Sorting out the busways

[SurfRail]

Sorry how do you propose would buses access and exit this new bus station?

From the city - use the general traffic lanes on the bridge, and take the first left which is currently used (fairly lightly) for carpark and service access.  Buses would then be able to continue as far as the GoMA turnaround or layover in Hope and Peel Streets as they do now.

To the city - depart from the river side and go up the ramp - turn right into the general traffic lanes over the bridge.

To do this, you would need to reconfigure the intersections at both ends of the bridge and work out clearance issues in the Cultural Centre Tunnel.  I don't know how feasible it is currently, but it strikes me as something that would be cheaper and easier to resolve than building tunnels for the extra capacity needed.

I will admit up front that this does little to nothing to solve the Melbourne Street portal issue, although there would be fewer out of services buses transiting through there.

[somebody]

Interesting plan.  The main limitations I see are that you currently cannot turn left from the Victoria bridge onto North Quay to reach Adelaide St, you need to allow moves from the general traffic lanes into QSBS and vice versa.  The first one would be solved by using Elizabeth St instead, although the solutions for the second part may require an extra cycle of lights at a congested intersection.

[dwb]

Sorry how do you propose would buses access and exit this new bus station?

From the city - use the general traffic lanes on the bridge, and take the first left which is currently used (fairly lightly) for carpark and service access.  Buses would then be able to continue as far as the GoMA turnaround or layover in Hope and Peel Streets as they do now.

To the city - depart from the river side and go up the ramp - turn right into the general traffic lanes over the bridge.

To do this, you would need to reconfigure the intersections at both ends of the bridge and work out clearance issues in the Cultural Centre Tunnel.  I don't know how feasible it is currently, but it strikes me as something that would be cheaper and easier to resolve than building tunnels for the extra capacity needed.

I will admit up front that this does little to nothing to solve the Melbourne Street portal issue, although there would be fewer out of services buses transiting through there.

The clearance is extremely low at the end of the tunnel due to the State Library renovation, although the tunnel is quite wide so it could perhaps have a turn around.

Personally I still think there are other better solutions. From my mind any solution should think about moving all growth and some existing buses AWAY from Cultural Centre altogether.

[somebody]

Personally I still think there are other better solutions. From my mind any solution should think about moving all growth and some existing buses AWAY from Cultural Centre altogether.

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

[#Metro]

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

Cultural Centre Busway is at capacity now. BT's hand will be forced, whether they like it or not, by pure geometry.
You can't keep piling more and more buses in without creating congestion and or delays.

[O_128]

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

Cultural Centre Busway is at capacity now. BT's hand will be forced, whether they like it or not, by pure geometry.
You can't keep piling more and more buses in without creating congestion and or delays.

Difference is there are no overweight middle aged woman in there SUVs or the RACQ, stamping there feet and whinging that something needs to be done. Does anyone remember how quickly the 2nd gateway got built.

[dwb]

Personally I still think there are other better solutions. From my mind any solution should think about moving all growth and some existing buses AWAY from Cultural Centre altogether.

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

Or perhaps it's leaderships. I think a lot of officers have a lot of good ideas that get no airtime.

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

Cultural Centre Busway is at capacity now. BT's hand will be forced, whether they like it or not, by pure geometry.
You can't keep piling more and more buses in without creating congestion and or delays.

Perhaps, although for instance you could simply make a bunch of services express through that stop... and if not so many services used the right hand into grey street then the throughput of the station could be increased, especially if for instance you closed the road access on the bridge and made a platform queueing lane on the left, effectively extending the existing lane as a passing lane outbound.

[somebody]

Personally I still think there are other better solutions. From my mind any solution should think about moving all growth and some existing buses AWAY from Cultural Centre altogether.

Agree with you here, but that is completely against BT policies and thinking.

Or perhaps it's leaderships. I think a lot of officers have a lot of good ideas that get no airtime.

Possibly, but I expect that there is a complete lack of vision within the planning in both TL and BT, other than getting a few high profile services to operate well.  I am sorry.

Perhaps, although for instance you could simply make a bunch of services express through that stop...

Dead against that.  There is no reason to go that way if you don't serve the Cultural Centre.  Although you could use the Captain Cook Bridge.

