Buranda busway congestion

[somebody]

At about 17:55 on Thursday, I observed significant outbound bus congestion at Buranda.  Only 3 buses are able to stop simultaneously here, in general, as bendies seem to crowd out the stop space.

I think the solution is making the private operator peak only services no longer serve Buranda.  Arguably, you could include the 250 and 555.

This is as predicted.  I might try to head down there around 8am-8:30am some time this week and see if I can grab some low quality photos and/or video.

[Golliwog]

How significant? Where did the line of buses stretch back to?

[somebody]

Enough that it take 1-2 minutes to reach the station.

[Mr X]

Symptom of an over supply of buses IMHO.
How many are empty or half full?
How many should be turned into feeder routes into rail or CFN busway?

[somebody]

Symptom of an over supply of buses IMHO.
How many are empty or half full?
How many should be turned into feeder routes into rail or CFN busway?

I'd say it is a symptom of the Eastern Busway.

Quite a number of people are interchanging at Buranda, presumably from UQ/Park Rd/PAH.

[BrizCommuter]

If a bus route using the busway consistently has low loads (? threshold), then maybe it should act as a feeder route instead?

[somebody]

If a bus route using the busway consistently has low loads (? threshold), then maybe it should act as a feeder route instead?

What sort of threshold are you considering?

You don't think making the private operator peak only routes non stop Buranda is an appropriate solution?

[Golliwog]

If a bus route using the busway consistently has low loads (? threshold), then maybe it should act as a feeder route instead?

What sort of threshold are you considering?

You don't think making the private operator peak only routes non stop Buranda is an appropriate solution?

I don't think it'll do that much. I think feederizeing something would be a better outcome.

Plus, non-stopping routes (even though they're peak only) through Buranda is a bit of a backward step for those interchanging to/from the Eastern Busway as UQ bound, it's a much better stop than Mater Hill, and in both cases Mater Hill is a fairly decent additional distance travelled that isn't needed.

[Gazza]

You don't think making the private operator

Why is the fact whether a route is private operator or not the determining factor?

[somebody]

You don't think making the private operator

Why is the fact whether a route is private operator or not the determining factor?

Well, it isn't but these are the routes which travel the longest distances.  They seem the first ones to change to me.  BT routes already have some sense in this regard with the 130, 135, 140 and 150 (+their rockets) already not serving Buranda.  The private operator routes are the ones dragging the chain.

Plus, non-stopping routes (even though they're peak only) through Buranda is a bit of a backward step for those interchanging to/from the Eastern Busway as UQ bound, it's a much better stop than Mater Hill, and in both cases Mater Hill is a fairly decent additional distance travelled that isn't needed.

The routes I am referring to do not serve Mater Hill.  You'd need to go on to Stone's Corner for Veolia or Garden City (perhaps Griffith Uni) for LCBS.

[Golliwog]

Ok, but thats still not a great outcome. It means those for Veolia services can only catch a 209, and those for LCBS have to catch either a 139 or 169. I know it's not the end of the world given how frequent those services are but I think Buranda should be used and therefore serviced by routes as if it's a key interchange station (because it is).

Granted though, all evidence suggests that it can't cope at the moment so your suggestions are probably going to need to happen but the goal for the future should be a capacity upgrade of some sort to allow better use of it as an interchange.

[somebody]

I fully agree with you Golliwog.  This is something which should have been considered when planning the Eastern Busway.

I think a capacity upgrade at Buranda would be very difficult/expensive.

[Golliwog]

I fully agree with you Golliwog.  This is something which should have been considered when planning the Eastern Busway.

I think a capacity upgrade at Buranda would be very difficult/expensive.

I agree on both fronts. I still think reducing the number of different routes going through would be a better outcome than non-stopping more routes though. You'd still have a bit of congestion in both cases but if pax for various corridors heading off from the busway have to get to a particular busway station, rather than catch a particular route at Buranda then you'd see higher boardings for the trunk/high frequency routes before they get off again at which ever busway station their old route is now a feeder to.

