Cultural Centre Congestion

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Council backs study into bridge plan

[#Metro]

It wouldn't hurt to terminate buses such as the 130, 140, 150 at Griffith, and have 111's running every 5-7 minutes and the quicker option (88) or you could use the 160 to go via the captain cook bridge (remove one of them and bump up frequency for the other). You could have other routes such as the 100 and 200 terminating at Wooloongabba and BUZ the 66. then you have two main busway routes and you could just feed all these other city bound bus routes to major busway stations. Something along those lines. The Busway is fine, and while it would be more efficient to convert it to another form of transport such as a metro, Cultural Centre congestion would be minimised as long as the Busway is used as a feeder system, and it wouldnt be too hard for Translink to do this.

Cultural Centre is worst congested at peak hours. During peak hours demand exceeds supply which means that buses approach full load. So why have a full 130 terminate, get people to wait and then require an empty 111 to pull up. You may as well run the service directly to the CBD, after all, it is full.

The Ottawa busway operates on a semi-forced transfer principle. In the off peak, core frequent routes continue to the CBD whereas feeder routes terminate at transitway stations. In the peak hour, when these feeder services become fully loaded, the feeder services extend all the way into the CBD.

The only time peak hour transfer makes sense is when the service on the core section is being run with even larger vehicles (super buses) or trains at very high frequency. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The 2007 Mass Transit Report and even many posters on this forum seemed to think the "Bogota" solution would work, where we run large super buses on the busway. What can I say? What happened to that idea?

[SurfRail]

It wouldn't hurt to terminate buses such as the 130, 140, 150 at Griffith, and have 111's running every 5-7 minutes and the quicker option (88) or you could use the 160 to go via the captain cook bridge (remove one of them and bump up frequency for the other). You could have other routes such as the 100 and 200 terminating at Wooloongabba and BUZ the 66. then you have two main busway routes and you could just feed all these other city bound bus routes to major busway stations. Something along those lines. The Busway is fine, and while it would be more efficient to convert it to another form of transport such as a metro, Cultural Centre congestion would be minimised as long as the Busway is used as a feeder system, and it wouldnt be too hard for Translink to do this.

Cultural Centre is worst congested at peak hours. During peak hours demand exceeds supply which means that buses approach full load. So why have a full 130 terminate, get people to wait and then require an empty 111 to pull up. You may as well run the service directly to the CBD, after all, it is full.

The Ottawa busway operates on a semi-forced transfer principle. In the off peak, core frequent routes continue to the CBD whereas feeder routes terminate at transitway stations. In the peak hour, when these feeder services become fully loaded, the feeder services extend all the way into the CBD.

The only time peak hour transfer makes sense is when the service on the core section is being run with even larger vehicles (super buses) or trains at very high frequency. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The 2007 Mass Transit Report and even many posters on this forum seemed to think the "Bogota" solution would work, where we run large super buses on the busway. What can I say? What happened to that idea?

Agree.  The highest capacity vehicles are already being used on "feeder" routes like the 130.  Unless they acquire buses capable of carrying 200+ people and run them every minute, there is no point.

[achiruel]

There are definitely some routes that could be terminated at e.g. Woolloongabba, even during peak hours.  However, given they're mostly fairly infrequent ones, I'm not sure how much difference it would make to congestion.  I'm thinking of routes such as the 172, 113, 202 (although it doesn't go through 'Gabba anyway), 212.

[somebody]

It wouldn't hurt to terminate buses such as the 130, 140, 150 at Griffith,

That WOULD hurt.

[O_128]

It wouldn't hurt to terminate buses such as the 130, 140, 150 at Griffith,

That WOULD hurt.

the last thing you do is terminate full buses, when you are doing bus-bus transfer it makes no sense. The only routes that should travel to the city are the BUZes. Its the half full buses you want terminating that a super bus 111 can then sweep through minutes later and pick the people up.

[Mr X]

You'd only terminate them if they were going to something with higher capacity eg. TT's proposal for a metro.
I would support, however, some BUZ's using the Captain Ck Bridge and people going to CC/SB/Mater can transfer at Griffith/W'Gabba etc. eg. 150, 200

I see no merit of making people transfer from one full bus to another full bus just for the sake of it, which is a waste of time as people have to tag off, get to the next bus, tag on, sit down, buses have to lay over taking up space etc.........

