.  I think that says it all.

To me what that says is that in the AM, the potential 130 pax are hopping on the rockets en-route simply because they are "there" and say 'City' on the front.... you could run less rockets in the AM and have 5 min 130 frequency.

I know you are going to say city stop locations is the reason the rockets dont get used enough, but I think there is more to it than that.

If people are using the 130 en mass, its doing the job of getting them where they want to go on the southside, which makes all those rocket variants even more pathetic and redundant looking IMO.

[somebody]

To me what that says is that in the AM, the potential 130 pax are hopping on the rockets en-route simply because they are "there" and say 'City' on the front.... you could run less rockets in the AM and have 5 min 130 frequency.

I imagine that if they can see a rocket they will wait for it in the AM.  I would.

Yes, you could remove the rockets in the AM, but why would you?  That would be a bad idea because:
(a) Increases the costs of operating the services
(b) Increases the congestion via South Bank
(c) Slows down the service for the majority

Haven't we been there before?

[Gazza]

Haven't we been there before?

Doesn't mean I agree, or that you're right and have the final word though.

I imagine that if they can see a rocket they will wait for it in the AM.  I would.

Well, if the 130 is only running every 10 minutes, but routes like the P133 may be as frequent as every 5 minutes (plus all the other routes) There is far greater likelihood a pax will encounter a rocket so of course you'll see that happening.

(b) Increases the congestion via South Bank
(c) Slows down the service for the majority

130 via CC Bridge?

[somebody]

130 via CC Bridge?

Now you're starting to talk some sense!  What about 140?  Would that go there too?  I see a need to keep them together.  And would we remove these services from QSBS?