[somebody]

I still think reducing the number of different routes going through would be a better outcome than non-stopping more routes though.

I differ.  Are you going to remove the 119 and increase the 120?  Then you have just increased congestion through the South Bank stretch as well as slowing the service down for many.

BT Rockets serving Buranda (OTOH): 114, 119, 121, 133, 171, 176, 179, 181, 189 (AM).  I think also: 201, 205, 207, 208, 217.  I feel all these should continue to do so as they increase frequency for those living nearby.  The frequency increase for those living further out is less important - it's a lower % change in average journey time and I also prioritise those living more sustainable lifestyles ahead of those commuting further distances.

I could/would remove the 121 and maybe the 114 but that is about all.

EDIT: omitted 133

[Golliwog]

I'd be interested to see pax loadings first, but you could also take 120 out of the South Bank stretch. Not so confident on that one though as you can't transfer to the 66 unless you divert into the Gabba before crossing the CC bridge, which adds time. Though what are the loads on the 111 like these days? Pax for the CBD should be catching the P88, but I think the 111 is still fairly full so you might need to put more 111's on. Though if you're terminating other routes when they reach the busway you'd be increasing the 111 and P88 anyway.

Just to be clear, just chucking ideas out, not really saying I think this would be a great idea. If the Gabba was ever made an online station then there wouldn't be any issues so long as it is still south of the exit to the CC bridge.

[somebody]

I hope the Gabba is never made online - that would be far too close to Mater Hill.  It would be far better to just close it.  With CRR, there will be a train station anyway, so why is the busway needed?

You could take the 120 out of South Bank, but that would be a very unpopular change.  Far better to just do as I proposed.

[Golliwog]

I think the Gabba makes a good last stop before having the expresses deviate off onto CCB, that's my main reason for wanting it online. Though even with the rail station, that doesn't really help those coming from the south or east, unless we're going to up the frequency on routes to Park Rd to interchange to the train. Not exactly efficient.

What exactly makes taking the 120 out of South Bank such a bad idea? When the 119 is running, it's frequency is the same as the 120, so clearly the demand for a direct route to the CBD is high. While making people interchange is always going to be unpopular because you have to convince them to have a slightly longer journey, it should at least be considered. It's also why I said I'd want to see things like how many pax actually get off the 120 at Mater, South Bank and CC. If it's insignificant then I see no problem running the route via CCB so long as you provide a decent interchange service for them.

[SurfRail]

I hope the Gabba is never made online - that would be far too close to Mater Hill.  It would be far better to just close it.  With CRR, there will be a train station anyway, so why is the busway needed?

Interchange, which is not possible with Mater Hill.

Why would you even need rockets when there is a perfectly good train station there to link you to the southern end of town?

[somebody]

Interchange, which is not possible with Mater Hill.

I'm unclear on what trips you are thinking of here - South Bank-Gabba perhaps?  If W'Gabba busway station were closed, I would assume there would be some alternative needing to be provided with nearby street stops for buses.  Anyway, my level of interest drops precipitously when we are talking about proposed developments well into the future.

Why would you even need rockets when there is a perfectly good train station there to link you to the southern end of town?

I think feeding rail at the Gabba would be a poor service outcome, and would deter a lot of potential patronage.  However, they could think a bit more about places like Altandi.

There is also current capacity issues with the rail system.  Even CRR will not handle growth indefinitely.

I think the Gabba makes a good last stop before having the expresses deviate off onto CCB, that's my main reason for wanting it online. Though even with the rail station, that doesn't really help those coming from the south or east, unless we're going to up the frequency on routes to Park Rd to interchange to the train. Not exactly efficient.

Well to provide enough capacity to allow every route to serve the station here would require a 4 platform station, minimum.  Possibly 6 platforms.  Not cheap, and I would question the bang/buck very seriously.