[AnonymouslyBad]

There are definitely some routes that could be terminated at e.g. Woolloongabba, even during peak hours.  However, given they're mostly fairly infrequent ones, I'm not sure how much difference it would make to congestion.  I'm thinking of routes such as the 172, 113, 202 (although it doesn't go through 'Gabba anyway), 212.

Or they could run to the city, except not via South Bank. Actually, I think many of the southside "City-Valley" routes could run in the opposite direction (i.e. via the Story Bridge), and therefore bypass the South Bank stretch or at least go through CC in the counter-peak direction if they must. Most of these routes aren't that frequent, but if you add them up... I'm sure Valley workers would actually prefer it this way, and for the City it'd make very little if any difference.

The other thing that should happen is that routes going through CC should limit how much their frequency varies - e.g. BUZes getting bumped up to every five minutes for the peak is not necessary. The BUZ standard is every 10 minutes in peak and that would be fine - it's still more often than off peak but isn't going to cause a threefold increase in the number of buses going through. This is more efficient, so you can keep the station well utilised in the off peak and keep the "core" network all day, while still coping in the peak. Any frequency reductions can be made up for by putting on more rockets, which I'm sure is fine by most peak hour commuters! That's what rockets are supposed to be for in the first place...

[Jonno]

It is time for the busways to be converted to light or heavy metro including option to bypass south Brisbane. New York Metro has bypass routes in peak hours.  Yes there are short-term actions as well but medium term the capacity needs to be trebeled. The money is there just being spent on the wrong transport infrastructure (aka roads).

[somebody]

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.

Couldn't every fourth cycle in the morning or something not give an exit green to SEB portal inbound, and instead give straight and left green at once... or upon command from a staff member at the BMTMC???

Travelling through here on a 460 O/B, there already is cycle which combines straight through and left turning.

[Golliwog]

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.

Couldn't every fourth cycle in the morning or something not give an exit green to SEB portal inbound, and instead give straight and left green at once... or upon command from a staff member at the BMTMC???

Travelling through here on a 460 O/B, there already is cycle which combines straight through and left turning.

Ahhhk. It's probably based on the induction loops then. If theres not buses detected waiting or approaching I/B from South Bank then they can do both. However, how often do you not have a bus come down there? I'd expect it to be very much the exception to the norm.

[somebody]

Is the plan of having Melbourne St bound services out with the cars worthy of a media release, or is it too old now?  It would also remove a cycle from the Merivale/Melbourne Sts traffic lights, so would be a good plus IMO.

[Golliwog]

Is the plan of having Melbourne St bound services out with the cars worthy of a media release, or is it too old now?  It would also remove a cycle from the Merivale/Melbourne Sts traffic lights, so would be a good plus IMO.

Probably too old by now, though may be worth writing something up so that next time this crops up in the media (which given the infrastrucutre covered on brisbanetimes.com.au of late, could be sooner rather than later) we have something ready to go. I also think that if we're playing with that aspect of the traffic lights, it could also be worth suggesting removing the car aspect of the Grey St busway traffic lights altogether. Make it a T intersection for cars on the southern side of the busway, and a culdesac turnaround on the other. The traffic lights would remain on the busway for buses heading to GoMA or to dwell on Hope St, but as the cars no longer play a part they should spend much more time with a green light for buses.

[somebody]

I wouldn't like to include a poison pill like banning cars from anywhere really.

[Golliwog]

I wouldn't like to include a poison pill like banning cars from anywhere really.

Fair enough, though in terms of improving that set of traffic lights, the only options I see are something like what I suggested, or a complete grade seperation which would be expensive. What's going to be the bigger poison pill, something that is unpopular with the few car drivers that make such a trip (who can still easily go around via Merivale/Cordelia Streets) or something that is far down the list of things needing funding?