[dwb]

Dead against that.  There is no reason to go that way if you don't serve the Cultural Centre.  Although you could use the Captain Cook Bridge.

It does make the route longer, but if Cultural Centre and Mater aren't the bottlenecks they are now, it could still provide a more reliable journey than Captain Cook couldn't it??

Personally I think bus priority on Captain Cook is required. I can't help but think that perhaps North Bank/ Parliament is the perfect opportunity for a significant new station nestled in next to/under the freeway. Perhaps you could even then extend the Queen St tunnel to link into this alignment rather than go across to Cultural Centre.

This would mean huge routing changes and would pretty much limit Cultural Centre to Adelaide and Elizabeth St services, and likewise would prevent QSBS from accessing South Bank.

Still... over the last two years this is what my brain keeps going back to... perhaps that's cos every afternoon for those 2 years I watched the mess that is Cultural Centre from my window at work. There's no way in hell we should be further holding the network back with the Cultural Centre. The notion that all (BUZ and southerly) services should interchange at Cultural Centre needs to go.

[somebody]

At least we could properly serve the existing street stops near Parliament.  I guess that isn't really the way it is likely to be done in QLD.  We'd rather have a grandiose station before we have any services.

Priority is definitely needed on the CC bridge, no doubt, however it would be unpopular and so is then unlikely to occur.

[dwb]

At least we could properly serve the existing street stops near Parliament.  I guess that isn't really the way it is likely to be done in QLD.  We'd rather have a grandiose station before we have any services.

Priority is definitely needed on the CC bridge, no doubt, however it would be unpopular and so is then unlikely to occur.

Sorry to be daft, dense or perhaps both, but what do you mean by properly serving the existing street stops?

If you simply mean redistributing some of the city's routes so you end up with more regular services there then I understand, but otherwise I don't.

I reckon it would be possible to implement the following as a temporary solution for under $10million, its mostly lane take, plus one traffic signal. http://bit.ly/jw8BEX

But perhaps I am dreaming about the lane take

[somebody]

What I mean is that (for example) even though the 88 goes past there, it doesn't stop.

The only full time routes which actually serve the Parliament are 105, 112, 172, 202, 555.  IIRC.
Even in peak hour, the only additional routes which serve the Parliament end of town are 107, 108, 331, 332, 341, 343, 344, 382, 383, 384, 136, 206, 457, 458, 459, all Veolia & 5xx rockets.  

So, really, other than the Gympie Rd rocket routes and private operator rockets, the service is a joke.

EDIT: left out 343, 382, 383

[somebody]

I also find the whole notion that you need to go via the Cultural Centre and Edward St to get from the south side to Parliament off peak to be pretty poor.  You are likely better off to walk from South Bank via the Goodwill bridge in many instances, and that is no short walk.

[dwb]

What I mean is that (for example) even though the 88 goes past there, it doesn't stop.

For good or for bad, that is probably quite purposeful to protect the route from QUT students... ie they are providing the route for those passengers who want non-interchange non-messed up in Mater/CC access between Indro and Southside.

I also find the whole notion that you need to go via the Cultural Centre and Edward St to get from the south side to Parliament off peak to be pretty poor.  You are likely better off to walk from South Bank via the Goodwill bridge in many instances, and that is no short walk.

Yes the walk is rather long, but many QUT students do it, from both South Bank busway and South Bank railway station daily... though it is still for instance a shorter walk than from Central or KGS.

[somebody]

protect the route from QUT students...

That sort of thinking really undermines the efficiency of the PT system overall.

though it is still for instance a shorter walk than from Central or KGS.

Which is exactly my point.  This part of town is very poorly served by PT in its current form.  Perhaps CRR will improve things a little, but (a) that is some way off and (b) it would not help city via Buranda routes to reach Parliament at all.

[SurfRail]

How about diverting the 300-series Adelaide St CC terminators to Edward, Alice and George Streets?

[somebody]

How about diverting the 300-series Adelaide St CC terminators to Edward, Alice and George Streets?

I tend to think William St/George St, still serving Adelaide St.

But that's the solution for northside routes.  There needs to be a solution for the southside routes also.

