Cultural Centre Congestion

[dwb]

At the moment it looks like there IS no plan! The glaring absence of busway capacity issues in the Connecting SEQ 2031 document is also noted.

True, but that doesn't make CSEQ useless, in fact this is a key document to achieving what RBOT is all about. Rail, back on track!

I'm not surprised at all CSEQ doesn't deal with buses... I would really like to see the document reviewed in under 2 years, afterall the current one is only about 15yrs late and they've got some catch up to do.

Yet getting BCC and QLD Gov to agree on what should happen with buses.... well, good luck to you!  And besides, I think it is better than in the meantime pollies can't fall back on bandaids prior to cross river rail being clearly stated as Brisbane's transport future.. it is on the agenda irrevocably now as much as Cando might think otherwise... I'm sure DTMR will eventually turn their attention to buses in the city and take some hard decisions that no one has so far been willing to take.

[somebody]

Cultural Centre is an important interchange point for the rest of the network. Interchange in the city isn't that great.

That may be but it is a problem which can and should be solved.

[colinw]

Also DWB, I read somewhere but can't remember where that the Vic bridge can't handle fixed shades for some weird reason and I don't think it can take Light rail either.

Interesting that the old Vic bridge could do both these things and looked good.

I've heard that over and over again and I simply don't believe it. Especially if you were to remove the car access, then the load on the bridge would surely decrease. It is probably more to do with what you make it of and how you attach it to the bridge and for example what kind of strain a storm wind would put on it.

I see no reason why a light weight canvas solution couldn't be employed. It may not last 100 years without maintenance, but it would provide much needed shade. They could get QHealth to pay for it, that is 30,000 people per day less not being exposed to burn time on their walk to/from work.

The issue with lightrail is to do with the pressure waves in the bridge... I wouldn't be surprised if this could be 'gotten around too'....

Sometimes excuses are made and repeated so often they become "truth"... I question those!

That old "light rail can't run over the Victoria Bridge" chestnut has been around for a while.

Both the BrizTram project (1997) and the Brisbane Light Rail project (1998-2000) didn't envisage any problem with a Victoria Bridge routing.

This was the Beattie Government's proposed Brisbane Light Rail system:

[dwb]

That old "light rail can't run over the Victoria Bridge" chestnut has been around for a while.

Both the BrizTram project (1997) and the Brisbane Light Rail project (1998-2000) didn't envisage any problem with a Victoria Bridge routing.

This was the Beattie Government's proposed Brisbane Light Rail system:

I've seen pages of old reports that bring up the resonance of the bridge with the pulsing of the trams as an issue... what i've seen which was highly minimal didn't really conclusively say either way, but it did err on safe side.

IF, and that is a big if, and one that for numerous reasons myself and others have argued against, light rail was put in the city, I presume you'd build a new light weight bridge just for it.

[colinw]

The BLR project looked into that and considered it manageable. I think they proposed some kind of special rubberised dampeners for mounting the track on the bridge.

If we put LRT back into the city, I'd go for a light rail & bus bridge from Adelaide St.  If a bus bridge is built from Adelaide St, it should be engineered to take light rail.

[dwb]

If we put LRT back into the city, I'd go for a light rail & bus bridge from Adelaide St.  If a bus bridge is built from Adelaide St, it should be engineered to take light rail.

A bus bridge from Adelaide St is never going to get built... things have moved on substantially since the City Centre Master Plan... Quirky just brought it up the other day cos he was clutching at straws

[#Metro]

Subway please. Let's get away from Class C and Class B for critical, high volume operations...

[colinw]

Ka-Ching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$ ....

[#Metro]

Things cost money. No avoiding it...

Band aids can be put in place now, but surgery is still required later...

[Jonno]

Ka-Ching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$ ....

Don't do It and Ka-Ching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$ .... is spent on roads for the least efficient form of modern transport.  Much rather spend my Ka-Ching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$ .... was spent on fixing our transport system not beating our heads against a brick will by building more roads.