What exactly makes taking the 120 out of South Bank such a bad idea? When the 119 is running, it's frequency is the same as the 120, so clearly the demand for a direct route to the CBD is high. While making people interchange is always going to be unpopular because you have to convince them to have a slightly longer journey, it should at least be considered. It's also why I said I'd want to see things like how many pax actually get off the 120 at Mater, South Bank and CC. If it's insignificant then I see no problem running the route via CCB so long as you provide a decent interchange service for them.

It isn't such a bad idea, and I didn't mean that it was.  It would not be supported though.  Queens Wharf Rd is a real limitation with that particular idea.  And where does it stop?  If it's OK for the 120, why not the 180, then the 170?  Do you see where I am going?

As for your comments about "when the 119 is running" - that is irrelevant.  The 120 is a full time route and has to consider the off peak.

[Golliwog]

If you ran the 120 via the CCB in peak only, I don't see it being any different to how routes like the 425 run via North Quay/Riverside Expressway in peak, and via the Go Between and Cultural Centre in the off-peak. As for the slippery slope argument, I see what you mean, but I don't think it matters to much. I feel it would be something done rather arbitrarily, similar to how 340 got selected to run to the Gabba. Queens Wharf would be a bit of a restriction if they all terminate in QSBS, but you could equally use other CBD stops in the AM peak (ie: the ones freed up by removing the peak only routes) as it would be drop off only, and in the PM peak, leaving QSBS isn't that much of an issue as you just turn left instead of straight ahead.

[somebody]

If you ran the 120 via the CCB in peak only, I don't see it being any different to how routes like the 425 run via North Quay/Riverside Expressway in peak, and via the Go Between and Cultural Centre in the off-peak.

That is not a good system with the 425.  I've been caught out by it myself with the 460.  It doesn't help that the destination display is unchanged, but it goes against the principle of keeping things simple even if this were updated.

As for the slippery slope argument, I see what you mean, but I don't think it matters to much. I feel it would be something done rather arbitrarily, similar to how 340 got selected to run to the Gabba. Queens Wharf would be a bit of a restriction if they all terminate in QSBS, but you could equally use other CBD stops in the AM peak (ie: the ones freed up by removing the peak only routes) as it would be drop off only, and in the PM peak, leaving QSBS isn't that much of an issue as you just turn left instead of straight ahead.

Or you could just remove the 10 minute peak frequency from the BUZ standard, increase 119 trips (and other rockets) and those who are heading to the city get a faster trip with less busway congestion and those who are heading to South Bank get a choice between a slightly increased wait and an interchange.  Seems to be a provocative point, but I say it is valid.

However, the above is really getting off topic of Buranda busway congestion.  The most reasonable solution is as I proposed in the OP, and this post is still valid, far more so than your proposal of reducing the numbers of routes through Buranda.

I still think reducing the number of different routes going through would be a better outcome than non-stopping more routes though.

I differ.  Are you going to remove the 119 and increase the 120?  Then you have just increased congestion through the South Bank stretch as well as slowing the service down for many.

BT Rockets serving Buranda (OTOH): 114, 119, 121, 133, 171, 176, 179, 181, 189 (AM).  I think also: 201, 205, 207, 208, 217.  I feel all these should continue to do so as they increase frequency for those living nearby.  The frequency increase for those living further out is less important - it's a lower % change in average journey time and I also prioritise those living more sustainable lifestyles ahead of those commuting further distances.

I could/would remove the 121 and maybe the 114 but that is about all.

[#Metro]

The Eastern Busway has made congestion worse because it stops buses on the busway, they pile up and then the light goes green and the whole pile tries to stop at Buranda.

All busway stations need to have white lines painted bays at the bus stops like Cultural Centre does. This can be done OVERNIGHT VERY CHEAPLY, why it has not been done, along with other super-cheap, super-obvious ideas is beyond me!