[dwb]

That sort of thinking really undermines the efficiency of the PT system overall.

So you're against a move to nearside city termination ?

[somebody]

That sort of thinking really undermines the efficiency of the PT system overall.

So you're against a move to nearside city termination ?

Indeed.  Very much so.

[dwb]

That sort of thinking really undermines the efficiency of the PT system overall.

So you're against a move to nearside city termination ?

Indeed.  Very much so.

Is it really "efficient" though to continue to think that passengers can get on and OFF at their exact destination and that all those buses can continue to serve the very CBD... shouldn't we be focussing on the pedestrian in the city centre?

[STB]

What I mean is that (for example) even though the 88 goes past there, it doesn't stop.

For good or for bad, that is probably quite purposeful to protect the route from QUT students... ie they are providing the route for those passengers who want non-interchange non-messed up in Mater/CC access between Indro and Southside.

I also find the whole notion that you need to go via the Cultural Centre and Edward St to get from the south side to Parliament off peak to be pretty poor.  You are likely better off to walk from South Bank via the Goodwill bridge in many instances, and that is no short walk.

Yes the walk is rather long, but many QUT students do it, from both South Bank busway and South Bank railway station daily... though it is still for instance a shorter walk than from Central or KGS.

The walk isn't that long!  I did it from Southbank Railway station via the Goodwill Bridge to QUT Gardens Point for a solid 3 months and the most it took was about 7mins (quicker if you take the Griffith Uni Southbank Campus shortcut).

[dwb]

The walk isn't that long!  I did it from Southbank Railway station via the Goodwill Bridge to QUT Gardens Point for a solid 3 months and the most it took was about 7mins (quicker if you take the Griffith Uni Southbank Campus shortcut).

Wow you must walk fast, but yes, Goodwill route is pretty quick cos there aren't many lights.... or none if you jaywalk across Grey St like most people do. But George St from QUT to Central on the other hand :S

[somebody]

I think it is a fair bit further from the river edge of QUT to Parliament.

I'd be very surprised if many did South Bank bus/railway station - Parliament in 10 mins and many would be nearer 15.

That sort of thinking really undermines the efficiency of the PT system overall.

So you're against a move to nearside city termination ?

Indeed.  Very much so.

Is it really "efficient" though to continue to think that passengers can get on and OFF at their exact destination and that all those buses can continue to serve the very CBD... shouldn't we be focussing on the pedestrian in the city centre?

Firstly we don't have infrastructure which supports such a model.

But just as importantly where is the advantage in forcing a transfer from southside routes at somewhere like Buranda?  All that does is provide annoyance to pax, and I don't even see the cost savings.  It does take up the vehicle+driver's time for everyone to get off and on.

You need to minimise the need to transfer.  Although I do agree that you can't provide a single seat from everywhere to everywhere.

[STB]

Many QUT students get off at Southbank railway station/Southbank busway station for QUT Gardens Point.   You should head out there on exam days, it's a constant stream of nervous students!

To walk from Roma St or even getting the ferry from Southbank to QUT Gardens Point takes a lot longer (up to 10mins longer) and is much less efficient in getting over the river to the uni.  I actually tried it out once and it took me a solid 20mins to walk from Roma St station to QUT Gardens Point.  I then went back to walking via my 'ol' faithful' the Goodwill Bridge and Griffith Uni Southbank to Southbank railway station, in 7mins flat!

Regardless, it's a nice walk and gives some much needed exercise.  Plus, there's a cute little coffee cart about halfway on the bridge.

[ozbob]

Yes, Roma St <-> QUT is a 20 minute walk at a moderate speed.  Did it most work days for 15 years or so.  And the added bonus of bumping into well known characters outside certain buildings in George St!

[somebody]

Many QUT students get off at Southbank railway station/Southbank busway station for QUT Gardens Point.   You should head out there on exam days, it's a constant stream of nervous students!

Pretty sure that I never said that it wasn't.  And also said that such a thing would be the case.

[STB]

Many QUT students get off at Southbank railway station/Southbank busway station for QUT Gardens Point.   You should head out there on exam days, it's a constant stream of nervous students!