[#Metro]

The question must be asked... what plan do the planners have with regards to the future of the busway and also CC?
Do they have a plan or not?

When this issue has been raised before, it has been fobbed of with "we will just convert the busway to be like bogota" or "go card will lead to faster boarding which will increase capacity" and suchlike.

Solution??

From the Ottawa Light Rail site (NB: I think the SE Busway should be converted to Subway, Ottawa is basically using LRT to perform a metro-like operation, full class A service).

The current Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, which we know as the Transitway, consists of 46 kilometres of bus-only roads and bus-only lanes along the shoulders of major thoroughfares. This system was launched in 1983 and since 2001 has been complemented by the O-Train that runs along an eight-kilometre route between Greenboro and Bayview Stations. The system has provided excellent service for many years, allowing the City to achieve high levels of transit ridership. In fact, a greater proportion of people in Ottawa use public transit than in any other city of comparable size in North America.1

Today, however, the system is quickly becoming a victim of its own success. Public transit in the downtown area is approaching its capacity, leading to congestion problems and reliability issues, especially in the winter months.

This lack of transit capacity in the downtown area has been a topic of discussion for many years. In fact, the idea of a tunnel under downtown Ottawa was considered as long ago as 1915. A tunnel was looked at again when the Transitway was being developed in the 1970's and 80's, and has been discussed in successive TMPs since then.

Repeated consideration of a tunnel has been due to the recognition that eventually the City would need to find a way to keep rapid transit and other traffic from interfering with one another in the downtown core. This can only be achieved with a "grade-separated" system, where transit vehicles run above or below city streets. It is this same separation of transit from other traffic that has made the Transitway such a reliable and efficient system.

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/benefits

[#Metro]

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/benefits

LRT offers another benefit for transit users: with the LRT system, every train is your train — no more waiting around for "your" bus. Making transit faster, more reliable and increasing its capacity in the core adds up to a transit system that is more appealing, which in turn leads to increased transit ridership. Combined with zero-emission electric LRT, the projected increase in transit ridership offers a host of benefits, including environmental benefits that will be felt for generations to come.

Another benefit of getting that busway as a metro...

[colinw]

Things cost money. No avoiding it...

Band aids can be put in place now, but surgery is still required later...

Quite right, however I fear that any such project is going to be gold plated beyond our ability to pay (just like CRR may end up).

It would be interesting to find out how Madrid Madrid managed to build the 40km Metro Sur circle for only 1.55 billion Euros.

From http://www.citymayors.com/transport/madrid-metro.html

The 2000-2007 investment programmes
The largest investment phases were between 2000-2007. The most expensive single scheme has been the Metro Sur built between 2000 and 2003 at a cost of 1.55 billion euro. The 41 km circular route is entirely in tunnel and connects many southern urbanisations with each other and with other Metro and Cercanias lateral routes. Significant interchange with inter-urban bus services is available at several of the 28 stations.

Although Metro Sur was criticised for cost at the time, the populations served are substantial and have grown by more than 70,000 people in the decade since it was built. Trains are well used.

Metro Sur opened in April 2003. In 2007, a short distance to the south of it, Tranvia Parla was completed. Entirely on the surface, Tranvia Parla is an 8.4 kms circular system with 16 stops, which serves most of the developing new town of Parla. It connects with Cercanias C4 at Parla Centro in the centre of the town. There will be a second connection with C4 in the east of Parla after that area is fully developed. With a 2011 population of 120,000 Parla is likely to grow to nearly 200,000 eventually. In 2010 Tranvia Parla carried over 5 million passengers.

In Australia we "just don't get it".  Either in terms of what is necessary, or sensible costs to build what we do decide to invest in.

[#Metro]

It is going to be expensive Colin, we are talking about inner city, a lot of planning to keep away from underground building foundations, river in the way etc.