[Golliwog]

So this afternoon I went down and watched the buses for about 30-40 minutes at around 3pm. I was observing the outbound platform when there were a number of buses lining up, and noticed there were a few common causes. There were only a few times (3 I think, while I was there anyway) where buses from the traffic lights queued back far enough to cause any problems on the platforms themselves. 1 of these was when by chance a 333,345 and 385 all terminated at the CC at the same time and lined up to turn right at the first set of lights, the others all involved the usual problem with the West End/Melbourne St portal lights.

Other things I noticed:

• Bus drivers being reluctant to use the 4th bay at the city end of the platform
• Drivers being reluctant or unable to pull into the front bay due to a bus taking a while in bay 2, or the same deal with bay 2/3 and 3/4
• A few times where the drivers also didn't move from the holding line when only bays 1 and 4 were in use
• One of the main causes of buses taking too long in their bay was either paper ticket passengers, or people talking to the driver, unsure of which route to take or something similar, I was observing from up on the pedestrian bridge so couldn't really tell
• There was also a couple of times where a bus stopped midway between 2 bays, or stopped in bay 2 even though bay 1 was empty. Usually however this was when there was no queue, or with the midway stopping, because a bus in the traffic light queue was half blocking bay 1

Possible solutions:
1. One of the key things I can see to reduce bus dwell times is to either remove paper tickets entirely, or to re-introduce CC as a pre-paid only stop and put ticket sellers on the platforms. I'd be infavor of the ticket sellers option as that also removes the problem of people asking the drivers for help with regards to which route to take as they can ask the ticket seller.
2. The other thing I'd suggest is reinforcing with drivers that it is important, particularly in peak, to pull right to the front bay, and to use the 4th bay, even if that means waiting for pax to move down the platform. If they have the bus announcer like they usually do, there not a problem there.
3. The only other thing I would suggest would be perhaps having someone up on the pedestrian bridge with a radio the can talk to the buses in the queue to tell them when to move up to an empty bay in the middle of the platform, as with some of the larger buses they may not be able to see the gap past them.

The last thing to add is a positive thing though. The whole time I was there, there were two guys up on the pedestrian bridge one of which was in a Translink shirt, watching the two sets of traffic lights there and taking notes on things. I suppose it's now a game of wait and see.

[#Metro]

The next station is cultural centre, cultural centre station...

The first train is your train
All the doors open at once
Zero congestion

[Otto]

So this afternoon I went down and watched the buses for about 30-40 minutes at around 3pm. I was observing the outbound platform when there were a number of buses lining up, and noticed there were a few common causes. There were only a few times (3 I think, while I was there anyway) where buses from the traffic lights queued back far enough to cause any problems on the platforms themselves. 1 of these was when by chance a 333,345 and 385 all terminated at the CC at the same time and lined up to turn right at the first set of lights, the others all involved the usual problem with the West End/Melbourne St portal lights.

Other things I noticed:

• Bus drivers being reluctant to use the 4th bay at the city end of the platform

<snip>

Drivers have been issued memos stating that bay 4 is not to be used during the offpeak periods.[/list]

[Golliwog]

I wasn't aware of that. Just so as to limit time wasted by having passengers walk down the platform, or is there some other reason?

[Otto]

And to reduce the number of Pax getting left behind as they fail to see buses on bay 4.. ( or drivers not waiting long enough to allow Pax to walk up )

[somebody]

Although GW, this isn't really the peak time of year, and 3pm isn't exactly peak.

[Golliwog]

Although GW, this isn't really the peak time of year, and 3pm isn't exactly peak.

This is true, but there were buses using it anyway who didn't seem to have any qualms about doing so.

[Cam]

I made the mistake of jumping off a train at South Bank rather than South Brisbane this morning to change to a bus that travels along Adelaide St. I've read about the delays approaching the Cultural Centre Bus Station & have seen the buses queuing across the Victoria Bridge. However, I wasn't aware how significant the queues are approaching from South Bank in peak times.

I boarded a 230 service at South Bank just after 8.35 this morning. The queue of buses started about 300m from the traffic lights at Melbourne St. It took many light changes & nearly 10 minutes to turn right into Melbourne St. The service I was on only had about 15 passengers on it so some may consider it an air parcel. It would be reasonable to assume that some commuters that regularly catch this service are off work today due to the public holiday yesterday. Also there would be uni students that will be catching the service in a month or so. So perhaps it would usually carry 25-30 passengers into the CBD on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday during university semesters. The other buses in the queue that I could see where also mostly empty.