Pretty sure that I never said that it wasn't.  And also said that such a thing would be the case.

It was in general.  Not posted at anyone in particular.  Ah memories... Now listed in as one of my favourite walks in Brisbane.

[ozbob]

A tip to Schrinner and BCC: Use the fancy bus fund, to fund the Kedron-Chermside busway extension instead. cc. @TransFixSEQ @Robert_Dow pic.twitter.com/2rhF9nfCNm

— Adrian Cutts (@LYBASkw) March 29, 2017

^

Lower cost transit ways would do fine ... simply is not the billions for dedicated busways per se. https://t.co/7tfRu014yD

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) March 29, 2017

[HappyTrainGuy]

Bracken Ridge doesn't need a f**king busway you dickheads at BCC. Stop planning infrastructure for areas that do not or will never need it. Bloody clowns. Thank god my rates don't go towards them.

[Stillwater]

More planned projects that rely on the federal government tooth fairy for funding.  Of course the federal government should contribute to these things, and perhaps more than they do now, but what's needed is some reasonable assessment of an average level of federal funding that reasonably could be expected to flow to Queensland year on year, and base the planning around that.  We never have that discussion.

The actual amount provided will jump all over the place, but working on an average would allow for more reasoned scheduling of projects.

Otherwise, what are we to make of planning that says this thing will be built in 2022, with a star beside the date and fine print reading: 'Subject to federal funding'.

It would be more accurate to change to fine print to read 'God willing'.

'Subject to federal funding' is just the default position in the same way that TMR plans the construction schedule for a project 'subject to weather conditions'.

More planning goes into the 'subject to weather' situation, because contingencies for wet weather are built into contracts.

'Subject to federal funding' is a tag Queensland also puts on projects the state knows won't be a federal priority.  Thus a lot of state resources are poured into planning a project where the end game is that there will be a lot of shouting and screaming SHOW US THE MONEY in an attempt to use the politics to get the finance to proceed.

Other states seem to comprehend the gameplay better.  They find projects that better meet the federal strategic direction.  Queensland, on the other hand seems to have a more independent philosophy.  Ministers say : 'We have done all this work and we are affronted that the federal government won't fund the National Centre for Agricultural Excellence in Toowoomba. It was a state government election promise!'

To which the answer is .. well you promised it, you fund it.  No, it is always 'subject to federal funding'.   

When a couple want to buy a house, they can go to the bank and get 'pre approved' for a house loan.  The business case is the substitute for the infrastructure funding process, I suppose.

Queensland seems to adopt an attitude that it has a God-given right to a dollop of money from Canberra out of proportion to what Canberra thinks the state might deserve.  (We are a bigger state ... we are a more decentralised state ... we need infrastructure to exploit resources .. we are a growing state ... we have bigger road maintenance bills due to cyclones).

Consequently, it does not put the effort or comprehensive analysis into planning a project that other states do to justify their share of fed money.  Queensland's attitude seems to be 'lets jump through the hoops and fill out the form' with the mindset of someone thinking they are writing a note saying 'please sir, can we have some money'.

What's more, there seems to be a touch of a try-on here.  Let's put in a business case with lots of brave assumptions and with the state putting up a rubbish amount by way of deposit.  And then we say: 'Oh, that didn't work, let's re-scope, redesign the project' and redo the business plan a second, and a third time.

That's what makes a nonsense of the transport policy documents that state this project happens in this year and that project happens in that year.  God willing.

[verbatim9]

The busway does need to be built between Windsor and Lutwyche and a new underground entry at Sadlier street southbound that runs underneath Gympie road and connects to the existing Busway.

[Golliwog]

The busway does need to be built between Windsor and Lutwyche and a new underground entry at Sadlier street southbound that runs underneath Gympie road and connects to the existing Busway.

Tell BCC to pull their finger out here then! The original plan for the Northern Busway was dedicated bus lanes on the surface road between Windsor and Lutwyche but TMR doesn't own the road, BCC does and they decided it was better to have all lanes available for cars, trucks and buses than 1 lane dedicated for buses and 2 for everything else. Pretty sure I have an email from BCC saying that somewhere, but may have misplaced it.