Heavy Rail is not an option (there isn't space to add 20 000 pphd on ANY QR line). Light Rail is not an option (would only add marginal capacity for large cost), I daresay bus is not an option either (underground buses need stations- capacity will max out on that quickly a la KGSBS QSBS), surface is not an option (pedestrians, car congestion, accidents and delays), a new bridge on Adelaide street won't cut it (buses on the bridge will be great but then it empties into Class C congestion which is Adelaide Street, this is merely shifting the bottleneck), riverside expressway is unreliable as well.

The way I see it, a tunnel will extend either from where Captain Cook Bridge exit is right now, or Mater Hill and then go under the river to then travel under Adelaide Street to Fortitude Valley.

A Vancouver style Light Metro would add an extra 10 000 pphd roughly, but the downside is that is capped at 30 000 pphd. A metro might be able to take this further to 40 000pphd, an effective doubling of busway capacity. This is also likely to be cheaper than a new alignment as the existing ROW can be recycled.

Of course the other example is to grade separate both ends of the Victoria Bridge and ban pedestrian and car traffic from that an Adelaide Street... like that will happen!!!

[#Metro]

I would like to see a proper study to put numbers to arguments and assess all options.

In Australia we "just don't get it".  Either in terms of what is necessary, or sensible costs to build what we do decide to invest in.

I suspect that one of the reasons might be competition with the mining industry for materials (concrete, steel) and labour etcetrea. Engineers and the like are always in huge demand etc, this pushes the prices of doing anything to very high levels. Safety standards are always increasing too and that also adds to cost.

[dwb]

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/en/benefits

LRT offers another benefit for transit users: with the LRT system, every train is your train — no more waiting around for "your" bus. Making transit faster, more reliable and increasing its capacity in the core adds up to a transit system that is more appealing, which in turn leads to increased transit ridership. Combined with zero-emission electric LRT, the projected increase in transit ridership offers a host of benefits, including environmental benefits that will be felt for generations to come.

Another benefit of getting that busway as a metro...

That same benefit can be achieved with actual trunk lines using buses, it is not mode dependant.

[dwb]

It is going to be expensive Colin, we are talking about inner city, a lot of planning to keep away from underground building foundations, river in the way etc.

Talk about infrastructure foaming.

It doesn't require that, it just requires taking existing space that is dedicated to cars off cars and dedicating it to buses. Very cheap, very practical and very fast.

This is practically all that needs to be done before Cross river rail.

[somebody]

These ideas are OK, but just fixing up the operation of the bus system, and building CRR will do much to solve the issues with PT congestion.

[colinw]

It is going to be expensive Colin, we are talking about inner city, a lot of planning to keep away from underground building foundations, river in the way etc.

Heavy Rail is not an option (there isn't space to add 20 000 pphd on ANY QR line). Light Rail is not an option (would only add marginal capacity for large cost), I daresay bus is not an option either (underground buses need stations- capacity will max out on that quickly a la KGSBS QSBS), surface is not an option (pedestrians, car congestion, accidents and delays), a new bridge on Adelaide street won't cut it (buses on the bridge will be great but then it empties into Class C congestion which is Adelaide Street, this is merely shifting the bottleneck), riverside expressway is unreliable as well.

The way I see it, a tunnel will extend either from where Captain Cook Bridge exit is right now, or Mater Hill and then go under the river to then travel under Adelaide Street to Fortitude Valley.

A Vancouver style Light Metro would add an extra 10 000 pphd roughly, but the downside is that is capped at 30 000 pphd. A metro might be able to take this further to 40 000pphd, an effective doubling of busway capacity. This is also likely to be cheaper than a new alignment as the existing ROW can be recycled.

Of course the other example is to grade separate both ends of the Victoria Bridge and ban pedestrian and car traffic from that an Adelaide Street... like that will happen!!!

So now we've gone from a simple proposal to free up some bus space on a bridge to a multibillion dollar metro, and we haven't even figured out if we can afford CRR yet?

This discussion has left the planet and is well on its way to another solar system.

Time to take a dose of reality people.