As others have stated, there are too many air parcels using Cultural Centre Bus Station. Until further infrastructure is provided, services need to be terminated before they reach the Cultural Centre from both directions!

[somebody]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

[#Metro]

Yes, but see I come from the SE Busway - how am I going to connect if the service runs @ story bridge?
At the moment I have to travel into the CBD and get a CityCat or cityglider then cityferry.


I'm seeing congestion at Buranda as well. 8 buses deep last time too.

[somebody]

Yes, but see I come from the SE Busway - how am I going to connect if the service runs @ story bridge?

A few options:
(a) Retain some via South Bank runs 
(b) Use the 235
(c) Use 184/185/210/212 and walk from Vulture St to Lytton Rd.
(d) go via the CBD.  Wouldn't slow down by that much really so long as it doesn't use Warner St.

That's based on the current network.  There is also my proposal of a 29 extension to Mowbray Park

[Mr X]

(c) Use 184/185/210/212 and walk from Vulture St to Lytton Rd.

Ewww! Ever done that walk? I have. Crossing Vulture St East is horrible

[somebody]

(c) Use 184/185/210/212 and walk from Vulture St to Lytton Rd.

Ewww! Ever done that walk? I have. Crossing Vulture St East is horrible

Yes, but you don't have to cross Vulture St in that direction, only the opposite direction.

[Cam]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

If several routes were re-routed via the Story Bridge than a dedicated transit lane or even a bus lane could be implemented over the bridge.

EDIT: Spelling.

[somebody]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

If several routes were re-routed via the Story Bridge than a dedicated transit lane or even a bus lane could be implemented ove the bridge.

Well it's more justified for the Captain Cook Bridge and that isn't provided.

[dwb]

I made the mistake of jumping off a train at South Bank rather than South Brisbane this morning to change to a bus that travels along Adelaide St. I've read about the delays approaching the Cultural Centre Bus Station & have seen the buses queuing across the Victoria Bridge. However, I wasn't aware how significant the queues are approaching from South Bank in peak times.

I boarded a 230 service at South Bank just after 8.35 this morning. The queue of buses started about 300m from the traffic lights at Melbourne St. It took many light changes & nearly 10 minutes to turn right into Melbourne St. The service I was on only had about 15 passengers on it so some may consider it an air parcel. It would be reasonable to assume that some commuters that regularly catch this service are off work today due to the public holiday yesterday. Also there would be uni students that will be catching the service in a month or so. So perhaps it would usually carry 25-30 passengers into the CBD on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday during university semesters. The other buses in the queue that I could see where also mostly empty.

As others have stated, there are too many air parcels using Cultural Centre Bus Station. Until further infrastructure is provided, services need to be terminated before they reach the Cultural Centre from both directions!

I don't think catching one service to come to the conclusion that all air parcels need to be cancelled really means you've found the solution to ccbs issues.

More effective utilization of services, and better routings will be part if the solution but one empty bus on a rainy fri between the weekend and a public holiday isn't sufficient data to base appropriate decision making on!

[BrizCommuter]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

If several routes were re-routed via the Story Bridge than a dedicated transit lane or even a bus lane could be implemented over the bridge.

EDIT: Spelling.

The lane configuration over the Story Bridge would make bus lanes very problematic and quite possibly dangerous (i.e lot of lane changing).

[somebody]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

If several routes were re-routed via the Story Bridge than a dedicated transit lane or even a bus lane could be implemented over the bridge.

EDIT: Spelling.

The lane configuration over the Story Bridge would make bus lanes very problematic and quite possibly dangerous (i.e lot of lane changing).

I'm not sure why this would be such a problem?  Every other bus/transit lane allows left turners into the lane a certain distance from the turn, I don't really see much difference here.  Most problematic part is heading south from Ivory St where cars need to change lanes out of the bus/transit lane.

[Mr X]

I boarded a 230 service at South Bank just after 8.35 this morning. The queue of buses started about 300m from the traffic lights at Melbourne St. It took many light changes & nearly 10 minutes to turn right into Melbourne St. The service I was on only had about 15 passengers on it so some may consider it an air parcel.