Let me spell it out for you in crayon: IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!*

*just like my Bethania - Logan Village foaming in another thread.  Nice to dream, but this is the dreary, vision deprived real world.

<sigh>. I give up. 

[dwb]

So I spent a good three hours on the Cultural Centre Busway Station overpass this morning watching the flow of inbound and outbound issues.

This morning, which I'm not sure whether was typical or atypcial, the major issue was outbound bus congestion.

The primary cause of the outbound congestion was the conflict of West End bound buses crossing the path of inbound buses. Given the frequency of 196/199/ City Glider it was VERY common for one of these services to block the intersection for outbound buses wanting to access South East Busway via the portal.

The phases outbound on the lights seemed to be either only straight through (to West End) OR left (onto SEB), not both together. This means that if you have a 111 followed by a 196 followed by a 174 followed by a 199, then it takes numerous cycles to clear those buses.

There was outbound bus queueing back to mid way across Victoria Bridge (while I was there) from ~730-8am and again from 845-940am. Inbound didn't seem to have any major inbound queuing, at least not at CCBS, although perhaps it had some in the portal (out of vision). Mysteriously from 8am-845am the busway was eerily silent without major jamming, and at some stages was almost completely empty! Perhaps this is a timetabling issue with too many services pulsed all for early starts?.. but remember this is outbound platform I'm talking about.

Interestingly both platforms had relatively high numbers of waiting passengers for the entire duration that I was there.

Despite the fact that we're outside of university term, might I suggest that CityGlider itself may be one of the biggest "problems" for Cultural Centre Busway station... when combined with the other West End services this seemed to (at least this morning) cause the whole thing to fall apart as the small buffer between the intersection and the platforms never got to clear due to to many conflicting moves outbound.

Perhaps this could be solved with a better green phase on busway outbound whereby buses can either go straight through OR turn left at the same time... if not as normal morning phasing then at least as a flushing mechanism available to busway operations. Today, inbound wouldn't have suffered too badly for this to occur.

Also, I'd have to say Simon you were at least partly right in suggesting the right turn from the busway into Grey St is not a major cause of congestion... or at least it wasn't this morning. Interestingly though, each time I thought the busway might just clear we'd luck out with three or more buses wanting to turn right. So if it wasn't the West End cross over from inbound SEB, then it WAS the right turn. The ratio was probably 1 to 8 though...

As another note, platform capacity didn't seem the issue this morning at all... whether or not that is due to uni being out and school holidays I'm not sure. But really, given the level of jam, then half if not more of the platform time was spent with buses that had boarded/deboarded pax that were simply waiting to leave the station.

But what to do with West End bound services?

[Golliwog]

Grade seperate the Melbourne St portal and the West End junction? 2 birds with one stone. Either that or jig it so that there are 2 outbound lanes, one for left and one for straight through. Doubt theres enough room there though, given the left turning buses need to have their lane where it is now to have enough room to swing into the portal.

[dwb]

Grade seperate the Melbourne St portal and the West End junction? 2 birds with one stone. Either that or jig it so that there are 2 outbound lanes, one for left and one for straight through. Doubt theres enough room there though, given the left turning buses need to have their lane where it is now to have enough room to swing into the portal.

Let's try to think practically, what are you going to do Brisbane's bus service for the 2 years while you build this concrete monstrosity? How are you going to pay for it? What other projects will you delay/cancel to fund it?

You don't need grade separation, you just need to make the decision to take the road space and simplify the intersections.

The West End buses could queue on the left hand lane (current inbound general traffic) waiting for signal to cross over rest of busway stopped (both in and outbound). That would simply require removal of traffic from West End to City... it could remain on the bridge, and grey st straight through could remain too... at least to commence. Other movements can be done in a round about way via Peel St/Grey St, or even by turning the QPAC driveway into a proper two way lane (via Cultural Forecourt to access).

It's time some of our engineers manned up and started telling the pollies that paint and hard decisions are the most cost effective and easily implementable solutions and stop going for the big overly expensive concrete monstrosities!

[#Metro]

That same benefit can be achieved with actual trunk lines using buses, it is not mode dependant.

It can, this is the "Bogotarise the SE Busway" solution, and I am very skeptical about it. The vehicle that is being transferred into needs to be larger/more frequent/both otherwise performing the transfer will not make sense.

So now we've gone from a simple proposal to free up some bus space on a bridge to a multibillion dollar metro, and we haven't even figured out if we can afford CRR yet?

This discussion has left the planet and is well on its way to another solar system.

Time to take a dose of reality people.

It's just a discussion forum. Nobody died because the possibility was raised.
And there is a precedent too! Ottawa is replacing the core of their busway with metro-like LRT.

[colinw]

Surely the solution lies more in the correct use of the busway as a high frequency "spine" service, rather than just cramming all & sundry bus routes into it including some quite illogical re-routings "just because its there".

i.e. terminate more services out in the 'burbs at locations like Eight Mile Plains or Garden City, or closer in at Woollongabba, and enforce the transfer to high capacity frequent "spine" services.

Want a metro?  Run the thing as a rubber tyred metro.

And if one more person says "Brisbane people won't change" I'm going to scream. My own local bus service terminates at Garden City, and it is full to overflowing with people changing to go onward to the CBD or Uni of Qld on the 169. Nobody told them that Brisbane people don't change services!

I think I'm going to give myself a timeout for the rest of the day. I'm feeling unreasonable & grumpy and probably shouldn't post much more lest I say something I might regret later

[somebody]

Very interesting dwb.  Thanks for sharing this.

One option for the West End bound services is to mix them in to the general traffic, which could actually be done quite easily.  It would also remove the traffic light phase at Merivale St which accomplishes this merge.  All that is really needed is a stop outside the existing Cultural Centre for these services in the West End bound direction only.  Perhaps also repaint the line on the left turn from Adelaide St to North Quay so that cars are forced to enter the left lane.

One limitation is that interchange at the Cultural Centre is now suddenly less convenient in some cases.

I would point out that 4xx expresses O/B do not run through the Cultural Centre in the AM peak.  I still think this is mostly due to them formerly encountering congestion on the William Jolly Bridge.

Surely the solution lies more in the correct use of the busway

I'd agree with this, but not so much in what follows.  Why do so many routes terminate at Griffith Uni/Garden City/8mp in both directions?  It makes little sense.  Through routing here would be beneficial and reduce congestion at Griffith Uni.

[dwb]

Very interesting dwb.  Thanks for sharing this.

One option for the West End bound services is to mix them in to the general traffic, which could actually be done quite easily.  It would also remove the traffic light phase at Merivale St which accomplishes this merge.  All that is really needed is a stop outside the existing Cultural Centre for these services in the West End bound direction only.  Perhaps also repaint the line on the left turn from Adelaide St to North Quay so that cars are forced to enter the left lane.

One limitation is that interchange at the Cultural Centre is now suddenly less convenient in some cases.

I would point out that 4xx expresses O/B do not run through the Cultural Centre in the AM peak.  I still think this is mostly due to them formerly encountering congestion on the William Jolly Bridge.

No problem Simon, I think it is really important for each of us to keep our eyes and minds open... for example as a passenger here I'd assumed that the buses making the right turn into Grey st caused more conflict, why? cos when I'm on the bus that's what I see, not the West End buses holding up traffic because they are too far ahead and when you're a passenger you can only see the bus or two in front of you. As it turns out, at least as was the case this morning, I now realise your assertion about the West End buses was more correct! Going out and watching as well as riding is so important!

I would be really reticent to dump West End services in with general traffic, I think that would be a really poor solution for both West End residents and businesses alike, esp given this area has quite a high level of dependence and use of PT (eg students). It just needs that hard decision that those few cars that do currently get through reducing everyone elses' level of service need to be re-routed and priority actually given over to buses.