Hmm
You need to look at more than one service and at more than one time to consider if a route is an "air parcel" or not. For example, I caught the same bus almost every single day for 5 years and the loads were never uniform. Sometimes the bus was empty as the service before it was late so everyone took ours, other times it was a standing load.

I have also taken the 230/235 on a not-so-frequent (weekly, sometimes fortnightly) basis in the same period and it was usually pretty full too (and chronicly late!).

[SurfRail]

In the case of the 230, there should be a full time via Story Bridge service rather than forcing people to travel around via South Bank.  IMO.

If several routes were re-routed via the Story Bridge than a dedicated transit lane or even a bus lane could be implemented over the bridge.

EDIT: Spelling.

The lane configuration over the Story Bridge would make bus lanes very problematic and quite possibly dangerous (i.e lot of lane changing).

I'm not sure why this would be such a problem?  Every other bus/transit lane allows left turners into the lane a certain distance from the turn, I don't really see much difference here.  Most problematic part is heading south from Ivory St where cars need to change lanes out of the bus/transit lane.

I seem to recall bus lanes on the Story Bridge as one of the sweeteners for the NSBT as it was then known.  Obviously the complete failure of the traffic model and virtually no change to the above-ground counts on Kangaroo Point is enough of an excuse to forget anybody ever said that.

[Gazza]

Preventing bus lanes on the storey bridge is one of RACQs wins they are proud of apparently.
Ugh, gotta go head to head with them a bit more.

https://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/9022/Congestion_Paper_Nov06.pdf

Page 10.

Until May 2006, BCC proposed, on completion of each TransApex link, to reserve a traffic lane each way on competing radials for buses/hovs.37 But, following pressure from RACQ and the media, BCC dropped the bus/hov proposal for Story Bridge following completion of the North-South By-Pass. Council policy is now unclear in respect of bus/hov lane conversions following completion of other TransApex links.

F*** you RACQ!

[Stillwater]

Fair enough, if dedicated bus lanes should not be on the Story Bridge, as the RACQ desires, sling them underneath.

http://www.jamesmaherphotography.com/photoblog_view_post/143-old-postcard-the-west-jersey-bridge

[dwb]

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

Quite agree with you here simon...

Couldn't they turn right into George from Adeliade, left in Ann, left onto North Quay and left back into Adelaide??

[Jonno]

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

Quite agree with you here simon...

Couldn't they turn right into George from Adeliade, left in Ann, left onto North Quay and left back into Adelaide??

Off topic but related to the Cultural Centre issue.

Here is some honest feedback on Bus Routes.   The are completely and totally illegible.  This is evidenced when the debates in this forum start to discuss the 10's of routes.  Sorry but I just switch off as there is no way to know what is really being discussed unless you have a photographic memory or a handy wall chart of route maps.  But if the discussion talked about theoretically a Brown Plans line or a Toombul to Ferny Grove line then peopel can use the normal spacial locator behaviours to understand the route.

So you can just imagine what this is like for people who have never caught a bus before.  It is just too daunting.  However they can grab a rail map or BUZ map with clear lines (yes I recognize the number of routes are far less but the bus routes are at the completely other end of the spectrum) and qucikly undertsand the routes available.
 
We need to dramatically re-plan our bus routes so they are simplified, legible and frequent.  if this means people need to transfer to a rail line or a trunk busway/bus lane route then so be it.
 
Bus planning in this city is fundamentally broken and will struggle to ever increase patronage above today's levels let alone into the sustainable transport network levels.

[somebody]

Couldn't they turn right into George from Adeliade, left in Ann, left onto North Quay and left back into Adelaide??

Could but where would you lay over?  You can use the North Quay island but I don't know that it has a huge amount of unutilised capacity for that purpose.  Removing the 412 & 109 from Adelaide St stop 16 would allow that space to be used for lay over.  There is also Herschel St.

Well Jonno, a lot of planners (like Jarrett Walker) would agree with you there.  Even he concedes the point that a transfer is a disincentive to PT use.  That's a fair part of the reason why I'm inclined to be a bit more moderate.