You are also correct in that the 4xx expresses do not run O/B (or in?) during peak... however there was significant bus jam after peak this morning outbound, right up until about 940am, presumably extended by the commencement of the 4xx services using CCBS outbound. Perhaps extending the period they are not allowed to use CCBS til 930am or even 10am might produce a positive impact, but generally yes, I strongly agree the routes via CCBS... on the busways themselves need to be simplified... probably 10-15 different routes at max in those inner city stations!

[Mr X]

I would be really reticent to dump West End services in with general traffic, I think that would be a really poor solution for both West End residents and businesses alike, esp given this area has quite a high level of dependence and use of PT (eg students). It just needs that hard decision that those few cars that do currently get through reducing everyone elses' level of service need to be re-routed and priority actually given over to buses.

I would agree. While I like Simon's ideas, the issues here is that the 32 bph peak from West End (around 64bph both directions) would get stuck in congestion in the general traffic lanes. The Victoria Bridge inbound is basically always congested. It's a major advantage for the WE buses to have ROW along Melbourne St and at times makes the journey considerably faster than if you were in a car. You would want to proceed with caution for mixing any bus route with general traffic when there is a easily available busway right next to it.
Using the bus O/B, it's extremely common for us to block the buses turning left ( ) when we are going straight ahead and it is also quite frustrating when we get stuck behind a bus turning left ( ) and have a green going straight.

EDIT: Could we close off the general traffic lanes of the Vic bridge to cars and only have it bus + taxi + limo etc. and as per Simon's idea, build a new platform next to the cultural centre for these services. The section of Melbourne St between Merivale and Grey sts could also be closed off to all except the above. Cars on Hope St and in the Stanley Tunnel can simply turn around. The sections of Melbourne St previously used as bus lanes can simply become extra pedestrian space  

[dwb]

I would agree. While I like Simon's ideas, the issues here is that the 32 bph peak from West End (around 64bph both directions) would get stuck in congestion in the general traffic lanes. The Victoria Bridge inbound is basically always congested. It's a major advantage for the WE buses to have ROW along Melbourne St and at times makes the journey considerably faster than if you were in a car. You would want to proceed with caution for mixing any bus route with general traffic when there is a easily available busway right next to it.
Using the bus O/B, it's extremely common for us to block the buses turning right when we are going straight ahead and it is also quite frustrating when we get stuck behind a bus turning right and have a green going straight.

The underline bit has me a bit confused.... unless of course by right you mean straight and straight you mean left? Busway to Melbourne St is marked as straight (despite crossing "main" inbound path of SEB) and entry to portal is a left arrow, is it not?

[Mr X]

Sorry yes I meant left. Conflicts are:
1. 199 going straight blocked by 174 going left with straight green.
2. 174 going left blocked by 199 going straight with left green.

[dwb]

Sorry yes I meant left. Conflicts are:
1. 199 going straight blocked by 174 going left with straight green.
2. 174 going left blocked by 199 going straight with left green.

Yep, happened constantly this morning while I watched.... any idea why they don't simply re-phase the lights for a combined green straight and left?... would presumably take a bit of time from Melbourne St general traffic straight through and from SEB portal exit onto Melbourne St busway inbound... presumably both manageable at least on every third or fourth light sequence?

[Mr X]

When there is a left green I think usually there are buses coming out of the portal I/B. When there is a straight green, buses can't go left as general traffic is going through.

[STB]

And if one more person says "Brisbane people won't change" I'm going to scream. My own local bus service terminates at Garden City, and it is full to overflowing with people changing to go onward to the CBD or Uni of Qld on the 169. Nobody told them that Brisbane people don't change services!

I think it might be more realistic to say "Redlands people won't change" going by the recent consultations out here and comparing that to five years ago .

[somebody]

And if one more person says "Brisbane people won't change" I'm going to scream. My own local bus service terminates at Garden City, and it is full to overflowing with people changing to go onward to the CBD or Uni of Qld on the 169. Nobody told them that Brisbane people don't change services!

I think it might be more realistic to say "Redlands people won't change" going by the recent consultations out here and comparing that to five years ago .

What do you mean by this?  You've posted before on the Redlands pax whinging about possibly having to change to reach the Gabba 5 years ago, but what are you saying about the recent consultations?

Reluctance to interchange is a global phenomena.  Humantransit thought it important enough to post on.  Whether or not it's worse in the Redlands, I really couldn't comment, but I am wondering why you believe so?

any idea why they don't simply re-phase the lights for a combined green straight and left?...

That would involve an additional phase in the cycle.

[STB]

And if one more person says "Brisbane people won't change" I'm going to scream. My own local bus service terminates at Garden City, and it is full to overflowing with people changing to go onward to the CBD or Uni of Qld on the 169. Nobody told them that Brisbane people don't change services!

I think it might be more realistic to say "Redlands people won't change" going by the recent consultations out here and comparing that to five years ago .

What do you mean by this?  You've posted before on the Redlands pax whinging about possibly having to change to reach the Gabba 5 years ago, but what are you saying about the recent consultations?

Reluctance to interchange is a global phenomena.  Humantransit thought it important enough to post on.  Whether or not it's worse in the Redlands, I really couldn't comment, but I am wondering why you believe so?

I was being more tongue in cheek to Colin's comments.

At the last consultation, there was a bit of an uproar by route 257 passengers demanding that the 257 stay as they didn't want to transfer from a bus to a train.  There has been those too against wanting to transfer at Mater Hill to The Gabba and vice versa.

It's just a long standing culture here in the Redlands that the bus service is a personalised taxi service, due to the pre-TL pandering by the local operator trying to be all things to all people.  Yes, some of the buses are yellow, but I'm yet to see a 'Taxi' sign on top of them, as I sometimes feel the urge to remind people out here .

[somebody]

I would be really reticent to dump West End services in with general traffic, I think that would be a really poor solution for both West End residents and businesses alike, esp given this area has quite a high level of dependence and use of PT (eg students). It just needs that hard decision that those few cars that do currently get through reducing everyone elses' level of service need to be re-routed and priority actually given over to buses.

I would agree. While I like Simon's ideas, the issues here is that the 32 bph peak from West End (around 64bph both directions) would get stuck in congestion in the general traffic lanes. The Victoria Bridge inbound is basically always congested. It's a major advantage for the WE buses to have ROW along Melbourne St and at times makes the journey considerably faster than if you were in a car. You would want to proceed with caution for mixing any bus route with general traffic when there is a easily available busway right next to it.

I'm talking about something which would happen outbound only.  It might slow down the 19x & Glider West End bound in the PM peak, but likely at all other times there would be a speed increase.  You're talking about reducing the effect of the lights at the portal and at Merivale St and removing the effect of Hope St.  I cannot imagine that the additional car traffic would result in something much worse than the present situation, and there is the benefit to the overall system.

[Mr X]

Under your plan the WE buses go the same way as my plan once past the cultural centre 

[somebody]

Under your plan the WE buses go the same way as my plan once past the cultural centre 

Wouldn't that add another phase to the Melbourne St/Grey St traffic lights?

I'm not sure a bus can make that manoeuvre, even if the traffic islands are removed and there is the additional phase.

[Mr X]

Wouldn't they go straight ahead?

[somebody]

What's your plan?  I think I don't understand.  Is it just to add a new phase to the traffic lights at the Melbourne St portal, which allows straight ahead, and left turn?

[Golliwog]

Sorry to add some more confusion, but a cheap 'fix' could be to scrap the inbound right turn lane for general traffic approaching Grey St from Melbourne St and put an extra lane in for the buses so theres a straight through lane and a turn left lane. However, you would make it similar to the Dutton Park intersection where the left hand lane is actually for turning right (or in this case, going straight through).

This wouldn't add an extra phase, and would allow the West End bound buses to wait out of the way of the Melbourne St portal buses, and vice versa.